Yes, We Have No Carbon Tax

Nov 12, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Streetsblog

About 12 hours after President Obama won re-election, Bloomberg News ran this tantalizing headline : "Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says." A carbon tax could finally put a price on greenhouse gas emissions, but the Obama administration says it's not on the agenda.

Comments
1 - 10 of 10 Comments Last updated Nov 14, 2012
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

I am not surprised.

A carbon tax now would hit the working family until the first 'rebates' hit and they would not be happy with the price at the pump regardless of a later 'compensation'.

The Republicnts would blow up sky high on the first repetition of the word 'tax'.

No politically feasible yet. The first step is to allow past 'tax reductions' on the rich to expire while closing loopholes to set a 'fair share' contribution from the wealthier classes. As well, cuts in programs will have to be allowed if those cuts can be accommodated without driving a lot of working class families to the food banks or homeless shelters.

Meanwhile, encourage more research and development of green energy by removing artificial barriers such as the lack of long distance power transmission. End subsidies to fossil fuel companies to put them on a 'level playing field' with green energies. Etc. No 'big stick' play for the second term, which might spark opposition just to be ornery. Just a lot of small changes.

Since: Apr 10

Milwaukee, WI USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
End subsidies to fossil fuel companies to put them on a 'level playing field' with green energies.
As if Green energy development doesn't get subsidies.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Steve Case wrote:
<quoted text>
As if Green energy development doesn't get subsidies.
Speaking of apples and oranges. There is one major difference to green energy subsidies vs fossil fuel subsidies. Well really two.

The first is that fossil fuel subsidies are ten times the money.

The second is that fossil fuel subsidies just line the pockets of the wealth fossil fuel companies.

Fossil fuel subsidies SERVE NO PURPOSE. Green energy subsidies (small though they are) do not change the competitiveness of wind power. It is already competitive. Green energy subsidies serve a PURPOSE, from CO2 reductions to energy security. They are like the 'rural electification act' that created the energy grid so that fossil fuels could boom (and equivalent purpose), they attract investment far in excess of their value. And jobs.

The subsidy on wind for example, amounts ot 2.34c per kwh. Not a big deal if you really want clean energy and clean air. And many of the 'contrarian' analysis are flawed in that they compare BASELOAD power with green energy, as if baseload power set the cost to the consumer. Really, the 'last kwh' sets the price since they may have to have 'running reserve' power and 'spot market' buys for that last kwh that cost $50 per kwh. The issue is rife with apples and oranges.
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

let's see, the new epa regs already closed 175 power plants and another couple hundred are in the middle of shutting units down. The executive edict forces still working plants to retrofit to natural gas which while cheap (for now) is expensive to change over and get adequate pipelines run to them. So who pays for this ? not the gubbmint or power companies. So add a carbon tax on top of the retrofit and soon obamas promise in 2008 of 'energy costs will necessarily skyrocket' will be a reality. Then the next thing for the 'po folks' with free phones will be food and electricity stamps. Already all of obamas cherished green energy financed ventures are bankrupt so how are all these people buying chevy volts going to charge them ?
lolol

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
removing artificial barriers such as the lack of long distance power transmission.
.
obama killed off the canadian pipeline in order to appease his 'green' envirowhackos. howinthehell do you think the epa and the green idiots are going to approve of super transmission line corridors thru their pristeen wilderness to transmit this new wunnerful green power to the inner city ghetto ? dream on, it'll take 100 years.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Wouldn't you know it. Grover Norquist is now trying to get out in front of the carbon tax issue...by using it as another way to give millionaires tax cuts.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

lolol wrote:
....obama killed off the canadian pipeline in order to appease his 'green'......
Got tough fuelin' your dually truck for $140+! Ya need a 46mpg vehicle. An Eco Cruze will get you down the road at 50+mpg! Don't need a Hybrid, unless you're in the city.
They're starting to get the mpg races underway. Even race cars work to get better mpg.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

lolol wrote:
<quoted text>
.
obama killed off the canadian pipeline in order to appease his 'green' envirowhackos.
How many ways is this wrong. Let me count..

1: the XL pipeline was not 'killed' to please anyone. It is ready to be resubmitted and many parts of it are already being constructed.

2: The reason for this was that the Republican house ILLEGALLY set a 'deadline' for the deal that did not allow proper procedures so the deal was killed by the LEGAL chicanery of the Right Wingers, trying to 'smear' Obama.

3: The deal had to pass a reality check that avoided vulnerable watersheds. Environmentalists don't want it anywhere. The goal of the environmental review was to ensure the least RISK, while the pipeline runs.

Nobody was fooled except those that wanted to be. i.e Romney.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Northie wrote:
Wouldn't you know it. Grover Norquist is now trying to get out in front of the carbon tax issue...by using it as another way to give millionaires tax cuts.
That is the way of the world. ANY action will undoubtedly cause profits for those who control the means of production. And if they can shift more of the tax burden to the 99%, that is just a bonus.

Give them credit that it would be a positive step in controlling AGW, at least.
Northie

Spokane, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
That is the way of the world. ANY action will undoubtedly cause profits for those who control the means of production. And if they can shift more of the tax burden to the 99%, that is just a bonus.
Give them credit that it would be a positive step in controlling AGW, at least.
At least the terms of debate have shifted from having a carbon tax at all to who should pay for it.

However, this puts conservatives in the interesting position of arguing against returning tax revenue to most citizens so that it can all be handed only to the richest.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••