Though if you really need to have 'efficiency' explained to you - well, go check your car's gas mileage. That's a measure of efficiency.
And I gave you an example how we can really increase "efficiency" as a society. Oil use per person is not the ultimate in efficiency because HIGW theory says that total emissions are what matters. Then that's what has to be minimized in an efficient solution. No matter how efficient we get "per person", the modernization of the third world and the increase in world population will wipe out any headway, in fact things are only going to get worse for the next 50 years, if we are to believe the HIGW. So, taxing will make no meaningful difference. And that is one of the serious indications that it is just another scam to tax us.
My 'perspective' is that casting aspersions (arguably ad hominem aspersions) on the plan and its backers, without attempting to understand where its proponents are coming from is both dishonest and ignorant.
The backers are trying to convince us into a scientific conclusion, so they had better have the credetials and the science worked out. If you go to the hospital for surgery, do you give the scalpel to a janitor? If instead I want to be operated on by the surgeon rather than the janitor, and don't care what the janitor has to say on the subject, that makes me "dishonest and ignorant"?
Science is not a democracy. Neither is surgery.
I referred to contemporary climate science and those studying it... We can either call your reference a strawman - equating scientists and climate science with Gore.
Give me a list of top-notch professional scientists that have come out in open support of HIGW (not GW). You won't be able to, and that was my point in identifying the prime movers behind this ruse.
