Would you be we willing to pay to end manmade global warming and climate change.?

Question

Assume manmade global warming was real and there was a way to halt it. Something that's been tried and tested, something safe and reliable - a silver bullet so to speak. It costs money but means we can continue just as we are now, no 'carbon taxes', no legislation, no changes to lifestyles etc.

Who should pay and how much would be acceptable? If it helps, assume the average weekly wage is $1,000 / £500 and the annual global income (worldwide GDP) is $60 / £30 trillion.

Answer 1

No I wouldn't be prepared to pay in that way. You should be charged for what you use. Taxes in the UK are already regressive with the poorest in society paying a much higher proportion of their income than others on essential items such as heating. The UK Government never takes hypothecated taxes, this is why the UK National Health Service, Pensions and Benefits, road systems and infrastructure are in such a poor state of repair and financing. Luxury items such as air travel should be charged appropriately now. Government incentives for larger families in the form of benefits, tax allowances and housing should be scrapped. If you wish to have a large family then the benefit system should not pay for it. You should, this would soon slow down the population growth.

Would it not just make more sense if we acted now?

Answer 2

Depends on where the costs are coming from. Is it resource intensive, labor intensive, or both? You say it costs money, but who is that being paid to? If this is truly for the benefit of the planet, then it should seem unconscionable to put a price tag on it unless it required putting the economy of a country in peril.

The labor part of it should be minimal. Professionals should work pro bono. Skilled and manual laborers should work on a pay commensurate with military pay grades. Materials should be supplied by those who have the greatest supply and at no more than wholesale cost.

The total acceptable cost should be based on the net measurable cost of the damages caused by the climate change after subtracting the cost of the net measurable benefits of climate change.

The cost should then be annualized and paid out over the next 75 years (representing the approximate last year of those who are born when we start the project).

Answer 3

If, indeed (and that "if" is a VERY large "if"), it could be proved beyond doubt that humans are responsible for global climate then humans would be obligated to stop doing what is making that happen or to bear the consequences.
However, HUMANS CANNOT CONTROL THE WEATHER!

This global warming nonsense (as it is being forced upon us) is only a money/power grab scam which will benefit ONLY THOSE POLITICANS AT THE TOP OF THE GW PYRAMID.

Here are some sane facts about climate change:
Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.
The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.
This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.
Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).
As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).
When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.
It's been happening for millions of years.
Humans did not cause it.
Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 4

It is important to look at the problem objectively and in a complete manner. If you say that 50 will die from the extra heat, you have to take into account the 200 that will be saved from dying from cold (numbers are just thrown out there). If there is a cost, who gets the money and what do they do with it. Does it go to politicians to pay out political favors and pet causes. Big government is almost always the problem, not the solution. Since there is not a defined net loss from global warming, in spite of all the hype from the alarmists, it certainly makes no sense to use it as a justification to steal more money from the populace under the guise that they just want to help us. Usually politicians hide behind children when they want to pick your wallet.

Answer 5

My answer would be perhaps one third of what would otherwise be the world increase in GDP. Assuming world growth is around 3% without the expenditure this would be £100billion, my share perhaps, coming from a relatively rich country perhaps £200 this year. I have picked these figures as I think some growth is necessary to maintain world social stability but have no way of knowing just how effectively this money could be used.

There are of course additional measures which could be cost neutral or even save money, I am thinking here of a net figure.

Answer 6

If someone should pay it should of course be those who wanted to continue emitting greenhouse gases. So that would probably mean mostly rich people in rich countries (sounds like I'm in for some sort of carbon tax anyway lol)

However, even if it did solve this problem I think we would soon be in bad trouble again if we didn't learn something from this problem and started to take better care of our planet and its resources. For example, if this solved global warming, what would we do when there was no more oil left?

Edit:
B t w, if I knew it would save our planet from further warming you can count on my contribution.

Answer 7

We already are, aren't we?

It's just that our governments syphon the tax money off and spend it on something else.

We in the UK are taxed to the gills for the fuel we use and we have a huge fee to pay for a vehicle license as well. When we fly there are also massive taxes applied. Why aren't these used to tackle environmental issues? They sure as hell aren't used to repair the road infrastructure (which is appalling) or the airport complexes (which are descending into worse chaos every year).

The energy we use is also taxed - some old people are too frightened to turn on their heating in the winter because of the cost and die of hypothermia. We all buy energy-saving lightbulbs and hybrid cars, which cost us more money than ordinary kit, as do most things that are environmentally friendly.

So everything we use that has a carbon footprint we are already taxed on. How much more would you have us pay? How many more old people should die in their sleep as a consequence?

Answer 8

I'd be willing to pay only if there were no other option.

Ideally we would reduce our reliance on fossil fuels anyway, as they are limited resources with more harmful biproducts than just greenhouse gases. If we could do a combination of the two, such as use the silver bullet to ensure that we don't face catastrophic climate change but simultaneously reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, I could go for that.

Answer 9

0$ is acceptable. I will not pay a tax on "greenhouse gases". everytime you burp or fart you are releasing the gases.

Make it illegal to burp or breathe or fart, and tax the people that do. That will show those "republican, oil company, rightwingers who dont care about the environment."

Answer 10

I would be willing to make a donation-like any person does with the Sierra Club or whoever. But, I'd keep recycling and keep trying other methods, like getting a hybrid car (or riding a bike, walking-depending on where you live), to conserve how much oil is used.