Push for a Carbon Tax


#1

‘A new group, Americans for Carbon Dividends, supports a plan to tax carbon emissions and deliver the revenue to American taxpayers’
‘The proposal would set an initial tax of $40 per ton of carbon dioxide produced and would increase the price over time. That would raise the cost of a gallon of gas by approximately 38 cents, the group says,’



#2

A tax on carbon emissions would increase the price of those goods and thus any return from the tax revenue would only be an offset to higher prices paid. It would simply be a pot into which money is tossed, stirred and redistributed.

The justification for the tax is encouragement to reduce energy consumption. We already have that incentive, it is called the “cost of that energy.”

And no carbon would be removed from the atmosphere in the process. In fact trees would be felled to create the paper used in the administration of the carbon tax for a net decrease in carbon sequestering plants.


#3

Political marketing and automobile marketing are very similar. Trends and imagery trump practicality and value. So we get just what we deserve in the end and then most of us complain.


#4

That’s what they say. But users would pay and tax-payers would get the money back, so it transfers money from petroleum-users to tax-payers.


#5

How is that different that what I said? Aren’t petroleum users also taxpayers? And aren’t taxpayers petroleum users? And how would that reduce carbon emissions?


#6

Users would pay and the tax payers would get the money back :rofl:


#7

I was pointing out that you said what the policy openly says it is, as though they were trying to fool somebody.

Not all of them. I haven’t bought any gasoline in more than a year, have super-insulated and sealed my home, taken all the other energy-saving measures the DOE recommends - so I use a lot less than the average person. I’d pay some, probably less then everybody else in this forum.

probably

People would pay in proportion to how much they use.

Even if it were a withholding tax and every penny was returned to the collectee at the end of the year that would probably decrease use.


#8

Not just oil. “carbon”, so that includes anything that uses coal, or electricity from coal, along with natural gas.

Sounds like a huge income redistribution mechanism. Wonder what the governments take will be? Gotta be ‘handling charges’ for a program this huge.


#9

I’m not against the idea…EXCEPT… We are already taxed for it. Every industry that burns fuel has been taxed multiple times over the past 30+ years. At the state and Fed level. Where has that money gone?


#10

A great deal of the money was spent on highways which promotes more driving and therefore more fuel consumption. Just think you much tax we wouldn’t pay and therefore how much money we would be able to keep if I-95 and I-80 were plowed up.


#11

Trees only temporarily sequester CO2 from the air anyway. When the leaves fall, they decay and fungus turns them right back into CO2, when the tree dies, fungus and other organisms convert that wood right back into CO2.
Limestone formations created by shellfish is a far more permanent form of sequestering CO2, until we mine it and roast it into quick lime which returns that CO2 right back into the atmosphere. Maybe we should just cut down trees, burn them to charcoal, and then bury that charcoal.


#12

The last time I crossed Louisiana on I-10, I could have sworn it WAS plowed up.


#13

Oh @B.L.E you’re no fun. Someone comes up with a great idea to fleece the public and create a new program and you bring science into it.


#14

I pay a carbon tax from the get-go. I get oil and gas revenue each year from mineral rights and I have to pay taxes on it long before it ever hits the refineries.

The equations on the spread sheet are mind-numbing, but basically the taxes vary based on the production totals. More oil and gas produced; more taxes paid.

So as a petroleum user, mineral rights owner, and taxpayer I get hammered from three sides.

You can safely bet that the people involved in that plan have a vested interest in it. They always do.


#15

I’ll just leaf this here; :smile:

http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/urban-forest/


#16

Read what you posted in response, think about it and try to answer the question; How would that reduce carbon emission?


#17

While I tend to support efforts to clean and protect the environment it’s obvious that environmentalists are being rounded up by Pied Pipers with all manner of phony emotional pleas. I followed the climatereaction.org link to their facebook page and found a dramatic photo of a ‘dirty’ power plant and all that appeared to be exiting the chimney was water vapor.

We are becoming suckers to the high drama click bait on many issues. And both sides of the environmental situation are boiling over with organizations eager to get our $upport. In most instances I feel sure that a dollar of support won’t result in even a dime’s worth of effort.


#18

I’m not a fan of carbon taxes because all they really do is move money around, which when you think about it is the root of our environmental problems in the first place.

Put another way, I can’t afford a Tesla and the Leaf doesn’t go far enough to get me to work and back, so I’ve got to drive a gas car, for now anyway. That gas car is putting CO/CO2 into the atmosphere. If you charge me a tax on what it puts into the atmosphere… Great and all, but I’m gonna pay it and keep driving because the alternative is to quit my job and find a homeless shelter. And because you’re charging me that tax, that’s even less money I can put aside to buy a Tesla some day which means I’m gonna be driving that gas car even longer than if you hadn’t taxed me.

You can scale that argument all the way up to industries which emit carbon - they’re not going to stop because if they stop they go out of business, so they’ll just pay the tax and keep belching the carbon.

What’s really needed is government incentives to find ways to do what we do now, only with less or preferably no carbon emissions. In some cases this will not be possible, in which case there needs to be incentives to just stop doing what we do now.

A great example is the coal industry. That’s an industry that needs to go away, but if we just say “get rid of coal!” then we’re putting a bunch of coal miners out of work, which is unnecessary. If, however, we say “let’s work with the coal industry and convert the workers into solar installers,” then you reduce the dependence on coal while keeping the miners employed and not getting black lung disease. Win-win, and now electric car owners are charging their car off of the solar panel on the roof instead of the coal plant 5 miles away.

The real problem is that we’re pretty used to our modern lives, and to this point the focus has been on “how can we not give anything up at all or fundamentally change anything we’re doing at all but still save the environment,” which strikes me somewhat like saying “How can I keep eating nachos and ice cream and pie at every meal plus 3 snack-times a day and still lose weight.”

Electric cars are actually a pretty great start - now that we’ve figured out how to divorce cars from burning fossil fuel themselves, all we have to do is get the power suppliers that recharge them to stop burning fossil fuels, which means more wind, solar, and (for now, anyway) nuclear.

If we could just make it so that most cars on the road get their energy from non-carbon-emitting sources, we’d go a long way toward stopping the environmental disaster that we’re currently causing.

Yes, this might mean that we will have to get used to the idea of taking a 30 minute break every 4 hours of a road trip instead of a 5 minute break so that the car can charge but… an extra hour per 8 hour road trip seems like a fairly small price to pay to avert a complete disaster for our species.

As Carlin once said, “save the planet” is the wrong idea - the planet’s been through a lot more than we’re doing to it right now. The planet isn’t going to be destroyed if we keep going the way we’re going. We are.


#19

When prices go up, people buy less.


#20

Only true for non-necessities. Sure, people buy fewer leather couches when furniture prices go up, but when the sewer service raises its rates you don’t curtail using the bathroom - you just pay more.