Greek PM Says it at Last: Carbon Taxes are Just nother Way to Raise Revenue

[Parker2112]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100063854/greek-pm-says-it-at-last-carbon-taxes-are-just-another-way-to-raise-revenue/



George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister has said (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/8135686/Euro-under-siege-after-Portugal-hits-panic-button.html) that there may need to be new Europe-wide forms of taxation to help pay for the bail-outs that will be needed by the growing number of crashing economies in the euro-zone. His suggestions include “carbon dioxide taxes” which, he says, could provide “important revenues and resouces for funding such a [bail-out] mechanism.”

I’ve never actually heard a major politician (let alone a national leader) admit this before: what Mr Papandreou is saying is that carbon taxes would have not have the effect of reducing emissions - because if they did, they would be useless as an additional form of revenue. All the hokum that is talked about protecting the planet by taxing carbon use is just a front for the real purpose of such penalties on industry and consumers which is to raise more money for governments to spend (in this case, on trying to remedy their own political follies).

[Parker2112]

I am a believer that we are trashing our planet beyond all usefulness.

However, I also believe the circumstances are being used to the advantage of the few.

1yeA_kHHLow
B62igfNu-T0

[coyotes_geek]

Whoa. Never saw this coming. The whole "give money to the government, earth gets cooler" arguement just made so much sense!

[boutons_deux]

I'd rather tax carbon importation, production, and consumption, HEAVILY to make non-carbon energy more attractive, to keep the money inside the USA, rather than send $400B out of country every year to buy imported oil.

[fyatuk]

I'd like to see the direct quote the author decides means he believes they wouldn't have any effect at lowering emissions, and I have no idea why if they did lower emissions it would be useless. Obviously such things are non-sustaining (just like tobacco taxes, every time they go up a good percentage quit smoking, etc)), but it could easily provide a quick revenue boost to provide the funds necessary to create a trust to keep on hand for such things.

[DarrinS]

CO2 is just the environmental boogeyman of our times.

[Parker2112]

CO2 is just the environmental boogeyman of our times.

just the left's boogeyman. the right has no shortage of them. they are all fucking power grabs

[scott]

Regardless of your opinion of CO2 emissions, the idea of it being both a method of raising funds for the Government and a method of reducing output are not at conflict with one another. Just like if your goal was to reduce cupcake consumption - a appropriately set tax on cupcakes would both raise money for the government and reduce consumption.

See Coase Theorem for a basic primer on dealing with negative externalities. All economists are in agreement that assigning property rights via tradable permits/credits is the market-based solution for reducing any externality. They also raise money for the issuer. This is not "news."

The only debate is whether one believes some thing should be reduced (in this case, CO2 emissions) and then setting the cap at the appropriate level so that the cost of that thing is born by the producers of said thing at the point where they are equal to the benefits of said thing. The results are allocative efficiency and the socially optimal level of that thing.

[Parker2112]

Regardless of your opinion of CO2 emissions, the idea of it being both a method of raising funds for the Government and a method of reducing output are not at conflict with one another. Just like if your goal was to reduce cupcake consumption - a appropriately set tax on cupcakes would both raise money for the government and reduce consumption.

See Coase Theorem for a basic primer on dealing with negative externalities. All economists are in agreement that assigning property rights via tradable permits/credits is the market-based solution for reducing any externality. They also raise money for the issuer. This is not "news."

The only debate is whether one believes some thing should be reduced (in this case, CO2 emissions) and then setting the cap at the appropriate level so that the cost of that thing is born by the producers of said thing at the point where they are equal to the benefits of said thing. The results are allocative efficiency and the socially optimal level of that thing.

The key: that revenues will circulate in GLOBAL carbon markets. To BAIL OUT foriegn countries in trouble. GLOBAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

This is the goal of those pushing the hardest. The more money that comes into play, the greater the skim. And global carbon trading is making potential players lick their fucking chops right about now.

Carbon markets at a national level are not sufficient to tackle "global" warming, so the international nature of the market is a given if it is to make any dent.

And the barracudas are circling as I write this....

[Yonivore]

I am a believer that we are trashing our planet beyond all usefulness.
Seriously? Have you seen the pictures of pollution from the dawn of the industrial age? Have you heard of the deadly fogs that used to kill Londoners?

The man-affected parts of this planet are better off now than they were a century ago.

[Yonivore]

I'd like to see the direct quote the author decides means he believes they wouldn't have any effect at lowering emissions, and I have no idea why if they did lower emissions it would be useless.
Because it's a big fucking planet with a huge atmosphere that just doesn't care much about the pittance of pollution we cause.

I'll start worrying when we effuse like a global winter-causing volcanic eruption.

[Parker2112]

Seriously? Have you seen the pictures of pollution from the dawn of the industrial age? Have you heard of the deadly fogs that used to kill Londoners?

The man-affected parts of this planet are better off now than they were a century ago.

the hot spots were greater in magnitude, but much of the world was still pristine back then. Now you cant go anywhere without seeing trash/smog/pollution. We have spread our filth the world over.

[Yonivore]

the hot spots were greater in magnitude, but much of the world was still pristine back then. Now you cant go anywhere without seeing trash/smog/pollution. We have spread our filth the world over.
I don't see it that way...you should go camping more.

[Parker2112]

I don't see it that way...you should go camping more.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162281

[Parker2112]

man I have pics of my grandpa and grandma in the 50's at Mustang Island where the water looked like Tahiti. those days are long since gone

[Yonivore]

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162281
More, then. Especially if you believe the United States is dirtier now than a hundred years ago.

[Parker2112]

More, then. Especially if you believe the United States is dirtier now than a hundred years ago.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162281 posts 2,9, and 18.

And a hundred years ago, probably more than a third of the 3 billion acres was untouched by anyone other than natives.

[Parker2112]

east coast was probably dirty as hell, but Im sure Boston Harbor was still drinkable. West had mining, but it also had pristine mountains, forests and deserts. Everglades? Louisiana? East Texas? Kansas? CO? Farmers in the midwest were still using primitive techniques and there was no fertilizer/pesticide runoff.

[scott]

The key: that revenues will circulate in GLOBAL carbon markets. To BAIL OUT foriegn countries in trouble. GLOBAL REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH.

This is the goal of those pushing the hardest. The more money that comes into play, the greater the skim. And global carbon trading is making potential players lick their fucking chops right about now.

Carbon markets at a national level are not sufficient to tackle "global" warming, so the international nature of the market is a given if it is to make any dent.

And the barracudas are circling as I write this....

I was specifically referring to this statement in the original post:


I’ve never actually heard a major politician (let alone a national leader) admit this before: what Mr Papandreou is saying is that carbon taxes would have not have the effect of reducing emissions - because if they did, they would be useless as an additional form of revenue.

[Parker2112]

Regardless of your opinion of CO2 emissions, the idea of it being both a method of raising funds for the Government and a method of reducing output are not at conflict with one another. Just like if your goal was to reduce cupcake consumption - a appropriately set tax on cupcakes would both raise money for the government and reduce consumption.

See Coase Theorem for a basic primer on dealing with negative externalities. All economists are in agreement that assigning property rights via tradable permits/credits is the market-based solution for reducing any externality. They also raise money for the issuer. This is not "news."

The only debate is whether one believes some thing should be reduced (in this case, CO2 emissions) and then setting the cap at the appropriate level so that the cost of that thing is born by the producers of said thing at the point where they are equal to the benefits of said thing. The results are allocative efficiency and the socially optimal level of that thing.

you said all this. and none of it dealt with the main point of the OP. The takeaway point of the OP is that the revenues would benefit bankrupt nations worldwide.

global wealth redistribution. thats the point.

[scott]

you said all this. and none of it dealt with the main point of the OP. The takeaway point of the OP is that the revenues would benefit bankrupt nations worldwide.

global wealth redistribution. thats the point.

Your take away point was that increase revenue could used to be aid establishments that need increased revenue? Great insight.

If you post articles things that where the take away point is the "well no F'n shit" part of the article and not the "factually inaccuracy designed to cater to opinionated phobia" part of the article, just say so next time.

[Parker2112]

Your take away point was that increase revenue could used to be aid establishments that need increased revenue? Great insight.



establishments? wtf? are you really that dense, or just afraid to backpedal?

not establishments. foreign countries.

A global tax scheme to redistribute already ailing Americans' dollars to countries overseas.

HUGEdifference.

[scott]

establishments? wtf? are you really that dense, or just afraid to backpedal?

not establishments. foreign countries.

A global tax scheme to redistribute already ailing Americans' dollars to countries overseas.

HUGEdifference.

Foreign countries are establishments, dimwit.

Have fun with your retardo conspiracy obsession with the Fed and whatever other BS that keeps you up at night.

[Parker2112]

Foreign countries are establishments, dimwit.

Have fun with your retardo conspiracy obsession with the Fed and whatever other BS that keeps you up at night.

thats your response?

Way to sidestep the only issue that matters: how do we justify taxing citizens to send those taxes overseas for foreign bailouts?

Your cred crumbled pretty quick there scott. Sure you didnt see that coming :lol

[scott]

thats your response?

Way to sidestep the only issue that matters: how do we justify taxing citizens to send those taxes overseas for foreign bailouts?

Your cred crumbled pretty quick there scott. Sure you didnt see that coming :lol

Jesus, you aren't even coherent. First how do you come to the conclusion that a carbon tax in Europe translates to a tax on American citizens to bail out European countries?

Second, there is plenty of precedent and economic justification for a publicly funded aid package to foreign governments to stabilize the world economy. I don't know if that is the case here, because I didn't make the tin-foil hat leap you have and I'm not wasting my valuable time believing idiocy because someone made a funny YouTube.

Listen guy, vie been posting here long enough and seem plenty of posters are harebrained as you come and go. My credibility on matters of economics is established, and won't be effected no matter how many blogs from people selling financial newsletters you paste.

We all await hour response, likey in big red letters since they lend you credibility, with bated breath. I'm sure it will be earth shattering.

[Parker2112]

Jesus, you aren't even coherent. First how do you come to the conclusion that a carbon tax in Europe translates to a tax on American citizens to bail out European countries?

So are you saying that any efforts to implement a carbon tax in America will be completely independent of any effort by EU?

I'm sure you understand that there is, and has been for decades, a push for a global response to climate change through the IPCC. Im sure you know that if we make carbon trading mandatory by law, much of the tax revenue will flow out of our borders to purchase carbon offsets abroad, and to implement clean tech in developing countries.

Or that was the plan anyway. Now this potential tax revenue is being viewed by world leaders as just another cash pool.... a potential windfall for broke "establishments."

The infrastructrue for these carbon markets has already been laid, and it doesnt stop at our borders. And if we do make emissions trading mandatory,odds are close to 100% the tax money will find its way off of our shores and 1) create revenue for large foreign banks, who will profit from these credits much like any other investment tool, and 2) odds are folks like this Greek Prime Minister will lobby for his country to recieve more than his fair share for bail out purposes....likely under the guise of some "green" project or carbon sink.

Much like Texas instituted a lottery for education, then quickly used the revenue for everything but education.


Second, there is plenty of precedent and economic justification for a publicly funded aid package to foreign governments to stabilize the world economy. I don't know if that is the case here, because I didn't make the tin-foil hat leap you have and I'm not wasting my valuable time believing idiocy because someone made a funny YouTube.

Second, though you are right about existing precedent, the nature and the abuse potential for these carbon taxes is not being disclosed to the American people, while the quiet push for carbon trading continues...so your point is?

This is not tin foil hat material...this is simply big money (huge international banking) wanting to make bigger money in carbon markets(fees, income) from the backs of citizens and industry in America.

And while you dismiss me as a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy follower, you are quietly having your short and curlies exposed, buddy....:wow


Listen guy, vie been posting here long enough and seem plenty of posters are harebrained as you come and go. My credibility on matters of economics is established, and won't be effected no matter how many blogs from people selling financial newsletters you paste.

You spouted out a bunch of sources on economic theory yesterday, but you applied jack shit. And then called another posters OP "shit."

You served it up, now take a bite.


We all await hour response, likey in big red letters since they lend you credibility, with bated breath. I'm sure it will be earth shattering.

The big red letters were just an attempt to draw you out of chatterbox/"see-how-many-economists-I-can-name-in-one-post" mode and into the discussion. You did a little better, but for all you're "bona fide expertise," you still aren't touching more than a couple of substantive issues. :sleep

VEwTMJTxVo0