Carbon Tax Would Hurt Farmers, Drive ...

Carbon Tax Would Hurt Farmers, Drive Up Food Prices

There are 113 comments on the The Heartland Institute story from Feb 15, 2013, titled Carbon Tax Would Hurt Farmers, Drive Up Food Prices. In it, The Heartland Institute reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Heartland Institute.

idiots united

Minneapolis, MN

#97 Feb 22, 2013
I never seen anything about democrats or republicans but I see about how idiotic the american publics are. American public are too brainwashed and can't help but to serve the elites. FUAI.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#100 Feb 22, 2013
Carbon taxes are a bad idea. If anyone thinks carbon taxes do not get passed on to the consumer somehow, look at the countries that have it and compared prices of goods, autos etc to a country that does not have those taxes. The people who put up with these taxes are suckers...I will not be a sucker in my country and lefties here are never going to win by suggesting any kind of a new tax on a already heavily taxed Canada.

Secondly, protecting the enviroment can be easily done through good laws and enforcement of those laws. It's no good to have laws with slack enforcement....like having a speed limit with no enforcement.

Taxes are leftwingers best friend. It's their way of funding their dreamt up utopian BS. They like to rob other peoples money.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#105 Feb 22, 2013
Naturally Wired wrote:
Carbon taxes are a bad idea.
You may be too young to know about an acid rain problem we used to have.
The tax parallel looks to how the acid rain problem was solved.

<<Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act established the allowance market system known today as the Acid Rain Program. Initially targeting only sulfur dioxide, Title IV set a decreasing cap on total SO2 emissions for each of the following several years, aiming to reduce overall emissions to 50% of 1980 levels. The program did not begin immediately, but was implemented in two stages: Phase I (starting January 1, 1995) and Phase II (starting January 1, 2000).[2]

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set as its primary goal the reduction of annual SO2 emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels of about 18.9 million tons. To achieve these reductions by 2000, when a nationwide sulfur dioxide emissions cap of 8.95 million tons per year began, the law required a two phase tightening of operating restrictions placed on fossil fuel fired (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) power plants. The operation and pricing of a market for emissions allowances would not be viable in the absence of an effective regulatory cap on the total number of allowances available.

...
Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been hailed as successful by the EPA, industry, economists and certain environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, while skeptical environmentalists have argued that reduction in emissions occurred due to broad trends unconnected to the program.[30] The EPA has used what is called the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to estimate the effect of the Acid Rain Program (ARP). The output from the model says that annual emissions of sulfur dioxide were reduced by 8 million tons (from 17.3 to 9.3), nitrous oxide by 2.7 million tons (from 7.6 to 5), and mercury by 10 tons (from 52 to 42). However, it is difficult to estimate the emissions which would have occurred without the ARP. For example, the EPA updated its analysis to reflect the effect of low-sulfur coal becoming more economical due to reduced transportation, leading the EPA to reduce its estimate of the impact of ARP by sulfur dioxide emissions by one million tons.[31]

Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[32][33] However, although it reduced emissions by 40%, the US Acid Rain Program has not reduced SO2 emissions as much as the conventional regulation applied in the EU which reduced SO2 emissions by more than 70%[34]. Therefore, the effectiveness of the emissions trading element as a mechanism has been criticised, since the EPA also used regulations to achieve the reductions, as all areas of the country "had to meet national, health-based, air quality standards that are separate from the Acid Rain Program’s requirements" [35].

In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[36] In 2008, SO2 emissions dropped even lower—to 7.6 million tons[37].

The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[32]

A general issue with cap and trade programs has been overallocation, whereby the cap is high enough that sources of emissions do not need to reduce their emissions. ARP had "early overallocation" during Phase I, and this allowed emission sources to "bank" their allowances for future years. In Phase II, emission sources drew down their banked allowances. In 2006, emissions were again below the cap, leading to further banking.[38]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Progra...

Cap and trade on CO2 is meant to parallel the success seen on acid rain.
litesong

Everett, WA

#107 Feb 22, 2013
idiots disarrayed wrote:
how idiotic the american publics are.......
That's the re-public-an, re-pubic-lick-uns.......

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#108 Feb 22, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree.
Of course this is PURE nonsense, as I already demonstrated, in detail, on this thread.

The only thing I objected to was the assumption that I agree with everything Obama does. I disagree with him plenty (from "all sides").

What I do is defend him from anyone psychotic enough to actually believe he's "spending 24 hr/d thinking of ways to destroy the US."
That is pure, unadulterated, Faux "News" paranoid psychosis. I will attack, & call appropriate names, anyone who tries to spread insane lies like that.

Here's a clue: Not surprisingly, I didn't much care for GW Bush or Cheney. Bush ended up doing some good things for the country, but they just didn't outweigh the harm he did.

OTOH, Cheney did NOTHING good for the country. He placed the interests of the oil companies above those of the US, approved torture, lied to get us into a war, outed our own CIA agent in a political vendetta against her husband, & on & on. He didn't just violate the US Constitution, he violated the Magna Carta by revoking habeas corpus. He committed the most impeachable offenses since Nixon, maybe ever. The war was clearly the worst US foreign policy mistake at least since 1812, maybe ever.

Yet am I psychotic enough to try to say Cheneybush sat around all day trying to think of ways to destroy the US? OF COURSE NOT. Bush was doing what he thought was right, & Cheney what he thought was right. They were both wrong a lot, & Cheney was particularly self-serving, but they weren't “thinking of ways to destroy the US.” That was only the effect of what they did.

Yet now, millions of psychotic, radical right wingers actually believe Obama is DELIBERATELY trying to destroy the country. And you don't even realize how radical & unable to perceive reality you've become.

Evidently I have to repeat my argument because you didn't get it the 1st time. How many Presidents since 1901 would each party still accept today, say, as members of Congress? The Democrats are easy; they'd accept everyone.

The Republicans are very different. Virtually all of their own prior Presidents would be called a bunch of RINOs & be hounded out of the party. Even Reagan 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 that issue), & signed an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. Despite the recent thaw in the latter, RR would get a primary challenge from the right so fast it'd make your head spin.

The only Presidents the R's would still accept today would be Coolidge & Hoover (Harding had the scandal). Same thing with their other pols. Today's R's have been taken over by a radical right wing cabal, almost Leninist in their intolerance for dissent, & have gone far, FAR outside the mainstream of American political history.

But the thing is, you don't realize it! At least the in the 60s, 70s & 80s, D's KNEW they were moving left. There were demonstrations in the streets, & rhetoric about “the revolution” & all kinds of cr*p.

Today, lots of R's are also advocating violent revolution -“let's take back our country” etc - & are armed to the teeth. But they don't see how far away from the mainstream they've moved.

So – I'm a moderate D, in touch with reality. You, like SO many other R's today, are evidently a psychotic radical if you believe Obama is DELIBERATELY trying to destroy the US.

You see, the progressives like Teddy, Wilson & FDR SAVED capitalism from its own excesses. Too much laissez faire, too much trickle down is indeed cancerous, destroying the very fabric of capitalism & democracy. You simply MUST modify it by progressive actions.

We now have the most inequality in wealth in this country since 1929. Hmmm. I wonder what happened that year?

We desperately need progressivism now to save capitalism - AGAIN. When the poor have no money, it's bad for the RICH.
Patriot

Boulder, CO

#110 Feb 22, 2013
The Scientific Case Against Global Warming in 12 Minutes

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/02/the-scien...
litesong

Everett, WA

#111 Feb 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="OH NO, Yes, YOU Didn't not"]"OBAMA'S TARGET IS NOT JUST REPUBLICANS, BUT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF.[/QUOTE]
Its good we got you hounddoggin' that blackman, instead of the completely incompetent U.S. Supreme Court. Are they southern hounddogs? Sorry for asking. Of course, they are.
Jean Deaux

Somerville, MA

#112 Feb 22, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. You're wrong again!!
A REVENUE-NEUTRAL carbon tax extracts ZERO dollars from taxpayers & adds (almost) zero to the cost of government! ALL it does is take money from high carbon emitters & give it to low carbon emitters.
Imagine a stiff carbon tax paid at production or the pump, then have ALL of that money paid out to each legal resident monthly. If you were a heavy carbon emitter you'd pay thru the nose, but low carbon emitters would get free money.
The government already has computers that spit out monthly checks, & various tax collectors who make sure people pay them. No way would the overhead be more than ~1%. OK, so the tax would only be ~99% revenue-neutral. Big deal.
Our creative entrepreneurs would be stimulated to work on renewable energies. These technologies would FINALLY be competing with fossil fuels on a level playing field, because FFs would be paying their real costs. We've never had a free market for energy because the government has been distorting it so much in favor of Big Oil.
Government grossly distorts the market by
1. Lack of a carbon tax, perpetuating the psychotic delusion that it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere; it's NOT.
2. Direct subsidies to FF companies, which amounts to billions of dollars annually.
3. Spending trillions of dollars fighting oil wars in the Middle East.
So a carbon tax would cause overall tax levels to fall dramatically. Government would be smaller, cheaper & more effective. PERIOD.
Since when does taxation by the government "save" money? This idea is absurd. It would drive up costs for all of us, encourage the growth of bureaucracy, and provide perverse incentives to extract even more taxes from the taxpayers.
litesong

Everett, WA

#113 Feb 22, 2013
doo in his jeans wrote:
Since when does taxation by the government "save" money?
Pay now, or pay 10 times more later, plus lots of lives disrupted & lives ended.
litesong

Everett, WA

#114 Feb 22, 2013
[QUOTE who="OH NO, Yes, YOU Didn't not"]"OBAMA'S TARGET IS NOT JUST REPUBLICANS, BUT THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF[/QUOTE]

....... 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.
just another guy

Denver, CO

#125 Feb 23, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Only liberals can think taxes saves money. I have never thought that way, but then again I am not a liberal. I see when you have to pay more that discourages growth especially from business.
They are just tools, indoctrinated by the poor public schools. Then further brainwashed by the libs in "higher" education. Too blind to see fast talking cons like gore use them to enrich themselves . You would think gore sitting in his mansion and cavorting around in private jets would give them a clue. They remain willfully ignorant.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#126 Feb 23, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be too young to know about an acid rain problem we used to have.
The tax parallel looks to how the acid rain problem was solved.
<<Title IV of the 1990 Clean Air Act established the allowance market system known today as the Acid Rain Program. Initially targeting only sulfur dioxide, Title IV set a decreasing cap on total SO2 emissions for each of the following several years, aiming to reduce overall emissions to 50% of 1980 levels. The program did not begin immediately, but was implemented in two stages: Phase I (starting January 1, 1995) and Phase II (starting January 1, 2000).[2]
The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 set as its primary goal the reduction of annual SO2 emissions by 10 million tons below 1980 levels of about 18.9 million tons. To achieve these reductions by 2000, when a nationwide sulfur dioxide emissions cap of 8.95 million tons per year began, the law required a two phase tightening of operating restrictions placed on fossil fuel fired (e.g., coal, oil, natural gas) power plants. The operation and pricing of a market for emissions allowances would not be viable in the absence of an effective regulatory cap on the total number of allowances available.
...
Overall, the Program's cap and trade program has been hailed as successful by the EPA, industry, economists and certain environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, while skeptical environmentalists have argued that reduction in emissions occurred due to broad trends unconnected to the program.[30] The EPA has used what is called the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) to estimate the effect of the Acid Rain Program (ARP). The output from the model says that annual emissions of sulfur dioxide were reduced by 8 million tons (from 17.3 to 9.3), nitrous oxide by 2.7 million tons (from 7.6 to 5), and mercury by 10 tons (from 52 to 42). However, it is difficult to estimate the emissions which would have occurred without the ARP. For example, the EPA updated its analysis to reflect the effect of low-sulfur coal becoming more economical due to reduced transportation, leading with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted.[32]
A general issue with cap and trade programs has been overallocation, whereby the cap is high enough that sources of emissions do not need to reduce their emissions. ARP had "early overallocation" during Phase I, and this allowed emission sources to "bank" their allowances for future years. In Phase II, emission sources drew down their banked allowances. In 2006, emissions were again below the cap, leading to further banking.[38]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_Rain_Progra...
Cap and trade on CO2 is meant to parallel the success seen on acid rain.
Yes, I'm old enough to remember the acid rain issues.

In short statement, there are big differences between the acid rain issues and the issues of those in my country today who want to tax the oil and gas producers. There is no doubt in my mind that once carbon taxes are put on the oil producers in this country, who produce a product that is part of just about every fact of daily life, it will eventually affect prices of our daliy lives.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#127 Feb 23, 2013
Jean Deaux wrote:
<quoted text>
Since when does taxation by the government "save" money?...
Like I said, the tax does NOT revert to the government, but to low-carbon emitters. No money is removed from the economy, no money is added to the government. The money we save would be on the oil wars that wouldn't be needed any more. Do the math.

Would fossil fuel be more expensive? Yes, the prices would FINALLY include their true costs instead of the fantasy costs we have now. It really is a psychotic delusion to think it's "free" to emit carbon into the atmosphere.

This would stimulate, in a major way, our creative entrepreneurs to make energy use more efficient, to invent new ways to exploit renewable sources of energy. Yes, costs would rise SOME.

But if you think it'll be expensive to get off fossil fuels, wait till you see the costs of not getting off it. AGW/CC is already costing us hundreds of billions of dollars annually, & that's going to rise.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#128 Feb 23, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama is our tax and spend president plus he is still running a deficit. IMHO, Obama has not seen anything he won't tax!
OK, name the Republican Presidents who served after 1901 that would still be accepted by the party today. Then name the RINOs. Try to be honest, most importantly with yourself.

Keep in mind that Reagan raised taxes at least 6 times, believed unions had a right to exist, & believed salaries & capital gains should be taxed at the same rate. Also remember he signed an amnesty bill.

So who's on which list?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#129 Feb 23, 2013
Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#132 Feb 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
Like I said on the other threads where you posted this, PHD, let's look at Roy Spencer's actual temps:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-tem...

Are they rising?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#133 Feb 23, 2013
Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's
NASA’s Tropical Rain Measuring Mission (TRMM) has been,
“in my opinion“,
a huge success. It has been operating for over 15 years now, which makes me feel pretty old since I was involved in the early design of the TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI) that flies on TRMM. I campaigned for it to carry 10.7 GHz channels which would allow sensitivity to heavy rain, as well as all-weather sea surface temperatures. TRMM also carries the first spaceborne precipitation radar, which was built by Japan.
"Opinion", More scientific science fiction.
litesong

Everett, WA

#134 Feb 23, 2013
[QUOTE who="OH NO yes YOU Didn't not"]Acid rain is totally different than the fake manufactured 'global warming'.[/QUOTE]

In the 60's & early 70's, manufacturers, auto makers, re-pubic-lick-uns & non-scientific people did not believe in acid rain, either.

Seems that 'Oh no yes you didn't not' is manufacturer, auto maker, re-pubic-lick-un or a non-scientific dweeb.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#135 Feb 23, 2013
Is NASA playing fast and loose with climate change science? That's the contention of a group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.

NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the agency for making unwarranted claims about the role of carbon dioxide in global warming, "We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data," the group wrote. "With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled."
litesong

Everett, WA

#137 Feb 23, 2013
phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:
group of 49 former NASA scientists and astronauts.
Old worn-out news....

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.

Organic Food Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Raw Organic Coconut Oil & its amazing healing a... Jan 1 Mr Organic 1
New All-Natural and Organic Brand in the U.K. Dec 29 M_Mishev 1
Organic milk with strange smell (Jan '10) Dec 29 Dpscs1 10
Don't eat organic only Dec 27 healthy food 2
Trusted Online Organic Health Food Store in Aus... (Nov '14) Dec '16 Deborah 7
Honey nut cheerios vs natures path heritage o's (Aug '14) Dec '16 cytfuvygibhjnkm 3
Instagram accounts you follow? Nov '16 Nicholle2 1
More from around the web