Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?



Of course a carbon tax is politics, but action to save us from "probably"
extreme dislocations does impinge on science. As to whether a carbon tax is
effective is the domain of economics, and the predictions of consequences is
the domain of climate science which does include physics, chemistry,
geology, and biology to be able to make the predictions.

When people start using "isms" they are not using a scientific approach.
Government is essentially founded on a particular model or paradigm.
Empires were founded on the "diving right" paradigm where wealth was
redistributed upward. Our government and indeed most Western governments
are no founded on the paradigm that they perform functions that the populace
wants, whatever that might be. Remember the constitution is designed to
promote the common good. Optimizing the common good requires all kinds of
things like mandating sanitation. Farmers have to follow rules to prevent
spread of dangerous diseases, municipalities provide clean water, we have
public fire departments rather than private ones...

If you have 99% of the wealth in the hands of 1% we all know that the 1%
will be in total control of the government and that might lead to a violent
revolution. But if the wealth is absolutely evenly divided there will be
much less incentive to generate new wealth. Notice this is in a sense a
scientific problem. We know what the end points of the graph look like, but
where is the optimum set point? Then should correct if we get far from that
point? In actuality the government is always in some way redistributing
wealth. Money is flowing from other states into the Southern states. This
is not necessarily intentional because some of it supports military bases.
A carbon tax will certainly redistribute wealth in some fashion as all
government programs do, but that is not the goal of the tax.

Shouting "it is wealth redistribution" is essentially saying that there is a
conspiracy and that it is evil. This is not high level thinking, but rather
gut level domination by a paradigm. It is unscientific thinking, just as
accusations that climate scientists are conspiring because they get funds is
unscientific reasoning. We see this type of thinking in our students when
they reject scientific ideas whether they are Newton's laws, evolution,
relativity... I just came across a blog where the author was claiming that
the gravitational force on the surface of the Moon is much larger than the
canonical 1.6N/kg. Squirrely ideas abound, and shouting about an "ism" is
one of them. After all, all government functions are actual "socialism",
and the alternative is anarchy.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


But is not the question of should a carbon tax be assessed a
political one and not a scientific one?


On Jun 4, 2013, at 2:54 PM, Shahram Mostarshed
<smostarshed@gmail.com> wrote:

The Next-Generation Science Standards (NGSS) developed in
collaboration with 26 states and several scientific
organizations is a
transformative set of guidelines for teaching science in the United
States. For the first time, climate change is recommended
as a core
concept for U.S. science curricula, including an emphasis
on anthropogenic or "human-caused" effects.

http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2013climatesciencecoresciencee
ducation_amsstatement.html