Do you think the effects of global warming are exaggerated for governments' fiscal gain?

Question

I've heard this argument a lot recently and wondered what you all thought - do you think that the impact of the greenhouse effect on our planet is exaggerated by governments in an effort to increase the amount of money they get from environmental taxes?

Answer 1

Absolutely.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,2093850,00.html

"The CDM is one of two global markets which have been set up in the wake of the Kyoto climate summit in 1997. Both finally started work in January 2005. Although both were launched with the claim that they would reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, evidence collected by the Guardian suggests that thus far, both markets have earned fortunes for speculators and for some of the companies which produce most greenhouse gases and yet, through a combination of teething troubles and multiple forms of malpractice and possibly fraud, they have delivered little or no benefit for the environment."

"Ten years after the idea was launched at Kyoto; six years after the guidelines were drawn up at Marrakech; a year and a half after it finally went to work: the CDM thus far has issued only 50m tonnes of certified emissions reductions to offset global warming: Britain produces more emissions than that in a single month."

or a blast from the (recent) past:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA384.html

"As part of the strategy, CEO Kenneth Lay signed Enron onto the Business Environmental Leadership Council of the Pew Center for Global Climate Change, a left-leaning think-tank headed by Eileen Claussen, a former Environmental Protection Agency and State Department official in the Clinton Administration.

The Pew Center has waged an expensive propaganda campaign over the past few years aimed at convincing journalists that global warming is a dire threat.

Other companies joining Pew's Business Environmental Leadership Council also stood to gain vast sums if federal regulators imposed strict new limits on carbon dioxide emissions, including such powerhouses as Boeing, British Petroleum, International Paper, Lockheed-Martin, Maytag, 3M, Toyota, Weyerhaeuser and Whirlpool.

Lay, a close personal friend of leading Republicans and Democrats, also joined two far-left environmental groups - the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Natural Resources Defense Council - in calling for new curbs on emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

Enron might well have been successful in its latest campaign to persuade the Bush Administration to announce far-reaching restrictions on CO2 if the company's apparently devious financial machinations hadn't plunged it into collapse."

Answer 2

I hate to break it to you, but the scientific reality is worse than governments make it out to be. Read a few books or articles on global warming and you'll realize this.

Governments can't make big fast changes very easily, and politicians know it. Thus they base their plans on goals that are easily attainable. For example, the goal of the Kyoto protocol was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5% by 2012. This is such a minute reudction it's almost meaningless, but the politicians knew they couldn't make larger changes without angering their voters.

The scientific reality is that we need to make a serious greenhouse gas reduction soon. We're talking roughly a 60% reduction by 2030. The G8 tried to agree to a 50% reduction by 2050, which might possibly be enough but might not be, and Bush undermined the effort.

The problem is if we reach a certain tipping point somewhere around a 3 degree C increase, this will trigger several feedbacks (i.e. the oceans becoming so warm that CO2 is less soluble and instead of being a carbon sink they become a carbon emitter) and global warming will become almost impossible to stop.

So no, the effects of global warming are not exaggerated by governments. Quite the opposite. Notice that the only people making scientific arguments using evidence are saying the same thing.

Answer 3

While governments do need money for various projects, it also stands to reason that they would need extra monies for this too.
As for exaggerating the issue-to be honest, it's not exaggerated. In fact I think it's understated. I also feel there is no slowing it down much less stopping it (global warming).
The natural course of the planet has been exaggerated by humans and the time tables, put forth by scientists, are just so much educated guess work. A theory, is just that, a theory not a fact.
I would rather see monies go for saving our planet then anything else-anything. No planet-no humans!

Answer 4

cosmo is right, it makes no sense, taxes on energy harm an economy and stall growth, which is bad for government revenue, but the taxes could be used to pressure new technologies and fuel a new energy economy. If taxes become too high people will buy less of the things they don't need and the net effect is less government revenue.

Answer 5

No i don't think its exaggerated but the government will use it as an excuse to put up taxes

Answer 6

Has anyone noticed this discussion is focused solely on politics? How about a little science?

The scientific data clearly shows that, about 40 years ago, man's activities surpassed all the natural forces that had previously controlled climate.

This is a nice picture, includes the effect of the Sun and volcanoes, and there are many more scientific studies showing the same thing.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

None of the other explanations works nearly as well. The scientific equations don't work for them. The numbers come out wrong. Most questions are answered here:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Good scientific information on global warming. with data and pictures:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 7

I have been part of a recent research project conducted by an incredibly large corporation and I can categorically state that this is not the case. Having also spoken to some serious heavy weights in this area I can also say that climate change is a fact, what we need to do is not think about proving it, instead we should consider how we can alleviate the problem so that flash floods and extreme droughts don't become a common occurrence. What saddens me is that people still aren't taking this issue seriously and the fact that it is the young generation who are the most unconcerned about the issue.

Answer 8

I think man's part in global warming is highly exaggerated. The government, business and the BBC are trying to brainwash us into believing that high taxes, carbon footprints and David Attenborough are all going to stop global warming. Global warming is a natural occurence and it is most likely down to the Sun (surprise, surprise!) and no amount of taxation is going to stop it. Strange how many new business have sprung up to help fight global warming and make us feel extremely guilty about it all. I've been on this earth for over half a century and I can remember red hot summers when I was a child and even then we got the occasional snowfall in May or June - and that was before global warming was even thought of!

Answer 9

Perhaps on occasions, BUT:

"I've heard this argument a lot recently"

It is about as foolish to disregard global warming as it is to disregard that one day you "might" die.

You only need to look at the floods in June across the UK to realise that the predictions made back in the early 90s about global warming and its effects have not only happened, but have exceeded their predicted severity.

It is a very real issue and I am all for extra taxing - it will mean the dumbas$es on this planet really WILL have to start thinking twice about what they buy, what they use and how much they use. We are so wasteful it is sickening at times and make no mistake: mother nature will kick our asses for it.

Answer 10

You do realise that co2 emmisions do not cause global warming. Go watch 'The great global warming swindle' and learn the facts