Quantcast
Opinion

My view: Sacrifice money, save our planet

Comments

Return To Article
  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:12 a.m.

    Re: "I don’t deny that a carbon tax wouldn’t be a financial burden on Americans in these trying times, but . . . ."

    And, of course, what you don't mention [maybe your USU prof forgot to mention it] is that the deranged financial burden on American families you demand, would have not the slightest effect on either atmospheric CO2 levels, or on global warming.

    It would greatly benefit the UN and bloated, unaccountable, unsustainable government and its liberal cronies and supporters, but no one else.

    No real people.

    Why do liberals hate young, struggling American families so much?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:01 a.m.

    For about the past 15 years global warming hasn't happened. (Something the mainstream media isn't likely to tell you).

    Nevertheless here are ideas that would be good if they were implemented.

    1) Put a tax on all imported oil sufficient to pay for the military force necessary to ensure it remains available.

    2) Make use of Yellowstone and all other geothermal in the United States.

    Were we to impose this tax on imported oil, then renewable energy wouldn't be as expensive in comparison.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:19 a.m.

    Remote Sensing highlights NASA satellite data which shows that the atmosphere has been shedding heat long before United Nations computer models predicted global warming. And the study indicates that far less future global warming will occur than global warming zealots have claimed. Well, there we have it! The earth is not warming and the computer models are wrong!

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    procurator: "Why do liberals hate young, struggling American families so much?"

    Sheesh. Why do conservatives so easily fall for reactionary rhetoric? Why do you so easily believe that voting against the interests of the middle class and your own futures is the right thing to do? Why do you so belligerently reject scientific reality? Do you think that if you just plug your fingers in your ears, close your eyes and whistle loudly that the science of global climate change will just go away?

    The only down side to the carbon tax is that it will _slowly_ begin to shift our economy away from the worst polluting sources of energy and towards less damaging energy production. The result will be cleaner air and water, less dependence on unstable foreign regimes for our energy and a badly needed economic kick in the pants in the area where the US still excels, barely - technology.

    Yep - with a tax on carbon you might discover that a 10 mpg SUV and a home forty miles from where you work isn't the wisest use of your money, but it's your choice. Is that bad? I don't think so.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:34 a.m.

    Agreed.

    K-Y-O-T-O.

    Sign it.

    There once was a time when America led the world and set the better standards,
    We are now 30 years behind the times, and behind rest of the world.

    It's time to catch up, and be the world's leader - and not it's follower.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:35 a.m.

    Is the air cleaner in Utah today than it was fifty years ago? I remember well the first year that we lived in Salt Lake City, 1955. The winter air was full of smoke from the wood and coal burning furnaces that many people used to heat their homes. As the years went by and as people converted to natural gas, much of the haze disappeared. Of course we still have a problem, but that problem is the result of living in a bowl. Most of the people in Utah live in a bowl. With the right weather conditions, pollution is trapped in the bottom of the bowl. If all driving were banned during those times, we would still have significant pollution. Would the letter writer have us turn off our furnaces?

    America is a much cleaner country than most other countries in the world. Taxing us into oblivion will not clean up the air, even if man-caused CO2 pollution were actually a viable problem.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    We did not create this planet how can we save it? Human survival is dependent on doing what this author says not to do. We need fuel to survive. This is an attempt to control people over things they can't control and destroy progress.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    cjb: "For about the past 15 years global warming hasn't happened. (Something the mainstream media isn't likely to tell you)."

    They doesn't "tell you" because it isn't true. Land-Sea temperatures in the 2000-2010 decade are far warmer than the previous decade, which was far warmer than the previous decade, etc.

    The only way to get the "no warming in 15 years" is to severely cherry pick data. A global, decade-to-decade perspective is as narrow a filter as you dare apply and still have honest research. "No warming in 15 years" is a cynical, intentional distortion of the science.

    Atmospheric CO2 levels are now 400+ ppm, higher than in hundreds of thousands of years. Analysis of atmospheric carbon shows that it's from burning fossil fuels, not natural sources. Changes in solar output has been studied and eliminated as a source for warming.

    Sea levels _are_ rising, there's a lot more heat energy now in the oceans, and together this means a greater expected frequency of powerful storms.

    Climate is changing tremendously faster than any natural climate change, and species can't adapt that fast.

    We own this problem, and it's our responsibility to act on it.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:34 a.m.

    Amber says, "It’s easy to say what needs to be done for our planet"...

    Please Amber... tell us what needs to be done!

    You only mentioned ONE thing... (A Tax). Is that all it takes? A tax?

    IF a tax would fix it... I'm pretty sure we would do that. Problem is... we all know a tax wouldn't fix it.

    A new tax is NOT the solution to every problem. I wish tax-headed liberals could understand that.

    I wish someone would tell us what is evidently so obvious to Amber... The obvious thing we all know we need to do to fix global warming. It's not that obvious to me. I want to see if everybody agrees on what needs to be done. Please... everybody post what YOU think needs to be done. Let's see if Amber is right, and we all agree.

    Thanks

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Subtext: everything I know about the environment I learned by watching Captain Planet.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    @ Blue. Read the UN climate change report published recently, "Why the earth has not warmed for 16 years". It is an excellent report and explains the hoax of manmade global warming and what miscalculations were made by global warming advocates. The final comment was, "Apparently the earth's atmosphere is much more efficient in reflecting the sun's energy back into space than we originally thought".

  • jfreed27 Los Angeles, CA
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    Good article, but the carbon tax could be "free". A carbon tax could return all proceeds to citizens. This would "pay for" any price spikes at the pump. In Canada BC has a carbon tax that reduces other taxes. This has cut emissions by almost 20% and yet BC is growing faster than other provinces.

    Emissions are cut because the "free market"gives low carbon solutions a boost, once dirty energy is charged for pollution.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    I would be totally in favor of this tax on one condition - it is that all the carbon tax collected goes into my bank account.

    If the goal of the author and like-minded individuals is really to reduce CO2 and not just to concentrate wealth into the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats, then the author should be just fine with my proposal, right?

    What is important is that behavior is changed and the planet is saved, so it shouldn't matter if all the money goes to me. I can probably put all that money to much better use than could the UN or any other tax collecting body.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:23 a.m.

    Let's start by banning our elected officials from using anything that emits CO2 gasses. That's right Pelosi, no more private air force rides for you. You can use your solar car to drive from San Francisco to DC whenever you need it.

    After all these people are the "true believers" in the religion of give us your money and we'll take better care of you than you can of yourself. They should at least follow and live their religion before they come and force us to follow them and give our wealth to them.

    Is that asking too much?

    The fact is we can't even balance our budget and pay off the national debt. Do we really believe that we are in a position to lecture other countries on how to build their economy? We can't afford to buy off countries anymore.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:34 a.m.

    Mountanman (sic) - Are you referring to the UN IPCC report that was published in September of this year? You know, the one in which the UN and all participating countries found, with 95-100% confidence, that based on observations of the atmosphere, land, oceans, and cryosphere it it is extremely likely that humans are the primary cause of climate change.

    Can you please point to specifically where in the document your stated "comment" exists? I'd like to read up more on how the UN believes that climate change is a hoax.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    I don't think is going to ask anyone how much money they made while on Earth,
    but I suspect he will be asking if we were a good steward of it.

    Something I learned in Sunday School from Sister Belnap and Boy Scouts from Bro. Mower --

    ALWAYS leave a place better than you found it.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:50 a.m.

    Re: "The only down side to the carbon tax is that it will _slowly_ begin to shift our economy away from the worst polluting sources of energy . . . ."

    Hmmmmm. That's the only down side, huh?

    How about the tripling or quadrupling of costs of basic necessities of life for millions of young American families? They're just on their own, huh? Or maybe the "green" movement just wants to starve them out of the equation?

    Suggesting that America owes the world a symbolic heaving of untold billions into the gaping may of feckless environmentalism, to NO real effect, is EXACTLY that action of "plug[ging] your fingers in your ears, clos[ing] your eyes and whistl[ing] loudly" you speak of above.

    Sheesh, indeed. And, you still don't answer the question.

  • Longfellow Holladay, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 9:56 a.m.

    Amber,

    The degree to which additional carbon dioxide influences the climate of the planet is often referred to as climate sensitivity to CO2. The understanding of the world's climate scientists of the physics of this sensitivity is expressed in their computer generated climate models. These are the models which predict the future temperature and climate of the earth if CO2 emissions continue at various rates.

    These models are fundamentally flawed and invalid. They are over predicting the amount of temperature increase as a function of increasing CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. As each month passes the divergence between the temperatures predicted by the models and the actual measured temperature increases. Until this problem is solved and the models are corrected, it is unwise to spend a single penny on reducing mankind's carbon footprint.

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal - I'd like to learn more about we feckless environmentalists. Your assertive statement that a carbon tax would triple or quadruple the "costs of basic necessities of life for millions of young American families" is based off which study?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:23 a.m.

    We did not create this planet how can we save it?

    We do not need to save the planet; the planet will do just fine. If, however, we want it to continue to support human life, we need to make that a priority.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    procuradorfiscal
    Tooele, UT

    How about the tripling or quadrupling of costs of basic necessities of life for millions of young American families?

    =======

    Umm, don't look now procuradorfiscal,
    but
    the rest of the world is paying $7-$8 a gallon for gasoline,
    and electricity is 3 times what we pay here.

    Our "socialist" friends and allies who are already paying these 'ridiculous' carbon taxes STILL have better economies than ours.

    So, your opinion on any economic impact is about as wrong and flawed as your opinion of Global Warming --
    it is not supported by real world observation.

    BTW --
    If you are so worried about the impact of young American families not being able to pay their power bills --
    Blame that on the Fat-Cat Corporations who have Quadrupled their net earnings, and have not increased employees pay accordingly.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:39 a.m.

    Instead of talking taxes and punishments why not focus on reality and solutions? The bottom line facts are that Coal Fired Power plants are the biggest producers of electric power in the west and you can't just shut them down and crank up a few windmills to replace them...perhaps in liberal land you can but not in realville. I suspect there would be alot of liberal howling if they tried to power up their Macbook ...but had no power available. Power isn't free and it doesn't just exist - you have to create it. If you are going to phase out coal then you have to phase something else in to replace it without interrupting the power grid. The ONLY think I know of that can produce like coal is Nuclear Power generation. You have the nuclear by-products that have storage facilities in Nevada Yucca Mountain. Why tax us to death and hurt working people ...why not produce real solutions instead?

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    GZE is right, Mother Nature will be just fine. Species come and go. It's the era of human life on this planet but that to shall pass.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    I always love when people like FT liken humanity to any vermin that infest the face of the earth for a time and are eventually exterminated. It just warms my heart.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 11:04 a.m.

    Yes, FT, you are right. In fact, we should probably pollute more so that we speed up that process.

    Once humanity is wiped out on Earth, it will give room for the rise of a better, more enlightened species to take over. Then the universe will be a better place, right?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    Open Minded,

    RE: "Our "socialist" friends and allies who are already paying these 'ridiculous' carbon taxes STILL have better economies than ours"........

    Care to back that up with some facts?

    Spain leads enacted these kind of taxes and last time I checked they have HUGE unemployment. This is from an article published in August 2013...

    "Youth unemployment in Spain has reached a new high of 56.1%, a quarter of the 3.5 million under-25s jobless across the eurozone, according to the latest Eurostat figures... Only Greece has a higher percentage of young people out of work, at 62.9%... Among adult males, Spain has the highest unemployment at 25.3%. The total number of unemployed across the eurozone is 19.2 million, 15,000 fewer than in June. Across the EU the figure was 26.7 million, down 33,000 from June. However, it has remained at a record rate of 12.1% for the fourth months. The overall rate across the eurozone is 11%.

    So if you really think European economies are doing great... you need to check the facts.

    If WE had 12% unemployment Obama would have been a one term President.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 21, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    To "Amber" and anybody else who thinks carbon taxes are the way to go. Go and watch the documentary "Cool It". That documentary is based on a liberal economist looking at the effects of a carbon tax, and its ability to solve climate problems, and the effects of doing nothing. He found that doing nothing is the best response. Doing nothing keeps more money flowing through the economy, which means that over time you reduce poverty and are able to better use the lands that become farmable as the climate becomes warmer.

    In fact, with the warming climate, NASA scientists figure that we can feed millions more people on Earth.

    To "LDS Liberal" you realize that most of the nations that signed the Kyoto treaty ended up increasing their CO2 output by a greater margin than the US did. We did more to curb our CO2 emissions than the nations that signed the treaty. What is the point?

  • Semi-Strong Louisville, KY
    Nov. 21, 2013 12:49 p.m.

    higv,

    "We did not create this planet how can we save it?"

    Just like we have (in many cases) saved rivers and the lakes. We didn't create these things but we were destroying them and have reversed course and are now saving them (again, in many cases).

  • Thinkin\' Man Rexburg, ID
    Nov. 21, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    What warming?

    I mean it -- what warming? The tax would be money wasted.

  • Xian Rancho Palos Verdes, CA
    Nov. 21, 2013 1:09 p.m.

    To be responsible and accurate it is necessary to speak to the truth when discussing science. The fact is CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas. if one looks to the infrared absorption spectra of the important species in the atmosphere, water vapor is more significant than carbon dioxide. A decision to use precious tax money for reduction of CO2 must be accompanied with good science. Unfortunately we have too much heat and less light on this subject. This subject has become too political on both sides. Notice the writer of this article is not a scientist. Typical of newspaper articles.

    I suggest the readers look to the speech by former President Eisenhower when he left office. He warned us of the "military complex" and second of the growth of the "scientists" who depend on government money. You must all be aware that almost all those working on global warming are paid in one way or the other by government grants. Think. If the effects of global warming are minimal - then all those receiving these grants will have no monetary support. What we need is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the accurate truth.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 1:21 p.m.

    Go ahead... Sacrifice money at the alter of Man-Made Global Warming... see what it gets you.

    It won't save the planet. The planet doesn't need your money (politicians do... but the planet doesn't).

    Just throwing money at it won't fix the earth's problem any more than throwing virgins into a volcano.

    ---

    What we REALLY need to do is... each one of us (individually and voluntarily, not collectively by government force) do our very best to conserve resources we consume (ALL resources, not just oil).

    We have become a consumer society and a consumer economy. It will take awhile for the economy to adjust to people not consuming as much... but in the long run our economy will be much healthier if it's not dependent on our exclusive consumption and credit card debt to fuel it.

    The solution is to conserve on your own... not to give money to the Government.

    Giving your money to the government doesn't solve the problem.

  • joeandrade Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 2:04 p.m.

    Thank you, Amber!

    Yes, a carbon fee is the simplest and most effective way to begin to wean us off fossil fuels. Such a fee can be returned to all citizens via the Fee and Dividend proposal being developed and advocated by the CitizensClimateLobby. In addition, implementation of a carbon fee would greatly stimulate the economy, providing new opportunities and jobs in the areas of energy efficiency and renewable energy.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 2:15 p.m.

    The critics to my original post are interpeting it incorrectly. I never called the human race vermin or said a more enlightened species will replace us. Human beings have been on this planet less than 1% of it's existence. That's a fact, unless your a Sarah Palin disciple that thinks the earth is only 6,000 years old or the world was actually created in 7 days (6 if you think our creator took 1 day off, which he or she had well deserved). Given that thousands of species have come and gone in the Earth's existence why would any rational, educated person think that humans would always remain? The odds are climate change, mass starvation, disease, meteors or some unknown calamity will take us out. In the mean time, I just might be inclined to agree with my conservative friends and enjoy the party since the hostess has been so gracious.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    Re: " . . . don't look now procuradorfiscal, but the rest of the world is paying $7-$8 a gallon for gasoline, and electricity is 3 times what we pay here."

    Actually, in Europe, it's closer to $10 a gallon.

    But, thanks for making my point for me.

    Eurosocialists have been taxing themselves into oblivion for generations, and it's catching up to them. Their decreasing standard of living, decreasing family size, decreasing real-after-tax income, decreasing education standards, decreasing freedoms, decreasing morals, along with their uncontrolled immigration, are killing Europe.

    So much so, they've been forced to reduce or abandon their useless, pie-in-the-sky Kyoto promises.

    Why ANYONE would suggest that we try the same discredited tactic that has failed so miserably in Europe, is simply beyond comprehension.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 21, 2013 4:40 p.m.

    Well shoot… if the average temperature hasn't gone up in 16 years….. a millisecond in terms of the earth clock…. surely the fact that San Francisco hasn't had an Earth Quake in 20 means that the risk and problem of earth quakes is gone.

    Because sure, the only issue with carbon release into the atmosphere is global warming - right?… Not the pollutants that go with it. I mean, the fact that there are over 2 million vehicles operating in the state of Utah…. why would we think that what is coming from the pipe of these machines in any way would impact quality of life.

    It is the most bizarre argument. Who cares about global warming. That is not the most immediate threat to our health. It is what comes from the tailpipe. This from the same crowd worried about their kids finances and future debt… but not their health.

    Rings just hollow to me.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Despite a 7% increase in CO2 in the past 15 years global temperature unchanged as noted. the US has beaten the Kyoto protocol as we are converting from coal to natural gas. I believe we shouldconvert surface vehicles to natural gas too and is happening at an accellerated rate. perhaps in time we will see thorium reactors or fusion power. In the meantime it does not seem that any serious consequences are occuring from CO2 production. Global teamperatures surprise come from the sun and sun spot cycles.

  • Kirk R Graves West Jordan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:04 p.m.

    In Sept of this year, IBD published an article centered around a leaked IPCC document indicating that many climate scientists believe we are about to enter a 20-30 year cooling period.
    This belief is based partly on the fact that over the last 16+ years there has been no increase in global temperature, that nearly a million square miles of new arctic ice has formed, and new understandings of the reflective properties of the earth's atmosphere.

    We have a responsibility to take care of the environment we inhabit. But we also have a responsibility to be honest and rational.

    Man-made global warming has never been proven. The one major scientific study which Global Warming is based on (done by the UN) has been shown to include falsified data.

  • Stable thought FORT MORGAN, CO
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:05 p.m.

    Global warming the new liberal religion. I know I have heard it all....but....90% scientist
    say it so! oh my! so a rational person such as my self is called irrational, I have had no Global warming believer tell me why the last 15 years the temperature has not increase world wide.

    I am open minded answer that question and I will become a believer.

    I believe in cleaner energy, clean water, respect for our stewartship we have to our earth, but not because a liberal religion tells me so

  • AmberS Logan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:31 p.m.

    Hi everyone,
    I am the author of this OPINION editorial. Thank you for reading. This article was originally about 1000 words, but there are precursors to getting anything published in a newspaper and one of them is a word limit. So, yes, there ARE things that I left out and points I did not get to explain fully.
    Regardless, I think it is very sad that the mention of the word “tax” turns into so many people fervently deciding what political party I side with and whether I support “young American families” or not. This article was written out of my pure concern for our planet. I wrote this based on my own research and climate classes I have taken as a student at USU. My opinion is developed and backed with knowledge, but I do not claim to know the 100% truth about global warming. Does anyone?
    However, I 100% believe humans have contributed to rising temperatures. There is conflicting evidence on both sides, but I do know that humans are not the biggest contributor to CO2 levels. For example, human CO2 contribution pales in comparison to sedimentary rock (which cover 2/3 of the Earth’s surface) and volcanic eruptions.

  • AmberS Logan, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    2 bits – “It’s obvious to say what needs to be done for our planet” was NOT me saying, “Well, obviously the solution to everything is a tax.” It was me saying that people can sit behind their computer screens all day and attack people for their opinions and defend their own til the death, but when it comes to actually taking action and setting a global example… few step up to the plate. The blame game is America’s favorite game.
    CJB – are you talking about a tariff on imported oil? I think that would probably open up a whole other can of worms. I like your point about geothermal energy and Yellowstone, but let’s not turn something natural and beautiful into a powerhouse for our use.
    Jfreed27 and JoeCapitalist2 – that free carbon tax was something I had to omit due to space limitations. I would love for the tax to subsidize clean energy research and expansion and also serve as a rebate to citizens.
    Blue – my thoughts exactly.
    Thank you.

  • higv Dietrich, ID
    Nov. 21, 2013 5:56 p.m.

    Humans have been on this planet for who knows how long. The last 3 or 4 generations are not going to destroy it. Even lakes and mountain that get polluted find a way to get cleaned up. Wind cleans the air and streams moving clean. Humans are the only creature that can clean up there own and other species messes.

  • procuradorfiscal Tooele, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 7:48 p.m.

    Re: "However, I 100% believe humans have contributed to rising temperatures."

    No one's attacking your sincerity. Just your sources of information.

    What your liberal USU professors forgot to mention is that looney unilateral, symbolic American anti-carbon measures will have adverse effects on both the economy and the environment.

    Wrecking the American economy will cause more, not less greenhouse gas emissions, as cleaner energy is replaced by cheaper, "dirtier," fuels -- in terms of both CO2 and other pollutant emissions. Whether that causes the global warming natural disaster your liberal profs told you to fear, is an open question.

    But, even assuming higher CO2 levels will cause warming, it's a certainty that the destruction of our economy will cause untold misery and needless death and destruction.

    Your profs probably never mentioned that.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:14 p.m.

    "Wrecking the American economy will cause more, not less greenhouse gas emissions, as cleaner energy is replaced by cheaper, "dirtier," fuels -- in terms of both CO2 and other pollutant emissions. Whether that causes the global warming natural disaster your liberal profs told you to fear, is an open question."

    Please…. what is your source for this analysis? I would love to know the source. What is this dirtier energy source you are claiming we are going to? Did going from canals to the railroads cause the destruction of the US economy. The move to rail was heavily subsidized through land grants. Did the interstate highway system destroy the US economy when it replaced rail? That was government funded. Did the US economy falter when aviation replaced multiple existing technologies? It too was subsidized - and still is.

    Change does not cause economic chaos… in fact… it is usually the engine of growth as new technologies are invented and deployed.

    Does anyone miss shoveling coal to heat their house? Coal was far cheaper, had far more infrastructure, and was the entrenched energy source natural gas in its early stages. And yet the economy survived.

  • oaklandaforlife SLC, UT
    Nov. 21, 2013 8:45 p.m.

    Those evil liberals....always trying to feed the hungry, provide healthcare for those that can't afford it....always trying to limit pollution and save our earth....mankind and our planet would be better off without them.

  • the old switcharoo mesa, AZ
    Nov. 22, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    I have little hope conservatives will come around until their own lives are adversely affected in a way they can't deny.

    But make sure your children and grandchildren know where you stand on the subject, they are the ones that will live with the consequences and they should know who to slap.

  • FT salt lake city, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 7:37 a.m.

    Amber-nice editorial and you keep the passion and work up. You know your on the right track when critics start to attack you personally or offer up unsubstianted claims to dispute. Science and truth will win out in the end and I applaud you for seeking out both!

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Nov. 22, 2013 7:51 a.m.

    To "AmberS" the problem is that the climate scientists don't have a valid model. According to the NOA, we do not have a valid model. They stated that they were 95% certain that there could never be more than 15 years without warming. We are now between 15 and 18 years with no warming. That means that the models that the climatologists were using is wrong. The climate models all assume that CO2 is the main factor in global warming. The models are wong, which also make their assumptions wrong. There is no valid argument that shows that humans are to blame for climate change.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    It appears to me that many who dwell in the academic womb of isolation from reality tend to seek Draconian solutions that have a minimal effect on themselves yet are a significant burden for others. In the middle part of the last century the "problem du jour" was fear of a mini-ice age returning.

    A single young adult living in a world where all problems are of 16 weeks (a semester) duration cannot even comprehend the effect of one more law, tax or burden laid upon the general public, especially those who are working.

    Waqes are stagnent, families are under all kinds of stress, politically we are in a mess. To an author and mentor who are sheilded from these realities, a one size fits all solution that may be in search of a problems is inappropriate.

    I suggest that the author research how to live, and the effects of, a low carbon based energy consuming life style. This study should include single parent households, the elderly on fixed incomes, and the average demographic family. She could then live that life style for at least two years and then author a report for review

  • Stalwart Sentinel San Jose, CA
    Nov. 22, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    Let's see if we can water this down for conservatives who are noting their described decade-and-a-half "cooling" period because they seem willing to ignore the absolute lion's share of scientific studies and want to focus on a single factor out-of-context in a fairly complex issue.

    Very simple example for a group dedicated to very simple analysis: Let's say you're at a BYU basketball game and a 7'6" BYU center walks in. Your friend says, "that guy is tall." You agree. Afterward, the center is followed by fifteen other BYU players measuring 7'5", 7'4", 7'5", 7'6", 7'6", 7'4", 7'5", 7'6", 7'6", 7'4", 7'5", 7'6", 7'6", 7'5", and 7'6" respectively. At that point, do you comment that BYU has an extremely tall team or do you criticize BYU for not having enough height?

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Nov. 22, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    It's time to wake up. CO2 is warming this planet beyond levels seen in millions of years. As a result, the jet stream overhead is spreading out like a flooding river. That means wilder, crazier weather around the globe. The laws of physics cannot be flouted. The Tacloban typhoon is just a taste of what's coming. Our grandchildren will pay a terrible price for our inaction.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 10:52 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    "The earth is not warming "

    Satellite datasets (like RSS and UAH) show a .12-.14C per decade increase in temperature in the past 30+ years.

    "Why the earth has not warmed for 16 years".

    Climate norms are calculated over 30 year periods. Picking a number like 16 translates to 'The Earth has not warmed for a dataset that starts at the beginning of the warmest El Nino in half a century and thankfully ends with La Nina 3 of the past 4 years at the end since 2010's El Nino threatened our ability to draw a line that doesn't trend upward' but of course that'd be too long a title.

    @LDS Liberal
    "Agreed.
    K-Y-O-T-O.
    Sign it."

    Well... funny thing is the US actually almost has already fulfilled it's part of the Kyoto Protocol (largely through the rapid shift towards natural gas which is certainly not clean, just better than what it was replacing).

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    @procuradorfiscal
    "How about the tripling or quadrupling of costs of basic necessities of life for millions of young American families?"

    Now you're just making up numbers. Any change doesn't have to be instantaneous, and there are carbon taxes that send the vast majority of the money back to the taxpayer via tax credit (some will actually get more back from that kind of carbon tax than they pay in if they don't use much energy) like how Denmark does it.

    By the way, one way to do this could always be to lower income tax rates in exchange for these energy taxes. After all, don't conservatives prefer taxes on the sales side of thing rather than the income side (like the flat tax)?

    @Xian
    "The fact is CO2 is not the most significant greenhouse gas. if one looks to the infrared absorption spectra of the important species in the atmosphere, water vapor is more significant than carbon dioxide."

    True, but water vapor is rather nearly constant in the atmosphere. The total greenhouse effect is around 30C. CO2 is estimated to be about 10% of it, around 3C. Doubling CO2... well, you can do the rough estimate math.

  • AmberS Logan, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    I am the author of this OPINION editorial. Thank you for reading. This article was originally about 1000 words, but there are precursors to getting anything published in a newspaper and one of them is a word limit. So, yes, there ARE things that I left out and points I did not get to explain fully.
    Regardless, I think it is very sad that the mention of the word “tax” turns into so many people fervently deciding what political party I side with and whether I support “young American families” or not. This article was written out of my pure concern for our planet. I wrote this based on my own research and climate classes I have taken as a student at USU. My opinion is developed and backed with knowledge, but I do not claim to know the 100% truth about global warming. Does anyone?
    However, I 100% believe humans have contributed to rising temperatures. There is conflicting evidence on both sides, but I do know that humans are not the biggest contributor to CO2 levels. For example, human CO2 contribution pales in comparison to sedimentary rock and volcanic eruptions.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Nov. 22, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    1. Simply plant more trees and plants that absorb CO2.

    2. Obama will soon destroy the economy and regulate industry out of existence. So, he'll bring about the 80-100% reduction in emissions.

    3. Don't forget to outlaw animal excrementation, volcanos, ocean vents, changes to solar output, changes to earth's angle to the sun, changes to earth's path around the sun (as in distance from the sun) and every other variable that we know and don't know about.

    4. Oh, and make a law that only allows humans to exhale 3 times per minute. That'll reduce that bad CO2 emission rate!

    5. I think we need a law that outlaws the use of every other element on earth. I'm sure that the vast majority of them are bringing about the so-called destruction of the earth and making it uninhabitable.

    6. Bite me, deluded numskulls.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Nov. 25, 2013 11:47 a.m.

    Global warming - is grossly over-hyped by people with hidden agendas. I think common sense suggests that belching out toxic particulate flavored smoke into the atmosphere from coal fired generation plants is not good for the o-zone or your lungs and coal's days are numbered as a means of producing the steam which turns the turbines which turns the generators which allows you to operate your electric toothbrush. However is there REALLY such a thing as global warming or are there instead dishonest people (Al Gore) looking to make a buck (50 million actually) by exploiting some fuzzy science and others trying to use the same questionable science to promote their far left environmental agenda? Probably both are correct. Looking at ALL the research there is no consensus conclusion that global warming exists and if it does exist how it is caused. Remember theories are just unproved ideas and millions of them have faded away over the years having never amounted to anything..(remember cold fusion).

  • Charles S Freedomville, AZ
    Nov. 28, 2013 10:45 a.m.

    Amber-- as soon as you can prove AGW, please let us know. Until then.....