Want A Politically Viable Gas Tax? Make It Voluntary - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

I am not very confident that this would work because of some logistical issues (see the comments below the story) but it is a very interesting idea that possibly could be implemented in some type of hybrid form.

The idea in a nutshell?…

The government would offer a $500 advance tax rebate each year for every car you choose to sign up for the tax. In return, you would commit to pay an extra $1 for each gallon of gas you buy. The actual tax paid would be based on miles driven and fuel economy. Thus a Chevy Impala rated at 19 m.p.g. would be charged $5.26 each 100 miles, while a Prius rated at 46 m.p.g. would be charged $2.17 per 100 miles.

For cars with average fuel efficiency (22.4 m.p.g.), you’d break even if you drove 11,200 miles a year. People who already drive their cars less or who drive fuel-efficient cars would be particularly likely to opt for the independence bonds. But even these folks would have a strong economic incentive to reduce their driving.

Want A Politically Viable Gas Tax? Make It Voluntary - Freakonomics Blog - NYTimes.com

Global Warming: On Hold?: Discovery News

I am not sure what to make of this.  I am a data wonk, and the data says that overall, warming has flat-lined on Earth since 2001.  The science behind global warming is very good, as far as I have been able to tell, and the scientist of record here is warning that this is only a hiccup.  Unfortunately, “hiccup” is all some people will have to hear to discredit human involvement.  Or at the very least, reports like this will provide a firmer platform for critics of human induced global warming to stand on.

Perhaps the best way to approach this, if the data stands up under scrutiny, is to capitalize on this window of opportunity and treat the rapid warming period as a wakeup call that is in a nine-minute snooze period.

March 2, 2009 — For those who have endured this winter’s frigid temperatures and today’s record snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful.

But climate is known to be variable — a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn’t mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.

Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.

Global Warming: On Hold?: Discovery News

Does the human race have a 50/50 chance of surviving the 21st century?

I have added a new book to my “hope to read soon” list.  It is titled, “Our Final Century,” by Martin Reese.  (Actually, I will probably read Our Final Hour, also by Martin Reese, instead.)  According to Amazon.com, “Sir Martin Rees FRS is the most eminent cosmologist in Britain, the Astronomer Royal and Professor at Cambridge. He lives in Cambridge.”

What he says in the book is quite distrubing.  Essentially, he puts the human race’s chances of surviving the 21st century at 50/50.

And I have to say, 208 pages in to Thomas Friedman’s ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded,’ a 50% chance of human self-destruction in the 21st century is not implausible.

Here is the Amazon.com editorial review:

“‘It matters that one should understand the provenance of this important and disturbing book. It is not another futurological diatribe saying that the end is nigh, but a lucid, calm, profoundly well-informed work by a distinguished scientist, whose humanity - evidenced by a serious ethical commitment and a quiet sense of humour- balances the dispassionate logic with which he surveys his subject: the multitude of threats facing humanity in the twenty-first century from error and terror in the nuclear, biological and environmental spheres.’ Literary Review”

James Lovelock says the human race’s only hope is to adapt - fixing global warming will just make it worse

I have always felt that James Lovelock was on to something with his Gaia theory of Earth, which as The Daily Galaxy states, “the Earth is essentially a complex interacting system that can be thought of as a single organism.

But, in this case, I hope that he is wrong.  According to his latest thoughts on global warming, it is really too late to do anything about it, and the “affluenza” that Thomas Friedman emphasizes in his book, ‘Hot, Flat, and Crowded‘ has taken over the developing world is starting to affect the planet.

Here is the kicker, not only is it too late to do anything about it, according to Lovelock, doing too much to fix it might actually make it worse.  Essentially, he says we should be more responsible for the sake of it and just learn how to adapt to what is about to happen to us as a race of people.

It also brings to mind a comedy sketch I saw by George Carlin when he said something like:

“The planet has been through a lot worse than us.
Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through
earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar
flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the
poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and
asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires,
erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic
bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The
planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!” Here is the whole thing, but in typical Carlin fashion, it includes a lot of profanity.

The Status of “Spaceship Earth”

It’s a horrible catch 22 situation that leaves only a very small gap for any joy at all. If we continue to do nothing (note the use of the word continue), then we will doom ourselves. If we do do something, like a massive cut back in the emission of carbon in to our atmosphere, Lovelock believes that we would further damage Earth.

“Any economic downturn or planned cutback in fossil fuel use, which lessened aerosol density, would intensify the heating,” Lovelock will say, in a lecture to the Royal Society today. “If there were a 100 per cent cut in fossil fuel combustion it might get hotter not cooler. We live in a fool’s climate. We are damned if we continue to burn fuel and damned if we stop too suddenly.”

Should life end in 100 years or 500 million years? - You pick.

Some scientists say that if we let nature take it’s course, all life on Earth will cease to exist in 500 million years, which is roughly 7.5 billion years before the Sun eats the Earth.  However, being the self-destructive, scarcity-based people that we are, we also could cause most life on Earth to vanish over the next century.  What A.C. Grayling proposes in this issue of New Scientist magazine is to not treat the “zero-based” scenerios below as simply unlikely, but to make a repository of “what-if” solutions, or ideas, and be as prepared as possible with how to deal with them as they are happening.  (And hopefully to prevent them.)

Commentary: Ideas that could save humanity - science-in-society - 17 December 2008 - New Scientist

Rees itemises, in sober terms, the risks that humankind and the planet we inhabit now face from “error and terror” and natural disaster. The latter category encompasses collisions with asteroids and catastrophic earthquakes. The former includes devastating human-made viruses and other genetically modified organisms, super-intelligent computers, self-replicating nanotechnologies, nuclear war, climate change and more.

Both types of event are sometimes called “zero-infinity” scenarios: the chance they will happen is tiny; but if they do the scale of the disaster will be immense. The “zero” part of the equation might make them seem discountable, were it not for the fact that there is a new risk in the mix: a few screwball individuals, or even just one, can make the zero inflate to infinity by, say, creating and releasing a virus against which human life is powerless.

That chilling possibility is one worth remembering. I suggest building a Repository of Good Insights which should be brought out and aired at regular intervals, lest we forget. If any of them should be needed, whether for speculative or for practical reasons, it would save time not to have to reinvent them - and in the latter kind of case it might save our skins, too.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Last decade is the warmest on record scientists say

Bloggers needed for DaddyHogwash.com

I am looking for some bloggers interested in contributing to Daddy Hogwash.  I am specifically looking for some combination of the following:

A politically conservative blogger - not Rush Limbaugh conservative, but George Will conservative

An environmental/biology/science blogger

A creative writer - short story/poetry

A comedy writer

A religious/culture writer

A sports writer

This is a startup opportunity, and if you are not serious, don’t inquire.  You will be writing for free in the beginning, but hopefully not forever.

If you are interested, email me at karlfrankjr@gmail.com