Seeley Swan Pathfinder -


By TJ Smith 

A Different Light on Cry for Carbon Tax


January 25, 2018

Primary greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitros oxide, ozone, CFCs, and HFCs. Of these, which is the most significant? You may be surprised to learn that it is not carbon dioxide, but rather water vapor! Just how significant is water vapor? Water vapor accounts for roughly 95% of Mother Earth’s greenhouse effect.

This means all the other greenhouse gases account for only five percent of the effect. Of this five percent, carbon dioxide is about 3.6 percent, with the remaining greenhouse gases supplying the balance. Now the question becomes what percentage of each of these is anthropogenic?

Water vapor (as you recall accounting for 95 percent of the greenhouse effect) is almost 100 percent naturally occurring. Carbon dioxide is roughly 97 percent naturally occurring with the remaining three percent being anthropogenic. This implies, when correctly considering the full spectrum of greenhouse gases, that anthropogenic carbon dioxide accounts for only about one tenth of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

This knowledge sheds a different light on the cry for a carbon tax. Even if a carbon tax were to completely mitigate (and it will not) our one tenth of one percent contribution, there would be absolutely no significant change to our climate.

A positive to this misinformation is it has accelerated the renewables industry (albeit at our expense). However, to perpetuate one industry on a lie, and at the expense of another, must be stopped. Simply, it is time take a stand.

Please write AG Tim Fox and ask him to stand with us.


Reader Comments

TJSmith writes:

Hiding behind a fake blog name certainly gives you credibility. To this end I stand by the truth. 2 Corinthians 13:8

ChemEhiker writes:

I read with interest the recent commentary, “A Different Light on Cry for Carbon Tax”. My interest was not peaked because I have a strong opinion about a carbon tax. The truth is I am undecided on this issue. What did catch my interest is that the information which is presented to reach the conclusion about a carbon tax contains inaccuracies and distortions of the accepted science on this subject. I will not attempt to debunk these inaccuracies here, the format is too limited and readers would have no reason to believe a cometary which has not been exposed to scientific peer review. I would rather encourage readers to seek out informed scientific opinion so that they can discern misinformation for themselves. To this end I offer the following links to information on the subject: I believe we have a responsibility as citizens to make informed decisions about our future based on the best science available, not distortions.


Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2020