We'll fight global warming with....new taxes!
- Thread starter Fremmer
- Start date
What the original post of this thread proves once again. When confronted with a Large Issue, the difference between the parties:
Democrats: Raise taxes and ban things.
Republicans: Encourage the free market to find solutions, which it will.
The poor Democrats just can't help themselves, it's the answer they always turn to when they don't have an answer. "Mr./Mrs. representative, what's your answer to the ____ issue?" .... *twitch* twitch* "Raise...TAXES!"
Democrats: Raise taxes and ban things.
Republicans: Encourage the free market to find solutions, which it will.
The poor Democrats just can't help themselves, it's the answer they always turn to when they don't have an answer. "Mr./Mrs. representative, what's your answer to the ____ issue?" .... *twitch* twitch* "Raise...TAXES!"
What is significant is how much money will be transferred to other nations under the guise of a solution for global warming. The citizens of the US will have two choices:
1. Go without. Can't afford the new taxes on everything? Well, you'll just have to stop driving, heating your house, buying food, and all of the other necessities of life; or
2. Pay more and continue to consume the same amount of energy that you did before the scam was imposed. This will work great for Al Gore, who can afford to pay more to power his mansion. And his other houses. And all of his cars. Ect....
And here's the best part: the tax money collected won't be used by the US government; instead, the money will be used to buy "hydrocarbon credits" from other nations that consume less energy. And there's the real goal of global warming advocates: wealth will be transferred from the United States to other countries.
Pretty good scam, if I do say so myself.
Huchahucha
New member
That is a pretty good scam, but not as good as the one that is already happening where companies like Dupont set up their own carbon credit businesses, then pay themselves to clean up their own messes at reduced cost.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
JuanCarlos
New member
You are apparently using a computer to communicate with us. It is powered be electricity. Production of electricity causes air pollution. The products that are used to make your computer took pollution to create.
Doesn't anyone else see the irony here?
You're right. Because I take reasonable measures to reduce the amount of pollution I create, while at the same time still reaping the benefits of modern technology rather than living in a cave, I'm obviously just a gigantic hypocrite.
Also, I generally reuse much of my computer parts. For instance, instead of just buying a whole new desktop computer a few years back (when my old one no longer had the power to run some of the apps I needed it to) instead I upgraded only the parts I needed to (CPU, motherboard, and RAM) and kept the rest. So all the other parts (HD, network card, video card, case/PSU, etc.) are upwards of 8 years old. And, because it doesn't have the latest dual-core processor or video card with three fans, the whole thing runs off of a 200W PSU...compared to the 350W-450W PSUs common on desktop computers today. As for the parts not re-used, they got recycled into a computer for my grandmother, who doesn't exactly have to run OrCAD or MATLAB.
Though generally when possible (which is a majority of the time) I use my laptop instead. Yeah, extra pollution went into making *gasp* two computers for one person...but at least this one generally draws less than 40W of power when in use (the supply maxes out at 45W).
EDIT: The point here being that it is still possible to enjoy the benefits that technology can bring (such as finding information and communicating via the internet) while causing less impact on the environment. I have no intention of moving to a commune and growing my own hemp anytime soon, and I'm not expecting anybody else to do the same.
This would be super, except that as I already mentioned negative externalities and/or collective action problems are one place where the free market tends to fail.
JuanCarlos
New member
Yes, and I'm sure that quick one-liners and emoticons are just what we need to bring it back.
JuanCarlos
New member
I say "bah" to carbon credits. That really is just rich people trying to make themselves feel better while still polluting more than they need to. I'm more a fan of paying extra for "green" energy credits and then actually reducing consumption.
As for my 1000th post, I think all I get is the nagging suspicion that I've spent far too much time here.
EDIT: And a deep feeling of shame that my 1000th post was just a quick one-liner and an emoticon.
If global warming exists and we have caused it, there is nothing we can do about it. We would have to revert to living like we did in the 1600s, and I don't see people giving up cars and planes and electricity for that. It's just not going to happen. One day when we're all living in sunny central Canada with a world population of 30 million, we'll be a lot better because we won't have to hear about the plight of everyone else, such as Africa! Speaking of Africa, they'll be like an oven so they'll have fun there.
orionengnr
New member
...anyone care to guess where those "carbon tax" dollars will go?
Certainly not towards renewable energy sources.
Not to remediate any "damage" done.
Not to buy poor folks a new Hybrid SUV.
Nope, it will go to the fed.gov to blow on some BS / PC "program"...
Open your wallets, good citizens, and do it now. BOHICA, and expect nothing, not even a kiss.
Certainly not towards renewable energy sources.
Not to remediate any "damage" done.
Not to buy poor folks a new Hybrid SUV.
Nope, it will go to the fed.gov to blow on some BS / PC "program"...
Open your wallets, good citizens, and do it now. BOHICA, and expect nothing, not even a kiss.
The science behind the theory of global warming is questionable at best. Most of the brouhaha over global warming is based on only about what, 150 years worth of data? Yeah, really representative as far as samples of data concerning billions of years go.
The biggest adherents to the global warming theory (ironically) act as though history began about 200 years ago. These same people bash Creationist science at the same time that they outdo Creationist science in underestimating the age of the Earth. Now, I think Creationist science is pap, but it is better science than the theory that people burning stuff is warming up the world. For instance, it is known that during the Medieval period and the 17th century that the world underwent a cooling period, then warmed back up. The climate changed dramatically during the prehistoric times when people weren't around to burn stuff and warm up the world. During that time all that fossil fuel we use today was made too. All these scientific facts are utterly disregarded in favor of the arrogantly self-affirming theory that we are changing the climate radically when we flat out don't know what causes climate change in the first place. It may or may not be us, but Al Gore's smarmy mug sure sells it well.
Yeah, I'm totally opening my wallet for carbon taxes...at the same time I write letters to the school board demanding that Creationist science displace real science in the curriculum.
The biggest adherents to the global warming theory (ironically) act as though history began about 200 years ago. These same people bash Creationist science at the same time that they outdo Creationist science in underestimating the age of the Earth. Now, I think Creationist science is pap, but it is better science than the theory that people burning stuff is warming up the world. For instance, it is known that during the Medieval period and the 17th century that the world underwent a cooling period, then warmed back up. The climate changed dramatically during the prehistoric times when people weren't around to burn stuff and warm up the world. During that time all that fossil fuel we use today was made too. All these scientific facts are utterly disregarded in favor of the arrogantly self-affirming theory that we are changing the climate radically when we flat out don't know what causes climate change in the first place. It may or may not be us, but Al Gore's smarmy mug sure sells it well.
Yeah, I'm totally opening my wallet for carbon taxes...at the same time I write letters to the school board demanding that Creationist science displace real science in the curriculum.
Another Question?
Name any weather phenomenon going on today that has never happened on this planet before. Out here in the west we've had a very dry winter. That has happened before. Texas has been getting more then their fair share of rain. That has happened before. My son in Phoenix tells me that it is very hot there now, yes, it has happened before.
Now, point out a current climatic condition that is brand new. I want to know of something that is being caused by this so called global warming thing.
Name any weather phenomenon going on today that has never happened on this planet before. Out here in the west we've had a very dry winter. That has happened before. Texas has been getting more then their fair share of rain. That has happened before. My son in Phoenix tells me that it is very hot there now, yes, it has happened before.
Now, point out a current climatic condition that is brand new. I want to know of something that is being caused by this so called global warming thing.
Don't say that to a 'true believer' in this emotive propaganda. You will get a wheel barrow full of hate as science isn't going to back them up.
As I stated before. This is an EMOTIVE issue that uses the tactic of repeating the same thing enough times that many people will just accept it as truth. Couple that with eviscerate anyone that disagrees and poof.
Now you have an artificial premise off of which to make conclusions. this thread is a FINE example in many ways. Fighting Global Warming with new taxes....well the false premise is now assumed to be a factual problem with a proposed solution. The problem it's self is without validity yet the leg work has been done well enough that some dollars can now be reaped.
The biggest proponents are the very people that own the companies that collect the 'Carbon Offset' dollars. The 'true believers' will attack you in a wink with insults and accusations to keep you quiet or to avoid facing the fact they were duped.
Anyone seen that acid rain, ozone whole, starvation from over population, birth defects from radiation of food, etc. manifest yet. Just a new cash cow for the fear merchants.
As for taxing behavior. My stand has been and will continue to be that if a tax isn't for the essential function of government or isn't fair and equitable, then it is wrong whether it is approved of or not.
As I stated before. This is an EMOTIVE issue that uses the tactic of repeating the same thing enough times that many people will just accept it as truth. Couple that with eviscerate anyone that disagrees and poof.
Now you have an artificial premise off of which to make conclusions. this thread is a FINE example in many ways. Fighting Global Warming with new taxes....well the false premise is now assumed to be a factual problem with a proposed solution. The problem it's self is without validity yet the leg work has been done well enough that some dollars can now be reaped.
The biggest proponents are the very people that own the companies that collect the 'Carbon Offset' dollars. The 'true believers' will attack you in a wink with insults and accusations to keep you quiet or to avoid facing the fact they were duped.
Anyone seen that acid rain, ozone whole, starvation from over population, birth defects from radiation of food, etc. manifest yet. Just a new cash cow for the fear merchants.
As for taxing behavior. My stand has been and will continue to be that if a tax isn't for the essential function of government or isn't fair and equitable, then it is wrong whether it is approved of or not.
Last edited by a moderator:
JuanCarlos
New member
This is true. However by making fossil fuels more expensive it would encourage increased development into alternative/renewable sources thus making them cheaper as time goes on.
Basically the point is to correct for the negative externalities of pollution so that people/businesses (and yes, by businesses we do mean the customers of those businesses...so really just people) pay for the cost of using such sources, not just the price. The unfortunate truth that the money taken in will go into stealth fighters or foreign excursions or poor people or whatever isn't necessarily relevant...though yeah I'd rather see it go into subsidies for renewables/research.
Oh, and while it's true that customers, not businesses, ultimately pay for such taxes by taxing these things you're again encouraging increased research/development of renewables/cleaner alternatives...because businesses will then be competing for customers and one way to lower prices is to lower costs...taxes being one of them.
Overall however the main problem is that this would hit the poor/middle class much harder than anybody else, since they spend more of their income on energy and the products created using it. So without some form of credit at the lower/middle end of the income ladder, this is going to be seriously regressive.
Everyone has a choice.
My current vehicle, a V8 4WD 4Runner, gets poor gas mileage -- I average around 17 mpg combined. At $3/gallon, that costs me about $2600 per year. At $4/gallon, it would cost me $3500 per year. Would I like paying that? No, not in the least.
Could I easily afford to replace my truck with an equivalent newer truck? No, actually. I recently took a job in academia and with it came a 15% pay cut.
But if I had to, I could trade in my truck and get a used economy car. If I traded it for something that got 30 mpg, my annual cost would be $2000 per year. I would be making a sacrifice to do so (no more driving on the beach...), but I would be saving a lot of money.
The fact is, an increased gas tax is the best way to increase the overall fleet economy. Some of the revenue from the tax could be used to fund a tax credit for lower income tax payers, thus reducing the burden on them.