Fine, stay green, but the breenbacks will be moving out, or all spent, and you will be nothing. Look at what this UN Agenda 21 compliance has done to other countries who took this path. Read Dr. Illeana Johnson Paugh and her description of her homeland of Romania. So sad, so meaningless, as it solves nothing. It is all based on a bogus hoax by the UN, who even claim it is only to "control people."

I can quite easily quantify the costs of "global warming". Zero. Why? Because it is an invented calamity.

I think the thing that is the most telling is that all of these "studies" assume that it is human events which are to blame while they ignore the single biggest influencer of climate: the Sun. To me, any study which focuses on minutiae while excluding the major factors is invalid from the beginning.

The second thing that really puts me off about these self-proclaimed experts is that they've already invented at least two other climatological catastrophes which utterly failed to come about: global cooling (the 1970's) and acid raid deforestation (1980's). All before they hyped global "warming" in the 1990's and now the more nebulous "climate change" of the 2010's. It's the boy who cried wolf over and over and over again.

I fully endorse the notion that people actually pay their entire tax bill in full one time per year. If people want to withhold a certain amount from their paychecks each month similar to an escrow account for mortgages that would be fine with me. I think people would change their tunes dramatically if they had to write out one big check to the government every year than this death-by-a-thousand-cuts approach we currently have.

And good riddance!

I think that the earth does what it wants for the most part. It warms and cools on its own far before humans could have had any effect at all.

Secondly, government doesnt do anything right, so I doubt that would be any different in this case.

Thirdly, in the next 50 years if sea levels rise, thats enough time for people to slowly move to higher ground and away from the effects of climate changes.

Fourthly, increased CO2 actually increases plant life and the growing season and the production of oxygen.

There is nothing wrong with using free sources to generate electricity if you WANT to. I would have solar panels here in Las Vegas where I live, IF I wasnt required to sell any excess energy to the NV Energy grid. I would use the free energy from the sun to heat my pool and house, and provide electricity for my house (at least during the sunny days and power failures of the grid).

But, given I dont have that opportunity and its illegal to just install solar panels and use them whenever I want to, I continue to rely on NV Energy for my electricity. Too Bad.

Yes, left off one zero,

Good bye!

I think the interval between Yellowstone volcano eruptions was approximately 600,000 years, not 60,000 years (and there have been three such eruptions in geologic history).

Humans prefer emotional thinking (which almost always errs) to logical thinking. They seem to prefer the stimulation of "the sky is falling" to discovering what it was that hit them on the head. Example: Even scientists who study the Yellowstone Super Volcano often start their treatise with 'It's Overdue!' when no such information is available. Yes it has erupted approximately every 60,000 years and it has been longer than that since the last eruption but there is no information available that will predict when it will erupt again if ever. The magma chamber is still there driving the geysers but will it erupt or slow down and cool off?
There was an ice age that ended 10,000 years ago. At that time there was ice a mile thick over what is now New York state. The polar bears didn't hunt on the ice in northern Canada because it never melted back then. Will the current warming trend continue until all the ice has melted? We don't know. The earth has been without any permanent ice before. Will we all die? We don't know. If we hang around long enough until the sun swells into a red giant swallowing the earth then we will.
Let's bring the question back to what if we do know is it morally right to then control people and how they respond to the problem? Never! Let people be free to make mistakes, correct them if they can and figure out what they want to do. Some will make the wrong choice. Allowing them to do so will also allow those who will logically discover what is best and those that follow that will build and succeed and survive.

" these people are saying they were counting on a refund, and it's thrown them off."

Indeed, and they were warned repeatedly. Even though I rarely watch the news, I saw mention many times while the change was happening that the point of this was to give the taxpayer more money at paycheck time, but that it would result in lower refunds at tax time. Goes to show, they believe the news that they want to believe, and ignore what is uncomfortable.

I saw mention on another forum of a woman who booked a cruise which would be paid for with her tax refund. Her refund turned out to be $45 instead of the thousands she was anticipating, and she mentioned several times she was 1) a single mother 2) had already booked the cruise and 3) would lose her down payment if she didn't go on with it. It quickly became apparent she was actually asking for a handout - to go on a cruise! Equally clear was that she had no savings, but just "had" to go on this cruise because she promised her parents she would - who it turns out ALSO were counting on a tax refund and were similarly caught short, and also had no savings.

It just boggles the mind. I don't think we live in the same world as some people do.

NEBRASKA 'S temperature this a.m. is -40 degrees. I doubt they would want to 'Go Green!'.

Are these misinformed "All Green" folks serious? I will gladly sent them my last two $900 light bills. And I live on the Gulf Coast of Texas, which is considered a TROPIC ZONE

These 'ALL GREEN FOLKS' should be in Nebraska today (-40 degrees). I'll bet they wouldn't "GO GREEN".

Let them go! We'll keep our oil.

I am interested in hearing the criticism about my idea of about how acceptance of taxes would be different if they were paid in coins and bills that the payer physically handed over.
I'm happy to hear other views, but we need to know what they are. Will the person downvoting this post an alternative view?

"It only gets painful when the amount of OPM = o"
I agree with all of this. I also think how the money is paid makes a difference. Money is an abstraction. Numbers on a page to represent money are a further abstraction. Even for numerically sophisticated people, they would respond more if they recieved their pay in a stack of $100 bills or gold coins, and then they had to hand them over to someone else. The reality of what's happening would be viscerally clear.

I have read a bunch of articles about people unhappy with that tax cut because it modified the withholding tables. They are paying less in taxes overall, and the witholding tables are more accurate so their employer only withholds an accurate estimates of their taxes. Despite paying less, these people are saying they were counting on a refund, and it's thrown them off. I don't think they'd make this foolish mistake in accounting if they got paid in a stack of coins and handed over various bits of the stack for withholding, their half of Medicare/SS, and state withholding. It would be even better if they saw the employer hand over its share to Medicare/SS, SUTA, and FUTA,. Even an financially unsophisticated employee would think, "they could just hand me that SUTA/FUTA money and I could put in the bank or in a safe in case I lose my job."

" I do realize that it is widely asserted to be an even catastrophic crisis,"
We should work on quantifying the costs of global warming. I understand they're large but not "catastrophic.". I think they're only catastrophic if people just kept trying to grow crops in places where the climate lends itself to other crops or ignore rising water instead of building barriers. Obviously any modelling of the costs should include the fact that people can respond rationally to a changing world. The models should also include the less common examples of increased value such as arctic lands becoming arable.

It's a "catastrophic crisis" to the same extent the national debt is. The debt definitely has costs, but I don't believe models that say people will not make the hard choices once there's an immediate debt crisis. In both cases I expect people to wait for the immediate minicrisis and then take corrective action.

"I republished this letter,"
I think it's great the newspaper publishes letters to the editor. It sounds so quaint. I never thought I'd say it but I miss the days when the newspaper was the primary print medium with editors as a gatekeeper who published dissenting ideas as long as they were presented clearly and respectfully

"Socialism creep is one of the biggest problems of our time"
I know. I'm generally optimistic, but in this case I think there's real danger of sharply increased socialism for these reasons:
a) return on on equity is rising while the price of labor stagnates
b) fiscal deficit sets us up for a crisis that will allow politicians to take actions they couldn't take during good times
c) technology is changing things, making some people open to gov't slowing down or managing the change.
d) socialism is currently being sold as a package deal with protecting the environment.
Socialism will not actually help with these problems. The arguments are not correct, but they may sway citizens who are only causal followers of policy.

Thanks for the comment, CircuitGuy. You probably realize that I do not see "global warming" as "one of the biggest problems of our time. I don't see that the evidence supports that at all. I do realize that it is widely asserted to be an even catastrophic crisis, but, again, I don't see it. On the same site the I republished this letter, I have several other essays on climate change where I offer some of the evidence and argumentation for my view.

People like free things and socialism promises many free thing, all paid for by OPM. It only gets painful when the amount of OPM = o. That comes about very fast with all that the socialists promise.
I think that is one reason socialists don't want history taught as it should be, with facts etc.

And that is the problem with this “climate change” panic. The scientific method and leftist hysteria tactics don’t mix. One finds truth, the other finds what they wish to find by eliminating what they don’t wish to be.

Unless you can present empirical scientific data, not deranged hypotheses, that rationally shows a practical plan to control sea level/global warming/climate change (pick one), take your scientifically unsupportable "problem" elsewhere, CG.

Socialism creep is one of the biggest problems of our time. And we seem to be doing very little overall to even slow it down.

I hope supporters of "the green new deal" read this. It's almost as if they though long and hard about how they could get people to ignore global warming. Someone came up with the brilliant idea of wrapping a big green bow around socialism. If they are successful, they will have pulled off an amazing feat of getting people to delay acting on one of the biggest problems of our time.