I can tell you there will be no carbon tax imposed. The fossil fuel industries
have seen to that.Is there a more positive way to attack the issue
of fossil fuel use? The goal would be to use fossil fuels more efficiently by
advancing high speed rail. Yes, high speed rail would use power generated by
coal-powered and gas-powered plants but it would use those fuels efficiently.
Efficient high speed rail could supplant wasteful gas-fueled automobiles. We would build the high speed rail plant and rely on its attractiveness
to lure people out of their cars. All this would be without the punitive carbon
tax.If only Republicans were willing to play ball with high speed
rail. High speed rail technology is proven and is in widespread in Europe,
Japan, and China. Do any of these areas regret building high speed rail? Not
to my knowledge.Republicans seem determined to use fossil fuels
indefinitely and as inefficiently as possible. This will get them votes in coal
country, but it is bad public policy.
"Readers should urge their U.S. senators and representatives to support a
carbon tax on fossil fuel companies and a carbon rebate to households. We are
running out of time."Totally false! We are not running out of
time and the earth has been cooling for over a decade and carbon has nothing to
do with it. A carbon tax will only harm the our country by driving up food
costs, transportation, clothing, medicines, everything! Women and poor children
will be harmed most. A carbon tax will destroy jobs in every sector and
intelligent Americans should reject this misguided environmental and economic
Excellent letterExcept, we will never ever be able to enact a carbon
tax because so many repubs have sworn to the Norquist pledge. In order to fix
this, we need to vote out all repubs. Come this fall, repubs are gonna be hit
and hit hard.We need to teach them a lesson. You pledge allegiance
to the flag not to Norquist.
When someone invents a carburetor that gets 100 miles to the gallon, It's
the oil company's the buy the patten who is subsidized by the Gov who is
taxing us on the gas we buy and now found another way to tax us. E10 gas
decreases gas mileage, Winter gas decreases gas mileage. So we the rat races is
a squeal cage.
Do the liberals really think that adding another huge tax on the United States
will cause China to stop polluting the air? Do they think that if Utah pays a
carbon tax that Mexico City will suddenly become clean? What is it about their
"science" that shows how paying a tax will clean up the air? If we need
to use fuel to get to work, to heat our homes, to run our industry, do they
think that adding a huge tax will mean that we won't drive to work, that we
will stop heating our homes and that industry will stop burning fuel? Do they
think that a huge tax will help? How will it help? Who will it help? The only people that will benefit from a carbon tax are politicians who
will have more money to spend on pork, just as the only people who will benefit
from ObamaCare are politicians who will have 18% of all revenue to spend on
pork.How much pollution does Obama cause when he flys in Air Force
One? But why should he care. He's exempt from all rules.
Re: "If Congress taxes fossil fuel companies for the emissions their
products cause, energy prices will increase and emissions will drop."And, of course, the Nation's economy will fail and real
people's jobs will be destroyed.But then, that's what
liberals really want, isn't it?
Are liberal really that ignorant of economics? Sadly, yes!
Judy,Read your own letter.“in Europe and in developing
countries like China, annual emissions of greenhouse gases have risen almost
twice as fast in the first decade of this century as they did in the last
decades of the 20th century.”How are carbon taxes in the US
going to affect how much China and Europe emit? All carbon taxes do is give us
a competitive disadvantage.Marxist,I think high speed rail is
not a bad idea, but it will not pull commuters out of their cars, so it will not
be that effective in reducing emissions.
Taxes are not magic. They do not have super powers to clean up the environment,
or cure cancer, or fix every ill of society. The only super power
more taxes have is the power to destroy the nation, by destroying the will to
First, a Bostonian's opinion doesn't belong in the Deseret News.And second, this is one of the world's worst ideas. Carbon is not
a pollutant, and neither is CO2. Taxing it is simply an attempt to take money
from "evil" segments of industry and put it into the pockets of
"righteous" Big Green, all at the expense of you and me. It would raise
the cost of everything, and will do NOTHING to affect climate, as conclusively
demonstrated by numerous scientific studies.
Actually engery efficient lighting could reduce our energy needs by 50 percent
if 8 percent of energy users switched over. There is a reason
utilites offer rebates and incentives for lighting retrofits.
Some may hope and wish otherwise - and lobby and work against carbon fees - but
the fees will eventually come because they are really the only economically
viable way to get our economy and culture to wean itself from its fossil fuel
addiction.There will likely be a significant carbon fee or tax imposed on
all sources, leakages, and uses of fossil carbon-based fuels and products. They
will probably start off small and ramp up rapidly, with the goal of phasing out
most fossil fuel use over the next 5 to 20 years - to avoid further cooking of
the planet. Cutting our addiction to fossil fuels will also greatly improve air
quality and health. It's going to happen - the sooner the better.
Re: "We are running out of time"....The letter writer gave
nothing to support this presumption in the letter... just threw this in at the
end (to scare us I guess).Running out of time for WHAT? Save the world?Political will?Right party in power?Popular support fall apart?What will change... making us
"out of time"? What is going to change making us "out of time"
if we don't tax NOW....?===I think individually
acting now is best, but what's really going to become "too late" if
we don't get Congress to increase our taxes NOW!!Even the most
global warming obsessed people (except Al Gore.. who still thinks the polar ice
caps will be completely gone by 2013)... acknowledge that this change is very
very slow. From some perspectives it's already too late. The
tipping point has already been reached and even if we removed all humans and
industry today... we can't turn around the climate trend. It's
already too late... there's already too much junk in the air.But how will we "run out of time" if we fail to increase taxes THIS
legislative session???Please support this assertion...
Thank you Judy, for a well thought out letter. I know you will get a knee-jerk
freak out from many readers, but if the reader really look at the proposals..
it's all good.How has a carbon tax worked so far? The carbon
tax in BC, Canada, has lowered emissions (10-19%) and has lowered taxes with the
fees. Lowered taxes, not raise them! Remember it is a fee on dirty fuels, not
on citizens. And the rebate more than makes up for the increases in energy
prices for most of us.And what is so powerful about this approach is
that a 'green tariff' will be imposed on all goods entering the U.S.
This has two benefits. One, it protects domestic industries from cheap, dirty
energy goods, and two, it is a powerful lever to induce China, for example, to
reduce emissions - or pay the tariff.
"Remember it is a fee on dirty fuels, not on citizens." Riiiight. Because the gallon of gas is going to pay the fee out of its
wallet.Leave it to a Californian to say an inanimate object will pay
the fee, also called a tax.
Re: Mike Richards "If we need to use fuel to get to work, to heat our
homes, to run our industry, do they think that adding a huge tax will mean that
we won't drive to work, that we will stop heating our homes and that
industry will stop burning fuel? "I agree - the carbon tax could
be a severe drag on an economy struggling out of recession.That's why I advocated for positive government policy in behalf of
transport modal shift towards high speed rail, an economical use of fossil fuel
based energy. Of course there's government again - you won't like
that in spite of government's involvement in the first transcontinental
railroad, space exploration, medical research, the internet, interstate highways
etc. Building high speed rail makes energy sense and it would be great economic
A tax that was paid by fossil fuel to us, the consumers, is clearly our best
solution to climate change. It's been endorsed by Eight Nobel economists
and by the Harvard economist who co-wrote the latest IPCC report on solutions to
climate change. It's simple, requires no government regulations and will
save us from paying trillions for future climate change disasters. We've
already paid over a Trillion in taxes for climate change (NOAA website) and
it's hardly gotten started. The IEA says waiting just five more years will
cost about $5 trillion. This carbon tax will cost us almost nothing, for
consumers, it's a wash, a tax swap, but for fossil fuels it will be fatal.
@Thid Barker"and the earth has been cooling for over a decade and
carbon has nothing to do with it. "We just had the warmest
decade in the modern record and carbon is absolutely a greenhouse gas.
You're banking a lot on the weakest solar cycle in a century and a string
of 4 of 6 years with La Ninas (shouldn't we be cooling rather than stalled
considering the recent negative natural forcings?) Nonetheless we find that the
recent La Nina years are the warmest La Nina years on record, the recent El
Ninos the warmest El Nino years on record (1998 was the strongest El Nino in
half a century), and the warmest ENSO neutral years the warmest neutral years on
record.@BadgerbadgerYes, people pay the taxes, but you
overlook that it's cycled back through subsidies so those who are less
energy wasteful are getting more back than they put in. That's the
incentive for reducing emissions and the reason cap and dividend works.
Schnee. Growing numbers of scientists are predicting global cooling:
Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory: ‘We could be in for a cooling period
that lasts 200-250 years’‘Sun Sleeps’: Danish
Solar Scientist Svensmark declares ‘global warming has stopped and a
cooling is beginning…enjoy global warming while it lasts’Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns ‘global COOLING is almost
a slam dunk’ for up to 30 years or moreAustralian Astronomical
Society warns of global COOLING as Sun’s activity ‘significantly
diminishes’Never let the facts get in the way of your
Still nobody has responded to explain why it will soon be too late... if we
don't raise our taxes NOW!!!Will the politicians we need not be
there... if we don't act NOW...Will popular opinion change...
if we don't raise taxes NOW...Will the science change... If we
don't tax NOW...Well the planet collapse... If we don't
raise taxes NOW...What exactly is going to change... making it
"too late"... if we don't raise taxes NOW...?I wish I
knew what he was talking about when he says IF we don't do it NOW... it
will be too late...===If he's talking about Climate
Change... that is already happening... or isn't (depending on which side
you are on). So it's either too late already... or the planet can handle
things and it's not imperative that we raise taxes NOW... to stop global
warming... NOW...===If it's one of the political
things... I say it can wait.===If it's really
going to be too late IF we wait a week or 2... it's probably to late
re: marxist,While on the surface, your proposal to have the
"government" create train service to eliminate the need for cars might
seem to have merit, have you ever travelled the West? Are you aware how
sparsely populated the West is? Would you have the people from eastern Utah
drive 150 miles to get to a "train station", that would take them 200 or
300 miles north or south and then rent a cart to travel another 150 miles east
or west? I've lived in Europe where almost everyone is within
walking distance of a train station. This is not Europe. Their methods
won't work in America. I know that you're a great fan of Karl Marx,
but he didn't live in America. His ideas found acceptance with people who
rejected a King. We rejected a King in 1776. Marx has nothing to offer those
of us who have accepted freedom and responsibility.A "carbon
tax" would destroy us. A "train system" would financially ruin
America. The CBO said that Amtrak was subsidized with $1.5 billion last year.
Hardly a recommendation for "improvement".
Mike Richardson.... "did you really ask "Do the liberals really think
that adding another huge tax on the United States will cause China to stop
polluting the air?"What, do you also expect all our other sin
taxes to have impact on the Chinese? Really? We need the Chinese to do
something in order for us to do the right thing? When your driving down the
road (I know you obey the speed limit - you told us so - but bear with me on the
example)... do you let the others speed determine what speed you feel is right
to drive? If the guy in the next lane isn't going to slow down, do you
speed up so you are both doing the wrong thing? Bottom line, Global
Warming should not be the reason we try to have clean air. It is a good talking
point. But if we all claim to be so worried about our grand kids future,
shouldn't we be just as worried about the air quality we leave them as we
are about any potential national debt they may be encumbered with? Or do we
just care about "their" debt...?
"Leave it to a Californian to say an inanimate object will pay the fee, also
called a tax."Yes... and my diner didn't pay the tax on my
meal last night either. The car didn't pay any taxes either. My tv.. it
didn't pay the tax when I bought it either. No one claimed
the item was paying the fee... gosh! You pay different fees based on what you
buy or you consume. How is that such a hard concept to grasp. I will not make
any sweeping statements about Utahan's not understanding the concept
because I am sure the vast majority do.
UtahBlueDevil- It was claimed by others that consumers are not the ones paying
the fees? Well who is? If you increase the tax on Exxon, they pass the cost onto
the consumer, so how does anyone but the consumer pay the fee. And when we buy
food or any other goods, the vast majority of which are transported by trucks
that must now pay more for fuel, and thusly charge more to transport goods, does
that not increase the cost of those goods? How is the consumer protected? And if
the government gives the money back to the consumer to offset the increase, how
will that lead the consumer to use less? Well it won't.As for
high speed rail. That is great in a small, densely populated countries like
Japan and Europe, but as Mike said, that does not work well in the US for the
reasons he specified. Essentially the idea is that everyone in the middle of the
country should subsidize rail for the East and West Coasts, and parts of the
Midwest. Why? Let California build high speed rail at their expense without any
Federal subsidy and see how fast they go broke.
Cheerleaders: "A tax... a tax... a carbon carbon tax... YAY"!People who think taxing carbon is a tax on somebody else need to think
again....Who pays the tax?People who buy ANYTHING or do
ANYTHING.If you buy food (that's most of us). If you consume
anything (that's all of us). Do you really think the
producers are going to just swallow this tax... and keep prices the same?NO!... the price of EVERYTHING will go up. The price of anything that
needs energy to be produced, anything that requires energy to bring it to
market, or energy to keep the store lights on, or to keep the office
running...Businesses will be required to raise prices... and cut
jobs (again)...Don't let them tell you that this is just at tax
on somebody else (like they did in the recent election)... it's a direct or
indirect tax on every person who buys of consumes ANYTHING...
@Thid BarkerThree of the four sources you listed are just talking about
the weakest solar cycle in a century. Now... the fact that natural cycles are
involved like always doesn't change the fact there's still an
anthropogenic component. You can have positive and negative forcings going on at
the same time (and when they cancel each other out it doesn't mean they
don't exist, it just means we have a "pause" in temperature
change). The question is... how much do you want to bet on the solar pattern
staying consistently low for a long period like the Maunder Minimum to maintain
the counterbalance on human-induced warming? We know one thing... the
anthropogenic component is not going away.
"Let California build high speed rail at their expense without any Federal
subsidy and see how fast they go broke"And California could say
the same thing back.... let Utah pay for their own highways to low populated
areas..."Essentially the idea is that everyone in the middle of
the country should subsidize rail for the East and West Coasts,"Your kidding right... you think Utah tax payers are subsidizing tax payers on
the coast. You have the flow of dollars going the wrong way, completely. Utah
is a net receiver of federal tax dollars... those you think you are subsidizing
are the states that are net providers of revenue. I don't
think that many disagree high speed rail is not ideal for lightly populated
places like Utah... But that has little to do with the fact that there is
decades of precedent of the government using pricing (sometimes by taxation) as
a way to encourage or discourage behavior or usage.
There is only one measurable consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2, and that
is increased plant growth. As far as global temperature goes, nobody has been
able to establish mathematical correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global
temperature despite decades of trying and billions of dollars spent on the
effort. The bottom line is that we can't possibly know what effect more or
less atmospheric CO2 will have on the global climate because we can't
quantify the effect that past increases have had. Taxing CO2 emissions is worse
than pointless when it comes to the environment because the only measurable
impact of CO2 is positive. Well, maybe that's just my opinion, but I happen
to think that higher crop yields are a good thing. And at 400 ppm it certainly
does no harm to animal life.Hottest decade ever? Well, that's
mostly hyperbole. We've only had satellite measurements for part of a
60-year solar cycle, and it happened to be the "up" part. It looks like
we'll be heading down soon, so I guess we'll have to resurrect the
global cooling meme from the 70s.
So Pops…. help me understand. Are you saying those code orange and red
days…. are bogus. Their is no negative health effects to
"atmospheric" conditions… and we should ignore those warnings?
Just trying to understand your perspective and science here. Now I
will gladly admit that I probably haven't studied the subject as much as
you…. but in the readings I have done, there are plenty of studies that
show the cognitive and respiratory impacts of elevated levels of CO2. There are
plenty of studies out there. We know at normal levels, CO2 has little effect.
But at levels as low as 1,000 ppm, there are numerous studies that show
cognitive impact.So I am just wondering. How far do we let it go,
before we do something? Just wondering your thoughts.
A carbon tax, though perceived to be a simple solution, is politically a
non-starter. Thankfully, there are alternative ways to push society
onto a low-carbon future -- from incentives for clean energy and technology
(e.g., tax breaks on solar or electric vehicles) to renewable energy standards
(requirements that utilities incorporate increasing levels of clean energy into
their resources mixes). Another tactic that actually can appeal to
the business-oriented right is elimination of subsidies for carbon-intensive
industries. From the subsidized healthcare costs of black lung disease for coal
miners to water subsidies for making steam in power generation to drilling
subsidies, etc., can all be eliminated in the name of "free markets."
Utah doesn't have a severance tax on coal -- keeping it cheap
and making it hard to move Utah into 21st century energies and technologies.
I was just reading that Apple is powered almost by 100 percent
renewable energy. The company will never come to Utah because we can't
supply it the energy it wants. Sadly, our polluting energy and air are keeping
good jobs from coming to Utah.
@UtahBlueDevilCO2 is odorless and colorless. It is a vital part of
the earth's biosphere. When animals (and humans) breathe, we emit CO2
produced by the energy-consuming mechanisms in our cells. Plants take in CO2 and
use it in conjunction with sunlight and water to convert it back to food. Plants
thrive on much higher levels of CO2 than have been available in recent history.
Greenhouses will sometimes artificially increase the amount of CO2 in order to
accelerate plant growth.We are nowhere near 1000 ppm, nor have we
any hope of getting there in our lifetime, even though plant life would love
it.The red "no burn" days are the result of other emissions.
I'm all for replacing our coal, oil, and gas burning with nuclear power
plants and electric cars, as that would have a tremendous positive impact on the
environment. Solar and wind not so much, as they aren't economically viable
and have a large environmental impact, much of which has not yet been evaluated
properly.CO2 is not a problem, and we shouldn't let it divert
our focus from real problems.
People who do not believe in Man-Made Global-Warming need to remember... that it
is some people's "faith" and their "God". They feel the
same need to proselytize their faith to other people trying to convince them to
believe like them... that you feel. So when you say you don't believe
it... it's like saying you don't believe in their God. You can see
how offensive that would be to them... right?So try to be as
understanding as possible... and if you don't choose to believe like
them... just don't be offensive about it... and keep protecting the earth
in the way you believe you should. Don't feel you must embrace their
beliefs... UNTIL they control the government and FORCE you too follow their
What a pathetic state of affairs we have come to when either side would have the
bizarre belief that one side or the other needs to "control the
government" and "force you to follow their rules". Pull out your
history books!! It has been the "one party rule" for less than a third
of our history. We are a Country that has been built on the ability to
compromise, but I suppose I am just reading the Constitution upside down again.
This letter is the biggest crock I've read in a long time. The writer
should be writing it to the Bejing Gazzette or whatever government run newspaper
they have over there. Companies here in the states are regulated to death
already by the EPA. I want lower energy prices, not higher ones.
Algore has already made millions off of this bogus stuff. It's just a way
for the libs to pad their bank accounts at the expense of everyone else. If
Algore was really interested in the little people, he'd give his millions
away that he's making with thes carbon credits to the poor and less
Exxon Mobil and the Sierra Club just today agreed to work together to get a
carbon tax passed in 2016. Let's hope it's a revenue-neutral tax that
paid by fossil fuels and passed on 100% to consumers so they use it to but solar
and wind energy. See The Citizens Climate Lobby website for details. eight Nobel
economists support this.