San Diego Housing Bubble News and Analysis

Or perhaps more taxes passed on to the American household:

From the Washington Post:

The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that the resulting increases in consumer prices needed to achieve a 15 percent CO2 reduction -- slightly less than the Waxman-Markey target -- would raise the cost of living of a typical household by $1,600 a year. Some expert studies estimate that the cost to households could be substantially higher. The future cost to the typical household would rise significantly as the government reduces the total allowable amount of CO2.

Americans should ask themselves whether this annual tax of $1,600-plus per family is justified by the very small resulting decline in global CO2. Since the U.S. share of global CO2 production is now less than 25 percent (and is projected to decline as China and other developing nations grow), a 15 percent fall in U.S. CO2 output would lower global CO2 output by less than 4 percent. Its impact on global warming would be virtually unnoticeable. The U.S. should wait until there is a global agreement on CO2 that includes China and India before committing to costly reductions in the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Luchabee: You're failing to harness that "Can Do!"
American entrepreneurial spirit and turn this into the opportunity to start your own business.

Follow the Al Gore model: Buy a massive 20,000sf mansion and create a huge carbon footprint powering it and air conditioning it. Then, start your own carbon credits company and buy carbon credits from yourself. Use those same carbon credits to not only spin the notion that you're carbon neutral, but gain even more business by selling that idea to other smug, ego centric, self righteous know nothings!

C'mon, man, you gotta think outside the box! It's the NEW, New Economy, stupid! Harebrained schemes, confiscatory taxes and printing money till we're pushing wheelbarrows filled with the stuff to go buy bread (little nod to the Weimar Republic there).

Something has to give. The insanity is unsustainable. Allan, where would you live if you did not live in Fallbrook?

Al Gore is just the spokesperson for the carbon tax. If he didn't peddle it they would easily find someone else. The source of this particularly evil idea is much higher up. It is quite literally a "tax on breathing" and the people George Carlin famously referred to as "the owners" have been itching to get it implemented for some time now.

Whether or not global warming is happening or is caused by humans burning too many fossil fuels, a tax on CO2 emissions isn't going to do a damn thing to stop it. The price of gas is mostly taxes and we burn more of the stuff than ever. Cigarette smoking is down not because of the incredibly high cigarette taxes, but because people don't feel like giving themselves cancer as much as they used to. Taxes don't do a lot to reduce consumption -- and with this one there's not much to reduce.

Get ready, it's coming. You can always stop breathing if you don't want to pay it! I'm starting to suspect that's what "the owners" really want anyway...

To put it differently, overall net costs would average 0.2 percent of households’ after-tax income, or 15 cents per person per day.

I heard that somewhere. Oh wait. I heard that from Bush Jr. It didn't work then and it won't work now. We won't be able to pressure China and India unless we lead by example. And it does not cost us $1600/household to do that. It only costs 15 cents per person per day.

Isn't it a bit of a stretch to call this a "tax on breathing"? A ten mile trip in an average car creates as much CO2 as an adult person in a whole week.

Actually, based on additional estimates I have seen, albeit from conservative/libertarian groups like Heritage, it may lead to the loss of over 1,000,000 jobs in the US.

Moreover, actual net costs for households may be as high as $1,600 based on the Washington Post article.

I'm sure the estimates from proponents, however, are right on target. The government never underestimates the costs of any program, right?

Besides what is $175 to a working class family in CA who is fighting foreclosure and a possible job loss? So does the left ever think this stuff adds up? Loss of a state child exemption here, $175 there, a car tax, there, maybe a national value added tax, too. After a while, we are talking about real money and then, suddenly, every state turns into California.

Come on guys!!! We need to reduce global warming. After all it's based on sound research that looks at all angles...

...instead of just creating mass hysteria so as to create a whole new industry that all these scientist's turned "Green Consultants" can now reap huge profits off the general public....

oh wait.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A COMPLETE SHAM. Until both sides are given equal voice to their thoeries and hypothesis I refuse to just completely buy in to it.

Couldn't say it better myself:

http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2009/jun/25/b...

Let's call cap and trade what it really is, a massive energy tax on every U.S. citizen.

Congress is considering legislation that has the potential to raise your energy bills significantly, along with the price of just about everything you buy.

Estimates on how much the 900-page Waxman-Markey Cap and Trade National Energy Tax legislation could cost vary, but estimates range between $750 and $3,100 per family per year. Washington typically low balls the cost of things, thinking they can get them into law before Americans know the true cost. This bill includes budget gimmicks hiding the full cost.

The plan is for the federal government to limit carbon emissions. The government will auction carbon emission permits to energy producers, refineries and factories (usually through speculators) so they can emit more carbon. Many credits are also given away to special-interest groups. The cost will then be passed onto consumers. The president’s budget included $646 billion in “cap and trade” revenue.

The idea is to purposely increase the cost of energy from fossil fuels like natural gas, coal or petroleum, about 85 percent of electricity produced. The price of everything you buy will go up, even food, because there will be a hidden national energy tax built into the price of everything.

One leading Democrat senator told the Washington Post: “This is the greatest revenue generating (tax) proposal of our time.” In other words, it’s all about taking more money away from everyday Americans so politicians can spend your money on politician’s favorite programs . . .

So, based on this article, that means there would be a tax on the American consumers equivalent to TARP that would repeat every year and likely increase.

Probably the most cynical bill since the Alien and Sedition Acts. It is unreal that Congress may pass this . . . I guess not a lot of people care. By the way, did you hear that Perez Hilton got in another fight and some politicians had affairs? Now that's news.

I am very sorry Eugene but I don't by into this lead by example. China and India are actually classified as "developing countries" and take full advantage of that status. China completes a coal fired power plant once a week.

Here is a link to the 10 most polluted cities on the planet. Tell me why isnt there a US city in there.

http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/a...

If you think this is about cleaning up the world then you my friend are sadly mistaken. If we want to clean the world then the majority of the damn world needs to play by the SAME rules. This is about expanding government, expanding the tax revenue base, and redistribution. Sure it will help some but in the long run, as long as nobody else has to do it, the only thing that will be accomplished is a larger tax burden on the US population and an unfair advantage to pretty much... every other country that will continue to pollute our planet.

If every other nation will do it, then okay I am in. Until then hiding behind some ambiguous status of developing nation is a crock.

It is interesting to witness the lack of support for this bill from the liberal piggingtons on this board. I guess they know it is that bad.

Today, the Wall Street Journal called this the largest tax increase in history that would impact everyone:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12458883...

But I don't understand, President Obama said only the wealthiest US citizens would pay additional taxes?

If people care to, you should call your congressmember. Also, you might want to contact these moderate Democrats who may vote for it unless there is enough public pressure. Here is a wiki page for the current moderate blue dog democrats:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Co...

Just go to their separate page and there is a link to their congressional website on the bottom, where you can call their office.

I want to know which parts about global warming you think are incorrect, or are not given enough discussion.

Is it:

-That burning fossil fuels releases CO2 into the atmosphere?

-That CO2 is a greenhouse gas which holds heat in the atmosphere?

-That Global levels of CO2 are increasing?

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

-That increasing global temperatures are changing regional weather?

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

Please dont just spout off about how Obama and the liberals suck and just wanna raise taxes. That is the question here. The above questions address pretty much each point of global warming, and I really would like to know where the big lies are coming in.

The merits of man-made global warming are really irrelevant to the discussion, as even some significant proponents of this bill have stipulated that it will not impact aggregate CO2 levels, given that other nations will be tremendously increasing their impact now and in the future. Further, even if it was relevant, do the potential "benefits" outweigh the extreme poverty this bill will create and a loss of over a million jobs?

Get ready for more payroll taxes.

in case you missed it, there are proposals to start taxing you on health care premiums that companies currently pay on your behalf over a certain limits as part of an employee "benefit"...

Hell, why doesn't obama/dem just start taxing fat people more? They consume more, have a higher risk of health problems moving forward, consume more oxygen per second and exhume more CO2 per second.... (sarcasm).

I believe that GW is real, but from what I gather from the deniers is that they have a few problems with it:

- While global warming may be happening, it's not human caused and is part of natural earth cycles.

- Even if it does exist and is caused by humans, it's too expensive/not worth it to try and fix.

The first point can (and has) been answered and debunked by science. The second point? I think that's the true position of the deniers. It's a reasonable position, I just wish they would come out and say it rather than claim some global conspiracy spearheaded by megalomaniac Al Gore as the basis for their opposition to climate change reform.

CO2, plants need it to breath. It's part of the mirical of photosynthesis. I pity the fool taught by a union-thug educrat.

tax policy affects behaviors. To argue otherwise kind of ignores reality. If they put a 10 dollar tax on gasoline per gallon, people would drive less. period.

"jobs lost" is not a compelling argument. If cigarettes were criminalized, there'd be lots of "jobs lost". So what. Mere job loss is not what's at issue. It's the social benefit of the activity and whetehr it should be encouraged or discouraged. I have no particular opinion on cigarettes. i've recently had a strong urge to Start Smoking but am waiting for mroe research.

As to cars, emissions, C)2, industry...it's open to debate, but it's not some crazy wacko idea that GW is occuring, that we could be screed, and while it might be expensive to do soemthing about it, we should. I'm not saying we should, just that it's not a wacko idea. Now, smoking giving you cancer, THAT'S a wacko theory that's never really been proven...

I guess what I wonder about is this:

CO2 is needed to sustain life on the planet as it is what green plants take in to produce the oxygen we need to breath

There was much more CO2 in the atmosphere during the ice age than there is now

Global levels of CO2 have increased yet the world temps have been actually declining the past decade

Not only have global temps declined over the past decade but we aren't even comparing apples to apples when looking at the alarmists data. Some temp recording stations in Siberia have been taken out of service due to cutbacks by the Russians

So what is it is global warming causing the warmer temps or the colder temps, the rainier weather or the dryer weather or is it just that the alarmists want to claim it is causing any weather event?

I suspect it is the later as the alarmist don't even call it global warming anymore but global climate change. Anyway no one has demonstrated they can even predict with certainty weather two weeks out needless to say predict global climate change when they completely dismiss the most likely scenario which is solar activity because solar activity can't be taxed.

Oh and as to the poor plight of humans if the temps did increase. Those claims are also bogus. Warming would actually net more of the northern hemisphere temperate and usable as farmland as much of it is now unusable in Siberia and Canada.
Also the Canadians recently did a study on the poster boys of global warming, the polar bears.
No only did they find that polar bear groups were increasing but that those in the warmer areas of their habitats were increasing at the highest rates.

So the big lies are that not only isn't the entire truth being told but research by very competent scientists is being chilled by the rush to judgment by the global warming crowd that doesn't want scrutiny of their theories. There are 100s if not thousands of climatologists and meteorologists that flatly disagree with not only the conclusions of the global warming cabal but their methodology.

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorn...

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Mon...

I would be all for a new "carbon tax" on fuel IF the money went into a fund that could only be used to build things like: electric railways, nuclear power plants, wind/solar energy plants, energy-efficient public transportation systems, etc...

However, that is not what's going to happen. They're going to take that $$$ and throw it in the general fund with your Social Security and Medicare money and spend it dropping bombs on third world people and bailing out their criminal buddies on Wall Street. Same as it ever was, same as it ever was.

If you think China and India aren't aware of the chaos -- both political and humanitarian -- that rising sea levels would have in their countries, you are kidding yourself. They have a lot more people living near sea level than we do.

I'm curious -- if a giant meteor was on a path to Earth and the governments of the world said they had to tax each family to develop and deploy a device to destroy the meteor and save the planet, how much would you and your family be willing to pay?

Yes, it is an extreme analogy, and no, I'm not comparing climate change to a meteor. I'm just trying to figure out what price we would put on saving the only place in the universe that we are able to exist.

You might want to peruse this:
http://www.grist.org/article/series/skep...

It's a rundown of dozens of skeptic claims, including many of your own (it's the sun, C02 higher in the past, natural cycles, and on and on) along with evidence to debunk each objection.

I agree with the point made above, that skeptics' main objection is the cost of preventing climate change vs the perceived benefits. That is a reasonable question and one worth debating. It's too bad that point gets overshadowed by global conspiracy theories.

Ash Housewares,

The big problem with the site you linked to, if you read the authors "rebuttals" (or at least the ones I looked at) they all basically say "the skeptics have cherry-picked the data to support their claims." Then he goes on to cherry-pick data to discredit the skeptics!

I guess to me it comes down to this:

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

2) Awareness of #1 is very high among the middle and upper classes (those with money). Many people feel guilty and fearful about it.

3) "Carbon credits" "Carbon taxes", "cap&trade", etc... are ways to capitalize on #2 and relieve people's fear and guilt while doing nothing about #1.

The "carbon tax" has the added bonus of appealing to lazy people that don't actually want to change their lifestyle. They will simply feel better about themselves (and their government) after paying their carbon taxes, knowing that someone is "doing something" about the problem. Meanwhile they'll keep zipping up and down the freeway 50 miles a day commuting from their suburban home to their job.

Meanwhile the money will be used for all of the usual things that governments do with money: graft, war, murder, etc...

And they'll be able to issue lots of great statistics, like "weather in the central US is 3% cooler this year! The carbon tax is doing its job!" No one will ever be able to prove one way or another whether anything is actually changing or not. It it gets cooler they'll claim victory, if it gets hotter they'll claim victory. Just like "global warming" has morphed into "global climate change."

afx I am not saying china and india are not aware of it, nor am I denying that global warming exists because it does.

If we want to implement a comprehensive GLOBAL policy then I am all for it. Saying that if the USA takes the lead then all will follow is not good enough for me. We have taken the lead in democracy and freedom of religion and certainly all have not followed, nor will they ever do that.

Human nature doesn't work that way.

I don't have a solution for global warming but I think the solution needs to be a global solution. Our president said he a global citizen right?

Why can't all countries implement the same plan?

Is that to much to ask?

It doesn't make me feel any better that Pelosi has an ownership stake in CLNE either.

This is true, but it doesnt necessary mean that more C02 is better for them than less. Plants 'respire' in the oppoist way we do, taking in CO2 and releasing Oxygen, in the process using water. But they are often limited by other factors like water or nitrogen. Constantly increasing levels of CO2 will not corrolate to constantly increasing plant growth, and may actually reduce growth in some areas (50% DECREASE in tree growth in the tropics).

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/decem...

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...

Actually, not true.
"Since the Industrial Revolution, circa 1900, the burning of fossil fuels has caused a dramatic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, reaching levels unprecedented in the last 400 thousand years."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon...
(not a big fan of quoting wiki, but it is easy)

Totally misleading. A decade in Geological time is absolutly nothing. Like the housing market, or unemployment, global temps can take temporary dips on the trajectory upwards. Same as your link about global warming not being true because global temp's fell last year. 1 year. This isnt a sigmoidal function, it isnt smooth. And you are correct about solar activity affecting things, but if your timeframe of reference is only a decade, you will miss alot.

"Comparison of measured sea surface temperatures
in the Western Pacific with paleoclimate data suggests that this critical ocean region, and probably the planet as a whole, is approximately as warm now as at the Holocene maximum and within 1°C of the maximum temperature of the past million years."

http://www.pnas.org/content/103/39/14288...

All of the above. Global warming will change the climate as we know it. Some areas will get warmer, and more usable. Some will get wetter, some dryer. Some will submerge under increasing ocean levels. Some may even get COLDER as ocean currents change heat flow. The point is that things will be different, and that will hurt some people, while helping others.

And the fact we dont know exactly what will happen is a terrible argument about why we shouldnt worry about it. Shouldnt we try to find out and limit the potential negative consequences?

National boundries and immigration restrictions limit the amount of movement from areas where warming hurts to areas where it helps. Canda, US, Russia, Nordic countries helped, everyone else hurt.

Again misleading, SOME populations are increasing, while others are decreasing.

"Five of the 13 populations in Canada appear to be on the decline. At least one – the Baffin Bay population – is the victim of severe overhunting on the Greenland side of the polar bear's range. Of the three that are increasing, the Viscount Melville and McClintock Channel populations are on the rebound only because of the Canadian Inuit's voluntary decision to severely reduce their harvest."
http://www.thestar.com/arcticinperil/art...

Reducing our hunting and then saying the population isnt suffering is just bad science. All the long term studies I have seen say things are not going well for the polar bear, but I would like to read your sources that say that things are looking up for the polar bear in any long term sense.

Those links suck. One is an opnion piece that says the entire reason we paid $4.5/gallon gas was because of AL Gore and his politics. Bull. That was due to a bubble in the price of oil, driven by speculators and an investment furvor.
Then it goes on to abunch of ad home attacks that have no proof what so ever. I especially like part about how 38 parts per million cant raise temps because it cant, cause I said so. I just couldnt read any farther, it was all so much political crap. The high price of gas is not an Al Gore conspiracy.

As for you second link, dont you think that it would be worrysome to see "the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down"? Increasing temperature swings with an overall temperature increase (in centuries) is exactly what a non-political global warming scientist would predict.

Lets try:

-That Global temperatures are increasing?

This one is incorrect. In fact the troposphere is much cooler than it should be if we are under a global warming scenario. In addition, satellite observations have shown that the 'hockey-stick' shape and recent claimed increases are incorrect. Additional problems are that the data used to justify the hockey-stick are produced under one person's guidance and not subject to peer review. When there was a request for copies of the original sensor data.. it mysteriously disappeared/got lost. The data being presented is being adjusted for heat-island effect but the methodology being applied is not peer reviewed. The location of most temperature sensing sites are located in heavily urbanized and city environments.

Something from NASA:
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headline...

NOTE: Remote, non-contact temperature sensing is done by analysis of black body radiation spectra.

-Or that changing weather is effecting the plant and animal life in that region, altering the balance that currently exists there?

San Diego is also much cooler this year than it has been for a very long time. The one thing that much of the 'pro' camp forgets is that weather always changes. There are periods warmer and periods cooler.

An interesting and inconvenient occurrence for the IPCC..
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/29/...

At one time, Britain was warm enough to grow grapes.. It hasn't been that warm there for quite a while.

re: http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/decem...

"We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed.

This is a mis-statement, they contradict themselves later under "The plots thicken"

This is also in contradiction to what greenhouse owners know.. and why people build greenhouses. More water usually increases growth as well as increased nitrogen (ammonium nitrate is a fertilizer as well as a component for an explosive) It could also be that the amount of water (50% increase) would be bad for the species of grasses being reviewed. It may result in a species shift.

By the way, I would recommend that you read down to "the plot thickens".. "The three-factor combination of increased temperature, precipitation and nitrogen deposition produced the largest stimulation [an 84 percent increase], but adding carbon dioxide reduced this to 40 percent," Shaw and her colleagues wrote. In otherwords, they got an increase in their scenario from the control of 40% increase in growth, but it was past the 'sweet point' for the plants which showed an 84% increase in growth.

Each type of plant favors different environments.. something I had an argument over with my SO. She insisted on feeding MiracleGro to Orchids. My family is successful on growing them.. Orchids do not like phosphor. (use a 30-10-10 fertilizer in water solution.. not MiracleGro which is high phosphor).

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon...
I am very careful of using Wikipedia. They have a very definite bias. It all depends upon what the small group in control of Wikipedia thinks is true. I am missing some of my links, but I think it went as high as nearly 580ppm on one of the ice ages.. We are presently around 380ppm. I am feeling that I need to put my tin-foil hat on.. because the directory where I had a copy of links in as well as my bookmarks on the subject are nearly empty.. good for conspiracy theorists-- tinfoil hat on.. and got to get rid of MSFT on my machines.

BTW: Here is an interesting thing to think of.. can you precisely describe who CO2 is supposed to induce global warming - according to the proponent group? CO2 has a very weak global warming effect, weaker than water and weaker than methane.

I don't disagree with you. That would be great. But look at it from their perspective. The US has been the largest per-capita emitter of CO2 since the Industrial Revolution. Much of our dominance in the world can be attributed to that. Now that we've solidified our dominance at the expense of the environment, do we really have the right to turn around and require that everyone else stop their CO2-fueled growth?

Or should we maybe invest and develop the next generation of technology that can fuel growth more efficiently and cleanly (and then sell it to growing nations to make a nice profit on the side)? Why not look at it like an investment rather than a burden? Like any technology, it requires early adopters who are willing to purchase expensive, unproven technology in order to fuel the next round of improvements. Remember when cell phones were $15,000? That's a ridiculous price, but if it weren't for those wasteful idiodic people who paid that much for their phones back then, we wouldn't have the free/throwaway phones we have now. The US is in a position to be an early adopter of these new technologies, which will help drive prices down and increase innovation. And if we're smart, we'll own these technologies. If not, who will? It's inevitable that they are coming. Might as well try to make a little money from them.

Then guess what happens when China/India come crawling to us to help clean up their nasty environment? "Oh, we have these clean power plants we can sell you.. want to buy a couple or a hundred or a thousand? We've also developed these solar panels that you can install on remote farmers' roofs to bring them power and improve their standard of living. Oh, and we have these cars that emit no nasty crap into your air, so if you want to have the Olympics in your city you won't have to worry about athletes complaining about how polluted your air is."

This is an issue that we have to think long-term on.

Afx I think conceptually your idea is okay but in a practical sense it is not.

First off, why should tax dollars be used? Doesn't it follow that in a capitalistic society enterprising people should be able to come up with splutions that make money shouldn't they. If I extend your argument should we use tax dollars to support car companies to build more efficient cars? Should tax dollars be used to generate investment in any and all emerging technology that will help the world or promise profits?

Where do you draw the line?

****

Unfortunately I am not going to be an apologist for our advancement. The argument that my children should be indebted to pay for our advancement makes no sense. Should they pay reparations for slavery? Should german kid be penalized because their relatives of the past killed millions of people? It does not wash.

***

Finally to think that countries like india or China are going to rush to buy this made in america exclusive technology is wishful thinking. First off shouldn't the taxpayers get the money? Second off there is this little company in China called wawei... You would think that as chinese and indian countries develop they would buy all of our electronics right? After all we developed them right?

Let me ask you has it worked out that way?

No it has not.

Again in the real world I believe it doesn't work out how you want it to. The real world competes.

Again I agree with everything you've said, but it all goes back to my original point that it's impractical to think that all countries can implement the same plan. In an ideal world all countries would be on the same playing field and a universal plan would make sense. But not all countries put out the same amount of CO2 (whether you use the total output or per capita). It only makes sense that the countries who put out the most CO2 should have to work harder to reduce their output than those countries who put out less CO2. It is a heck of a lot easier for developed countries to transition towards cleaner technologies than it is for developing countries. You see these types of improvements as an unfair expense on the developed countries, but to me it's only fair to pay for what you put out. I guess our definition of "fair" is what differs here.

As for whether tax dollars should be used, I say yes. Either the problem is too big for the private sector to solve -- think the Interstate Highway system, or putting a man on the moon -- or it is too cost prohibitive for the private sector to consider. I think that in this situation we have a little of both. The whole point of public investment is to drive down the initial costs to the point that the private sector can jump in and take the ball and run with it -- for example the Internet, researched and developed by our precocious tax dollars (I'd say that was a good investment). Another example: satellite technology. Clearly developed by taxpayer investment, but currently used to generate billions in the private sector. I think people tend to believe that public/private operate at the extremes, but there are many examples where they have worked together in a strange synergy with amazing results.

Otherwise, why would private industry ever even consider environmental improvements when all it does is harm their bottom line? At what point is the environment destroyed enough so that private industry puts the well being of the environment above company profits? It never does, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case in history where it ever has. The whole point of private industry is to make money -- not protect the environment. And if private industry won't protect the environment, who will? The government will -- it's their job.

I think where you and I will both agree is that the optimal setup is to be able to protect the environment and make money doing it. Unfortunately I don't think that private industry has the foresight or the will to get that ball rolling. It just needs a little push from the mean old taxman to get it started. Sucks for us, but hopefully it will pay off in the long run -- like the expensive Interstate Highway system and satellite technology of yore.

1) We are probably screwing up the planet through overpopulation, overconsumption, and pollution. This will impact the quality of life on earth for a lot of people.

It's called population overshoot. You can look it up in an 8th grade biology book or google search. All animals do it. Exponentially increasing consumption of dwindling resources and the subsequent pollution and degradation of carrying capacity via destruction of life sustaining systems. We have our fancy economic theories though.

Of course taxing and technology can fix this.

Go green with Monsanto!