Climate change hoax COLLAPSES

Post Reply New Topic

Norway and Sweden introduced a carbon tax in 1991, Denmark in 1996. All three countries have experienced significant decarbonisation since then. Carbon taxes are a market-based mechanism for reducing carbon emissions, and so we'd expect them to be cost efficient.


It's not a competition. Wind and solar have only reached this stage because the public sector has supported them with the right policy environment for many years. Another comparison might be electric cars - if we wait for the market to install charge points then we'll be waiting a long time, but perhaps with support in a few years there will be a profit to be made there.

Apparently there are no toll roads in Denmark, but there are two bridges. In Sweden the same, there are no roads but four bridges (one of which is the bridge to Denmark, making five bridges across the two countries). In Norway they have a very big toll system, so I take it you are Norwegian. I think you're potentially conflating road tolls, which pay for road maintenance, and congestion charges, which discourage car use in cities for a variety of reasons including global warming.


Fuel cell technology is not in a position where their use can be widespread in ferries but that could change quickly. There's also the problem that we can't produce cheap low-carbon hydrogen yet.

Batteries, similarly, are not good enough to power ferries yet. Hybrid systems are increasingly common but still a niche application.

That isn't true. Cruise ships account for around 0.2% of all CO2 emissions. You would be right if you were talking about either particulates or sulphur dioxide, but these are more notable for other environmental effects, particularly local ones. Of course we should reduce them, but on the specific question of global warming, they're relatively unimportant.



Not very impressive considering how much cleaner cars have become since 2008. [/quote]
Not sure you quoted the right part of my post - cars are not ships.

Global Warming theory is based on "statistical models".

You can't possibly disprove that.

We can pretty much all agree that climate change is real. If you say it’s not real, you’re listening to pseudoscience. What we don’t know is how serious it is. We know it’s extremely serious, but is it bad enough to be an immediate threat to us, or will it take decades for that to happen even if we continue our ways? That’s what we don’t know.

Edit: Yes, it already is an immediate threat to us. I meant to say “immediate threat to our existence,” sorry if that sounds kind of dark.

Denying climate change will not make it go away.

This is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Back in 1991, you could barely find compact cars, sedans or estates with diesel. Ten years ago, most new cars were diesel-powered. Never mind the fact that a new car engine is far more efficient than a 30 year old engine.



They haven't usually supported them per se, they have just not taxed them unnecessarily.



This is like saying that GDR style government surveilance is preventing crime. There are many places with no public transport where toll charges have no effect whatsoever. This doesn't just apply to Scandinavia.



Private companies are already using battery-powered ferries for short distances.



Ships (not limited to cruise ships) are responsible for roughly 4.5% of all CO2 emissions; almost twice as much as the global air traffic.



The basic premise of a car engine and a ship engine is the same. You can upgrade a ship's engines without scrapping the ship. On a modern unibody, FWD car, doing so would cost more than the car is worth.

Neither will adding unnecessary taxes because of it. If you want to contribute less to global warming, buy locally produced food, do not buy more food than you can eat, avoid using much electricity at night when it's produced from coal, do not throw out clothes after just a couple of months, do not change your smartphone every year, and so on.