When it comes to projections into the future there are a fair few who struggle with linear functions too.

I dont know about greatest downfall, but its certainly on the list and its not helping now.

@@Jimmy4video 👍

So, if a hen and a half can lay a hegg and a half in a day and a half. How long will it take to shovel two ton of coal through the eye of a needle when grapes are a pound a kilo?

James Smith Don't eat grapes unless they are locally grown.

Good points. There's little understanding in the broad society of the levels of profits that are being threatened. The corporate media plays its part by ignoring this. If people understood this they would accept that vast amounts of money and therefore vast power is being harnessed against the necessary changes including mechanisms like carbon prices.

@@beesplaining1882 Most of society are brainless sheeps. Prove: rebellion extinction...those idiots belive CO2 is increasing the temperature...without ANY PROOF! Without math...

DuelingBongos look into who is funding the extinction rebellion what do you find ,people like the Rockefellers et cetera who are behind it the carbon tax is about controlling the mass it’s their idea ,it’s about controlling energy.It’s not about saving the world it’s about controlling it

@@peterhansen2656 Calm down mate, try to think reasonably before jumping into conspiracy theories, if each government collects its taxes independently, then how the hell is some group or singular party going to benefit from this

@@peterhansen2656 Sorry Peter, can you substantiate that Extinction Rebellion is somehow ferretting away millions of dollars somewhere. Have you got ONE ONCE of evidence for this claim. Or are you just repeating lies you read somewhere in the deniersphere?

You shouldn't tax the bogus! CO2 can't increase the temperature! Even i can prove that with repeatable result...

Congratulation donkey. You were deceived for lack of thinking!

Tax on the bogus...

I doubt if a carbon tax is going to put more money in your pocket, the income tax reduction is just a smoke screen for higher production prices.

@ferkemall You state: "EU study says just one volcano produces more Co2 than a million cars in just one day now" Really? Citation please. www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/which-emits-more-carbon-dioxide-volcanoes-or-human-activities Why is it that you deniers can't find anything but bullshit on the internet. Either you are incredibly ignorant, or you are lying. If your ignorant, go and do your homework. If you know you are lying then stop. Stop lying! We are sick of it! Just stop lying!!!

@ferkemall "study says just one volcano produces more Co2 than a million cars in just one day ?" Well, yeah, but they're natural and the natural equilibrium was working with them up till now. Now if you look at volcanoes, human emissions are more than 90 times greater than global volcanic CO2 emissions per year. There you have it, smart ass.

Locally, yes. Globally, that's the whole point. Thinking globally, that's the spiritual realm coming in play getting absorbed by standard means of exploitations, personal interests, greed. It will turn out a massive debt.

Governments would chose the best return on the dollar, that would be grid level investments, not domestic. The four hours a day can't happen, the capacity factor is only 15% in the UK. In the northern hemisphere sunny days don't represent a period of peak demand, cold dark winter days do. The UK has already answered this, the answer is wind.

Solar energy claim more lives that other energy sources...roofer is very danger job after all.

The cost would be passed onto consumers anyway. But if you raise the price for consumers, they tend to consume less. This cuts into the fossil fuel company's bottom lines and hurts their business. Simple supply and demand.

TheLightningII - I agree with you, to a point. You said, "if you raise the price for consumers, they tend to consume less", not always. They find other ways to get what they want sans the retail market. The main point is, this is not the case when it comes to petroleum based products. Look around your house and see how many things are made from plastic? Everything from your TV, toothbrush, to the Tupperware of factory farmed meat (eh'hem) in your frig you will eat after you party in your pleather disco pants this weekend! Most petro-based products will side step the inverse principal of supply and demand. Virtually nothing except the cessation of production truly "hurts their (oil and gas) business", as you say. Oh, I should tell you I use to be a fixed asset accountant in a GE natural gas company.

@@gnostictruth1599 Sure, but at least the petroleum products for plastics aren't being burnt and released into the atmosphere(at least not most of it I hope). The main environmental impacts the average person has are most likely from transport fuel, electricity, and AC/heating. We know when you raise the prices of these things, people try to use less of them.

TheLightninII - Yep, you and I concur. When I was in oil and gas, right out of grad school, I drove up to a neighboring state and went to all the facilities in the field. I can tell you at LEAST a third of the natural gas pulled out of the ground is burned/released at the point of extraction right into the air. Crazy. What do you think of the 'volunteer' power shut downs in the US west due to wild fires?

@@gnostictruth1599 That is crazy. I can't comment on the plant shutdowns as I simply don't know enough about them.

Governments, to pay for subsidies for sustainable energy sources.

"we seldom get much snow or cold weather until January". Well thanks for pissing me off. Here we get 1st snow that stays November 10th and then snow twice a week for 6 months until it's 6 feet deep, and temperature never goes above zero for 6 months after November 10th except 3-4 afternoons randomly in 6 months. So thanks again for "we seldom get much snow or cold weather until January" stud.

Well, it is global warming, not local warming. Plus, with the arctic warming much faster than the mid-latitudes, there's less of a temperature difference, and since it's that difference that drives the jet stream, the jet stream is slower and meanders more, so that we get larger and more frequent tongues of cold air reaching down to normally more temperate latitudes. Of course weather varies anyways, but we can expect more variance from the norms, both hot and cold. Or so the scientists say. I'm not competent to judge their work, but in the past I accepted at face value a number of criticisms of climate scientists, criticisms which I later found were not just wrong but deceitful, so now I just trust the scientists. You might like to read them. It's a very big change underway, and there's nothing like having knowledge of the times one lives in.

Too right old sausage.

I listened to talks by Dan Lubin ("polar specialist") 7 years ago and he seemed genuinely peeved that his science he went into (WG1 climate science) ended up a huge wealth/political thing with bull shit baggage everywhere instead of a fun physical science. He sighed and said something about how nice it would have been to just spend a life time doing physical science same as all the other ones. He's got the dry science brain instead of the book-selling celebrity-fun brain that most bods have.

Well, a long career in anything is something to hope for😊

Translate the depressing into determination. You are one of us that can make a difference - go for it. You won't always win but each little win others like me will appreciate.

David Borojevic you’re right, just been a hard year for us environmentalists, but the world is changing.

This is NOT "environmental science" but politicall issue and another reason to tax us! GHG is BOGUS!

I don't have any thoughts on that. Do you have any thoughts on Powassan ? Should we upgrade the highway there by filling all pot holes >3 feet deep or install a high-speed train ?

You realise h21 north of england is a proposal for the biggest reduction of co2 in the world? It's not a train, it is converting britain to run on hydrogen. Rather than natural gas.

Svetlozar Arglrov Very good point. Without a comprehensive decarbonisation policy (including dodgy practices like off shoring) carbon taxes alone will be insufficient to the task. Here in the USofA if the carbon content of our consumption from all sources was accounted for the US would be by far the largest emitter of carbon on the planet. Consumption taxes based on carbon content, though by nature regressive, do force folks to consider the consequences to environment of their purchasing decisions while removing the incentive to offshore to avoid the tax or whitewash the carbon reduction numbers for political purposes.

@@tomhall7633 You are idiot Tom. Without carbon dioxide and fuels we will all die! Plus GHG effect was proven wrong !!! I can show you!

Yes, here in the UK, farmers and public transport get to use much cheaper "red" diesel, which leads to a huge disincentive to switch to electric vehicles.

Removing fossil subsidies will help, but we really do need to charge for pollution too to properly capture the costs. Especially as we _didn't_ take this seriously in the 1990s when there was time for a very gentle transition. Now that things are really urgent we have to force change unhelpfully quickly.

@@xxwookey Agreed. Sadly, The human species has a weakness in that we each think that the little pollution we do individually won't matter much in the bigger picture. Like wise Australia, which only has 25m population and domestically produces 1.3% of the worlds carbon (which is disproportionately high) thinks it's alright to export millions of tons of thermal coal so the rest of the world can turn it. This unfortunately is a big slice of foreign income for Australia so I recognise economics will be harder when it inevitably slows but never the less the carbon ends up in the atmosphere regardless of who burns it. Arguably it the west that needs to transition to alternatives sooner than the third world.

I think you have a great idea. The fracking industry is not profitable without government subsidies! In the United States, we could start by withdrawing our military from the Middle East. The US military acts as a huge subsidy for ARAMCO.

@@xxwookey You might want to step back and look at the bigger pictures behind all this. Especially the big oil subsidies and what it really about. Big oil only makes about 5 - 15 cents per gallon of its product it makes and sells, while big government in just the US makes ~40 cents to over $2 off each of those gallons in its various taxes and other fees tied to it. Big oil would love to see us all have high efficiency vehicles and home and industrial heating systems that use half the fuel they do now so they could sell it to us at tice the profit for twice as long on their end. Problem is big government would take it in the ass on their cash cow tax revenues. The only way to keep big oil from rocking the boat too hard is with subsidies so that they get a bit of a kick back from the tax gouging big government does with THEIR products. Same problem with modern vehicle emissions systems. They have done very little in cleaning things up compared to the fuel reformulations that were done. What they do do is make for ever increasing taxable revenue for both the automakers and the government and more sales for big oil due to emissions compliance never being a big gainer for over al fuel efficiency. In fact for most of the history of emissions compliance it has been a horrible reducer of engine power, performance and fuel efficiency, not a improver of any.

Excellent question, which I have also been asking: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3470249

It can be either. In Finland, the tax has gone to the general revenue stream without any problems. Raising it further, though, is difficult without earmarking the funds. In Australia, their Carbon Tax was used to lower income taxes, pay for subsidies for low-emission appliances and pay a dividend to citizens. All of these are possible, as is earmarking some of the funds for green investments. Or you might give back 100 % as a dividend. Check these out: climateincome.org/ kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ZtFiYLar0aqrm6M.html

@@juusovoltti - Thank you for your reply. I will research your links later today.

You do not see that video is huge bullshit? GHG effect is proven wrong, no CO2 emission has dropped, temperature is decreasing, ice is gaining mass...IPCC NOAA and NASA proven liars!

@@WadcaWymiaru So you think journalists, PR people, and politicians are more trustworthy than scientists? That's really funny!

A carbon tax isn't just the only thing that would need to happen, it is the only solution that has any hope of solving the problem. The reason you can't drive 1000km in a cheap EV right now is because fossil fuel companies don't have to pay for the cost of their pollution. You don't need to subsidize specific technologies. You just need to make industry pay to clean up their pollution. The market will provide them with the most efficient means to do so.

​@@jesselee34Which countries/government currently have a carbon tax in place rn?

Hmmm. I wonder why?

I am in Queensland and know nothing about this. Would be interested in a link to your source as I have tried google but no luck.

@@robsengahay5614 Sadly I learnt this while working in the coal industry so I don't have a citable source at hand. And in fact I think industry would rather keep this quiet.

@@JustHaveaThink Governments justify this action by arguing that it creates jobs (like alternative energy comes from fairies) and it an easy source of taxable income. ie it's easier to tax 1million out of a big company than getting one thousand dollars out of 1000 separate tax payers. But then multinationals manage to avoid paying tax, eg google, apple. The little guy is getting well and truly screwed.

There OTHER way. Forget the GHG effect...i deny it, and i can prove with math it is wrong.

Hey, are we related?

Optimal CO2 level for plants is 2000 ppm...Are you a donkey?

But maybe not immediately. The first rule of holes is to stop digging yourself deeper! So maybe at some point down the road it will be cost-effective to shift large resources into removal efforts, but I think we're not there yet. It's true though that every ton of CO2 we put out now is a ton we'll want to takeout later. And as Dave notes in the video, it's unfair to implement policy without accommodating the poor.

@@robertcartwright8165 It is "digging the graves" not the holes...plants that PROTECT us from hunger require more and more CO2 for each year...

Definitely a good idea.

The problem in this quarrel is...carbon dioxide is NOT a greenhouse gas. Proven. You can recall *Emile Clappeyron?*

Like the Churchill reference !

I wonder what Mr Churchill would actually have done if were alive today?

@@JustHaveaThink Perhaps he would be a denier and employ Lord Monkton - horrible thought! On the other hand his greatest achievement (in the crystal ball department) was recognizing a threat and pressing for action when that was unpopular with his peers, so I like to imagine him as a climate warrior who would take competent scientific advice, defy industry, and fight. We don't have anyone with his courage and principle today. When Britain faced imminent invasion, by a foe with a knack for victory, he refused to suspend Habeas Corpus. In the US, and here in Canada, with no threat imminent, our governments have already passed legislation to allow them around it! In Canada we've even defined a "terrorist offence" (the prevention of which is grounds for possible incarceration without trial) as including "interference with economic infrastructure", so if you're conspiring to block a logging road or a pipeline, look out! Industry has really got their ducks in a row. I'm not hopeful.

@@JustHaveaThink I agree with Mr. Cartwright about the renowned PM but for more terrestrial reasons. As a savvy politician applying a sober (depending on the time of day) analysis of the unfolding threat and seizing the high ground for the Tory cause, he would act boldly under cover of a galvanizing event such as a flood, hurricane, drought and rally the population to confront the threat. Absent Robert's comment, I would have said, " He would have done something rather than nothing."

And here is the REALITY: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a81od6dhlqicaZs.html

The problem is...it doesn't happen.

It would be nice if they would seriously throw ANYTHING at it, considering the current administration in the US is busy dismantling the previous 40 years of meager progress i have my doubts in anything fruitful happening before its too late, which it likely already is but still we have no cboice but try. Humanity has a choice evolve or die.

@@donfields1234 As an American, I am deeply ashamed of my government. Bernie Sanders looks like he might be an improvement but even his relatively extreme ideas are likely too little, too late. I have made significant changes in my lifestyle but feel powerless to effect greater change. Additional action on my part would likely land me in prison and I am not prepared to spend the remaining years behind bars. For what it's worth, I offer my apologies to the citizens of more responsible countries and indigenous peoples of the World on behalf of the American Government.

@@9squares yes, and its highly unlikely bernie, or any other politician with real potential for change will ever get in. Its all owned and operated by the elite i "fear" AND all this political party squabbling bs is just to keep us divided and distracted so we end up with no real power. They "played their cards" well, dumbing down huamnity, manipulating the system from behind the scene, etc. I think if the populace really saw the truth they would be as horrified as we are. 😖

@@donfields1234 Well said, I couldn't agree more. I will continue to act responsibly towards the planet within the confines of civilization and without attachment to the outcome or the future.

"bicycle tracks" sounds real dangerous. I went down hard on a streetcar track in Toronto, broke my glasses. Otherwise though I'm with you on that.

Taxing the rich, lmfao rof pmp, definately a big part of the needed solution, but first we will need to borrow the riches wealth to buy back our govt to pass a law to tax the rich....hmmm. Easier getting a camel through a keyhole me thinks, or elephant, or however it goes.

Taxing the CO2 is taxing the bogus...

This is black not green way...

riiiiight.

Poor implementation is a risk for any policy. As David says in the video, it's unfair to fight climate change on the backs of the poor. Their needs must be accommodated.

@@robertcartwright8165 that's the thing, the poor and middle class is paying for this shit show again and again. We don't have anymore money to save the rich, that actually is the ones in great need on changing their ways.

@@christianfalch3182 I hear you. Dr. Kevin Anderson likes to point out that if 90% of humanity did nothing, and just the top 10% reduced their emissions only to that of the average E.U. citizen, humanity's CO2 emissions would still be reduced by one third! This problem is overwhelmingly political and not technical.

Carbon tax = bogus tax...proven!

Gary LeLacheur Unfortunately governments would probably bail them out in such circumstances given the stock market crash that a collapse in the oil industry alone would precipitate.

@@robsengahay5614 This is why the transition to alternatives should have started sooner. And why can't the gov't incentivise business to gradually switch to alternatives rather than pay them to explore for more. That is just insane. I sometimes think we are being governed by idiots without spine. The transition could be relatively painless but the big money makers are creatures of habit and can't break their addiction to doing things the way they always have. I have to change and adapt to changed circumstances, why can't our leaders?

Idiots believe in GHG effect...

@@WadcaWymiaru OK I'll bite. What is the GHG effect? (I can't know everything )

@@mayflowerlash11 GHG = "green house gas" Some uneducated sheep believe Earth is working like a real glasshouse. That is such a lie...proven by math.

There is only ONE trend: more fossil fuels=more wealth.

Nothing is carbon-free idiot. And i love CO2!

I'm not sure I understand you. There are low-carbon alternatives to fossil fuels for electricity generation and some transportation sectors, and taxing carbon is a sure way to encourage their adoption. I take your point though that speed of change also matters. When the English speaking world switched their civilian production over to war they were in a hurry, and they didn't rely on market mechanisms to effect the change. They just told the factory owners "Now you're making war material!".

@@robertcartwright8165 Do you believe CO2 is increasing the temperature? Can you prove it by math? I can prove otherwise...

European countries are close to break because of that...after last election...Poland is close to burst open...because of taxing CO2, an inert tasteless gas of life!

@@WadcaWymiaru Everybody complains that taxes are too high. You're going to have to explain more than that.

@@ronaldgarrison8478 Only the technology allow losers governments to exist. Imagine that same taxes 100 years ago... Soon break will be for 8zł in my country (~2$). I am hungry now...

They more expensive fuel, power powerty and high food prices? This is what you want?

Hi Ken! I'm now going through your paper. The main idea is brilliant and I would very much like to study this further. If it is ok with you, I would like to go over the whole discussion including F&D and carbon taxes in general, not only the parts regarding the Jet fuel case. 1) Here is my first question: "H.R. 763 includes a Carbon Border Fee Adjustment provision, which would impose carbon fees on imported fuel and products. But the adjustment does not allocate dividends to foreign entities who incur carbon fees, so the fee might be deemed a discriminatory tariff under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules." Yes. It MIGHT be deemed discriminatory, or it might not. The latter means this approach should not be deemed impossible. For all we know, BCAs in the context of F&D might be completely in line with current WTO rules as they are. To me, this suggests this is a viable option as one path for trying to achieve global carbon pricing. Further, the more fundamental question is this: should the BCAs be deemed discriminatory? My understanding is no, they should not. Let's take the EU ETS as an example. I would argue that the current EU ETS is discriminatory to EU industries and a BCA would level the playing field. If another country wishes to avoid the tariff, they are welcome to impose a similar fee for their own fossil fuel use, level the playing field that way and keep the proceeds of said fee for themselves. The solution is not to expand the F&D to a super complex multinational system where fees and dividends go back and forth from country to country. This would not only be a policy nightmare, but it also would never achieve political approval in the US. The F&D must function within an economic region with the proceeds distributed back to citizens within that region. The BCAs are there to make it global by encouraging other economic regions to start pricing carbon within their own region.

@@juusovoltti "The F&D must function within an economic region with the proceeds distributed back to citizens within that region." For the very same reasons, you could argue that a carbon tax on aviation fuel should be distributed back to air travellers, e.g. as a ticket rebate. What would be more effective: A carbon price on aviation fossil fuel starting out at 15 cents per gallon (with the revenue refunded to consumers), or a subsidy on sustainable aviation fuel starting out at $4 per gallon?

@@kenjohnson6101 Now you are skipping ahead. We can discuss your idea in due time. If it is ok by you, let's first deal with your criticism regarding F&D. I wasn't talking about your idea, I was talking about F&D. And for F&D to work, the dividends must be diatributed out within each economic region. Do we agree on this?

@@juusovoltti Yes, but in a globally interconnected economy it might make more sense to define an "economic region" to be an industry, e.g. aviation, rather than a country. In any case, I think any rationale for preserving F&D revenue neutrality within a country would apply equally well to revenue neutrality within an industry. Back to my question: What would be more effective: A carbon price on aviation fossil fuel starting out at 15 cents per gallon (with the revenue refunded to consumers), or a subsidy on sustainable aviation fuel starting out at $4 per gallon?

@@kenjohnson6101 I'll need to check your figures before I can answer that. My reality check gut says the numbers don't add up. But I'll have a look at them tomorrow and I'll get back to you.

Nothing but lies about CO2...

@@WadcaWymiaru You are a closed minded person. If you forget the knowledge, the Word is god will forget your children.

@@stephenverchinski409 Let me SHOW YOU how "opened" my mind is: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_gas_law *Ideal Gas Law* : PV =nRT T = 101.3 / (8.314 x 1.225/28.97) = 288.14 K ~15°C Earth black body temperature is -18.8 °C degree or 254.3 K All of that 33 degree rise without greenhouse gas effect. Venus: T=9200/8.314 x 65/43.35 = 740K or ~470°C Titan: T=146.7/8.314 x 5.25/28 = 94.1K or -179°C Let's see evidence on other worlds: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/eNuEoKt0t7DTppc.html kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Z7-PoZVpmMy9kpc.html *KO*

You don't need to trade credits in a carbon tax - that's another system entirely. What you do need is "border adjustments" in which the imports are charged based on the carbon tax level of the exporting country (or lack of same) and reverse is done for exports (making exporters whole in regards to the destination). In this way, the non-taxing countries are incentivized to set up their own carbon taxes so as to not be disadvantaged.

someone did not watch the video

LOL This is the value from TWO of my ways of CO2 calculations...

A carbon tax makes alternative green energy cheaper. Think about it, we can put a tax on internal combustion engine cars or subsidize EV's and should, but a tax is universally punitive on all upstream/downstream products that have emissions. What this does, is force refineries and O & G companies to clean up their act with emissions up and downstream. To say the carbon tax is BS is to ignore also, the fact that we will need hydrocarbons going forward into a carbon neutral world but what decides which hydrocarbons will survive once upstream emissions are tackled, is their downstream emissions. Essentially, unburned hydrocarbons will have a future while burned hydrocarbons will not over time. Take for example, plastics that mostly end up in landfills, or synthetic oil that is 84% recycled or asphalt that ends up in a landfill over, say, light crude distilled into gas and diesel and you'll see my point.

@@Lorne.Mccuaigyes carbon tax makes it more expensive which also makes producing renewables more expensive to produce Everything gets inflated but it doesn't stop oil production,if anything it increases as it becomes a more valuable commodity. How many white rhino's are left? And how much of thats is related to there exclusivity. It just makes that rhino horn so much more valuable. We actually need to stop using fossil fuels generally. This goes beyond just CO2 emissions . Our food production and therefore population is related to fossil fuel industrialisation. I maintain that carbon taxes do not reduce consumption, but it just changes whom in society pays the bill. Demand and consumption are the problem ,not the price. Maybe stopping subsidising the oil industry may be a better first response? Oil industry doesn't like subsidies mentioned but don't seem to mind carbon taxes, hmm I wonder ,why? If countries prevented new oil exploration by not issuing permits ,that might help?The world economy is tied to the Petro dollar probably soon to be the Petro yuan and shows how intrigally we are tied to oil in all its polluting forms.

@@robmcilroy1894 The tax gets priced initially in making one think hydrocarbons become more valuable as a commodity but its not to the producer and it is a commodity subject to supply/demand. As hydrocarbon market share gives way to green energy/tech, demand wanes and prices fall. If the world is to get serious about heading towards carbon neutrality, a carbon tax is necessary. (as are getting away from subsidizing the oil industry but most of these subsidies come by way of tax breaks, not direct subsidies) Using the carbon tax to subsidize a major reduction in emissions from all carbon sources (cement, manufacturing, refineries, agriculture, O & G) is where the money should be spent, as well as programs for roof top solar and greening homes etc.. Relying on regulatory forces to do this, although a major component in all this, is not enough and I can't stress the importance of knowing the winners and losers with hydrocarbon production in a world headed toward carbon neutrality. Hydrocarbons that are produced to be later burned such as light crude distilled into gas and diesel for the most part, is at a major risk to devaluation or a loser, much like coal is already and so it should be. Extra heavy crude oil on the other hand, has a future because its upstream emissions can be dramatically reduced with today's existing tech while the downstream products remain largely unburned (synthetic oil, asphalt, composites, some plastics, etc.)

That's some fine language! If you don't mind, I'm going to try to remember it and use it myself.

The DIY store is doing a special on punctuation this week. You get 2 free Os and 5 commas with every four candles you buy.

@@grindupBaker The DIY store is doing a special on HOW TO UNDERSTAND LOGICAL COMMON SENSE der