Carbon Tax Would Hurt Farmers, Drive Up Food Prices

Feb 15, 2013 Full story: The Heartland Institute 113

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

Full Story
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#1 Feb 15, 2013
Oh, the Heartland Institute... Now there's an "objective" source!(\<sarcasm>)

Despite its pejorative tone, it does make some important points. Releases of methane & nitrous oxide may be higher with organic farming, but even traditional farming releases them.

It may be possible for both organic & traditional farmers to adopt methods that release less GHG. Farms would also appear to be ideal places to gather wind & solar energy. The former has become huge in Iowa.

Why can't tractors be plug-in diesel-electic hybrids?
PHD

Overton, TX

#2 Feb 15, 2013
The new buzz word "Food for carbon tax". Just another excuse to extract more dollars from the real tax payers.Smells like more scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#3 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
The new buzz word "Food for carbon tax". Just another excuse to extract more dollars from the real tax payers.Smells like more scientific science fiction.
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: Jan 13

Location hidden

#4 Feb 15, 2013
Almost forgot:
Another benefit of a carbon tax is that the government won't have to worry about selecting a successful Solyndra. The market would do that, as it should be.

Renewables have never been allowed to compete on a level playing field. The tiny subsidies are MUCH smaller than those given to FFs.
PHD

Overton, TX

#5 Feb 15, 2013
Therefore, what you are saying is the end user will not be paying more for the product. I do believe your wrong on this one.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#6 Feb 15, 2013
PHD wrote:
Therefore, what you are saying is the end user will not be paying more for the product. I do believe your wrong on this one.
Wrong again!! It truly is remarkable how often you can be dead wrong in such short posts.

Of COURSE the user of fossil fuels will be paying more! DUH! That user will finally be paying the real cost of burning them & releasing carbon into the atmosphere without restraint.

The point is that technologies like wind, hydro & geothermal, which are already competitive with FFs, will now be cheaper. Entrepreneurs who build & install them will experience a tremendous boom. Battery & solar technologies, already growing by leaps & bounds, will be further stimulated.

The cost of living for heavy carbon emitters will clearly be higher. But roughly ~60% of all people will get more money back than they pay in carbon taxes.

Transitioning to lower carbon energy will no doubt be very difficult. That's why we should do it gradually.

However, the difficulties of NOT doing it will be far, FAR worse & far, far, FAR more expensive. We should move as quickly as possible, because we HAVE to do it, the longer we delay, the more expensive it'll be.
Dan Salazar

Long Beach, CA

#7 Feb 15, 2013
STFU.....If Obama says this added hardship is all struggling Americans deserve than so be it.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#8 Feb 15, 2013
Dan Salazar wrote:
STFU.....If Obama says this added hardship is all struggling Americans deserve than so be it.
ALL struggling Americans? HUH???

60% of Americans would get more money back from a carbon tax than they put in. Do you think they'll object to money for nothing (well, for nothing but being low carbon emitters)?

Obama doesn't have anywhere near the cojones to do something like this. It'd be WAY too good for the country. Demand for it from below is building from below, though.\

It'll be way, way, way, way, WAY cheaper than continuing to do what we're doing now, that's for sure.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#11 Feb 16, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
No duh! Obama spends hours on ways to destroy America, the business community and anything that lifts up America. He has to pander to his special interest groups.
You TRULY are an IDI0T. Right wingers & their errant economic policies have nearly destroyed this country. Obama has simply tried to restore SOME of what we had in the 30s, 40s, 50s & 60s, before the CANCER of trickle down economics began.

Obama spends 24 h/d, 7 d/wk, 365 d/y TRYING to REBUILD America. Meanwhile, you people are trying to finish destroying it.

Unfortunately, you & your ilk have prevented Obama from doing his good work. What we need is another FDR to overpower you Luddites & restore true progressivism in this country. It's the ONLY way to save capitalism yet AGAIN.
PHD

Overton, TX

#12 Feb 16, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again!! It truly is remarkable how often you can be dead wrong in such short posts.
Of COURSE the user of fossil fuels will be paying more! DUH! That user will finally be paying the real cost of burning them & releasing carbon into the atmosphere without restraint.
The point is that technologies like wind, hydro & geothermal, which are already competitive with FFs, will now be cheaper. Entrepreneurs who build & install them will experience a tremendous boom. Battery & solar technologies, already growing by leaps & bounds, will be further stimulated.
The cost of living for heavy carbon emitters will clearly be higher. But roughly ~60% of all people will get more money back than they pay in carbon taxes.
Transitioning to lower carbon energy will no doubt be very difficult. That's why we should do it gradually.
However, the difficulties of NOT doing it will be far, FAR worse & far, far, FAR more expensive. We should move as quickly as possible, because we HAVE to do it, the longer we delay, the more expensive it'll be.
Wrong again, Wind energy and solar has increased tremendously over the past five year and the cost of energy continues to rise. Have you ventured out to read the interconnect agreement you must sign from the local energy provider? When you do let us know how that works for you.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#13 Feb 16, 2013
You need to think in the long term, Penny.

All scientific studies (not by oil companies or right wing think tanks) show it would SAVE us money converting now.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#16 Feb 16, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Wrong again: I'm a capitalist to the core. However, progressivism has been necessary to save capitalism multiple times in this country' history, & we clearly need it again. As a general rule, we've done much better economically in this country during periods of high taxes than during periods of low taxes. Wealth has become far over-concentrated at the top, the most it's been concentrated since 1929. Does that year ring a bell?

I don't agree with everything Obama does or says; far from it. But I realize that today's right wingers are SO far out of the American political mainstream that they can't recognize Obama for the moderate he is. They're basically psychotically detached from reality.

Think about it, & for once, be honest: how many Presidents of each party since 1901 would still be acceptable to their parties as (e.g.) members of Congress today? The Demos are easy: we'd accept all of them. Maybe FDR & LBJ would be too liberal for national office today, but the rest would be fine.

The Repubs are very, very different. You know damn well that Teddy, Taft, Ike, Nixon, Ford & probably Bush-1 would all be considered a bunch of RINOs & would be hounded out of the party today.

Even Reagan, nominal hero of Repubs, believed unions had a right to exist, raised taxes many times, believed capital gains should be taxed at the same rates as salaries (he's to Obama's LEFT on that issue - think about that) & signed an amnesty bill for illegal immigrants. Despite the recent thaw on illegal immigrants, Reagan today would get a primary challenge from the right so fast it'd make your head spin.

Bush-2 is an interesting case. If Congressional Repubs were the LEAST bit sincere about their "outrage" over high deficits under Obama, he'd be the 1st one they'd reject. But of course they're COMPLETE HYPOCRITES; the ONLY reason they care about the deficit is because there's a Demo in the White House. Remember? It was Cheney who said "Reagan 'proved' deficits don't matter." And since the tax cuts they've fought so hard for are named after Bush-2, maybe he'd still be OK.

That leaves Harding (who had a scandal problem), Coolidge & Hoover as the ONLY Repub Presidents of the past 112 years that'd still be acceptable to the party today.

This is what's known as a no-brainer. I mean DUH!!!

Today's Repubs have become radicalized & are far, far, FAR outside the mainstrain of American political history. Demos are smack dab in the middle. The only POSSIBLE issue you can point to is gay marriage, & that's a gimme, related to age only. Even young Repubs are OK with it.

So if you support today's radical righist Repub Party, that resembles Leninist cabal more than the party of the 1950s & 60s, then you are a radical, far outside American political history. Like Obama (even though I don't agree with him all the time), I'm a sensible moderate, smack dab in the middle

Anyone who sees Obama as some kind of radical leftist or socialist is psychotically unable to perceive reality. Period.
PHD

Overton, TX

#18 Feb 17, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
You need to think in the long term, Penny.
All scientific studies (not by oil companies or right wing think tanks) show it would SAVE us money converting now.
Your sentence structure is off a bit forget to take your meds? Do show it again and again much like you getting walloped again and again.
PHD

Overton, TX

#19 Feb 17, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Give it up as liberals never listen to reason.
There all members of the peer reviewed higher educated people that successfully bankrupt AMERICA.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#20 Feb 17, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I see you're just another hypocrite with no ability to be honest, no ability to perceive history & NO ability whatsoever to read & understand English I write.

Oh well, whatever. Live in your bubble & watch all the Faux "News" you want.
PHD

Overton, TX

#21 Feb 17, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you're just another hypocrite with no ability to be honest, no ability to perceive history & NO ability whatsoever to read & understand English I write.
Oh well, whatever. Live in your bubble & watch all the Faux "News" you want.
It appears that you were the first to call names here. Correct me if I am in error. Sometimes you write above lay people.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#22 Feb 17, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>It appears that you were the first to call names here. Correct me if I am in error. Sometimes you write above lay people.
Actually, I was called a "blinded Obamaton" by OH NO. It was said I proved "all liberals do is hate" & that I "always get it wrong." For posters like OH NO, "liberal" is a 4-letter word, dripping with his/her disdain.

In response I called OH NO a "hypocrite." I don't even think that's close to equivalent to what s/he called me. It's pretty mild, actually.

So no, I don't think I started the name-calling.
PHD

Overton, TX

#23 Feb 17, 2013
HomoSapiensLaptopicus wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I was called a "blinded Obamaton" by OH NO. It was said I proved "all liberals do is hate" & that I "always get it wrong." For posters like OH NO, "liberal" is a 4-letter word, dripping with his/her disdain.
In response I called OH NO a "hypocrite." I don't even think that's close to equivalent to what s/he called me. It's pretty mild, actually.
So no, I don't think I started the name-calling.
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
His statement could be anybody here no specific name mentioned.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#24 Feb 17, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
His statement could be anybody here no specific name mentioned.
You made that up. How disgusting. Which is why I've decided I'm going to throw back the garbage you throw first, instead of remain passive.

I know conservatives and Libertarians that are strongly for global warming == it's not a political issue for them.

You've let your Rush Limbaugh types puppetmaster make it into one for you, when you haven't got a clue which way is up.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#25 Feb 17, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>It appears that you were the first to call names here. Correct me if I am in error. Sometimes you write above lay people.
http://www.topix.com/forum/post/reply

What??????????

You mean you are not a PHD??????????

but are instead a lay person??????????

Why, that would make you a major HYPOCRITE,
in addition to a major LIAR!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

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.

Activism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Sunday's Climate Protest Could Be a Turning Poi... 48 min Jim the Hoax Denier 3
Tribune isn't telling the whole story (Jul '07) 2 hr Dave Bowman 10
Massive renewable energy project alters German ... 5 hr SpaceBlues 21
Russia LGBT Activists Worried After Crimea 'Lea... 19 hr Belle Sexton 3
This weekend in Long Beach: Getting hot on clim... 20 hr Doh 2
Fires near CMHR draw attention to aboriginal is... Fri general population 3
Celebrities Line Up for Global Climate Change M... Fri dont drink the ko... 1
•••

Activism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••