Would you support the Government's actions if it came and arrested your family and held them on charges that they "used too much energy"? Would you be willing to criminalize over-consumption, and what kind of punishment should doled out? A fine? Probation? 10 years in a Federal Prison? The Death Penalty?

The hubris and myopic authoritarian viewpoint of envirocrazies is pretty sad though, throw on top the assumption that the Government has more tools in its toolbox other than coercion, and that humans are done innovating, and its myopic hubris to the extreme.

When I say people will not do it voluntarily, I mean they will not change their behavior by themselves. Nor will they vote for a reduced standard of living.

Yet that is what is required to avoid a catastrophe. So, what to do? Have governement make people do it. This can be done by simply raising taxes on carbon based energy, making renewables lower cost.

Why do you insist on saying I'm in favor of stormtroopers? I've never said the gov'ment has to round people up and throw them in jail.

You're the one who seems fixated on that. You also seem to have a problem with anyone who thinks about environmental issues.

As I suggested before, you might want to educate yourself on this topic before displaying your ignorance so openly and publicly.

But, I'm not expecting much. You'll probably just go re-read "The Fountainhead" for the 100th time instead.

Unless you start saying something interesting, this will be my last response. And I apologize to the other posters for what this thread has become.

So that's all it takes? The king decrees it and everyone follows?

Who said anything about a king?

But like I said, what if members of your family decide they don't want to do it, what then?

Well, let's think this through. I'll use the example of taxation, since that is what I have proposed in this thread. What happens to my/your family if they don't pay their income taxes? The IRS will either demand payment, garnish their wages if they refuse, or, yes, put them in jail.

With high carbon taxes, either they pay the taxes or risk the same fate. Most often though, if they don't want to pay the tax they simply won't get the energy - gas for their car, heating oil for their home, whatever. That's a choice they are free to make, of course, and would suffer no consequences other than reduced energy use.

Please do not confuse the seperate though related problems of energy storage and energy generation.

I didn't. All you have to do is re-read the part of my post you quoted.

It may not be efficient to create the fuel, but there currently is no method of converting energy from one form to another that is very efficient.

Right - which is why I suggested using the electricity to power cars directly, rather than bother with hydrogen. We are about to have plug-in hybrids which use electricity in the next year or two.

FYI, Ayn Rand was a narrow-minded bitch.

Something we can agree on! Excellent.

I'm still waiting to hear your response to my proposed wager. Should be easy money for you Chris.

First off, thank you for finally addressing something I actually said.

Regarding the "taxes curbing consumption" crap, the government has been taxing tobacco for the exact same reason for decades and *GASP* people still smoke even if they are paying over $5 a pack. Am I supposed to believe that the same thing won't occur regarding energy, something that EVERYONE uses every day?

I'm confused - in earlier posts you seem to make any government intervention, including, one has to assume, taxation, out to be some kind of fascist impulse. Because if people refuse they will be locked up.

Now you claim that taxation won't work, because the US has high cigarette taxes and people still smoke. So apparently taxes aren't fascist at all, just impractical.

Which is it?

OF COURSE people will still use carbon based energy even if a carbon tax is passed. The point is, the tax is an incentive to use less of it, and to stimulate the renewable energy industry. Do you dispute the notion that a carbon tax will have these 2 effects, namely 1) reducing the use of carbon based energy and 2) encouraging renewable energy?

$5 a pack due to taxes and people still smoke regularly. So now what does the state do to prohibit smoking? They ban it in all restaurants and bars in the entire state or entire cities ban it with ordinances. You couldn't see that kind of situation happening with other things people like, say energy? "Hey look, taxes aren't working and people are still consuming X too much, time for more drastic measures".

You're confused. Smoking is banned in restaurants and bars because second hand smoke is unhealthy. If I smoke in a restaurant, I force others to be exposed to second hand smoke because the they must breathe the air I'm discharging the smoke into.

Secondly, these laws were passed by duly elected representatives, not some authoritarian politician who gets off telling others what to do.

However, I will say, that I think the problem is serious enough that passing laws, in addition to taxation, may be necessary. Some of these laws we already have, like CAFE standards for vehicles. We already do this stuff now, all the time.

Apparently we are already living in a Stalinist regime.

Thanks for the link - very interesting.