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

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.

Arguing with you is like talking to a dolphin. You refuse to admit the underlying flaw in your plan. You plan to save the world with a carbon tax that will drive fossil fuels out and make other sources attractive economically. THEN you plan to use the revenues from that tax to offset the huge increase in the cost of living with cuts in other taxes. One you have saved the planet by shutting down fossil fuels, there ARE NO REVENUES.

Do you understand the child's phrase "have your cake and eat it too"....and the logical fallacy it describes????

 

Changing energy sources does not necessarily mean a change in cost of living. I posted a chart upthread with LCOE for various energy sources, and if you examine that chart you will find that nuclear, wind, geothermal, biomass, and hydro are all about the same cost as coal right now. Switching to those alternatives costs you almost nothing.

So the eventual net effect of the carbon tax is only a small amount of revenue ... and you're complaining about that? That's not a bug, it's a feature.

 

This is the DOE chart read, the last column. Apparently your skill with bar charts rivals that with curve fits. You plan is worthless.....

 

Every datum on that chart is also on the graph I posted -- along with a lot of other data on the very same wikipedia page from which you lifted your image. Apparently your skill with numbers is worthless.

Oh, and it's not my plan: it's a Republican plan.

 

You graphed coal, nuke, and wind along with solar. Solar is so far above the others it drives the Y axis up, making the other 3 look comparable. I am 6' 7", my wife is 5' 1". Are we comparable?....heck no. But if you chart our heights with that of a giraffi, the graph would make us look almost identical.

Attend:




Same numbers, but coal appears to be the clear winner now...wind is more, and nuke is waaaaaay out there....

You can make charts spin anyway you want them.


As for that being a Republican plan, it is the opinion of a single writer......not a consensus offered by republicans in congress. It is no more representative of Republicans that AGW is representative of scientists opinion....

 

Some trees capture more carbon than others.

I saw a website on it the other day.

 

Logic fallacy, for the win!!!

Here, I'll try the same:

We'll get right to that, as soon as you stop paying the taxes you hate so much. See what I did there? Almost as retarded as your premise above. Almost, but not quite.

94% of US oil consumption is used for transportation and industrial purposes. I don't think the .000000000000000000001% used to turn computers off/on/hit send is much of a problem. But, tell you what, genius. We'll turn our computers off as soon as your "burn everything" camp signs off on halving the defense budget. Fair?

 

Wow.. I thought I had met the worst the Eco side has to offer in BB and Manny...I was way wrong...

Lets see...oh ya taxes....
I am legally required to pay taxes...you, on the other hand are not legally required to burn coal to cool you house and run you computer....you can simply stop and not be a hypocrite
I'm waiting....

Oil: we were talking about fossil fuel used for electricity, that means predominately coal. If you are in the US roughly half of every kilowatt you use burns coal...so STOP now and save the planet.....

We'll turn our computers off as soon as your "burn everything" camp signs off on halving the defense budget. Fair?
Mindless off topic rant.....

 

If this isn't the fossil fuel industry polluting, what do you call it?

[video=youtube_share;vYJ9w3u6K5w]http://youtu.be/vYJ9w3u6K5w[/video]

Amateur footage of Usinsk, Siberia: spring thaw, and the streams run black with oil. This is what America would look like without the EPA.

 

I call it criminal and the people responsible should rot in jail forever.....


I am all for:

1)reasonable responsible regulations...and most of them are

2)the EPA returning to its mandate to base its decisions on SCIENCE and consider business impacts and get away from being the secret police for the liberal administrations

3) getting away from fossil fuels altogether, in a manner that will not bankrupt America

People who think like tis are Environmentalists



My challenges are directed to Eco -NUTS who believe we can outlaw fossil fuel this year and all live in liberal rainbow and unicorn la-la land the rest of our lives where everything is free.....like people who want to pass taxes to shut down all fossil fuel NOW...those people (if the shoe fits) are NUTS

 

Except, it seems, when it comes to climate science. In that case, you're all for the EPA abandoning science and making political decisions based on right-wing politics.

And yet when presented with a Republican plan that would get us away from fossil fuels altogether without bankrupting America -- a revenue-neutral, phased-in fossil carbon tax -- you're against it. Go figure. Musta' been corrupted by the Party of No.

The only one living in la-la land is you. You're all for getting off fossil fuels, and all against actually doing anything to achieve that goal. That's Fantasyland. Seen any unicorns lately?

 

Even though the tax would be revenue-neutral, it would still mean increased costs and a lower standard of living for Americans. Revenue neutrality in in relation to the government, not in relation to the consumer. From the position of the consumer it can and will be very expensive.

 

No it won't, because (a) the tax is avoidable; and (b) the costs are offset by lower income taxes.

 

But the 40% of workers and the huge number of unemployed people who pay no federal income taxes, but do buy fuel will not receive any of the offset money. They will see their fuel prices increase, but won't see a penny of the result.

Even in a direct one for one offset, the costs would still rise. For instance, if coal-generated electricity costs $1 per KWH and Solar costs $3 per KWH, a $1 tax on coal that is given as an offset to pay for solar would make solar competitive, but it would still double the cost of electricity for the consumer. (Yes my numbers are fictional, but the principle works regardless of the numbers.)

Simple reasoning also shows that this has to increase the cost to the consumer. This tax is supposed to increase the cost of fossil fuels to push consumers to other methods of generating power. If the tax is money paid is given back to the consumer, then there is no incentive to change. The tax has to increase costs to consumers in order to bring about change.

 

AGW is not science, that has been proven, you are still stuck in 1999.

As I stated, it is not a Republican plan simply because a Republican wrote about it. Try not to show ignorance. By your logic the fact that Bin Laden believed in AGW makes AGW a terrorist threat.....

You're all for getting off fossil fuels, and all against actually doing anything to achieve that goal.

Laddie.....1)I lead my company in its membership to the ill-fated Chicago Climate exchange and sold over 5 million $ in "Carbon Credits" to eco-nuts like you. (We REALLY appreciate it too BTW)
2) we run the largest coal bed methane capture system in the USA...perhaps the world, which eliminates YOUR GHG fears AND proves relatively clean energy
3) I have made presentations on AGW at gov't meetings, private societies, and Micheal Mann's own Penn State University
4) I have a 1.5 million $ plan on my desk at this very moment to covert a fleet of 47 pickup truck to CNG to reduce gasoline consumption

I know what I am talking about AND I am doing something.....what are you doing with your power still on????????

 

First, although I specified income tax to offset the carbon tax, that was illustrative only; other taxes could also be offset.

Second, although the cost of energy would rise, the rise would be much more modest than you seem to believe. I posted a graph upthread showing that non-fossil alternatives are already comparable to coal on price. What's needed is an incentive to switch, and the tax provides that.

Third, you're only looking at half of the cost equation. The cost of doing nothing on climate change is roughly five times higher than the cost of mitigation (Stern 2006), and the cost of doing nothing falls disproportionately on the poor. So if you were really concerned for the poor (are you?) then you'd be clamoring for a system like this one.

Fourth, not only is your position uneconomic, it's immoral. Why should innocent third parties continue to bear the external costs of fossil carbon use? Taxing fossil carbon is one way to recover those costs, as well as being a good way to reduce them.

 

Oh right. All that stuff about CO2 absorbing IR radiation? Unproven quantum mechanics, another librul plot. And all that stuff about Earth emitting IR because of its temperature? Just unproven Stefan-Boltzmann "Laws" that were probably passed by librul Congress. And all that stuff about CO2 lines broadening because of air pressure? Just because it was discovered by the US Air Force in order to build heat-seeking missiles and win the Cold War, that doesn't make it true. The USAF probably had lots of commies back then.

You're the one who's stuck, FUD. In 1899.

Since this plan was originated by Republicans, it's perfectly fair to call it a Republican plan. Kinda like Obamacare in that sense: it was Mitt Romney's idea.

I stand corrected, and thanks for doing those small things you are. Sadly, though, you're against doing the big things that would make a big difference.

The same thing you are, FUD, living my life. The difference is, I'm working to make my power (and yours) fossil free, and you're working against that.

 

I'm working to make my power (and yours) fossil free

Really, can you be specific?......Hint: posting unworkable dreams on a forum does not count as "working"....

 

Hint: completely workable plans do count.

 

LOL....you have the typical liberal definition of "Work"....

 

I take it you mean his display of hard work and common sense, two of the defining points of liberalism.

Now, not being a raging bigot, I won't blame conservatism for your faulty logic. That's not a problem with conservatism, it's a problem with you. Look at you here, actually declaring that people have to live in caves in order to accept a century of established science. That's a stupid position, and anyone who holds it should be told to get back to the kiddie table and stop bothering the grownups.

Here, let me make it a bit clearer for you.

"If you're not personally serving in the armed forces for life, you can't say anything in favor of the military, otherwise you're a hypocrite!"

That's a dumb argument. And you're making the same kind of argument with another topic, declaring that if you're not 110% devoted to a cause, you're a hypocrite to support it. It kind of boggles the mind that some people actually think an argument that dumb is an irrefutable putdown of the opposition.

 

Unsubstantiated hyperbole and bull(*)(*)(*)(*)

Get back to me when you have something even remotely resembling a fact

 

I take the power that is delivered to me. I can cut back but I can't cut out. The solution will ultimately be collective which takes us into politics. I support a politics that makes us less dependent on fossil fuels but in the mean time I will be using fossil fuel sourced power. I guess that makes me a hypocrite.

 

NO it does not. It makes you a realist. I too know we have to move away from fossil fuel. The hypocrites are the ones who what all FF stopped TODAY, regardless of the impact on economies, yet continue to use power all day long.

 

Australia's economy is VERY dependent on the income from exported COAL. The high standard of living that people enjoy is due to their deliberate export of planet-wide pollution and environmental destruction.

<<< MODERATOR EDIT: OFF TOPIC/FLAMEBAIT/INSULT >>>


sorry for the "Inconvenient Truths"