Global warming and financial positioning

[baetis]

"Read the entire study, not the talking points from the Fox News press release"

Man how I wish Fox News existed when I was in debate class *plugs ears* Fox News Fox News Fox News

 

[al_bundy]

funny how 30 years ago the so called enviromentalists were pushing catalytic converters to convert polluting gasses to harmless carbon dioxide and water. now they are calling carbon dioxide a pollutant. and the media only started that last year to get the sheeple used to that idea and make them believe it's true.

if you want to make money off the hysteria look at GE, Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Dupont, goldman sachs and a few other companies paying for the hysteria. they stand to make a killing on new products and have a financial interest in making people think global warming is caused by people. and track companies selling carbon offsets. if people are so naive as to buy them, you might as well make money on it

 

[al_bundy]

I don't view it as a 'penalty'. Assuming that we, as a society, want to encourage conservation, it seems reasonable. It is basically an (very imperfect) attempt at a 'progressive' tax on fuel consumption. The more you use, the more you pay.

And I imagine the tax is based on mpg ratings. So that should provide more incentive for families that need a 7 passenger vehicle to buy an efficient one and in turn, more incentive for manufacturers to fill that need.

Overall, not a *bad* idea, IMO. I think it would be better to have a truly progressive tax on fuel itself (kind of hard to implement though - issue a 'tax debit' card for X gallons per year to every driver?). That would encourage people to drive less. But that one-time charge of $2500 probably has the psychological effect of people saying, 'hey - I paid for the privilege, so I'll drive as much as I want now'. Not really changing behaviors in the way we probably want.

I am saying this from an oil conservation point - it is not a comment on global warming.

So, make a suggestion.


-ERD50

we already have a progressive tax on fuel. the more you use the more you pay. now we are at the point where the socialists don't like the current scheme and want something more progressive to punish people.

 

[ERD50]

we already have a progressive tax on fuel. the more you use the more you pay. now we are at the point where the socialists don't like the current scheme and want something more progressive to punish people.

Check your dictionary, Al. A progressive tax is one where you pay a higher *rate* as you use more, not just a higher amount.

Example: No added 'conservation' tax on the first 20 gallons a month; $X.XX added to every gallon past that on some kind of increasing scale. Yes, implementation could be a nightmare (maybe not with today's technology), but I'm just throwing it out there as a concept.

I didn't put a value judgment on it. I simply said that if, as a nation, we wish to promote oil conservation, a true progressive tax on oil consumption would probably be the best motivation to conserve. More so than an increased flat tax on fuel.

As far as 'punishment' - I take a different view of that. IMO, I am the one being 'punished' by other people using a disproportionate share of a limited resource. Those other people using a large amount of oil cause the prices to go up for *everyone*, even those trying to conserve. That's why I kind of like the idea of a true progressive fuel tax.

It's pretty funny if you are lumping me in with socialists. Most of the left wing people I converse with think I'm a raging right wing lunatic. I take that as some degree of confirmation that my stance is based on logic and reason, rather than blind allegiance to any 'party line'. Thank you.

-ERD50

 

[samclem]

If we go down that road, we should probably be talking about a progressive tax on other enrgy sources, too. (cents per kwh, maybe tagged to the original source of the power. That would encourage people to switch power sources to those which are no based on fossil fuels). If we only tax vehicular fuels electric cars will get an unfair advantage and we'll end up transferring the problem--polluting more and burning more fuel at power stations rather than in the vehicles.

Maybe global warming is a problem, and maybe humans are responsibe for it. Maybe not. I'm personally more motivated by the competitive advantage the US may reap by getting off oil. If we can get ahead of this and wean ourselves to a lower level of dependency, it is possibe we'l have a competitive leg up on Europe and Asia when Chinese demand and other factors drive the price of oil up. I'm not a believer, yet, that market forces alone won't provide sufficient inducement t do this development, but we should at least look at the issue and see if a good business case can be made for taxing oil and using the proceeds for alternative energy development. I'm not optimstic: government has done a terrible job of picking winning technolgies in alternative energy development (oil shale, hydrogen power, and now ethanol. Not encouraging).

 

[mykidslovedogs]

SUV prices are already artificially deflated from the lack of a carbon tax. Adding a carbon tax would price them fairly according to how they pollute.

As far as people's "freedom" to purchase an SUV, this isn't a Socialist Paradise. You're not a commie, are you?

Huh?

 

[ERD50]

If we go down that road, we should probably be talking about a progressive tax on other enrgy sources, too. (cents per kwh, maybe tagged to the original source of the power. That would encourage people to switch power sources to those which are no based on fossil fuels). If we only tax vehicular fuels electric cars will get an unfair advantage and we'll end up transferring the problem--polluting more and burning more fuel at power stations rather than in the vehicles.

Maybe global warming is a problem, and maybe humans are responsibe for it. Maybe not. I'm personally more motivated by the competitive advantage the US may reap by getting off oil. If we can get ahead of this and wean ourselves to a lower level of dependency, it is possibe we'l have a competitive leg up on Europe and Asia when Chinese demand and other factors drive the price of oil up. I'm not a believer, yet, that market forces alone won't provide sufficient inducement t do this development, but we should at least look at the issue and see if a good business case can be made for taxing oil and using the proceeds for alternative energy development. I'm not optimstic: government has done a terrible job of picking winning technolgies in alternative energy development (oil shale, hydrogen power, and now ethanol. Not encouraging).

samclem - I am in total agreement. I was limiting my comments to gasoline only because of the earlier 'SUV/freedom/punishment' post. To keep from just shifting use from one polluting source to another, they would all need to be taxed relative to the 'cost' of their pollution. Not a trivial task, and the politicians and lobbyist would mess it all up every which way

But, if we *could* do even a first approximation of those costs, it would be a boost to the market to develop alternate lower-polluting sources. And I do prefer that approach to the current problems you outline - the govt now 'picks' a favored technology, and provided subsidies to that technology. So, even if a better option comes along, it cannot really compete until they get their lobbyists to provide a subsidy for their technology. It's a mess.

Yep, hydrogen, ethanol, poor choices - but they get votes and/or have a lobby behind them.

We're doomed Even if the real solutions stand up and wave a flag and shout "Here I am!", the political system and 'free lunch' voters and lobbyists will find a 'better' solution. We're doomed

Or, just maybe, technology and free markets will triumph over the political mess and save us in spite of it. I think there is a fighting chance for that.

-ERD50

 

[al_bundy]

all you oil haters will still be filling up at Exxon for the next 30 years since the US has over 1 trillion barrels of oil within our borders that is currently politically locked from the market

 

[mykidslovedogs]

They should pay a penalty. Those seven kids are producing two families worth of methane contributing a disproportionate share to GW

Interesting opinion. As long as doing something for the "greater good" has no negative impact on you or benefits you, then its OK. Same as your opinions about health insurance. You feel that one should not have to pay higher premiums for using more health care than other people (you want nationalized health insurance - someone else to pay for your healthcare), but, you want someone who needs a bigger car than you to be penalzied. I know...maybe the government should pay for our Prisms, or better yet, buy our carbon credits for us. Then we will all be equal! ...and your tax dollars can be used to take care of the families with 7 children.

Half of the children were adopted to save them from an abusive situation. These kids already existed before they became part of the family. Driving everyone in an SUV saves the world from two families having to drive two separate cars. Now do you still think the parents should still pay a penalty for having to have an SUV?

 

[brewer12345]

Now do you still think the parents should still pay a penalty for having to have an SUV?

Oh no, not at all. As a matter of fact, they should get welfare to help raise dem chilluns in a biblically appropriate way, don't you think?

 

[HFWR]

Being naturally cynical, I'm not convinced that either side of this issue is free from non-scientific influences.

Strategically, we in the USA would probably be wise to reduce our depndence on foreign energy supplies. Additionally, improving the efficiency of our vehicles, appliances, generating plants, etc. makes sense for both economic and environmental reasons. Since the inception of the EPA, levels of various pollutants have been reduced, and our economy is still strong, so it's not a given that being "cleaner" will plunge us into the Dark Ages. Still, there's no use tilting at windmills...

 

[kcowan]

...Now do you still think the parents should still pay a penalty for having to have an SUV?

I think that imposing a substantial tax on fuel is the fairest way. Then the economics of driving an SUV instead of 2 cars will still hold. This approach has been proven in Europe for many years. Why reinvent the wheel?

 

[mykidslovedogs]

Oh no, not at all. As a matter of fact, they should get welfare to help raise dem chilluns in a biblically appropriate way, don't you think?

These folks work and pay their own way, and heck, if their taxes are going to pay for your health insurance, then it's only fair that your taxes help pay for their transportation! There's the solution! Government gives each family money to buy carbon credits based on family size! Problem solved....

 

[brewer12345]

These folks work and pay their own way, and heck, if their taxes are going to pay for your health insurance, then it's only fair that your taxes help pay for their SUV!

Uhuh. How about the 7 dependent tax exemptions, child tax redits, and Gawd knows what else they get? I suspect my taxes subsidize theirs, thank you very much. But what else is new? Us blue staters have long carried the financial burden of the welfare red staters.

 

[eridanus]

all you oil haters will still be filling up at Exxon for the next 30 years since the US has over 1 trillion barrels of oil within our borders that is currently politically locked from the market

Now you're just yanking our chains.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

U.S. Proved Reserves of Crude Oil as of December 31, 2005
21,757 million barrels

 

[donheff]

Interesting opinion. As long as doing something for the "greater good" has no negative impact on you or benefits you, then its OK. Same as your opinions about health insurance. You feel that one should not have to pay higher premiums for using more health care than other people (you want nationalized health insurance - someone else to pay for your healthcare), but, you want someone who needs a bigger car than you to be penalzied. I know...maybe the government should pay for our Prisms, or better yet, buy our carbon credits for us. Then we will all be equal! ...and your tax dollars can be used to take care of the families with 7 children.

Sorry, MKLD, you don't understand me at all. I don't want someone else to pay. Virtually everything I recommend would cost me a lot more. I think the Bush tax cuts were a travesty -- but they are great for my pocketbook. DW and I have a substantial taxable income, we have good health insurance, we have LTC., so these changes will not directly improve our lot. But we think it is in our self interest that we don't leave 1/3 of the country behind. I am willing to take a big hit in the pocketbook to deal with inequities. If the policies I espouse come to pass, I will continue to be in a tax bracket that assures I am hit disproportionately hard in ER. You can argue that I am wrong headed but I don't see how my positions and actions are hypocritical.

By the way, don't tell me I can give the extra taxes back to the Government as I often hear. That is a fatuous argument. The changes have to be structural to be effective. I give back by volunteering my time. And I push for structural change that will cost me more but (IMHO) improve the country.

 

[al_bundy]

Now you're just yanking our chains.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/quickfacts/quickoil.html

U.S. Proved Reserves of Crude Oil as of December 31, 2005
21,757 million barrels

don't forget ANWR which the greenies fight tooth and nail from even finding out how much oil is in there, eastern continental shelf, eastern gulf of mexico, and the Rocky Mountains which has oil in the form of shale or something.

 

[wabmester]

Being naturally cynical, I'm not convinced that either side of this issue is free from non-scientific influences.

Strategically, we in the USA would probably be wise to reduce our depndence on foreign energy supplies. Additionally, improving the efficiency of our vehicles, appliances, generating plants, etc. makes sense for both economic and environmental reasons. Since the inception of the EPA, levels of various pollutants have been reduced, and our economy is still strong, so it's not a given that being "cleaner" will plunge us into the Dark Ages. Still, there's no use tilting at windmills...

My Big Epiphany in this debate is that it has little to do with science. In the end, this has to be positioned as a moral issue. Man is cursed with the knowledge that he can change the environment, and he's cursed with the ability to feel guilty about that.

Evolution, including climate evolution, is a rough-and-tumble guilt-free business. It never had a negative connotation until we came along, and now we want to reduce our evolutionary impact. So, "take nothing but photographs and leave nothing but footprints" is becoming incorporated into our moral doctrine. Not a "bad" idea, but it's a pretty arbitrary moral choice like most other moral choices.

So, our goal as a species is to stop evolution. We want the status quo in terms of our environment! Especially when changes might affect cute fuzzy animals or humans.

 

[brewer12345]

which has oil in the form of shale or something.

Sounds like an authoritative source. :

 

[eridanus]

don't forget ANWR which the greenies fight tooth and nail from even finding out how much oil is in there,

The USGS predicts with a 95% certainty that there's at least 6 BBO in northern Alaska. The Mean is 10 BBO, and there's a 5% chance that there's around 16 BBO.

Even with a super-field, it'll last us about 2 years.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

ANWR isn't a solution. It can only delay the inevitable.

 

[brewer12345]

The USGS predicts with a 95% certainty that there's at least 6 BBO in northern Alaska. The Mean is 10 BBO, and there's a 5% chance that there's around 16 BBO.

Even with a super-field, it'll last us about 2 years.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm

ANWR isn't a solution. It can only delay the inevitable.

Yeah but, but, but... Hillary will raise your taxes if she is elected! And Nancy Pelosi slipped Ahmadeninijad the tongue last week in Syria! And Harry Reid is going to surrender to the Islamufascits!

 

[al_bundy]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033

I hope NPR isn't too right wing for anyone. they say 800 billion barrels of oil, i've heard of theories that it can be over a trillion.

 

[brewer12345]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5424033

I hope NPR isn't too right wing for anyone. they say 800 billion barrels of oil, i've heard of theories that it can be over a trillion.

Uhuh, lots of *maybe* oil that nobody knows how to extract economically and which is in an area that lacks the necessary infrastructure to produce and transport any such production. Yeah, t hat sounds like a great reason to trash the area's environment...

:

 

[al_bundy]

typical answer

 

[brewer12345]

typical answer

Why yes it is. Uninformed suggestions like yours usually receive similar responses from multiple sane people.