A carbon tax will raise the price of energy and everything made from oil and
natural gas. That will kill the economy.
Corn Dog,Kill the economy? So... Importing most of our
oil, massive military expenditures to secure middle-eastern oil, financing it
all with borrowed Chinese money, billions going to nations that hate us,
environmental degradation and damaging our health is _good_ for the economy?
Carbon Tax is the single biggest scam of all time. It is a scheme to rake in
billions. Many of us see right thought it. Many think its our saving grace. Lets say there is too much carbon. How will taxing it save the environment?
Wasn't it Obama that said; "under my plan - carbon tax - energy prices
would necessarily skyrocket!" Now, who does that hurt?
I thought the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA already had the right to regulate
carbon- what more do you want?
yeah, a carbon tax, One more burden to lay on our wilted economy, one more
competative disadvantage to the chinese.want to reduce your carbon
footprint? Plant a tree that will shade your house in the summer, reducing (not
eliminating) AC usage and absorbing carbon in the process. now try planting one
or two more!Much more ecologically and economically friendly than a
punative carbon tax.
"Lets say there is too much carbon. How will taxing it save the
environment?"I don't know. Maybe you should ask the
Republicans under GHW Bush that proposed it?
The carbon tax would send a price signal to the economy to switch to non-carbon
forms of energy thet are price stable, such as wind, solar, hydro and
geothermal. Unlike price-escalating and volatile fossil fuels, the carbon tax
would generate revenues to (1) pay for the government subsidies now enjoyed by
fossil fuels and (2) help pay for the transition to price-stable, domestic forms
of energy. One possible plan is to reduce income or sales taxes so
that a carbon tax would be "neutral" in terms of revenues coming in to
the government AND in terms of costs to consumers. That is, instead of paying
across-the-board taxes on your labor (currently in use), you'd pay on the amount
of carbon you generated (making your decisions more strategic in terms of how
you'd spend your money and use energy). Economics says you'd reduce your carbon
use to maximize your tax savings on labor vis-a-vis tax costs on energy.There are creative ways to make this work!
Midvaliean,I doubt very much that you "see right through
it."I think it's far more likely that you've been told by some
FOX blowhard that "it's a scam!" and decided that since that message
is more emotionally comfortable than accepting demonstrably true scientific
reality, you'll go with it."How will taxing it save the
environment?"Simple economics. If sources of energy that do not
produce carbon (solar, wind, geothermal, nuclear, conservation, etc.) are less
expensive than carbon-based sources, you'll use more of the carbon-free
energy.Spend some time learning about alternative energy sources,
conservation, and the true costs to our economy of using so much coal and
oil.Fossil fuel industries have done a marvelous job hiding the real
costs of their product by spreading those costs around the economy so that you
don't realize what you personally and we as a nation actually pay to be so
dependent on them.
Republicans propose it, democrats implement it then republicans oppose it. That explains 30 years of political history.
The problem is this. We don't know what the exact cause is of the warming. If
it is CO2, then why are the politicians not doing anything to actually reduce
the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, such as planting more trees or using some
technology to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere? If the warming is part of a
natural cycle that runs decades or centuries, what can we do to change it?Now, if we implement CO2 caps or some other regulation, that will end up
raising the price of food and energy. Who here thinks raising the price of food
and energy won't cause the poor to suffer or businesses to look elsewhere for
their manufacturing needs?
ok, say we have a carbon tax; I would like to know how we are going to
collect money from a volcano?who is going to go up to a forest fire and
tell it to pay up?And to more realistic: how are we going to stop other
countries from using fossil fuels?You think were going to put the
"thumbscrews" to China? Which is booming, and I am told air is like a
bar.increased energy cost, increases the cost of everything else: food,
clothing, shelter ect.We are already in a bad economic state, why would we
want to hurt ourselves more?I am not ready to go live in a yurt, I happen
to like electricity and other modern conviences.Why don't those who are
worried about global warming come up with some realistic solutions?Most of
us do not want to live in a tree house, and eat berries.
OK, so we impose a carbon tax. Do we then impose a carbon duty on
imported goods made by major polluters in China if they cannot certify the goods
were produced in "green" plants or that otherwise imposes the same
economic cost? What do we do when the WTO shoots down our carbon
tarriff because it does not allow for the redistribution of US wealth?plant a tree and tell Al Gore to take a hike! Plant two or three
It seems so arrogant that somehow we think that we have any control over the
weather or in fact can do anything about it. In a moment a volcanic eruption can
change the whole climate of the world and make every dollar invested into the
so-called 'climate change' irrelevant .
Re: "The U.S. should build on the success that Bennett notes by putting a
price on carbon and returning the proceeds to the American people."Yeah -- and if you believe that, I've got some very nice beachfront
property in Arizona I'd like to talk to you about.Bloated government
NEVER returns proceeds of its ill-gotten gains to the American people.Never.It's used to buy votes from rubes. To advance agendas of
cynical elites. To punish conservative enemies. To enrich liberal plutocrats.
But, never to help real people.And, by the way, where will all this
money liberals promise to redistribute to us come from? Every nickel will be
filched from US, the consumers. WE ultimately pay ANY new tax imposed upon any
liberal bogeymen du jour, whether done in the name of "carbon footprint
reduction" or any other puerile socialist scam.It never ceases
to amaze that east-bench elites smart enough to graduate medical school and
engage in medical practice could remain so wet behind the ears when it comes to
economics and politics.
@Corn dogYou missed what the letter writer was going for. It's a tax that
collects money and gives it back to the taxpayers in the form of a deduction.
Cap and dividend is a term for it and it's pretty much what Denmark uses.
Basically everyone gets back from the gov't a subsidy to cover energy costs and
if you're someone who uses a lot of energy you'll pay more in that tax than the
subsidy gives you. However, if you use less energy than average you could get
more from the subsidy than you pay in the energy tax.@Midvalian"How will taxing it save the environment? "Higher cost
-> use less (just like high gasoline prices). @redshirt1701"why are the politicians not doing anything to actually reduce the amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere, such as planting more trees"Conservatives railed against a tree-planting project in the stimulus because
it cost 500k to create 1 permanent job and 8 temp jobs.@CB"It seems so arrogant that somehow we think that we have any control over
the weather or in fact can do anything about it."Ozone hole. We
created and are solving that.
Yeah, let's kill the economy. That's really smart.Let's make it
impossible for the lowest economic levels to afford transportation. That will
really improve America.Let's make trillion-dollar decisions based on
unsubstantiated hypotheses that have failed to predict the last 13 years'
climate. Real intelligent.Let's transfer power and money and give
up our liberties to nameless, faceless, unelected entities. That'll make
America a better place.Let's raise prices on everything, transfer
part of the increase to a nebulous entity, and hope they'll give some back to
us. Yeah, right -- let's repeat eastern European history while we're at it.I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying think through the problem. We
must stimulate the economy and maintain our liberties. The ends DO NOT justify
NO!!! What is going to happen if we have a carbon tax is that those corporations
who 'Pollute' will by carbon credits that will allow them to do it. Then the
taxes will put on we the people.
To "atl134 | 11:13 a.m." are you just a liberal shill, or are you just
too lazy to look up the information yourself.If you read "Money
doesn't grow on trees: Federal grant of $500,000 to boost Nevada economy by
planting trees creates 1.72 jobs" at the UK Daily Mail, you will see that
the problem that conservatives had with the expense wasn't the trees that were
planted, they actually said that the trees were the only good thing to come out
of the project. The problem was the huge waste of money trying to create a
The Carbon tax is nothing more than a scheme for fat cats like Al Gore to rake
in millions off the backs of Citizens who would see their energy costs
No, the carbon tax was the Republican introduced "free market"
solution to environmental issues.I guess the GOP wanted to pad Al
"Renewable Energy" Can you tell when the earth stopped making carbon
based fuel? Can you show a viable study that demonstrates carbon is harmful to
the atmosphere. No weather balloons have found pockets of carbon. The amount
of carbon in the atmosphere is minute. Carbon taxes are just another scheme for
social justice and wealth redistribution. This was one of the many reasons why
we got rid of Bennett.
@DanishAmerican"Can you tell when the earth stopped making carbon
based fuel?"The rate of the earth making carbon based fuel is much
slower than the rate we are using it. "Can you show a viable
study that demonstrates carbon is harmful to the atmosphere"Define harmful. It's easy to show that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
It's easy to show the greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere. It's easy to
show CO2 concentrations are increasing. "No weather balloons
have found pockets of carbon."Because of dispersion. What has
been observed is that CO2 concentration globally has gone from 280ppm to 380ppm
in the past century which is a rapid increase and is higher currently than at
any point in at least a couple hundred thousand years. Looking at the Mauna Loa
dataset shows this clearly."The amount of carbon in the
atmosphere is minute."99% of the atmosphere is N2, O2, and Ar.
None of those are greenhouse gases. H2O is the leading greenhouse gas, CO2 is
second with CH4 close behind at third. Just because a concentration of a gas is
small doesn't mean it's contribution to something like the greenhouse effect is
To "atl134 | 6:35 p.m." I see that you have taken in Al Gore's
information, and have not bothered to look at anybody else's information.Lets start with the CO2 concentrations. If CO2 is the driver for global
warming, why is it that the humid regions of the earth have not warmed as much
as the dry regions? Could it be that water vapor is a better insulator? Also,
if CO2 is the driver, why is it that we have not had any significant warming
over the past 10 years, and how do you explain the Midievil Warm Period, or the
Little Ice age? Also, how do you reconcile the fact that the data prior to 1950
is just a "best guess"?What about the climate models that
have been found to have large gaping holes in them, do you trust the models that
can't explain past events to explain future events?
"What has been observed is that CO2 concentration globally has gone from
280ppm to 380ppm in the past century...H2O is the leading greenhouse
gas..."So, by your numbers, CO2 has increased from 0.00028% of
our atmosphere to 0.00038% of our atmosphere. Meanwhile H20 is about 4% of our
atmosphere. I guess you have to be receiving grant money for climatic research
to believe that this is something to continue wasting resources on...let alone
panicking about. Forget CO2 we need to figure out how to stop water
from being dispersed into our atmosphere!
Before we all agree on another tax, lets ask ourselves what the government has
done with the money we already send them! Solindra, bailout debacles, $15
trillion in debt, 44 million Americans on food stamps, and on and on it goes! Do
you really think sending the government more money will do any good for our