...their mouths are? The real test of how much somebody believes something is, see how much they would pay out of pocket for it.
So I asked a question to see how much money the typical AGW adherent would be willing to pay in higher prices at Walmart for the sake of curbing the alleged AGW, if it came to that.
To make it a plausible question, I postulated a scenario in which a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would result directly in higher prices at Walmart. See my Resolved Question:
"How much extra would you pay for an item at Walmart to reduce global warming?"
The result: only one person said he was willing to pay more than 1%.
That's it. One measly percent.
That's how much the big talking Al Gore fans are willing to pay to combat this alleged dreaded scourge that is inflicting irreversible and catastrophic damage to our planet.
One penny on the dollar.
That's how much they believe.
Now, if you take the various estimates of the cost of cap&trade, it seems safe to imagine that it will cost the average household more than $1,000 per year.
That means any household that has a household income less than $100,000 per year will be paying more than 1%.
Is the median household income more than $100,000?
I don't think so.
So, based on this underwhelming response for how much they would be willing to pay starting tomorrow at Walmart, it seems like cap&trade is a non-starter.
Why should we even discuss AGW when its supporters aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is?
Red Bull, you didn't quantify how much you would pay, which was the whole point of the question. So I couln't count your answer, because you might mean paying an extra dollar on a big screen TV.
And as I said ONE person said he would pay more than 1%. That was the ONE person who said he would pay 10%.
But the way you lash out at me tells me you're the kind of person who really believes in AGW.
So I asked a question to see how much money the typical AGW adherent would be willing to pay in higher prices at Walmart for the sake of curbing the alleged AGW, if it came to that.
To make it a plausible question, I postulated a scenario in which a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions would result directly in higher prices at Walmart. See my Resolved Question:
"How much extra would you pay for an item at Walmart to reduce global warming?"
The result: only one person said he was willing to pay more than 1%.
That's it. One measly percent.
That's how much the big talking Al Gore fans are willing to pay to combat this alleged dreaded scourge that is inflicting irreversible and catastrophic damage to our planet.
One penny on the dollar.
That's how much they believe.
Now, if you take the various estimates of the cost of cap&trade, it seems safe to imagine that it will cost the average household more than $1,000 per year.
That means any household that has a household income less than $100,000 per year will be paying more than 1%.
Is the median household income more than $100,000?
I don't think so.
So, based on this underwhelming response for how much they would be willing to pay starting tomorrow at Walmart, it seems like cap&trade is a non-starter.
Why should we even discuss AGW when its supporters aren't willing to put their money where their mouth is?
Red Bull, you didn't quantify how much you would pay, which was the whole point of the question. So I couln't count your answer, because you might mean paying an extra dollar on a big screen TV.
And as I said ONE person said he would pay more than 1%. That was the ONE person who said he would pay 10%.
But the way you lash out at me tells me you're the kind of person who really believes in AGW.