The "Terrible" Economic Impacts of Adopting Climate Change Reform

I put terrible in quotes... since the following aren't bad at all.

1) Income and Corporate Taxes can be partially replaced by Carbon taxes.

Yep, you heard it. Liberals proposing TAX CUTS!!!! It is a very simple idea. If you tax carbon emissions, you can lower income and corporate taxes while providing incentive for people to curb their emissions.

2) Expansion of Green Tax Incentives

In order to help people with the change, we can expand renewable tax credits. There already are many in existence.. so we don't need too much here.

3) Expansion of Green Infrastructure

All the solar panels, wind mills, and other green initiatives require thousands of skilled and unskilled labor jobs to build. Instead of whining about the 35 permanent keystone pipeline jobs, why not undertake massive infrastructure upgrades?

4) American "exceptionalism"

....just one more thing for the United States to lead the world on. We just need the courage to adopt it on a widescale and become the leader in the green energy revolution.

 

as for no. 3, if they're so great, why don't private business build them? And, if you want jobs, why not have people dig a ditch and fill it?

 

You have to keep in mind that anthropogenic global warming isn't real. The aim of carbon taxes is actually to de-incentivize things like manufcaturing, and thus harm the poor and encourage the proliferation of inequality and psychopaths. Much like how Obamacare was intended as an aid to insurance companies.

Solar panels are a good idea, carbon taxes are not.

 

Too many Big Oil subsidies. Tax the hell out of Big Oil, and you will see green energy spring up everywhere.

- - - Updated - - -

You are wrong. Anthropogenic global warming is as real as a heart attack. Are you suggesting we wait another 50 years to see "how real" it is?

 

You mean, keep the oil subsidies, whilst taxing the hell out of oil? How about just getting rid of the subsidies? That way, it'll be fair, and green energy will manage just fine, if it's as splendid as everyone says.

 

Even if it were real there isn't anything the United States could do about it by applying carbon taxes on itself. The United States makes up one parcel of carbon contribution (which makes up 0.4% of the atmosphere), and would not stop other countries by it's suicide. The agenda, therefore, cannot be the reduction of AGW. It would also harm the poor regardless. Being useless for reducing carbon dioxide, I would conclude that the aim of the program is to harm the poor and the middle class.

 

Taxcutter says:
The US took the lead on the Ozone Hole thing. Nobody else did half what the US did.

Result: The US consumer got hammered for trillions and got no benefit whatsoever.

 

It never seizes to amaze me how willing people are to trust the government, any of them, to enact policy that will somehow "change" the entire climate. As far as our government goes, it's a complete farce to think the clowns in DC have a clue about climate science. Yet, for some reason they can convince folks they are experts who's policies will magically alter the global climate for the better. What? They can't build a decent web site but they can alter the climate? Yea, that makes sense....gasp

 

Ok, that works. That would be fair.

Cite proof for your inaccurate hyperboles.

There's no room in this country for cheerleaders of government failure.

 

Anthropogenic climate change is not real it is only hypothezised.

 

Addressing # 1 Government CAN cut taxes anytime they wish.

They never do of course so just because they can cut taxes with the creation of carbon tax means nothing they will simply continue raising income and corporate taxes while also heaping carbon on people

 

Taxcutter says:
I recently posted a long post showing how much the consumer has been screwed by the Ozone Hole regs (40 CFR 82). about a third of a trillion a year - ongoing. And what do we have to show for it? Someone else posted a report (larded with jargon) but I waded through the jargon and found the numbers showing the Ozone Hole has not changed a bit since 1977 (when it was discovered) or 1990 (when 40CFR 82 was promulgated) and 2006 (the last year of data in the report. The Ozone Hole covers the same amount of empty ocean and has exactly the same ozone concenteration today as back then. The penguins aren't any more or any less sunburned than before.

That you were too lazy to read the post does not mean I have to post it again.

The failuire of the Ozone Hole thing called anything to do with AGW into question.

 

The Chinese (world's No. 1 emitter) has already told the Warmers to pound sand.
Anybody crazy enough to think Putin will sign on for this?
If not the Chinese and the Russians, why should the Indians, or Indonesians, or anybody with a scintilla of economic ambition?

 

China will do it eventually. Their population is starting to demand some dignity. It just takes a revolution. China is not winning, bro:







How many countries want this for their children? Enlighten us.

 

Stupid chinese people posioning themselves just in order to sell us cheap plastic stuff.

 

Well, if that's the case lets tear up the constitution, throw out the rule of law and demand all "common" citizens wear grey uniforms and march in a strait line.

 

Taxcutter says:
The Chinese could reduce the particulates to nothing and still be the world's biggest emitter of CO2. Hint: Carbon dioxide is colorless, odorless, and tasteless.

 

Find the section in the constitution that says the government should fail.

- - - Updated - - -

Blame their government.

They want it that way. They don't give a damn about their people. All they care about is economic growth numbers.

 

What? Sorry, but you aren't making any sense. Seriously, you really need to land on earth and get a grip before posting.

 

cool response.

 

At this point, I don't expect much to be done to address climate change. I just hope the idiots blabbing on about how it's a "hoax" are alive to see the repercussions.

 

Green is about POWER AND CONTROL of People, not protecting the environment in any way!

Why are solar panels a good idea?

When you tally up the energy required to:

Gather quality silica sand and clean it.

Heat it in a kiln to molten temperatures.

Use electrolysis to separate the silicon from the salts.

Use localized zone heating passing down the length of the silicon ingot multiple times to purify the ingot to crystalline 99999 purity.

Slice the rod ingot into wafers and clean of cutting fluids.

Place into vacuum chamber and use thin film epitaxy to mask PN junctions in the material.

Clean and mount inside a Glass/plastic case. Mount together on in a panel, and place on a pole structure facing the sun.



When you add up all the energy required to do all of that, and compare it to the amount of energy that the solar panel will produce over its useful life span, about 40 years, it consumes 2X as much energy as it produces!

So to get 100KWH out of a solar panel, you have to "BURN" 200KWH of power from other sources such as nuclear, coal, natural gas, or oil.


Anyone with the slightest amount of engineering knowledge can tell you, massive use of solar panels, like massive use of electric cars, is an utter environmental disaster!

Yet the left, especially those with enough scientific training to know better, keep on advocating both solar panels, and all-electric cars!? WHY?

 

Even IF climate change is real, and IF the much less likely issue of it being human caused is real, two very unlikely things...

IF! The things being proposed to "Address" climate change thus far by the Leftie Wackos, such as Solar Panels and All-Electric Cars, can easily be shown to be complete environmental disasters, which will make things far WORSE and not the slightest bit better, with respect to environmental impact, yet those very things just happen to give lots of MONEY, CONTROL, and POLITICAL POWER to the Lefties.

NO ONE SANE TRUSTS YOU!

-

 

If it were, I would probably support it.

 

Yeah, I believe you... And the Left cannot, must not, be trusted, EVER!

-