Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Okay, so carbon taxes.

After these carbon taxes have been implemented, what is an imprecise, ballpark guestimate on the time frame by which we can expect to see a halt to the rise of global temperatures, in accordance to the models?

Halting it would be quite the trick. The Paris Accords aimed to keep the temperature increase under 2 degrees Celcius by 2100. From what I've read a carbon tax would be a more aggressive form of carbon reduction than what is called for in those accords.

So your plan won't yield much in the way of results if executed?

Great plan.

This is why I don't spend lots of time perusing the internet to provide plans that people don't want.

If you are trying to convince a country to spend billions of dollars in order to stop the climate from changing (lol), then the first thing that you need to do is let us know how exactly you plan to do that. Right now you are just asking for money, and you can't tell us how you plan on using it in order to stop the climate from changing. That's called a scam.

Until that changes, the only discernible difference between you folks and panhandlers on the street is that panhandlers will periodically employ good manners in order to dig some money out of the pocket of a passerby.

The carbon tax is designed to make it more expensive to use carbon based fuels. The idea is to impose costs now instead off passing them to our children and grandchildren. What we do with the tax money is obviously important but secondary to the tax itself. Right now, we live in the payday loan reality, where we are passing the buck down the line in order to get by right now. Who benefits from each scam can be judged in a couple centuries, I suppose.

You plan is to pass $0.98 to the next generation instead of passing the full buck.

You are going to have to do a little bit better than that.

Frankly I don't think it matters. While estimates seem to zero in on reductions of a third to fifty percent, I don't think it would happen even if we could completely halt it within forty years. It's hard and all we want is easy.

The world's biggest nuclear fusion project has entered its five-year assembly phase.

After this is finished, the facility will be able to start generating the super-hot "plasma" required for fusion power.

The £18.2bn (€20bn; $23.5bn) facility has been under construction in Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, southern France.

Advocates say fusion could be a source of clean, unlimited power that would help tackle the climate crisis.

Iter is a collaboration between China, the European Union, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US. All members share in the cost of construction.

Current nuclear energy relies on fission, where a heavy chemical element is split to produce lighter ones.

Nuclear fusion, on the other hand, works by combining two light elements to make a heavier one.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/science-environment-53573294

Economists like carbon taxes. I would agree they would probably be the simplest and most effective solution. But taxes aren't popular, especially taxes where the entire point is to make things more expensive.

I actually might be persuaded to like carbon taxes.  And I agree that could be the best approach overall, especially since fossil fuel right now is very cheap.
How much tax and how much would that reduce CO2 emissions over time?  Any estimates, guesses, ideas, notions ...?

And those decreases in CO2 emission, how much impact might that have on climate change in °C?

I just had this sort of discussion with my surgeon, pros can cons of surgery (schedule now 8/10).  We run our lives on this basis.  Hey, how about we go to this expensive restaurant?  Well, it's a lot of money, do you think it's that good?  Maybe we should dine in and save money.  

Or what about a round the world cruise?  Or should I pay for first class on that flight to Europe?  It's nicer up front.  Yeah, but a ticket is $6K.