Why you should tax carbon

[hardnox604008]

Forget C&T, the reason to tax carbon is that all carbon based forms of energy are finite. Period. A profoundly conservative and scientifically accurate view.

Even if you accept the various pitches about "250 years of coal, 100 years of NG, 50 years of Bakken Oil" without putting them in perspective, they to are ultimately finite just like the 80% of the US conventional oil reserves that we've burned through.

For conservatives, a carbon tax would be regressive which would make them happy- finally a way to extract more revenue from the freeloaders (although I would favor revenue neutral offsets, personally).

As to broader environmental and competitive issues, I think you must then place a tariff on imports from any country based on their carbon stance- China chief among them. That would also have a regressive impact as the things people of modest means buy at WalMart so some offset would probably also need to be considered there as well.

Thee is probably some opportunity in thee somewhere for the ethanol, biomass etc. thing- I'll have to think on that.

[r3020]

Finally, some telling the truth on the carbon tax. If you want to tax carbon on it's merits fine, just don't try to ram it down our throats as to it will save the planet from man made global warming. Now the debate turns to how much carbon based energy do we have. The carbon tax will further destroy our economy because what you propose forces us to pay for every one elses carbon use. Our consumers and manufactuers face a cost most of the rest of the world does not. Not the best of ways to grow your way out of a dpression.

[hardnox604008]

I wrote that you would have to create a tariff to equalize the impact. 

The Koch Brothers et al certainly want you to believe that it would be the end of the world.

For what it is worth I also don't think that 98% of the scientific community is engaged in a conspiracy to keep real ameicans down. I do think it is complicated and don't favor C&T primarily becasue I think you'd just end up with the silk suit boys gaming the system.

A carbon tax doesn't fund the offsets that C&T does  but it does encourage conservation and make non-carbon energy sources more competitive.

[Samnospam]

That is basically what I said in some long lost thread. If you want to encourage alternate forms of energy don't pick which alternates to subsidize make oil more expensive and the best alternatives will rise to the top. But you'll have to tariff every import or you'll simply send jobs overseas. Oh and tax larger people cause they exhale more carbon than smaller. Firewood burner need a tax and woodlots owners need a credit. Lots of details, some new government agencies needed.

[Nebrfarmr]

I must have missed something.  where did 98% of the scientific community agree on carbon?

If you are talking about man-made global warming because of carbon dioxide emissions, there is nothing near that.  However, I don't think the scientist themselves are into any kind of conspiracy, but the people who stand to make big $$$ on it sure are.

Al Gore filmed a 'documentary' so riddled with mis-statements that in many countries, before it is show to schoolchildren, they get a disclaimer pointing out many of the mistakes.  However, Al Gore stands to make over a Billion (with a B) dollars if all this cap-and trade laws get passed.

I do think that instead of subsidising just one or two forms of energy, the most cost-effective sources should be used on their own merits.

[hardnox604008]

A very high percentage agree that there is some man made impact on the climate beyond that it scatters as to type and degree.

For the relatively small number of contras it has been very good business too.

[bruce MN]

What's really interesting is how these dogmatic free market capitalists (insprired, I'm sure by the Kochs and Haliburtons and such of the world) can so easily drop every speck of whatever lame argument they have and turn and frame their's aroud the percieved or rumored fact that somebody else who is not them is going to "make money".

[Nebrfarmr]

Not saying the Koch's are any more reliable, what I was trying to say is that we need to find out the facts ourselves.

Remember, there are several levels of lies

White lies

lies

d****ed lies

and worst of all, stastics

(I think I tribute that to Mark Twain)

There is plenty of evidence that some (I don't know how many) scientists purposely skewed data to make Global warming appear worse than it really is, which also throws off any other scientists who assumed their data was accurate.  (remember Climatgate?)

http://www.philipcoppens.com/climategate.html

While there may be evidence of the climate warming, I have yet to be convinced that people are the cause of it. 

In 1977, Time Magazine had as its cover story, 'How to Survive the Coming Ice Age'

This leads me to believe there are normally periods of warming, and cooling, long before there was enough human activity to affect it. 

If you read the article, and click the links he references, you will find that the most skewed data seems to come from places that get the most money when they 'prove' global warming.

To get back to the original point of the thread, I don't know if a carbon tax is a good or bad thing, I lean towards bad simply because whenever the government gets involved, the only people who really seem to prosper because of their programs are government bureaucrats.

However, if you start talking about dropping subsidies for fossil-fuels, you have peaked my interest.  Maybe instead of taxing everyone that uses carbon, to try to find new sources of energy, simply stop subsidizing fossil fuels will make some renewable ones more cost-comptetive by comparison, and save the government some money. 

[Nebrfarmr]

That's part of the problem.  A huge percentage of the people who argue on either side stand to make money on it if their side 'wins'.

This makes it terribly difficult to find out exactly who is right.

Remember when the Colts were 1,000 to 1 to win the superbowl?  That didn't mean they couldn't win, it just meant no one thought they would.

[r3020]

It is so HILARIOUS the way you lefties are back pedaling on man made global warming. Now it is man has some impact on "climate change". This is why we do not believe anything you say about the budget, you have been proven so wrong time and again. When there was no alternative media you could get away nwith that kind of crap, but with the new media the American people have become sooooo much better informed they just by into that kind of stuff.

With out a debt ceiling increase the Social Security checks will stop on 8-3. HAHAHAHAHABUUURRRHAHAHAHA. ONLY IF OBAMA CHOOSES GO STOP THEM!!!!!!!