To end the fiscal showdown, tax carbon (CNN Communist Party Rep. Opinion)

[Warfish]

Originally Posted by quantum

Experts anticipate that the $500 billion in scheduled federal budget cuts will cost us nearly one million jobs. The $1.25 trillion from a carbon tax would allow us to avoid these cuts with money to spare to pay down the deficit, and to maintain clean energy investments that create 3.2 times as many jobs per dollar than subsidies for fossil fuels. A carbon tax would also reduce barriers to market entry for clean-energy startups facing an entrenched fossil fuel industry. There are already 3.1 million green jobs in America -- imagine how many more there would be if we leveled the playing field instead of subsidizing oil and coal companies.

I find this very interesting in light of the Solyndra collapse and other green companies declaring bankruptcy. Is he counting on people to not know or remember?

Well, it's also a dishonest argument.

Oil/Gas is "subsidized" via tax breaks enjoyed by other industries as well. I.e. they get to keep more of their income.

Green Energy is directly subsidized. I.e. not only do they get to pay very little (or nothing) in taxes, they get a direct injection of Federal Money into their coffers to work with.

These are not equal situations. I could be convinced of the wisdom of Green Subsidies, but I really do prefer we have an honest debate about it all.

This is along the same lines as the Feds budgeting to increase spending by 10% (knowing they need to show a "cut" eventually), then accepting "only" a 8% increase in spending, and then trumpeting how they "cut spending by 2%".

No they didn't, they increased spending by 8%. The fact that this works so well is a poor reflection on the People imo.

[quantum]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Well, it's also a dishonest argument.

Oil/Gas is "subsidized" via tax breaks enjoyed by other industries as well. I.e. they get to keep more of their income.

Green Energy is directly subsidized. I.e. not only do they get to pay very little (or nothing) in taxes, they get a direct injection of Federal Money into their coffers to work with.

These are not equal situations. I could be convinced of the wisdom of Green Subsidies, but I really do prefer we have an honest debate about it all.

This is along the same lines as the Feds budgeting to increase spending by 10% (knowing they need to show a "cut" eventually), then accepting "only" a 8% increase in spending, and then trumpeting how they "cut spending by 2%".

No they didn't, they increased spending by 8%. The fact that this works so well is a poor reflection on the People imo.

very true.

At the entity I work at, they have a choice: increase headcount by 12 (TWELVE!) to save about $3million a year, or hire a vendor.

They are choosing the vendor because they think people will remember the 12 new people hired.

Unbelievable.

[Axil]

Originally Posted by Warfish

Sure there is, all the existing laws on pollution. Like gun control, this is an issue thats had more than it's fair share of legislation and regulation passed already.

If they are not good enough, undo them, and pass better science-supported laws. Turning it into yet another form of progressive wealth redistribution is not the answer, for this or any other possible "tax it to stop it" foolishness.

Ideally though, i think a lot of the current laws regarding pollution should be repealed. Replacing them with some sort of tradeable commodity (carbon credit) to disincentive certain levels of pollution without making them illegal has merit on paper.

Unfortunately i don't think you can trust the government not to turn it into a "progressive wealth redistribution" program, as you mention.

I am just frustrated with the EPA slowly turning many household items into crap. I would gladly pay a little more to a company that bought "water waster credits" do have a halfway decent shower head.

So in short, you're right. Wish you weren't though.

[Winstonbiggs]

Originally Posted by detjetsfan

Can I bump this thread in 40 years when lower Manhattan is flooded by rising seas and half the world's population has no clean drinking water?

So we agree there is a natural solution to global warming that is far better then a government impossed one.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

So we agree there is a natural solution to global warming that is far better then a government impossed one.

+1


Global warming is a can of Raid to the human virus. Live by the ocean, die by the ocean.

[HessStation]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

+1


Global warming is a can of Raid to the human virus. Live by the ocean, die by the ocean.

I always thought War was a genetic makeup woven into our DNA. It's basically God's (or whoever) way of managing population control. But maybe it's global warming. Or both.

[PlumberKhan]

Originally Posted by HessStation

I always thought War was a genetic makeup woven into our DNA. It's basically God's (or whoever) way of managing population control. But maybe it's global warming. Or both.

Everything is population control

War. Famine. Disaster.

It's nice some people want to save the environment. What's gonna be funny is that after decades of trying to do so, we'll all be wiped out when the Yellowstone Supervolcano turns 2/3's of the US into a wasteland.


Sent from my 8.6 acre property with 4 bedroom house with waterfront views and low utility costs because of the gas well on my property using fireworks...

[Trades]

Originally Posted by PlumberKhan

Everything is population control

War. Famine. Disaster.

It's nice some people want to save the environment. What's gonna be funny is that after decades of trying to do so, we'll all be wiped out when the Yellowstone Supervolcano turns 2/3's of the US into a wasteland.


Sent from my 8.6 acre property with 4 bedroom house with waterfront views and low utility costs because of the gas well on my property using fireworks...

If we all start trading lava credits now we can stop it!!!