(10-26-2019, 06:55 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(10-26-2019, 06:19 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: Blaming "the oil industry" is a lie. The oil industry has donated far more money to Climastrology labs than they have to scientist who disagree with the alarmism. It's sort of hard to make the case for Climate Realism when over 99% of the funding goes to the alarmist side.

No one would benefit more from CO2 turning out to be harmless than oil companies.
Yet according to you, they could be funding 'climate realists' dedicated to proving that hypothesis, but they choose instead to give '99% of the funding' to the other side?
Why would that be?
Two possible explanations:
1) you're just wrong about who funds what
2) the evidence just isn't there for what you call 'climate realism' no matter how hard we look for it.

---

(10-26-2019, 06:32 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:
RICH people move to avoid taxes.
Poor people are stuck paying the taxes, since they can't afford the electric cars.

A carbon tax is very regressive. Poor people pay a lot higher percentage of their income on gasoline and electricity.

And before you claim that the idea is to send everyone a check, that never actually happens.

The end consumer isn't the only one to look at.
if there is stability around this policy, industry will also work to change what they offer. Electric cars and solar panels will benefit from greater economies of scale and be more accessible.
Of course the checks would go out. the EITC checks go out reliably every year...