There is no Catastrophic, Man-made, Global Warming.......hence.....no taxes are necessary.
And.....just imagine the Climate Pigs that would be lined up and fighting at the Tax-Trough to get their share of the hard-earned, Taxpayer money.....the greed-driven carnage would be horrendous.
People with the highest disposable incomes create the most CO2. Therefore, there should be a 100% tax on all incomes over a certain amount - say $50,000 pa from all sources.
The taxes will be "revenue neutral" and should all be sent to the UNFCGC1 after which they will be directed to many worthy causes (less any administrative overheads, of course).
Taxing fossil fuels but not wood is futile. Growing a tree for several years in the Carolinas, then cutting it down, chipping it, exporting it to the UK then burning it at a rate of 10 tons a minute will not help. You cannot grow the trees as fast as you can burn them. It is not "sustainable"; it destroys the landscape and generates much CO2 during the transport step. Wood also creates more CO2 per kWhr than either coal or gas. Who in their right mind would consider this a sensible option? Surely these people must be the real "deniers"?
1 United Nations Framework Convention for Graphic Conception
A revenue-neutral carbon tax, also known as carbon fee-and-dividend, returns all revenue to households, which counteracts any inflation resulting from the tax. This plan is endorsed by leading climate scientist Dr. James Hansen and by former treasury secretary and Republican George Shultz. See citizensclimatelobby.org.
What part of: "the activity will just move to avoid the tax (regulation, whatever)" do people not get?
Every unnecessary burden basically translates directly into MORE carbon dioxide as the developing world replaces with inefficient but cheap coal.
Subsidizing the gradual replacement of the electrical base load with mass produced proven meltdown impossible nuclear reactors, a sort of reverse tax, would make quick and significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
In order for taxes on fossil fuels to be effective, it is not good enough just not to tax fossil fuels and not to tax clean energy. Any revenue generated would need to be spent on the clean energy.
Consider the idea of using hydrogen to power cars. And suppose that the cost of hydrogen is equal to the price of gasoline that could make the electricity to produce the hydrogen at 33-1/3% efficiency. And suppose that 1% of the population were to use hydrogen.
To encourage the conversion to hydrogen, by taxing gasoline, but neither taxing or subsidizing hydrogen, the tax on gasoline would need to be high enough to triple the price of gasoline. But if we were to use the tax money to subsidize the production of hydrogen, the tax would only have to be a few cents per gallon.
It is very doubtful if taxes will make much difference, if gasoline prices go up, you just moan and groan but still drive your car to work.
Taxes are pointless in lowering CO2 emissions when China, India and Brazil will not follow suit.
Get used to it CO2 is going to continue to expotentially rise, whatever the US does.
I think we should tax CBS, ABC, NBC, NYTs and the US Senate every time they lie or exaggerate. That should generate enough revenue to quickly pay off the federal budget deficit and it should significantly reduce the hot air from these sources.
Don't you know that if we remove the co2 from the atmosphere, WE ALL DIE. IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR OUR LIVES TO HAVE IT IN THE AIR. We didn't cause global warming, we won't end global warming, taxes are not the answer to ALL OUR PROBLEMS, and only GOD ALMIGHTY causes global warming and global cooling in cycles, everyone should study SCIENCE.
If we tax fossil fuels, but not their non-fossil equivalents (eg tax coal, but not wood pellets), then that will increase the relative cost of fossil fuels. This will decrease the use of fossil fuels, which will decrease the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2, which will slow global warming. Since the main problem with global warming is the *rate* of change, rather than the actual temperature per se, slowing it down is almost as good as actually completely stopping it.
To avoid undue economic disruption, I'd institute any such tax gradually (start at the equivalent of $.25 per gallon of gas, or so), but then ramp it up over a number of years, until the taxes made fossil fuels prohibitively expensive for routine use. But if we do that *gradually* (over, say, a decade or 2), we can adapt and have the replacements in place before fossil fuels get *too* expensive.
Sales tax
What taxes would you support as a solution for ending global warming? Which tax programs would be the most effective in reducing co2 from the atmosphere?
No taxes will work ,its a wealth redistribution scheme.
