Atmospheric CO2 concentration year 1 to 2018
Clearly, posts I have been made have been retrospectively placed in Moderation, the editor of RWER needs to be taken to one side and the facts of free speech and open sceptical scientific debate explained to him or her.
ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONCENTRATION YEAR 1
June 15, 2019Leave a commentGo to comments
A MONETARY CASE FOR VALUE-ADDED NEGATIVE TAX MICHAEL KOWALIK [TOOLANGI, AUSTRALIA]
Abstract I address the most fundamental yet routinely ignored issue in economics today: that of distributive impact of the monetary system on the real economy. By re-examining the logical implications of token re-presentation of value and Irving Fisher’s theory of exchange, I argue that producers of value incur incidental expropriation of wealth associated with the deflationary effect that new value supply has on the purchasing power of money. In order to remedy the alleged inequity I propose a value-added negative tax (VANT) based on net individual contribution to the economic output, which is structured as a negative tax function geared to profits derived from eligible productive activities in consideration of their estimated deflationary impact. I show that an adequately optimised VANT can be non-inflationary and have zero net cost to the public. Furthermore, economic output stands to improve due to direct incentivisation of value creation, making the proposed scheme not only politically feasible but economically desirable. The proposal advances the principle of ‘fair money’, where all forms of economic value are attributed to their rightful owners prior to any positive taxation. Keywords Money Definition, Monetary Systems, Monetary Policy, Negative Income Tax, Theory of Exchange, Fair Money JEL Codes E31, E40, E42, E51, E62, H23
Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here,
as well as a Privacy & Cookies banner at the bottom of the page.
You can hide ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.
Why do we allow fools and the insane to deny this and keep us sitting on our thumbs?
I don’t, either.
I am strongly aware of two things: the increasingly likely outcome is catastrophic collapse of multiple systems, rather than some new system formed by the tinkering reforms that dominate the conversation of all but the young people in the United States of America; and that if I make this collapse idea my dominant message, people will be bummed into inaction.
So I do what I can, put forth realistic possibilities for local social action, act, and hope that others elsewhere are doing the same. I am pessimistic and avert cheerleader optimism, but I will never give up.
Some wonderful people in my state have created The Children’s Trust, which is suing the federal government for encouraging the fossil fuel industry, among other things. The lead name in this lawsuit is a wonderful young woman named Kelsey Rose Cascadia Juliana. Find a YouTube of her and you’ll see she is our version of another powerful teenager, Greta Thunberg.
And poet Dylan Thomas guides my emotions: “I will not go gently into that good night.”
The graph is staggering as an image.
You have a big problem there, its not one of either Climate Change or CO2 emissions its actually with the scaling of your axis.
Try some Lord Monckton, Here he is on Brexit.
And Here On the Climate Science basic errors in their modelling of course the Dismal Science is not very good at Dynamics is it?
Please, Lord Monckton?! An imposter!
Monckton is a Lord of the British Realm, he does not sit in the now Re constituted House of Lords, that does not make him an Imposter.
Secondly Regarding Monckton’s paper on the errors in basic Climate modelling his Status as a British Peer of the realm has nothing to do with the mathematics of modelling feedbacks.
FInally, perhaps William Happer or Freeman Dyson will tick more of your boxes for an appropriate expert qualified opinion.
He is an imposter in the sense that he presents himself as an expert on the subject of climate change. However he has no scientific qualifications, and in particular none in the field of climate science. If he had some peer-reviewed publications under his name in reputable climate science journals, then I might be persuaded to take him more seriously.
0 on y axis in this case is NOT a meaningful value . You have jumped to an erroneous assumption. Zero CO2 is impossible value.
The graph appears to be from Our World in Data so direct your complaints about removal of the x-axis origin point to that site.;)
It’s not a good idea generally to remove graph origin points. However, all sorts of decisions are made and have to made in terms of origin points, scaling, cropping, etc., in order to present graphs. Graphs are best seen in context; meaning in a paper with text, tables and appendices of raw data. The trouble is so few people want to read scientific papers. Part of the point of having some scientific education, even if one hasn’t gone on to become a scientist, is to employ that scientific literacy by reading a bit of science reporting, including in some cases original papers. But climate change denialists are science illiterates so they can’t read and understand the scientific papers.
As to what all the data behind that graph are telling us? In summary, we appear to be in a lot of trouble. It looks like a runaway, exponential trend with positive feedback reinforcing. The science and data behind that graph back up that impression to a high degree of certainty.
But of course, climate change denialists understand neither science, nor mathematics, nor logic. What they engage in is faith-based reasoning. Faith is blind belief without evidence. Scientific evidence is sought objectively, is measurable and confirmed by multiple observations. Scientific knowledge is never absolutely certain. It is the faith-based reasoners who claim to be absolutely certain. Good science always presents objective data and expresses a confidence rating for its conclusions.
Ikonoclast is lucid
The scaling of the axis is just fine and it is unnecessary to locate the zero line What it tells us is that for 1900 years (and probably far longer) atmospheric carbon dioxide hovered around 280 ppm and that during the past 50 years it has risen from around this value to 400 ppm, and is currently still rising at a rapid rate.
What is the transition to a sustainable economy about? It is not about letting globalized corporations destroy the planet and leaving its rescue to the individual choice of consumers.
Why should I have the burden to chose if I buy fair trade or bastard child slave labour coffee? Choice is not freedom.
Environmental and social damaging production must be prohibited by law.
We already have done this successfully with narcotics. No one would leave the buying decision to the drug adict.
I agree, the graph is question is a case where the base line is more important than the zero line. At the zero line (0% CO2) the earth would be an ice-ball on the surface. The 280 ppm line is a line well suited to agriculture.
It seems significant that agriculture and civilization arose in the Holocene. I term it the “Holocene Benignity” (of climate). It’s a clumsy term and for sure it won’t catch on. What it encapsulates is that it seems we needed a benign climate to Invent and develop agriculture and thence civilization. We still need this benign climate to sustain agriculture. Instead. we are wrecking this benign climate. I would predict severe food crises arising this century and maybe arising well before 2050.
I agree. Shifting climatic patterns could possibly result in droughts within temperate regions where food crops are currently grown, as well as greater and more frequent monsoonal rains, flooding and hurricanes within tropical and semi-tropical regions.
My own feeling is that climate is noticeably changing where I live in South-East Queensland, Australia. Of course, my personal observations and feelings are just anecdotal evidence. But when one’s personal experience provides a little back-up to the scientific picture, it makes the abstract data start to feel a little more concrete. Am I being suggestible or am I noticing something real? That is the question.
So, what changes do I feel I have I noticed in our sub-tropical climate?
(1) Winter frosts were always sporadic but did occur in low lying areas when I was a boy. I haven’t seen a frost in something like the last 30 years now in my local area.
(2) Our winters are clearly warmer and wetter than they were. A few years back we had a winter rain event more severe than any summer rain event we had ever seen. This seemed completely anomalous as our mid-winters historically have been dry. Yesterday, we had winter thunderstorm. Again, this is almost unheard of in our climate.
(3) Our summers (which were historically wet) are becoming drier.
(4) Overall, our weather is becoming windier. This has been very noticeable with very windy weather occurring in months which historically have been the calmer months.
Australia has always been, in human memory, a land of climate extremes, being called “a land of droughts and flooding rains”. This is true but the general picture now seems to be of the extremes getting even more extreme. This will certainly make agriculture even more difficult. It feels to me that the climate is becoming more unstable (anecdotal “feelings” evidence of course). Higher perturbation and instability could of course be the result of more heat energy in the system. The dots connect in my view.