CO2 is a food and not a pollutant. So it won't harm anything to produce more.
An increase in taxes will never solve a CO2 problem even it it did really exist. All it does is make the Pelosi's and the Gore's richer.
It is time that the people of California realize that they are being taken for a humongous ride and get rid of those money grabbing greenies and their political machine.
Sure, If we are going to tax something in order to pay for those things we want regardless if it is military or health care, , I prefer we tax something that is undesirable, like pollution, rather the labor. It would even spur job growth in the state when they produce the majority of their energyneeds locally, rather then having to import it.
Of course California, as the most populous U.S. state, is one of the country's largest users of energy, but because of a mild climate and proactive legislation it has one of the lowest per-capita energy uses within the U.S. [1]
They could do that or (a better solution) give California to the Chinese to settle our multi-trillion dollar debt with them. Californians win: They lean to the far left anyway and China is THE biggest polluter on the planet so no changes would be enforced; The federal government wins in that they can balance a budget without debt, at least until the next fiscal year. The only way the average citizen would win is if some way could be found to disconnect California from the rest of the continent and float that vileness out to sea.
You can only squeeze so much blood out of a turnip and consequently many of those Californian turnips are moving to Texas where they let people keep more of their blood. Unfortunately I married a Long Beachian and apparently you can't take the Long Beachian out of Long Beach so I stuck here watching the sharks try to convince the sheeple that they need more of their money.
Probably because it has the most consumers.
Some1Has2BTheRookie
Is that because Texas consumes more oil and/or coal or is it because it produces oil. Emissions from production of oil should be accounted for as if all the well to wheel emissions come from the tail pipes of the final end users.
Where did you get your information, Dr. Jello? According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Texas is by far the state that emits the most CO2 per year from the years 2000-2011: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions... and http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions... - source: http://www.eia.gov/environment/emissions...
Texas has nearly double the annual CO2 emissions than does California. The good news? Both states have lowered their CO2 emissions during the 2000 to 2001 time frame. California by 8.4% and Texas by 9.04%.
Now, if you wish to know the by state per capita emissions you can use simple math to determine this. Tons CO2 emitted/population=per capita CO2 emissions. This is another measure of CO2 emissions that can be considered. Texas still would not fare well against California using this metric.
The sad this is, we're already taxed here more than any other state on Co2 emissions and it's not doing any good.
It has Cap and trade and other control measures .
yes
It won't matter because taxes like science, education, math and all those commie plots you are saving us from, are, though very real and dangerous, all peanuts compared the Reptilian 8th Dimension and Arnie is as Hasta La Vista Big Heap Reptilian as they come and go.
http://www.greenpacks.org/2008/07/14/sch...
California produces the largest the largest share of Co2 in the country. Should the federal government levy a stiff carbon tax on the state until they can get their Co2 levels down to acceptable rates?
Um, You spelled Texas wrong
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S...
and i'm in favor of raising taxes on all deniers/republicans only
All that will do is make them move their stinky, polluted asses next door to you.
