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.

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#140 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.
Reducing taxes stimulate economic growth, same as increasing government spending.

Raising taxes reducese economic growth, same as decreasing govt spending.

But you can't reduce taxes to nothing.
And you have to maintain the environment to make it stable to sustain us.

You can't ignore those limits.
Although looks like you are ... trying.
Duh.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#141 Feb 23, 2013
PHD wrote:
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."
No, PHD. You have it backwards. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the letter because the people who wrote it had no expertise in that area.

No. Bolten was opposed to the letter, PHD.
#1 the signees of the letter had no climate expertise, none;

Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of

--zero hours of climate research experience, and

-- zero peer-reviewed climate science papers

Plus they offered no science to support their statement.

==========

#2 <<Response from NASA Chief Scientist Letter on NASA Climate Studies

"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.

"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.

"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse." >>

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html...

==========

#3 Over 18,000 people currently work for NASA. Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees), just as with the Oregon Petition, the list accounts for a fraction of a percent of the available pool of people.

This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).

Once again, you prove after something is put out by the right wing, you never bother following up.

Guardian has more details on this topic here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/ap...

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#142 Feb 23, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
IMO, Gore just used the whole situation to become rich. He did not believe in what he was saying or he would have not used so much fossil fuel in his life. He was just trying to make the white liberals feel guilty and he did a great job at that while enriching himself.
Gore didn't make any of his money from global warming.

He is very wealthy. That's what you get being on the board of directors and participating in inital public offerings for both Google and Apple, two of the fastest growing stocks in the history of the US. Add to that some other investments (not related to global warming) and yes, he has more money than Romney.

He gave all his money from An Inconvenient Truth to charity.

Don't you think you'd be more credible if you bothered with some real facts, instead of such fantastic bad lies?

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#143 Feb 23, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Acid rain is totally different than the fake manufactured 'global warming'.
Ever hear of the late Isaac Asimov, the science fiction write. He predicted in the 1980s that global warming would be our worse problem. Look at why.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/01/06/2...

Roll to the present, and here is NASA.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#149 Feb 25, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>Boy, you sure sound stupid and it appears that you have never taken an economics course. Or better yet you have taken the Obama's "can't make a budget" economics course.
http://www.examiner.com/article/republicans-w...
Actually I have a Master's degree in Finance and I made straight As in most of my college classes, including economics classes.

Which is why perhaps it's easy for me to spot all the lying right wing crap in your posts.

Your right wing puppets sure know how to pull your strings.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#151 Feb 25, 2013
Ah, you're listening to Limbaugh, no wonder you are so clueless

<<Obama’s policies of massive deficit spending that is increasing the National Debt exponentially,(the debt has doubled since Democrats took charge of Congress in 2007), >>

The major CAUSES of the deficit are

#1 low taxes for the superwealthy,
#2 spending on Iraq, and
#3 the Housing bubble due to Republican policies. Ask me, I have the REAL details on this.

Have you got amnesia?

I chunked aside some of my free market principles when I was told by chief economic advisers that the situation we were facing could be worse than the Great Depression." -- G.W.Bush –

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/12/ra...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#154 Feb 26, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a liberal I will forgive for your lack of knowledge. Al Gore making money off of global warming is an open secret in the environmental community and everybody knows that fact.
...
And? You could prove that Al Gore is the most venal, greedy, hypocritical, evil person in the world, & it would mean nothing to the science. NOTHING.

Refuting Al Gore means nothing. He wrote a couple of books & made a movie. But he's not a scientist, he has nothing to do with anything. Your point evokes a giant "so what?"

Re: fiscal responsibility
Since 1968, EVERY Republican president has increased the deficit while in office, while EVERY Democratic president has decreased the deficit (including Obama); Clinton even had a surplus. The party in Congress doesn't correlate with deficits; nor does divided government. Your point about Demos in Congress in 2007 is ARRANTLY IRRELEVANT.

If you don't want to read the whole thing, just read tables 3 & 5:

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

Remember, 2008 was like 1929. Actions by Bush, & especially Obama, prevented another depression. We now have large deficits & a growing debt, but we're still much better off than we were in the 1930s. It took more than a decade to work our way out of that, & it'll take at least that long this time.

Since the 1980s, the Repubs have been obsessed with tax cuts & increased military spending. A 5th grader could tell you that would mean increased deficits.

It's true that Demos used to be the party of deficit spending & the Repubs the guardians of the budget. But that's ancient history.

Ironically enough, the Demos have become the party of fiscal responsibility, willing to pass unpopular tax increases & cut military spending. If you can't see this, you are either (1) psychotically detached from reality,(2) completely unaware of history, or (3) needing to repeat grades 4 thru 6. There are no other possibilities.

The Repubs CLAIM they're upset about deficits now. Where were they when Cheneybush were putting 2 wars on the national credit card, going to war while simutaneously cutting taxes for the 1st time in the history of the US?

Now, with a Demo in the White House, SUDDENLY, deficits are the worst thing ever. Spare me your faux outrage, Congressional Repubs. You're mostly a bunch of hypocrites.

You'll NEVER admit that Obama is the stingiest spender since Ike. Remember, the national debt TRIPLED under Reagan, & shot up again during Bush-1. Obama would have to serve another 2 terms to get close to Reagan's level.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-05-22/co...

The deficit IS coming down. Too slowly, yes, but it is dropping as a percentage of GDP (all that matters).

100% austerity is not the answer, as proven in 1937 when the Repubs temporarily forced it thru & we slipped back into recession. The Europeans are proving it again now (though some of them may not have a choice).

Slow growth is a delicate balancing act, but that's what we have to do. The deficit will have to slowly come down, as it is (though I'd personally prefer it come down a bit faster). Obama is right, though, that we canNOT cut down on investments in the future like infrastructure, scientific research & education, because those things pay off in the future.

The real problem with deficits is demographic, over the next ~30 years. The boomers are retiring & there aren't enough workers to support them. We may need to further increase the retirement age. Entitlements aren't a problem in 2013, they're a problem over the next several decades.

Social Security can be means-tested. Lots of other reforms can be made. Cutting benefits to current low-income retirees wouldn't go over well with AARP, though, would it?

This biggest savings would be from a change to single payer health care.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#155 Feb 26, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
...
... the annual cost of the Bush tax cuts has accounted for less than a third of the deficit.
... while the Democrats regularly talk about the cost of all the Bush tax cuts, they have proposed eliminating the tax cut only for the most affluent, such as couples with taxable incomes above $250,000. Even the most liberal estimates conclude that such a policy would save less than $1 trillion over 10 years – or less than 10% of the deficit at current rates. Raising taxes on “the rich” may be a reasonable policy, but it will not come anywhere near solving the deficit problem.
Republicans... seem to think that the real problem is that too many people pay no taxes and are bleeding the country. It’s true that 46% of adults pay no federal income tax. But three-fifths of those pay payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare... We just have a screwy tax code... In fact, the top 10% of households pay a larger share of total taxes in the U.S. than in any major European country...
You are correct in several things you say here; we do have a screwy tax code. Most below the 80th percentile pay little income tax, though they pay SOMEthing down to the 47th percentile, as we all know. Rates are then steeply progressive up to the 99th percentile.

Above that, though, rates are regressive! The top 0.01% pay a significantly lower rate than the top 0.1%. Back in the 1950s, when top marginal rates were 91%, that rate didn't kick in until income over $70+ million in today's dollars. Now, the code is "simplified."

Gingrich paid 31% tax, Rmoney 14%(which could have been 10% if he'd taken all the deductions to which he was entitled - funny word, eh?). Warren Buffett paid ~18% tax, his employees ~33-38%. These things are typical, not anomalous.

Like Buffett says, "stop coddling the rich!"

As you say, though, taxing the rich won't do enough to solve the deficit problem. It's due to lousy economic growth. After 30 years of trickle down, taken to its extreme by Bush-2, we have the most unequal distribution of wealth since 1929. Hmmm. I wonder what happened that year?

The problem is that large numbers of people don't have enough money to spend. When the rich have too much money & the poor too little, it's bad for the rich - & all of us.

We are strangling capitalism & democracy. We need a lot more progressivism to save them - AGAIN.
PHD

Overton, TX

#156 Feb 26, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, PHD. You have it backwards. NASA administrator Charles Bolden, Jr., blasting the letter because the people who wrote it had no expertise in that area.
No. Bolten was opposed to the letter, PHD.
#1 the signees of the letter had no climate expertise, none;
Based on the job titles listed in the letter signatures, by my count they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). Amongst the signatories and their 1,000 years of combined professional experience, that appears to include a grand total of
--zero hours of climate research experience, and
-- zero peer-reviewed climate science papers
Plus they offered no science to support their statement.
==========
#2 <<Response from NASA Chief Scientist Letter on NASA Climate Studies
"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.
"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.
"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse." >>
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html...
==========
#3 Over 18,000 people currently work for NASA. Without even considering the pool of retired NASA employees (all signatories of this list are former NASA employees), just as with the Oregon Petition, the list accounts for a fraction of a percent of the available pool of people.
This letter, as these letters always do, has gone viral in the climate denial blogosphere, and even in the climate denial mainstream media (Fox News).
Once again, you prove after something is put out by the right wing, you never bother following up.
Guardian has more details on this topic here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/ap...
"Wallop10" wrote: Actually I have a Master's degree in Finance and I made straight As in most of my college classes, including economics classes.

I do agree with your number argument but your off on your science arguments. Think hard most if not all of your sceince arguments are scientific science fiction.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#157 Feb 26, 2013
No Substance. All rants.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#158 Feb 26, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>I do agree with your number argument but your off on your science arguments. Think hard most if not all of your sceince arguments are scientific science fiction.
You have admitted that has no meaning...
My previous post was to another poster.
PHD

Overton, TX

#161 Feb 27, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have admitted that has no meaning...
My previous post was to another poster.
This is called the World Wide Web topix. When you post here it’s for everyone. See why you don't get it. Stick to numbers everything else seem to confuse you. Yes there are doubts about your number capabilities also.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#162 Feb 27, 2013
OH NO YOU Did not wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetheart, your rich Messiah Obama (as per his words) did the same thing too!
Obama paid lower tax rate than secretary
Published April 13, 2012
FoxNews.com
President Obama and first lady Michelle Obama had a combined income of $789,674 in 2011 but paid a lower tax rate than the president's secretary, who made less than $100,000, the White House confirmed Friday.
The Obamas paid an effective rate of 20.5 percent. White House aides would not reveal presidential secretary Anita Breckenridge’s tax rate but confirmed it was higher than the first family's rate. Breckenridge earned $95,000 last year.
The Obamas' rate is less than the 30 percent the president wants millionaires to pay under his proposed Buffett Rule.
“The president’s secretary pays a slightly higher rate ... than the president on her substantially lower income, which is exactly why we need to reform our tax code and ask the wealthiest to pay their fair share,” White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage told Fox News.
The release Friday of the tax returns for the president and the family of Vice President Joe Biden came on the same day in which the Obama campaign in Chicago attacked likely GOP-presidential nominee Mitt Romney for, so far, releasing only his most recent tax returns.
“Did he pay a lower income tax rate than the 13.9 percent he paid in 2010 and is that why he opposes the Buffett Rule to ensure millionaires don’t pay less taxes than middle-class families?” Obama campaign manager Jim Messina asked in a press release from the campaign.
...
The Obamas paid more than $160,000 in federal taxes last year.
The president's 2011 federal income tax return shows reported adjusted gross income of about $790,000 last year. About half of the first family's income is the president's salary. The White House says the rest comes from sales of Obama's books.
The White House released a copy of the president's tax return, which also shows charitable donations of more than $172,000.
...
For Biden and his wife, Jill Biden, this year's tax return looks almost identical to last year's.
Returns for 2011 released by the White House show the Bidens paid $87,900 in federal taxes on adjusted gross income of $379,035.
Their income was $143 below their 2010 return, but their tax bill was $1,274 higher. In both cases, the effective tax rate was just over 23 percent.
...
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/13/pr...
Your Messiah is just as bad as Romney and he lies about it. Obama does not know the middle class.
And?

So?

When did Obama call himself the "Messiah"? Note that I NEVER called him that, & disagree with him plenty. I only defend him because so many troglodytic Republicans DESPISE him unfairly, & can't see his obvious moderation.

When did Obama "lie about" his taxes? When did he "lie about" the middle class? He had a middle class origin. Rmoney certainly didn't have a middle class upbringing.

Obama probably paid a lower rate due to charitable giving. Certainly he didn't make piles of money from capital gains, the way Rmoney (& Al Gore, FTM) made theirs.

How about some links, but to legit news sites, not your right wing nutteria sites?

Anyway, all kinds of leaders have had different backgrounds. The Kennedys had relatively priveleged backgrounds but have always at least leaned left. FDR came from privelege. The Bushes have also had relatively priveleged backgrounds, but have at least leaned right.

OTOH, lots of leaders have had more humble or ordinary backgrounds, including Truman, Ike, LBJ, Ford, Reagan, Nixon, Clinton, Obama, etc. So what? Our leaders can come from any background; the important thing is what they do with it.

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
News Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing A... 3 hr litesong 12
News 'Kingdom of Dystopia': Saudi Arabia seeks leade... 11 hr tom_ 1
News Putin signs Russian law to shutdown 'undesirabl... 12 hr NAZI RUSSIA 1
News Protester Leaves Shell Ship North of Seattle; 1... Sun RustyS 2
News Who still takes global warming seriously? (Jan '10) Sun IBdaMann 30,820
News 'War crimes' rampant in Ukraine: Amnesty May 23 uther pendragon 5
News Outspoken pastor protects poor Filipinos (Apr '14) May 21 ELIAS IBARRA 7
More from around the web