Boxer pushes carbon tax to ease global warming

There are 15 comments on the Feb 14, 2013, USA Today story titled Boxer pushes carbon tax to ease global warming. In it, USA Today reports that:

Sen. Barbara Boxer announced on Thursday legislation that would impose a carbon tax as a way to lower emissions linked to global warming but the bill is thought to have little chance of passing.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at USA Today.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1 Feb 15, 2013
Sen Boxer is to be commended for raising this, even though it has zero chance of passage at this time. If enough people start supporting it, there could be pressure from below. It really is the only way to get the true cost of burning fossil fuels into their prices.

As it is now, far too many people suffer from the hallucinatory psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It is NOT free; it will cost almost incaluculable amounts of money in the future.

It's a bit like the national debt, but (at least potentially) much, much, MUCH larger. People who emit excess carbon into the atmosphere today are shifting the costs of those emissions onto our progeny in the future.

What's disappointing is how tiny Sen Boxer's tax would be, though.$20 per ton is much too low; it should be at LEAST $120 per ton, preferably even more, though we could slowly ramp up to the full cost over 10-20 years to give people time to adapt.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#2 Feb 15, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
Sen Boxer is to be commended for raising this, even though it has zero chance of passage at this time. If enough people start supporting it, there could be pressure from below. It really is the only way to get the true cost of burning fossil fuels into their prices.
As it is now, far too many people suffer from the hallucinatory psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It is NOT free; it will cost almost incaluculable amounts of money in the future.
It's a bit like the national debt, but (at least potentially) much, much, MUCH larger. People who emit excess carbon into the atmosphere today are shifting the costs of those emissions onto our progeny in the future.
What's disappointing is how tiny Sen Boxer's tax would be, though.$20 per ton is much too low; it should be at LEAST $120 per ton, preferably even more, though we could slowly ramp up to the full cost over 10-20 years to give people time to adapt.
Erratum:
Oops. In the 2nd paragraph I meant "incalculable."
PHD

Overton, TX

#3 Feb 16, 2013
We escaped another lame excuse to raise taxes.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#4 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
We escaped another lame excuse to raise taxes.
Once AGAIN: a revenue-neutral carbon tax does NOT raise taxes AT ALL on the people as a whole. NO money is removed from circulation. NO (well, almost no) money is added to government coffers.

Money is only redistributed from high to low carbon emitters, as it should be. It's the only way to save our children.
PHD

Overton, TX

#5 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Once AGAIN: a revenue-neutral carbon tax does NOT raise taxes AT ALL on the people as a whole. NO money is removed from circulation. NO (well, almost no) money is added to government coffers.
Money is only redistributed from high to low carbon emitters, as it should be. It's the only way to save our children.
Again you dance around the issue "Your words as a whole, well almost no".We have bigger immediate issues out there that need attention to save our children. Question, where does the revenue come from?

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#6 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Again you dance around the issue "Your words as a whole, well almost no".We have bigger immediate issues out there that need attention to save our children. Question, where does the revenue come from?
The revenue comes from high carbon emitters.

Imagine a stiff carbon tax, assessed either at production or at retail outlets like the pump. ALL of that money is returned monthly to every legal resident on an equal basis.

The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks & tax collectors to make sure people are paying. Overhead should be ~1% or less.

So maybe the tax is "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.

Yes, high carbon emitters would be punished. But low carbon emitters would be stimulated to exactly the same extent.

Energy efficiency & renewable energy technologies would be incentivized. We'd FINALLY have an energy market that'd be free & reflective of reality.

Of course we'd also have to eliminate the billions in direct subsidies we give to oil & other fossil fuel companies.

One huge benefit would be NO MORE TRILLION DOLLAR OIL WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!! So ultimately, taxes, & the costs & size of government, would be much lower.

Conservatives should be very, very happy with that, right?
PHD

Overton, TX

#7 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
The revenue comes from high carbon emitters.
Imagine a stiff carbon tax, assessed either at production or at retail outlets like the pump. ALL of that money is returned monthly to every legal resident on an equal basis.
The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks & tax collectors to make sure people are paying. Overhead should be ~1% or less.
So maybe the tax is "only" ~99% revenue neutral. Big deal.
Yes, high carbon emitters would be punished. But low carbon emitters would be stimulated to exactly the same extent.
Energy efficiency & renewable energy technologies would be incentivized. We'd FINALLY have an energy market that'd be free & reflective of reality.
Of course we'd also have to eliminate the billions in direct subsidies we give to oil & other fossil fuel companies.
One huge benefit would be NO MORE TRILLION DOLLAR OIL WARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST!! So ultimately, taxes, & the costs & size of government, would be much lower.
Conservatives should be very, very happy with that, right?
No, wrong again. They sell carbon credits to the high carbon emitters to avoid fines. Guess who pays again and again the end user "US".AKA WE THE REAL TAX PAYERS.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#8 Feb 16, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>No, wrong again. They sell carbon credits to the high carbon emitters to avoid fines. Guess who pays again and again the end user "US".AKA WE THE REAL TAX PAYERS.
You're talking about cap & trade, the discredited scheme that just won't work. It diverts tremendous amounts of money to traders on Wall St & places like it.

The crooks at Enron supported cap & trade. That should be enough for everyone to question it.

At present, the lack of a carbon tax supports the shared psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It's NOT free. It'll be very, very expensive in the future.

We've never had a truly free market for energy because of the profoundly distorting government policy: lack of a carbon tax.
PHD

Overton, TX

#9 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking about cap & trade, the discredited scheme that just won't work. It diverts tremendous amounts of money to traders on Wall St & places like it.
The crooks at Enron supported cap & trade. That should be enough for everyone to question it.
At present, the lack of a carbon tax supports the shared psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It's NOT free. It'll be very, very expensive in the future.
We've never had a truly free market for energy because of the profoundly distorting government policy: lack of a carbon tax.
Maybe they need to correct their verbiage from carbon tax to carbon fine. At the end of the day carbon tax and cap and trade will be the same end results.There is no such thing as free.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#10 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
You're talking about cap & trade, the discredited scheme that just won't work. It diverts tremendous amounts of money to traders on Wall St & places like it.
The crooks at Enron supported cap & trade. That should be enough for everyone to question it.
At present, the lack of a carbon tax supports the shared psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It's NOT free. It'll be very, very expensive in the future.
We've never had a truly free market for energy because of the profoundly distorting government policy: lack of a carbon tax.
Thank you for voicing my contentions for years. Never liked cap & trade, thinking it was a way for crafty, tax-law rich, wrong-doer companies to make money while increasing their wrong-doing.
PHD

Overton, TX

#11 Feb 16, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for voicing my contentions for years. Never liked cap & trade, thinking it was a way for crafty, tax-law rich, wrong-doer companies to make money while increasing their wrong-doing.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#12 Feb 16, 2013
Ohh the lying troll has no time to educate itself when so busy to end threads with its repeat posts.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...
PHD

Overton, TX

#13 Feb 16, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Ohh the lying troll has no time to educate itself when so busy to end threads with its repeat posts.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fi...
So second Commander TROLL what will you do next, drink more ethanol?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#14 Feb 16, 2013
Oh look the lying troll copy/pasted ethanol. LOL.
PHD

Overton, TX

#15 Feb 17, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Oh look the lying troll copy/pasted ethanol. LOL.
More BS from the seconmd commander TROLL!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Alternative Energy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News World's largest wind farm opens in West Texas (Oct '09) 21 hr Timray 23
News Can Australians Give Up Coal? 22 hr Aussie Bob 1
News US announces plans to reduce agricultural carbo... Fri Kahoki 10
News XsunX to Install Solar Project for Wireless Ser... Thu Heinz 7
News Endangered Blanding's turtles win court-ordered... Wed tip of the iceberg 1
News Soon everyone will be an electric company (Jul '14) Apr 20 Frank Sinasstra 13
News Oklahoma Legislature, like Congress, takes aim ... Apr 20 Gary 3
More from around the web