Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Moominoid who wrote (22160)	9/9/2007 5:26:55 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218201

Good, we agree on that ridge idea too. But I would be very hesitant to launch methane in bulk to stop an impending ice age. The cost would be significant. My argument since 1984, when my BP Oil boss argued against me, was that the way to deal with the potential problem was by stopping other taxes and introducing a carbon tax of equivalent amount. I prefer much lower taxes overall, but that's a separate political ideological argument - governments waste the taxes they collect so they should get no more than is "essential". Also, tariffs on carbon imports would be a good idea which would have the political advantage of reducing the amount of money that Al Qaeda supporters receive. Again, those new taxes should only be introduced if countervailing tax reductions are made INSIDE the country. There are details, such as a power station sequestering carbon should NOT have to pay the tax. If an ice age is imminent, I'm not sure that we'd know far enough in advance to vent methane. Mq's theory of glaciation is that it happens fast because snow cover and cloud reflect sunlight in a big way and snow and cloud can form in a single year, causing a feedback loop. It has been quarter of a century since I started suggesting a carbon tax to solve the greenhouse effect "problem". So far, no action on it. Which isn't to say I think there's a problem. Just that if there is, it's better to solve it like that than the absurd contortions which have been introduced at Kyoto jamborees which generate a lot of hot air and take a lot of carbon-burning international travel to organize, cost a lot of money and achieve nothing. A carbon tax could be introduced unilaterally by governments, without having to attend jamborees at great expense [and environmental cost if we think CO2 is a problem which they do if they are attending said international jamborees]. Of course kleptocrats love nothing more than international first class travel, burning lots of carbon, staying at 5 star hotels, eating sumptuous banquets and meeting lots of fascinating young women and powerful men. Simply staying home and grinding out a tax law in the committee rooms of parliament is just another day at work. No fun there. But my argument is that the amount of CO2 emitted so far isn't a worry at all and is in fact a good thing. Introducing such taxes and tariffs in New Zealand would be easy because oil arrives in big ships and coal production is easily measured. Gas and oil production from wells in NZ is easy to measure too. Mqurice