A Challenge to all those Who Rant and Rave Against the Fossil Fuel Industry

Australia gets over 90% of its power from fossil fuels (FF). America about 69% Germany 54% (but that is going way up due to closing Nukes).

Bowerbird just finished one of her usual rant-and-raves about the FF industry profits and how they pollute to their hearts content.

The fact is BB,and the rest of you eco-folks, the fossil fuel industry does not pollute AT ALL....you do every time you turn on your computer to post another line of illogic.

So until you all pull the power from your home or apartment for 90% of every 24 hours (or whichever percentage is applicable) you are a hypocrite of the first order

Let me help the technically challenged here:

To figure out how long you may use electricity and still be true to your beliefs, take the applicable percentage, subtract it from 100% and multiple the result (as a decimal) by 24 to get your allowed hours of power. For example BB is allowed: 100% - 90% = 10% .10X24 - 2.4 hours of power per day. Easy huh??

Now you may wonder how to cut your power from your residence. In the US the breaker box is commonly outside on the side of your home or apt. It is usually medium grey. Simply open it and flip all the switches for the required time period. Caution do not use any metal object like a screwdriver to do this.


Now I expect that some of the environuts will balk at this suggestion of how THEY can actually save the planet with these comebacks:

1) the most common will be some completely disconnected nonsense because they do not understand the connection between their wall socket and the power plant
2) some will say since I work for the fossil fuel industry they are justified in ignoring all the facts simply because I presented them and I must be biased (this will be the most common)
3) a few may even understand most of his and be the ones who, with all good intentions, signed up for "green energy" from their provider. Well the only reason you are able to pay your bill is that the wind/solar energy is backed up 90% by FF. Without FF your bill would be unbelievable (in fact you would have no bill since there would not be enough electricity for residential use at all-the gov't would take it)


So one way or another guys, you all have very limited hours each day to do everything (including post here) IF you wish to actually practice what you preach....so type FAST......

 

It is difficult to have a discussion based on a false premise. Learn and understand what us "eco-folks" really want and then try again.

 

Hey I was just quoting your point-man BB. She said that THE FOSSIL FUEL industry pollutes so I am pointing out the truth.

So far your answer falls under category 1(as predicted).....care to enlighten me as to what you "eco-folks" really want????

 

Missed the point, I see. Let me give you a hint: What do you southerners really want?

 

How about a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the *science*?

You can do your part by being the first skeptic to put up a thoughtful, well-reasoned post in the thread The surface temperature record really is incredibly robust... that I started here over three months ago. I put up a ton of good stuff -- real science with real results -- and so far, not a single skeptic here has addressed the substance of that thread. Would you like to be the first to take a crack at it?

 

You and Manny are desperately trying to hi-jack this thread because you eco-nuts are figuratively stuck on a catfish hook here that you cannot squirm off of. (BTW I did reply on your thread - which is the proper way).

Now are you going to do what Manny refuses?? Tell me what you want - in the real world....how do you want to solve this perceived problem of AGW. Give me some simple steps you say will save the world.......I'm waiting......

 

And ......still waiting

 

What we want is a change in Industry regulation, and that's what we've got with an ETS. And there's no reason that Australia can't get more of its power from renewable energy, as you've pointed out other countries get up to 50% of their power from renewable energy. And there's certainly no reason that we need to start burning more brown coal. The whole point is that we will end up paying MORE to try and fix the problems that ghg emissions create than if we pay now. The world isn't going to end, it's just going to be much more expensive. And consumers asking their power companies to invest more in renewable energy is perfectly reasonable. Power is basic infrastructure, it's not like we're ever going to stop using it, certainly not going to hurt the power generation industry if prices go up because, at least initially, renewables are more expensive. What it's going to hurt are the mining companies, and that's where most of the opposition is. It's like Apples customers wanting them to ensure better working conditions for its Chinese employees. Just because they want a product doesn't mean they can't also want the company to ensure their employees are treated well, it's just an environmental expectation rather than a workers rights one.

All this alarmist stuff saying if you really believe in AGW you should turn off your electricity and go an live in a cave somewhere is ridiculous. Like pretty much everything else, preventative policy is exponentially cheaper than trying to fix the problems once they're created. $29 per tonne of co2 emissions is hardly extortionate. It costs you what, $60 for a small trailer load of stuff at the tip? All this is a recognition that co2 emissions have an environmental cost, that will eventually end up being paid for by taxpayers anyway. Much the same way mining companies have to clean up and rehabilitate the environmental they disturb so we don't end up paying millions and millions when they pollute and destroy river systems.

 

What have I posted to go from "eco-folk" to "eco-nut"? Because if you had used "eco-nut" in your OP, I would not even have bothered to respond. Silly me. I thought you were interested in an honest discussion.
Most mature, honest adults understand that the real world, compromises are necessary. I realized 4o years ago that most people are hypocrites; it is part of being an adult. Tell me elmer. Have you told your kids not to lie but then told them about fat man from the North Pole that brings them presents every Christmas. Or a rabbit that brings them baskets filled with candy? I notice that you are from Alabama. Are you a Christian? Did you cast a stone at us hypocrites? Yes. I will admit it. I am a hypocrite. Are you?

 

What we want is a tax on fossil carbon at the point of production or import. The change can be structured to be made revenue-neutral, and it can be structured to phase in. But the tax must (eventually) be high enough to capture the external cost of fossil carbon. If such a tax were in place, the problem would solve itself.

It is fundamentally immoral for third parties to bear the cost of other people's actions. And you right-wingers who don't understand that are acting immorally.

 

Finally, an actual answer......

What we want is a tax on fossil carbon at the point of production or import.

Ok, so now instead of 7 cents per Kwh, people will pay 12.......with you so far........

The change can be structured to be made revenue-neutral, and it can be structured to phase in.

ok, so the 5 cents doesn't ALL go to the gov't, but they will take 2 cents to hire agencies and inspectors and so forth, that leaves you with 3 cents ...where does it go??

But the tax must (eventually) be high enough to capture the external cost of fossil carbon.

There is the rub, ESTIMATES today show just right at doubling the cost of the electricity, and that is on paper...in reality it will be much more.

So you will double or triple people's power bill, and for what? To solve a problem that does not exist......IMHO

Plus even if I stipulate that AGW does exist....what % of the CO2 that man is adding the atmosphere (about 3.5% of the TOTAL CO2 that goes in every day) come from fossil fuel plants in America......??? A tiny tiny fraction.....Also, do you realize that China adds CO2 emissions at such a rate they add the equivalent of the entire output of Germany or the UK in 1 YEAR !! You will triple peoples power bill in the USA for absolutely nothing....whether AGW is real or not.......

(BTW I do appreciate the fact you actually answered my question, unlike the others....)

Next suggestion.......

 

Ok, not an answer and regional and religious bigotry.....

 

What?
You expect me to ignore your accusations of hypocrisy? You expect me to ignore your ad homs? Another conservative with reading comprehension problems.

 

No, actually, you fell off right at the start. The tax on non-fossil energy is ZERO. That means nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, biomass, etc. The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market. Nuclear is already cheaper than coal, wind is as cheap, and solar is getting there fast. What the tax does is provide an incentive for investment in non-fossil energy sources.

And this is worse than income tax ... why, exactly? And if you think 40% of tax revenue goes to enforcement, you must be smoking something illegal.

Whose estimates? Where?

Suddenly a non-sourced zero-evidence doubling becomes a non-sourced zero-evidence tripling. No wonder people don't trust right-wingers. They can't even get their own made-up "facts" straight.

The US produces about 18% of global fossil fuel emissions. So what? That doesn't change the argument in the slightest.

And lower their income tax. And while the fossil fuel tax is easily avoidable, income tax isn't.

 

I would like to see a certain number of trees planted for every ton of carbon produced.
I would also like to see two trees planted for every tree harvested.
Or so many square feet of desert reclaimed per ton of carbon.

Deserts are going every year and millions of people are being displaced and/or starving.

Google the Groasis waterboxx....it can be done...cheaply.

 

Noooo....(God this guy is dense) I am informing you that henceforth I shall be ignoring you, as your posts are valueless rants.....and there are others here that represent the warmist viewpoints with logical and informed points and who are actually worth my limited time......BYE

 

No, actually, you fell off right at the start. The tax on non-fossil energy is ZERO. That means nuclear, hydro, solar, wind, biomass, etc. The main effect of the tax is to price fossil out of the market. Nuclear is already cheaper than coal, wind is as cheap, and solar is getting there fast. What the tax does is provide an incentive for investment in non-fossil energy sources.

So your plan is a crushing tax to drive fossil fuel to zero...and you expect to do this without raising peoples power bills?....you are a real miracle worker you are

Nuclear is not cheaper than coal, plus it takes 10 plus years to get a permit IF you get one at all.
Wind and coal are comparable in cost/kwh, but the problem with wind is STORAGE...we have only one anywhere near efficient way to store electricity and that works only for hydro. When the wind quits you power is OUT. The nation cannot have wind as a base load source...only for peaking...same with solar (which by the way is 3 - 4 times more than coal)

And this is worse than income tax ... why, exactly? And if you think 40% of tax revenue goes to enforcement, you must be smoking something illegal.

Have you ever DEALT with gov't agencies? The will bloat up to have their cut. But no matter, your TAX is actually a banishment of an industry so this is moot.

Whose estimates? Where?

Google costs of sequestration, you just made cost statements above with no citation. I haven't time to educate you.

Suddenly a non-sourced zero-evidence doubling becomes a non-sourced zero-evidence tripling. No wonder people don't trust right-wingers. They can't even get their own made-up "facts" straight.

Experience laddie....when the gov't says they can do something for $1.00, it always ends up being $2.00 or better....do you ever read the newspaper?

The US produces about 18% of global fossil fuel emissions. So what? That doesn't change the argument in the slightest.

I'll try again, you want to stop US FF CO2 emissions, ostensibly to stop AGW....right? Your religion....excuse me..."science"...stipulates that AGW is caused by CO2.....still with me??
OK hold on now, this is where you are going to have trouble....US fossil fuel emissions FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCTION are a tiny percentage of world wide FF emissions (not 18%) which are in turn a tiny percent of CO2 emissions. (ya still there??).....so what you propose (at great cost to Americans) will only address a tiny tiny % of the problem that YOU PERCEIVE.

There now, my 8 year old granddaughter could follow that....

And lower their income tax. And while the fossil fuel tax is easily avoidable, income tax isn't.

You completely ignore the fact that China and India make anything we do here worthless, but OK, I am used to Warmists ignoring unpleasant facts.

As to you statement, are you now saying that after this tax, which makes no revenue but destroys and industry and millions of jobs, you will find a way to cut everyones income tax...???

Man it must be a no-stop acid trip living in some of you liberals heads....


In conclusion it is clear you haven't the technical knowledge to understand what you propose (its effect on the nations power supply), and you seem totally oblivious to the most basic laws of economics......have you considered applying for a job with the Obama Administration?????

 

You mean like your OP filled with generalities and strawmen?

 

Quite reasonable PC and very doable.......
Is there a big difference I wonder in hardwood vs pine forests re carbon sinks?? Here is Alabama people tend to only re-plant with pine, which I hate....give me an oak and maple forest in the fall.....

 

When did greater taxation become acceptable?

 

No, next time read for content. The fossil fuel tax is offset by decreased income tax. Fossil fuel cost will go up, but income taxes will come down in compensation. That's what "revenue neutral" means.

Permitting is a regulatory issue, not a technological or economic one. In other words, permitting can be speeded up with a policy change only.
Nuclear power LCOE is comparable to coal right now, and would be cheaper with a fossil fuel tax.

If we only had one or two sites for wind in the entire country your argument would hold water. With a thousand distributed sites it doesn't. Wind is always blowing somewhere.

From your avoidance of the question, I take it you agree that the fossil fuel tax is no worse than the income tax. One point for me.

In the first place, we weren't talking about sequestration. Next time read for content. In the second place, I take it from your avoidance of the question that you have no evidence to back up your uninformed opinion. Another point for me.

Another false statement. Hoover dam was completed two years ahead of schedule and millions of dollars under budget. US 6 Eagle River bridge completed under budget. East Wauneta water project completed under budget. New Grafton HS (Mass.) completed under budget. Rocky River wastewater treatment plant completed under budget. New Mississippi River bridge in St. Louis completed under budget.

I guess "always" doesn't always make it to Faux Snooze.

Missing the point again with another strawman. Because we're not talking just electricity, we're talking all fossil fuels.

Wrong again. First, what I propose has ZERO COST to Americans. Because when I said, "revenue neutral", you just skipped right over that part so you could pretend I said something else. The Republican mind is a wonder to behold: It just doesn't understand simple English.

Wrong again twice, because I never said I was confining my remarks or my solution to the US. You asked what we wanted, and I told you. I never said what I wanted was a US-only solution. Next time, read for content.

Great, put her on in your place, because you're obviously clueless.

And you completely ignore the fact that I didn't disinclude China, India, or anywhere else.

How do you know when a Republican is lying? It's when they're typing on the keyboard. Since when does this tax make no revenue? Where do you get these total, absolute lies?

It's clear that you are the one who's clueless in economics. But that just makes you a Republican.

 

Lemmie guess.....you are a college professor aren't you?? I deal with them all the time and your thought pattern is typical of many academicians...smart but so utterly out of touch with the real world as to be useless outside the classroom. You COULD get on Obama's cabinet though....

 

Wow! Poordebater responds to your post point by point and the best you can come up with is an anti-academia insult and a bashing of our President.
That's a hell uv a debating tactic ya got there elmer.
But then again, that's all the deniers have, insults and misinformation.

 

Shorter Elmer Fudd: "I got nuthin!"

 

Is it really necessary for you to disagree with me even when I'm agreeing with you? Yes, you're right: electricity bills will go up (at least initially, until the switch to non-fossil energy is complete). That's because the fossil fuel tax will be passed on to the consumer. But no, consumers won't end up paying more overall, because the fossil fuel tax will be offset by lower taxes in other areas. Presumably this means income tax, but I'm flexible on that point. So energy bills will go up. But it won't matter.

You're saying we can't change because we can't change. That's not an argument, it's a tautology. The main roadblock to this plan are the "nut jobs" that oppose it without a good reason.

Let's put that on a graph:


Sure looks like nuclear is comparable to coal to me. And remember: it's only fossil energy that's taxed. All other types get a free ride.

In other words, you have been proven wrong, you have no evidence to dispute it, and you're not going to post any.

Big wind turbines are running 2 to 3 MW these days, but I suppose Faux Snooze is generally 10 years behind the times. Iowa got about 20% of its electricity from wind last year. I'd call that major.

False. Never said that. It makes no sense for the EPA to collect a tax anyway. They have no expertise in that area.

You don't have to do that with the fossil tax either. Just a show of production/import amount, fossil type, and a simple calculation would be enough. Much, much simpler than income tax, and many fewer sources to collect from. That means easier & cheaper to administer and enforce. The size of the IRS would probably go down.

Since we're not talking EPA, your entire argument is based on a false premise.

So we agree that government projects are fully capable of coming in on time and at or under budget.

Not just yes, but absolutely yes. And it's not just that we can. It's that we must. Fossil fuel is finite! If we don't solve the energy problem, civilization is doomed. So why not solve it now, instead of waiting until the apocalypse is breathing hot down our necks?

Biofuels have already been used in airliners and trucks. CoolGreenPlanet has a process that can turn miscanthus into gasoline at a rate of 4000 gallons per acre per year. At that rate we can replace every drop of gasoline used in the US with 10% of our arable land. Considering that we currently export half of our food crop, we could do that easily.

And you DO realize that the excess cost can be entirely avoided by using non-fossil energy? And that people will actually do that? And that basic economics actually works?

When revenue from the fossil fuel tax reaches zero, that means that fossil fuel use reaches zero too, which is just what we want. And if nobody's using fossil fuels, then the economic impact of the tax has reached zero too, which is just what you want. So everybody wins. At that point, other sources of revenue would be ramped back up to current levels. The difference is we would have achieved a non-fossil economy, would have achieved zero oil imports, would have stopped sending billions per year overseas, would have saved the US economy, and would have saved the planet in the bargain. Win-win-win-win.

This plan is completely workable. Australia already has a fossil carbon tax. You asked what we wanted, and this is what we want. CO2 knows no boundaries and the solution should be global. A fossil carbon tax in the US is just doing our part.

International treaties have worked in the past and can work in the future. You're just being being obstructionist for no good reason.

I didn't say the tax made no revenue, I said it was "revenue neutral". That means the revenue provided by the fossil carbon tax is offset by lowering revenue from other taxes (which in the US means primarily income tax) by the same amount. The total amount of revenue taken in by the government remains the same, it's just taken from different sources.