And I agree with Joe on the solar/thermal technology - but again, do it in the private sector, not public.

Joy’s approach might make him richer. The taxation approach makes people poorer.

It seems the Carteret Islands of New Guinea are being overwhelmed by rising seas! The residents of the islands have become the World’s first official climate refugees!

http://www.abc.net.au/ science/ news/ stories/ s866600.htm

—–Their tide-measuring station on Papua New Guinea’s Manus Island, 1,100 km west of the atolls, has measured an annual 8.2 mm rise in sea-levels over the past seven years.

The Solomon Islands station, 750 km to the south, has recorded an annual 6.2 mm rise over the past eight years. Nauru, 1200 km northeast, has recorded 5.6 mm per year over nine years. —–

Or could it be the islands are sinking? That might explain why the sea is rising faster there than anywhere else …

Might it have something to do with the islanders dynamiting the reefs to catch fish?

Might their ‘official’ designation as climate refugees have more to do with politics, just a way to obtain help, than with science?

This can’t be just more propaganda can it? Another example of using disasters to further political ends?

Comments?

I couldn’t resist pointing out this blatent propaganda that many people are too-easily falling for.

Since it’s not related to the topic at hand, I won’t resist in telling you to put your comment where it belongs.

In any case, the so-called free market can’t solve the climate problem since carbon has no price.

The summary says, “Tax Waste, Not Work offers a blueprint for a tax system that reflects America’s values and common sense. The report argues neither for higher taxes overall, nor a change in the distribution of the tax burden up or down the income scale. Rather, it offers a change in the way federal revenue is raised that would provide a rare opportunity to cut taxes on both labor and investment income, as opposed to one or the other.”

Paul Krugman’s introduction says, “To appreciate the reasonableness of what Redefining Progress has to say, it is important to understand that it is based on several well-founded propositions. First, measures to protect the environment–indeed, broader measures than we have instituted so far–are essential. Second, taxes (or other price mechanisms, such as the sale of pollution licenses) are in many cases the most effective way to implement such protection. Finally, since existing taxes already distort incentives to work, save, and invest, any revenue generated by pollution taxes that allows other taxes to be lower creates an extra ‘dividend’ to the economy.”

You seriously don’t understand how taking money away from people results in them having less money?

And how do you know that the market can’t solve the ‘climate problem’? The only difference is where the money comes from - either through robbery or voluntarily; the technologies remain the same, don’t they?

When people are free to invest their money where they see the most potential, those technologies will tend to flourish. If the money is ‘invested’ according to poltical ideas, decisions made by ‘committee’, there is less of a chance of those technologies being the ‘right’ ones. The committee, you see, is using other people’s money and doesn’t have the same incentive to be right that investors in a free market have.

Unfortunately believers like you have a religious adherence to the ideal that markets are a solution to everything. I don’t think Adam Smith would have wanted his ideas to have been treated as holy writ. I don’t know about you personally, Ron, but this religion has cost the United States a lot in terms of overall economic competitiveness particularly in the area of infrastructure.