Video Climate change is a money-grabbing hoax, and the Deputy Sec of Energy proves it.

Bongo Lewi said:
So... the effect of humans on the environment is a bunch of made up nonsense? Right.
Click to expand...
Ah.... another straw man argument.

I'm speaking SPECIFICALLY of the ability of human activity to change the CLIMATE.

Again... the ENERGY involved in planetary climate is of such magnitude that human activity is a proverbial drop in the ocean. First Law of Thermodynamics.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Name them.
Click to expand...
LOL! Let's start with this:

1746360792129.png
 
From Grok (which continues to impress me):

Types of Climate-Related Taxes
  1. Carbon Taxes:
    • Definition: A tax levied on the carbon content of fossil fuels or greenhouse gas emissions, typically per ton of CO2 or CO2 equivalent (CO2e).
    • Purpose: Discourages emissions by increasing the cost of burning fossil fuels, indirectly reducing the climate warming that fuels intense hurricanes.
    • Examples:
      • Canada: British Columbia’s carbon tax (2008–2025) reached $80/ton by 2024, covering fuels like gasoline and natural gas. It was repealed in 2025, but the federal carbon pricing system ($65/ton in 2023, rising to $170/ton by 2030) applies nationwide, with revenues returned as rebates to households.


      • Sweden: Since 1991, a tax of $127/ton reduced emissions by 25% while the economy grew 75%.

      • Singapore: Introduced in 2019, rose to S$25/ton in 2024, targeting S$50–80 by 2030, covering 70% of emissions.
      • South Africa: Implemented in 2019, around $8/ton, with plans to increase.
      • Global Scope: As of 2023, 37 countries and 23% of global emissions are covered by carbon taxes or emissions trading systems, though most prices ($2/ton global average) are below the $75/ton needed for a 2°C warming target.
    • Impact: A $40/ton tax adds ~36 cents/gallon to gasoline or 2 cents/kWh to electricity, reducing emissions by making cleaner alternatives more competitive.
  2. Windfall Profits Taxes:
    • Definition: Taxes on excessive profits of fossil fuel companies, often linked to high energy prices, to fund climate initiatives or consumer relief.
    • Purpose: Penalizes high emitters and redistributes revenue to offset energy costs or invest in renewables, addressing the social cost of emissions that drive climate events.
    • Examples:
      • United Kingdom: A 2022 windfall tax on oil and gas companies raised ~$80 billion, targeting profits from high energy prices post-Ukraine invasion.

      • United States: Proposed by Democrats in 2023 to tax oil and gas profits (e.g., ExxonMobil’s $130 billion in 2022), but blocked by Republican-controlled Congress.
    • Relevance: Funds from such taxes could support adaptation to climate-driven storms, which release energy far exceeding nuclear bombs.
  3. Climate Damages Tax (Proposed):
    • Definition: A fossil fuel extraction charge per ton of coal, oil, or gas, proposed to fund climate loss and damage.
    • Purpose: Makes fossil fuel companies pay for damages from emissions, such as hurricane impacts, and supports a just transition to renewables.
    • Example: The Heinrich Böll Foundation’s 2024 proposal suggests taxing extraction to fund the Loss and Damage Fund (established at COP27) and national climate action, raising billions from high-profit fossil fuel states.

    • Status: Not yet implemented but gaining traction in global discussions, especially for vulnerable nations facing climate impacts.
  4. Sector-Specific Levies:
    • Aviation and Shipping: Proposed global taxes to address emissions from high-emitting sectors. France supports a maritime levy, and the EU’s Frans Timmermans suggested taxes on aviation and shipping at COP27 to raise climate finance.


    • Purpose: Reduces emissions from transport, which contribute to global warming, and funds adaptation for climate impacts like intensified storms.
    • Example: The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) now includes aviation and shipping, effectively pricing emissions, with plans to expand.
  5. Other Environmental Taxes:
    • Plastic Taxes: Address emissions from plastic production (derived from oil). The UK’s plastic bag charge (2015) reduced demand significantly by 2016.

    • Fuel Taxes: Indirect carbon pricing through gasoline or diesel taxes, e.g., California’s proposed 3% gas sales tax for transit and climate projects.

    • Climate Change Levy (UK): A downstream tax on businesses for electricity, gas, or fuel use, encouraging efficiency.

    • Agricultural Emissions Tax: Denmark’s 2025 tax of ~$75/cow for methane emissions, the world’s first carbon tax on agriculture.
Regional and Global Context
  • United States:
    • No federal carbon tax, but 14 states (e.g., California, Washington) use carbon pricing, covering 30% of the population. California’s cap-and-trade program taxes emissions above permits.


    • The Inflation Reduction Act (2022) includes $200 billion in tax credits for clean energy but lacks direct emission penalties.

    • 2025 is pivotal due to the expiration of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions, opening debates on climate tax reforms, including a potential carbon fee with partial repeal of clean energy subsidies.
  • European Union:
    • The EU ETS covers 40% of emissions, complemented by national carbon taxes (e.g., Sweden, Finland). The Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) taxes high-carbon imports to prevent leakage.
  • Developing Countries:
    • Carbon taxes are adopted for revenue and Paris Agreement commitments, e.g., Colombia and Chile. The UN’s 2021 Handbook on Carbon Taxation guides design.
  • Global Proposals:
    • A UN Tax Convention (2024–2027) aims for global tax rules, including taxing polluters to fund climate action.

    • The IMF suggests a carbon price floor ($75/ton by 2030) to meet Paris goals, with equitable pricing for developing nations.

Challenges and Criticisms
  • Regressivity: Carbon taxes can hit low-income households harder, as they spend more of their income on energy. Rebates or dividends (e.g., Canada’s model) mitigate this.

  • Carbon Leakage: Industries may relocate to untaxed regions, countered by border adjustments like the EU’s CBAM.

  • Political Resistance: Public opposition to higher energy costs led to repeals (e.g., Australia 2014, British Columbia 2025). In Canada, posts on X reflect frustration with carbon taxes on heating and farming.


  • Revenue Use: Debates over whether to fund climate action, cut taxes, or provide rebates affect public support.
 
Last edited:
In 2023, global carbon pricing revenues, primarily from carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETS), reached a record $104 billion, according to the World Bank’s “State and Trends of Carbon Pricing 2024” report. This figure includes revenues from 75 carbon pricing instruments worldwide, with over half used to fund climate and nature-related programs. Carbon taxes alone generated approximately $30 billion in 2022, with France ($8.4 billion) and Canada ($5.7 billion) leading, per Statista and World Bank data. Comprehensive 2024 data is incomplete, but revenues likely grew due to new mechanisms and rising tax rates, such as Canada’s increase to $59/ton.


Where EXACTLY is this money going????
 
Racer88 said:
LOL! Let's start with this:

View attachment 31679
Click to expand...
Tell me how this affects you personally and where you think the carbon tax money is going.

So you seem to be suggesting that spewing gasses and chemicals into the air should not be regulated in any way.

It used to be that way. It's why they called Pittsburgh Smoke City. The smoke in the city was so dense it looked like fog.

So this is ok... we dont need no stinking regulations? Enjoy the lung cancer.

Screenshot 2025-05-04 at 8.20.29 AM.png
 
Bongo Lewi said:
Tell me how this affects you personally and where you think the carbon tax money is going.

So you seem to be suggesting that spewing gasses and chemicals into the air should not be regulated in any way.

It used to be that way. It's why they called Pittsburgh Smoke City. The smoke in the city was so dense it looked like fog.

So this is ok... we dont need no stinking regulations? Enjoy the lung cancer.

View attachment 31706
Click to expand...
Moving the goal posts, eh?

You said there were no taxes. There are. LOTS. Consumers end up paying in the end, eh?

And no... again with Straw Man arguments. I have not suggested no regulations on pollution. We're not just pretty good here in the USA, we're among the best. India, China, Russia, Indonesia on the other hand.... not so much.

I am speaking SPECIFICALLY about so-called "climate change" being anthropogenic. You keep changing the subject aka Red Herrings. Also engaging in Straw Man and Moving the Goalpost. A study in Logical Fallacies. :) And with that.... I'm out.
 
Seems like a lot of proposals in there but few actual laws in the US. I dont care what the UK or EU taxes their citizens.

There are no federal carbon taxes or similar environmental taxes in the USA. Only at the state level. Florida is not one of them. So it costs you nothing. Zero.

How the few states who collect carbon taxes spend it (or are supposed to):

Public works... funding for mass transit.
Rebates to consumers for energy-efficient upgrades like heat pumps, solar, emery efficient appliances
Toxic waste/pollution abatement
Flood control projects

Those states are all blue BTW. Taxes are one of the reasons I dont live in any of those states.
 
Last edited:
This wasn't just smoke in Pittsburg. Or Gary. Or Bethlehem. It's CO2 - millions of tons of it. No effect or downside? Based on what science? It's not a red herring or moving the goalpost. That's a bullshit argument. Emissions are emissions. All emissions affect the environment. If it didnt, pouring used motor oil on the ground would be OK, right? After all, that's where it came from! I'm recycling!

Screenshot 2025-05-04 at 8.52.56 AM.png


If you regulate emissions... all emissions... it makes a difference. It already has. Burning anything has an effect. Unfortunately, no alternative to petroleum has been found. Throwing your hands in the air and saying fuck it, let's do nothing? Good plan. If you are an idiot.

Going back to your hotel in Beijing or Shenzhen, you have to wash the funk off your face from the air pollution. Black grit. So if the Chinese do'nt give a shit, why should we? Jesus. I cant believe any rational person thinks that makes sense.
 
climate change legislation/taxation = citizen control (mic drop) :cool:

I DO believe many steps over the past half century have done a lot to clean the air and water in this country such as cleaner coal/smoke stack scrubbers (acid rain) and vehicle emission controls (smog). A bonus with vehicle emission controls is improved economy.
 
Bobster said:
I DO believe many steps over the past half century have done a lot to clean the air and water in this country such as cleaner coal/smoke stack scrubbers (acid rain) and vehicle emission controls (smog). A bonus with vehicle emission controls is improved economy.
Click to expand...
Today the fuel efficiency/mileage is better with fuel injection and computer control of the engine parameters.

But compare m.p.g. between say a 1965 Impala with a 283, and its counterpart from the mid 80's with a 305 with carb, and without an OD trans, and at best they were the same. If the 1965 had a manual trans, the m.p.g. would be better. And the 283 would have more power.
 
no4mk1t said:
If the 1965 had a manual trans, the m.p.g. would be better. And the 283 would have more power.
Click to expand...
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. ;) In 1965, they were measuring hp with accessories disconnected, often optimized with tuning and exhaust headers. "Modern" tests are done with everything connected using the "stock tune".

I had a number of 60s Chevys and one of the first mods I'd do is slap an HEI distributor in there.
Electronic ignition and fuel injection allowed for increased hp and torque. Fuel not being burned efficiently is fuel not being used for power.

Like those numbnuts that tear off the factory mufflers on a Harley and put on straight pipes. :rolleyes: Those are great if you're at the dragstrip doing 1/4mi runs at a time but they suck on the street when 95% of the riding is part throttle. A little back-pressure is a good thing because it keeps the fuel in the cylinder longer allowing more complete combustion.

And don't get me started on "pop" tunes! :mad:
 
The globe climate changes cyclically. The Global Warning theme these pukes promulgate is bullshit. Nothing but a means of Elitist subjugation, taxation, and control of the 'peons' like you and i.

That being said, I'm all for responsible stewardship...from refuse to pesticides. The honeybee's existence is crucial to pollination. Period. My wife and I are huge proponents of honeybees. She wanting to get into being a beekeeper, to help build back the population.
 
Bobster said:
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. ;) In 1965, they were measuring hp with accessories disconnected, often optimized with tuning and exhaust headers. "Modern" tests are done with everything connected using the "stock tune".

I had a number of 60s Chevys and one of the first mods I'd do is slap an HEI distributor in there.
Electronic ignition and fuel injection allowed for increased hp and torque. Fuel not being burned efficiently is fuel not being used for power.

Like those numbnuts that tear off the factory mufflers on a Harley and put on straight pipes. :rolleyes: Those are great if you're at the dragstrip doing 1/4mi runs at a time but they suck on the street when 95% of the riding is part throttle. A little back-pressure is a good thing because it keeps the fuel in the cylinder longer allowing more complete combustion.

And don't get me started on "pop" tunes! :mad:
Click to expand...
So what I'm seeing is the 1965 283 2bbl. had a gross h.p. rating of 195. The 1984 Caprice with a 305 4bbl. had a net h.p. rating of 170.
If we use the net h.p. method for both, they come out to about the same h.p. with the 283 at 165. Being the 283 only had a water pump, an alternator, and a P/S pump, someone with more knowledge will have to say if that would equal 30 h.p. worth of parasitic drag.

Now if we even the playing field and equip both engines with the same HEI ignition, and the same Quadrajet carb, and the same radial tires, I think the 283 will come out ahead in power and mileage, not being encumbered with a smog pump, catalytic converter, and EGR.

Thoughts?
 
Every thing we do affects everything. Including CO2. In spite of the fact that bad, power hungry elites are using this science to assert control over the world population - which they are - doesn't mean it's all a big lie. Just because spokesmorons like Al Gore constantly mislead the public doesnt mean none of it is true. The lie that is closest to the truth has igreat influence. They know this.

We need to measure the effects of all the oil and coal we are burning. Is our most common fuel consumption warming the Earth? Maybe. Maybe not. Exxon scientists forty years ago said it could affect the climate. They just forgot to tell anyone for forty years. Like cigarettes. Or asbestos... the wonder material that is indestructible and doesn't burn.

Getting industry to quit poisoning us is a relatively new thing. This is one area where government and regulation, which uses tax dollars, has a purpose. I visited the superfund site Love Canal when I was a young engineer working on a project in Buffalo. Anybody want to guess how many people died of various cancers? Also miscarriages, birth defects, chronic lung disease. Hundreds of people. Including school children.

Belching shit into the air and water, burying chemicals or dumping them secretly. Big corporations have no soul and dont give a shit if they kill half the population. And yes... Millions of tons of CO2 in the air every day friom human activity is in no way positive. Maybe it is not as dangerous as the fear mongers say. But it is certainly not a positive thing. It's ridiculous to suggest something on that scale has no effect.

You hear a lot of vitriol about Big Pharma. For good reason. Big Everything needs to be regulated. Society needs chemical companies, power generation, steel, petroleum. Liberal nitwits think we can just flip a switch and stop these polluting industries. But liberal hating conservatives who defend these companies are just as misguided. It takes a century to change industries that took a century to build.

Not keeping industry in check with strict regulation is slow motion suicide for people that breathe, eat food, and drink water. Taxing the shit out of companies for the damage they do to the environment is the only way to make them change. Because all they understand is money and profits. By design. Do they pass that cost to consumers? You bet. Consider what it's worth to you to make sure Big Everything doesn't fuck up the planet when we have nowhere else to go.
 
Last edited:
Bobster said:
Speaking of Volcanoes... :eek:

View attachment 31733
Click to expand...
That could be a bad thing. Like the caldera in Yellowstone is relatively dormant. It will erupt someday. That would be a very bad thing when all the ash moves eastward, kills all the crops and fucks up the soil from the plains to the Atlantic Ocean. Poisons the Great Lakes along the way. Nothing we can do about it either.

All you can say is... What, me worry? :)

Screenshot 2025-05-04 at 6.30.54 PM.png
 
One Ping Only said:
View attachment 30692
Click to expand...
The question is why:

1960s- the instruments and computers used for geologic explorations used today didnt exist. They had to make educated guesses on where oil deposits were. And do expensive drilling to find out of they were wrong. More oil (and gas) was discovered in the 90s to present times than in the previous 100 years. Specifically, discovery of vast oil deposits and its industrial value in the late 19th century.

1970s- Most peer-reviewed climate science papers published from 1965-1979 predicted global warming, not cooling. While many popular media outlets claimed the approach of an ice age, a 2008 review of 1960s-70s climate science papers found that research stated otherwise. 62% predicted warming, 10% predicted cooling, and 28% did not take a stance. Blame the media and stupid people for this one.

1980s- Acid rain was real. It affected crops and also was slowly dissolving stone and concrete structures - most famously the ruins in Greece and Rome. It was caused by acidic particulates in flyash from burning coal and the exhausts of vehicles. Pollution control for industry and catalytic converters on vehicles made a huge difference. All coal burning powerplants and other industrial facilities in the US were equipped with electrostatic precipitators or bag houses - sometimes both - in the 80s. Also restricting high sulphur coal. Problem solved thru regulation.

1990s-The ozone being damaged was real. This went back to the 70's. Chlorinated solvents and related gasses like Freon go up when released. And by design they don't break down. This causing a 'hole' where the gasses collect in the so-called ozone layer. That hole prevents the ozone from blocking some of the ultraviolet radiation from the sun. Causing higher temperatures. Chlorinated solvents and gases were strictly regulated starting in the late 70's and by the 2000's the hole in the ozone had all but disappeared. Regulation wins one for humanity - again.

2000s- The ice is melting. Especially in the arctic. Why? That's a subject of debate. But it's melting. It may be influenced by human behavior. At least in part. Or it could simply be a natural cycle. Probably both. This kind of change isn't linear. And it occurs over a long period of time. Humans are sheep and think their own lifetime is an eternity and what they experience in that blink of an eye is how it will always be and how it has always been. Social media "climatologists" that have no scientific training find a study someplace that says Antarctica became colder for the first time in 30 years and ice is reforming, they often conveniently exclude that the rate of ice melting in the arctic far exceeds how much ice formed in Antarctica in the past year. Because it doesnt fit their narrative that nothing is changing. It's hard for those who have their head up their ass to imagine what the future looks like. Or at least make a reasoned judgement. Science isn't about being always right. Quite the opposite. It's about postulating on what could be happening and making fact-based decisions on what to do about it. If it proves necessary.
 
Last edited:
no4mk1t said:
Now if we even the playing field and equip both engines with the same HEI ignition, and the same Quadrajet carb, and the same radial tires, I think the 283 will come out ahead in power and mileage, not being encumbered with a smog pump, catalytic converter, and EGR.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
The late 70s and 80s were bad times for most automakers regarding power output. As mentioned, the smog stuff really cut numbers as did low-compression engines and poorly-formulated unleaded gas.
So if you want to compare SBC, perhaps the 283 might be "better" than the 305 but there is no substitute for cubic inches so why not get a 350 or 400? ;) Or the Z/28 302? I believe that was a 327 with a 283 crank. :unsure:
 

Share this page

Back
Top