Carbon Tax Would Hurt Farmers, Drive Up Food Prices

Feb 15, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Heartland Institute

Whenever politicians talks about curbing greenhouse gas emissions, they're really talking about higher food prices.

Comments (Page 4)

Showing posts 61 - 80 of113
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#70
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
I won't clean up my science.
But I like your post, and will stop my down votes and return attacks on you.
I don't mind you're conservative. My parents were conservative too.
That's not what this was about.
I don't like posting a fact sheet from NASA and someone saying it's fantasy for the sake of fantasy. Tell me WHY you don't like it.
FF and I don't agree and we get along OK, OK?
There you go again. I did not say you should clean up your science. Actually I asked if you would clean up your scientific science fiction. No issue with facts. You tend to post cut and paste statements like my opinion, could be, should be, prediction, and forecast. I call statements like that scientific science fiction. NASA is another story. They print approximate analysis.
just another guy

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

How much will it take before people get fed up with the damage caused by the radical enviro movement?

Power plants shut down cause the cost to skyrocket. At any given price point some people will be unable to afford electricity to light and heat their homes. How many will die before enough people take back their govt?

Or the cost of food is driven to the point people starve? We already see record numbers on food stamps.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

just another guy wrote:
How much will it take before people get fed up with the damage caused by the radical enviro movement?
Power plants shut down cause the cost to skyrocket. At any given price point some people will be unable to afford electricity to light and heat their homes. How many will die before enough people take back their govt?
Or the cost of food is driven to the point people starve? We already see record numbers on food stamps.
Yes, prices of food could be the way unmitigated AGW/CC could be manifest. Droughts are already causing problems with food production in the US, & they will be much, much more common this century.

So if you want to hold down costs of food, the most important thing to do, by far, is reduce CO2 emissions.
just another guy

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, prices of food could be the way unmitigated AGW/CC could be manifest. Droughts are already causing problems with food production in the US, & they will be much, much more common this century.
So if you want to hold down costs of food, the most important thing to do, by far, is reduce CO2 emissions.
The carbon tax is just another way for those in the district of criminals to extort more money from the people.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#74
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The carbon tax is just another way for those in the district of criminals to extort more money from the people.
Wrong again!!!

The carbon tax is revenue-neutral, which means it takes NO money from the people as a whole & adds NO tax money to the government. So no, NO money is extorted from the people as a whole.

What happens is that money is taken from high carbon emitters & given to low carbon emitters. Most people will gain money from the transaction, but some people will lose money, sometimes a lot of it. It provides motivation to reduce emissions & stimulates renewable energy industries.
just another guy

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#75
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again!!!
The carbon tax is revenue-neutral, which means it takes NO money from the people as a whole & adds NO tax money to the government. So no, NO money is extorted from the people as a whole.
What happens is that money is taken from high carbon emitters & given to low carbon emitters. Most people will gain money from the transaction, but some people will lose money, sometimes a lot of it. It provides motivation to reduce emissions & stimulates renewable energy industries.
I see. Another redistribute the wealth scheme. Under this scheme , will places like Solyndra take $500 million of tax money and not go broke?

If you believe the govt won't be increased in size and intrusiveness by this tax, I have some oceanfront property in Billings MT I would like to discuss with you.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#76
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
I see. Another redistribute the wealth scheme. Under this scheme , will places like Solyndra take $500 million of tax money and not go broke?
If you believe the govt won't be increased in size and intrusiveness by this tax, I have some oceanfront property in Billings MT I would like to discuss with you.
Actually, the whole point of the carbon tax is that government won't have to pick which solar company will succeed. The market, FINALLY free, will work to select the best approach.

You see, we've NEVER had a market for energy that's truly free, it's always been distorted by a horrendous government policy: the lack of a very stiff carbon tax.

Too many people suffer from the hallucinatory psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It is most assuredly NOT free. It will be almost incalculably expensive in the future.

A carbon tax is a way to FINALLY get the cost of emitting carbon into the price of fossil fuels. It allows the consumer to see the REAL price, not the artifically depressed price we see today.

This will allow renewable sources of energy to finally compete on a level playing field. Wind, geothermal & hydropower are already competitive with the artifically depressed fossil fuel price; with a tax, these technologies can finally compete on a level playing field.

It will stimulate our creative entrepreneurs to allow us to make more efficient use of energy, & will stimulate them to design ever-more efficient means of utilitizing cleaner energy.

Of course we also need to stop the billions of dollars we give annually in subsidies directly to oil companies, & not spend on trillion dollar oil wars in the Middle East. These subsidies make the TINY government subsidies given to the Solyndras of the world INCREDIBLY trivial.

With no subsidies for oil, & with a price that reflects reality, wind & solar companies can compete in the (FINALLY) free market. Government won't have to try to select which Solyndra will be successful.
just another guy

Denver, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#77
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the whole point of the carbon tax is that government won't have to pick which solar company will succeed. The market, FINALLY free, will work to select the best approach.
You see, we've NEVER had a market for energy that's truly free, it's always been distorted by a horrendous government policy: the lack of a very stiff carbon tax.
Too many people suffer from the hallucinatory psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere. It is most assuredly NOT free. It will be almost incalculably expensive in the future.
A carbon tax is a way to FINALLY get the cost of emitting carbon into the price of fossil fuels. It allows the consumer to see the REAL price, not the artifically depressed price we see today.
This will allow renewable sources of energy to finally compete on a level playing field. Wind, geothermal & hydropower are already competitive with the artifically depressed fossil fuel price; with a tax, these technologies can finally compete on a level playing field.
It will stimulate our creative entrepreneurs to allow us to make more efficient use of energy, & will stimulate them to design ever-more efficient means of utilitizing cleaner energy.
Of course we also need to stop the billions of dollars we give annually in subsidies directly to oil companies, & not spend on trillion dollar oil wars in the Middle East. These subsidies make the TINY government subsidies given to the Solyndras of the world INCREDIBLY trivial.
With no subsidies for oil, & with a price that reflects reality, wind & solar companies can compete in the (FINALLY) free market. Government won't have to try to select which Solyndra will be successful.
The market will be free when the govt taxes a portion of it and uses that to subsidize another portion.

Only the lunatic left can make this stuff up.

If you want to reduce the price of food you promote the production of energy. Energy is used at every level of food production and delivery.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#78
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The market will be free when the govt taxes a portion of it and uses that to subsidize another portion.
Only the lunatic left can make this stuff up.
If you want to reduce the price of food you promote the production of energy. Energy is used at every level of food production and delivery.
Of course, you'd be happy to kill your children, right? That's what emitting carbon into the atmosphere is.

What you want to do is like the national debt, but orders of magnitude larger. You get to emit carbon now, but people in the future have to pay for it.

How much is New York City worth? Boston? Washington DC? They're all going to be underwater. That's way, way, WAY more than our comparatively tiny national debt.

How about Florida? New Orleans is already gone, so there's no sense in fretting about it. These things cost money, a LOT of it. One storm caused billions of dollars in damages. One meter of sea level rise & it would have been exponentially worse.

Yet we've probably already guaranteed a 4-5 meter rise in sea level (based on temps & sea level during the Eemian,~124 Kya), even if we magically stabilized CO2 levels where they are now, at ~400 PPM. CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries, & warming continues.

As it is, we're shooting thru 400 PPM, heading for 450 or 500, with temps higher than the Pliocene (3 Mya), when sea level was ~25 meters higher. Now, equilibration might take centuries, but once begun, it'll be inexorable.

No doubt you'll think these are just "left wing scare tactics" or some other nonsense, & of course the consequences of AGW/CC may not be that bad, or at least not that bad that fast. We may have time.

But we're doing a very dangerous experiment on the only home we have. At least TRYING to reduce CO2, or slowing its rise, is a bit of an insurance policy against the worst consequences. The longer we wait, the more difficult & expensive it'll be, & the worse it'll be before it turns around.

Then we can monitor the earth carefully. The most important things, of course, are the Greenland icepack & the Arctic methane. If a significant fraction of the latter is released, then there'll be no ice on the earth, & sea level will be 75 meters higher. It'll be an absolutely inexorable positive feedback.

Lastly, scientific facts are true no matter how many times you wish, & claim, they aren't. The science doesn't care about your opinion, or mine. It just is.

The scientists are trying to tell you. You're just not listening.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#79
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
The market will be free when the govt taxes a portion of it and uses that to subsidize another portion.
Only the lunatic left can make this stuff up.
If you want to reduce the price of food you promote the production of energy. Energy is used at every level of food production and delivery.
Energy doesn't do much for food production in the middle of a drought. Increasing energy production is fine, as long as it doesn't release additional CO2.

But go ahead & blithely believe what you believe. Your progeny, should you have any, will realize I'm right & you're wrong.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

re-pubic-lick-un dogs bite the tires wrote:
the Hard Left has taken over the Democratic Party......
....... only as seen relativistically from the middle re-pubic-lick-uns, who are exposed as repressers of all things non-white men, & now traveling outside actual political circles, as they gaze longingly from the outside.

Since re-pubic-lick-uns are an ever decreasing minority, their representation becomes less necessary for america to function & always has been unnecessary for america to function....... properly.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>There you go again. I did not say you should clean up your science. Actually I asked if you would clean up your scientific science fiction. No issue with facts. You tend to post cut and paste statements like my opinion, could be, should be, prediction, and forecast. I call statements like that scientific science fiction. NASA is another story. They print approximate analysis.
Except I saw you call my NASA quote scientific science fiction too.
That's probably the post that set me off, for the record, that and the constant character insults.

I don't start character insults...
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
There you go again.
I knew Ronald Reagan(when he was host of 20 Mule Team Borax Death Valley Days).

Ronald Reagan was a NOT a friend of mine.

'phud fetid feces face fiend', you are no Ronald Reagan..... & no friend of mine, either.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
Feb 19, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Reality Bites wrote:
<quoted text>
And, the Hard Left has taken over the Democratic Party.
We need to be rid of ALL of the professional pols....
The Demos taken over by the left????? HUH?????

This is one of stoooopidest things you've ever said here, "Reality" Bites, & that's saying something, given how WRONG you usually are.

Haven't we been thru this? Please, the Democrats would accept every one of their Presidents who served between 1901 (or 1913 in their case) & the present. FDR & LBJ might be too liberal for national office today, but they'd be fine for Congress.

The Republicans are very, very, very different. Teddy, Taft, Ike, Nixon, Ford & Bush-1 would all be considered a bunch of RINOs & be hounded out of the party. Even Reagan would be on thin ice.

After all, RR raised taxes multiple times, believed unions had a right to exist, believed salaries & capital gains should be taxed at the same rate (he's to Obama's LEFT on the issue think about that) & signed an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Despite the recent thaw on immigration, Reagan would get a primary challenge from the right so fast it'd make your head spin.

Even big-spending, low-taxing Bush-2 would be a problem to the party today. He didn't get invited to the convention, did he?

This is not even a question, "Reality" Bites. The Repubs have moved far, far, FAR to the right, so far they'd reject most of their own Presidents (& other pols) of the past 100+ years. The Demos, OTOH, are smack dab in the middle of American politics for a century.

You may try to raise Obamacare as an issue, but health care reform was attempted by no fewer than 7 Presidents after WW-2, including 2 Repubs; only LBJ & Obama succeeded. It was based on a Repub idea. It's not a leftist plan, it's an American plan.

The only argument you have is gay marriage, & that's a gimme young people approve, older people do not.

You may be right about getting rid of pols. But since it's the Repubs who have been taken over by extremists, they're the ones we need to get rid of. The Demos are middle of the road for the past century.

The Repubs are lost right now, having moved far out of the mainstream. They're way more lost than the Demos were in the 60s, 70s & 80s, before Clinton & the DLC dragged them back to the center. They need an RLC & then some. Unless they start accepting Rockefeller & Eisenhower Repubs into the party again, they'll never win another national election.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
Feb 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how when someone is being totally honest that liberals think you are lying. Do you think it is because liberals lie to themselves and others about their agenda that they think others lie too? BTW, I can read your English; it is just it makes no sense.
Unlike you who appears to have MSNBC as an only news source with your far left liberal blogs I get my news from many sources.
Like I said, "Wow, we have a blinded Obamaton within our midst. You liberals do not know what capitalism is; just as you do not know what conservatism is. just like Obama you pretend you know, but obviously you know nothing how to reduce the deficit and make America better.
Thanks again for proving all liberals do is hate as they try to define conservatism in their terms and not the real definition of conservatism as defined by the conservatives. Too bad you always get it wrong."
So - you're COMPLETELY ignorant of American history? Never heard of Teddy Roosevelt? FDR? Ike? Do you have a logical, fact-based rebuttal?

I don't hate anyone, I just can't believe how deluded you right wingers are, how ignorant of history & politics. I don't like Obama much, but defend him because he's unfairly DESPISED by all the troglodytic Republicans who are SO radical they can't see his obvious moderation. I don't watch MSNBC.

Repubs today would reject almost all the Presidents & politicians of their OWN PARTY who've served since 1901. They'd all be considered a bunch of RINOs today. Only Coolidge & Hoover would still be OK (Harding too, but he had a scandal). There's no way around it.

When the Demos moved left in the 60s, 70s & 80s, at least they KNEW they were moving left. There was crazy talk about "revolution" & all that cr*p. There were demonstrations in the streets.

You people are SO psychotic you can't even see it!! You have no CLUE how far out of the mainstream you've moved. You guys talk about violent revolution too now, "taking back our country" & being armed to the teeth, "supporting the 2nd Amendment."

Then you're psychotic enough to actually think the Repubs are the party of fiscal responsibility!! Astonishing!!

Since 1968, EVERY Repub President has raised the deficit while in office, while EVERY Demo Pres has reduced it (including Obama); Clinton finished with a surplus. The party in Congress, or divided government, simply do NOT correlate like the Presidents do. You don't even have to read it, just look at tables 3 & 5:

http://home.adelphi.edu/sbloch/deficits.html

Since the 1980s, the Repubs have been obsessed with tax cuts & more military spending. A 5th grader could tell you that would increase the deficit. Remember, it was Cheney who said "Reagan 'proved' deficits don't matter."

It's true that the Demos were once the party of deficit spending, the Repubs the guardians of the budget. But that's ancient history now. Ironically enough, the parties have switched places, & the Demos are now the guardians of the budget. They're willing to pass unpopular tax increases & cut the Pentagon.

These are not opinions or wild ideas, they're simple historical facts. Deal with them.

And Repubs in Congress had NO problems with deficits when Cheneybush were putting 2 wars on the national credit card. But SUDDENLY, when there's a Demo in the White House, deficit spending in the worst thing in the world.

Congressional Repubs (most of them)= HYPOCRITES, FILTHY HYPOCRITES.

Now, if we could get an honest negotiator in there, we could make progress on the deficit.(Boehner would be willing, but Cantor will sabotage him because party interests always, always, always, always, ALWAYS come ahead of the interests of the country to these radical, rabid right-wingers.) The deficit should be reduced slowly, not suddenly. 2008 was just like 1929, but actions by Bush & Obama prevented another depression. Despite our problems, we're much better off now than we were in the 1930s.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Both of my parents were lifelong Republicans until recently.

My mother officially left with her disappointment with Bush saying she didn't leave the Republican Party, it left her (because it veered too far to the right.)

It took Sarah Palin and the TeaParty for my father to leave the Republican Party....

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
Feb 21, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Wallop10 wrote:
Both of my parents were lifelong Republicans until recently.
My mother officially left with her disappointment with Bush saying she didn't leave the Republican Party, it left her (because it veered too far to the right.)
It took Sarah Palin and the TeaParty for my father to leave the Republican Party....
The most disturbing thing these wacko radical R's have done IYAM is the recent massacre of Bob Dole. Here's someone who was severely injured in WW-2 serving this country, then came home to be a Senate leader & even run for president.

Then he comes in IN HIS WHEELCHAIR to beg the Senate - once HIS Senate - to ratify the UN disabilities agreement (based on our ADA, BTW). But these knuckle-scraping Repub troglodytes turn him down on some trumped-up nonsense about losing sovereignty! Pure bovine excrement!

What is WRONG with these "people"??? Are they insane? How could they POSSIBLY effectively spit in Bob Dole's face like that? Have they NO respect for this country or its past?

Shame, shame, shame.
just another guy

Aurora, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Energy doesn't do much for food production in the middle of a drought. Increasing energy production is fine, as long as it doesn't release additional CO2.
But go ahead & blithely believe what you believe. Your progeny, should you have any, will realize I'm right & you're wrong.
Since the entire country isn't under the drought it can help.
Food does not just require energy to be grown. From the time it is harvested until it is eaten , energy is required. Increase the cost of energy and the effect is cumulative. The processing requires energy. Trucking to the processor, to the distributor, to the store, and home all require energy. Grocery stores require energy.
I believe what I believe because I have seen hucksters pushing an agenda using some type of environmental apocalypse all my life. We were going to run out of oil by the 80s. We were going to run out out of water before the turn of the century. We were going to be in an ice age by now. Wasn't it gore who told us the oceans would be dead by now? We saw how the shining jewel of the man made global warming movement was nothing but cooked up statistics.
We will see who is right.
just another guy

Aurora, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
That is very typical for the liberals to do and since they do it so frequently they don't recognize they do it. It very typical for the liberals to name call and denigrate the other poster.
Do you notice how they often question a persons sexuality when they are losing a debate? Not very PC since the left tells us they are champions for homosexuals.
They also believe they are much smarter and make sure you know that.
They are unable to answer questions. Instead they ignore them, deflect , or attempt to throw them back.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
Feb 22, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

just another guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Since the entire country isn't under the drought it can help.
Food does not just require energy to be grown. From the time it is harvested until it is eaten , energy is required. Increase the cost of energy and the effect is cumulative. The processing requires energy. Trucking to the processor, to the distributor, to the store, and home all require energy. Grocery stores require energy.
I believe what I believe because I have seen hucksters pushing an agenda using some type of environmental apocalypse all my life. We were going to run out of oil by the 80s. We were going to run out out of water before the turn of the century. We were going to be in an ice age by now. Wasn't it gore who told us the oceans would be dead by now? We saw how the shining jewel of the man made global warming movement was nothing but cooked up statistics.
We will see who is right.
Obviously you're not a scuba diver, & don't know anyone who does. The oceans ARE dying NOW, warming & becoming more acidic, because we're releasing too much CO2.

Don't you even LOOK at the news? Don't you know how coral reefs all over are bleaching or dying?

Don't you know about the dead zones, the algal blooms? Don't you know about the Grand Banks? No fish now, despite having been protected for some time now.

Of course Chicken Little has warned us too many times, & now we're skeptical. But there's no getting around the fact that the earth is finite, & we will most certainly run up against SOME kinds of limits, even if we haven't yet. It may not be obvious to all what those limits are, but it's undeniable that they must exist.

Until we can mine the asteroids or terraform Mars, there just won't be an absolute increase in resources.

Obviously food production requires energy. But like EVERYTHING else, we can find gains in efficiency & conservation, & should continue those efforts.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 61 - 80 of113
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Organic Food Discussions

Search the Organic Food Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Harvest Farms Organic? Who are they? (Apr '08) Jul 7 Joyce Gegory 103
Eat Organic - The Right Choice for Buying Organ... Jul 5 Drink 2
Is organic food lighter Jul 5 Anonymous 1
Health Benefits from a organic/whole food diet. (Mar '11) Jul 3 shailluis 2
Cooked veggies vs. Raw (Jun '13) Jul 3 shailluis 3
Myths And Facts About Organic Foods Jul 3 shailluis 2
Health Tip: Is Organic Better? (Jan '13) Jul 3 shailluis 5
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••