really need to do proper third party accounting on the carbon emissions of imported electricity
A carbon tax with 100 percent dividend, levied at the point of entry of first point of sale would address imported carbon and allow the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions. It would also allow a reduction in sales and income taxes - two things we ought to be encouraging rather than taxing.
#RacistFlagsMustGo(except for Black Power flags)
For the record, there actually was never a civil war where one side fought for the right to own white people under the banner of a "black power" flag. Also, there is not to this day (nor was there ever) a state that still flies that flag of white oppression.
The technology enables us to lie more effectively. We can find whatever truth we desire:
"The anti-vaccine agitators can always find a renegade researcher or random “study” to back them up. This is erudition in the age of cyberspace: You surf until you reach the conclusion you’re after. You click your way to validation, confusing the presence of a website with the plausibility of an argument.
Although the Internet could be making all of us smarter, it makes many of us stupider, because it’s not just a magnet for the curious. It’s a sinkhole for the gullible. - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...
Preston Manning, the father of the modern Canadian conservative party, is pushing for a fee and dividend approach: http://www.vancouversun.com/te... . The current conservative Prime Minister has also mused about the possibility of Canada joining a continent-wide carbon-pricing system along the lines of what Alberta does now.
Republican Congressman Bob Inglis and the following republican economic advisers are also in support: George Shultz, President Reagan's Secretary of the Treasury, Greg Mankiw, Romney's Economics Advisor, Art Laffer, a member of President Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board
The great thing about fee and dividend is that it allows you to reduce tax on things that you ought to be encouraging such as income and spending. If the fee is successful then the revenue from the fee will shrink over time. It also allows the market to determine which alternatives are adopted. There is a lot to like about this approach.
Many republicans would like to have a seat at the policy table. They would bring a market-friendly approach that doesn’t dictate which technologies win or how we should conduct our lives. Reynolds suggests that a Carbon Fee and Dividend is one such solution. "By returning all revenue from the carbon fee to households, we accomplish two things: Keep the federal government from getting bigger and add jobs by putting money into the pockets of people who will spend it."
Link to Original Source
1) Yeah. that's what I said. €1 billion/year just on adaptation.
2) Scientists expect somewhere between 2-6 feet of sea level rise by 2100. Models show something closer to the low end (see Pfeffer et al. 2008; Horton et al. (2008)), but they assume no changes in ice sheet dynamics, which is known to be an iffy assumption (Overpeck et al., 2006). Empirical techniques show something closer to the high end (see Grinsted et al., 2009; Rahmstorf, 2007; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009). Planning for 4.5 is not really all that cautious.
See level has been rising for 100's of years.
for hundreds of years prior to 1800 sea level was falling. Now it is going up quite fast and accelerating: 20th-Century sea-level rise on the U.S. Atlantic coast is faster than at any time in the past two millennia."
If anyone on earth doesn't give a damn what sea levels are, and can engineer to work around them - it is the Dutch.
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it will not be costly. Sea level rise is expected to cost the Dutch more than €100 billion (US$144 bn), through the year 2100 just to take adaptive measures, such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes.
a lefty court might think
The court didn't specify a policy or a remedy, so it is hard to see how you would consider this a 'lefty' judiciary. You can't assume that just because the court accepts the science that they are 'lefty'. It is not universal that conservatives reject science or that those on the left accept it.