My "fellow warmers" particularly like to talk about "revenue neutral" carbon taxes. If you are suspicious about carbon taxes being "revenue neutral," I agree. They lower income taxes or some other tax, for now, and just jack it up again, later.
One alternative to taxes is to require automakers to produce a quota of zero emission vehicles. And where fossil fuels are used to produce electricity, for every megawatt of power, they would be required to develop 3 megawatts of zero emission power in the case of coal or two megawatts of zero emission power in the case of natural gas. Otherwise, utilities could delay and then say that they need an extension of their licensees to keep the lights on.
They also like to talk about carbon taxes being modest. That kind of makes sense because people would be furious if the price of gasoline went up to the price of hydrogen produced from photovoltaic cell electricity, rather than from natural gas. Also, applying the Laffer Theory to carbon taxes, they would keep them low enough to avoid having people convert to alternative fuels.
Jeff M
That would depend on how the credits are distributed. There are three ways to distribute them
1. Distribute credits to individuals. The individuals would sell the credits they don't need to brokers.
2. Distribute credits to corporations. The problem with this approach is that a utility which runs coal plants could threaten to turn off the lights if it doesn't get lots of credits.
3. Sell the credits. This would be a tax.
Well, no, we could just blanket the earth with nuclear missiles, and cause an effective nuclear winter.
Maybe set off a few dozen volcanic eruptions.
Or get a super-villain to move the Earth further from the sun.
But no, the only way to stop people from doing something harmful is to get them to realize the cost.
Definitely not. It's our will to help in preserving our mother nature. It's the act of people, to do our share in helping our environment. If all of us will work hand-in-hand on this, I am pretty sure we'll have a better place to live.
Is taxation the only answer to global warming?
Taxation is the answer if your the one collecting the taxes.
Yes, we must punish the decadent capitalist society with taxes to teach them a lesson, and make them pay for their high living standard.
The case to help field nuclear electric power the united states. 1. ) Lower laws that do definitely not have an impact on this safe practices. 3. ) Produce fed area funds making sure that online communities are unable to cease structure connected with nuclear electric power facilities. 3. ) Determine refers to many nuclear electric power facilities when using the similar pattern.
Hopefully not, but tax shifting is the only economic way of handling economic externalities so it's one of the few tools that we at least know that we have, imperfect as it is.
Daft Senators like Sheldon Whitehouse , Barbra Boxer, and Bernie Sanders thinks so .
My example to spur nuclear power in the US. 1.) Drop regulations that do not affect the safety. 2.) Make federal land grants so that communities cannot halt construction of nuclear power plants. 3.) Work out deals with multiple nuclear power plants using the same design.
One would think building more nuclear power plants would be a good step for reducing co2, but studies by liberal "scientists" have shown through peer reviewed papers that taxes and increased regulations are in fact the best way to remove co2 from the air.
According to Alarmists carbon taxes are the ONLY answer. No matter what technological advances are made, no matter that there is no empirical evidence of a real problem, no matter that the taxes they propose would have no benefit, no matter that science knows CO2 does not drive warming. None of that matters. Because the whole idea behind the scam is to get your money and destroy your liberties.
It won't even matter if the world starts rapidly cooling --- they will just blame us for that too and they will still want their confiscatory tax increases.
-----------------------
Personally I do not think taxation will work. While it will certianly have the effect of lowering CO2emissions in the US, its effect worldwide will be negligible. Why? Because raising the cost of coal use in the US, will lower the demand and thus the cost worldwide and other countries will go solely on cost.
Further, most warmers should acknowledge the difficulty in passing taxes in the US.
So warmers What other suggestions do you have? And how much do you think conservative would resist them?
It doesn't have to be effective "world wide".
It only has to be effective in the half dozen largest CO2 emitters.
And that is possible.
Do you consider a cap and trade system a tax?
most economist think putting a price on carbon will work. if you have a better solution, let us hear it. Denying there is a problem is not an option.
Taxation is the solution to all problems except long-term poverty.
No, taxation without representation is.
No there is also tyranny according to many greenies.
