Reply With Quote
I am a believer that we are trashing our planet beyond all usefulness.
However, I also believe the cir stances are being used to the advantage of the few.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...raise-revenue/
George Papandreou, the Greek prime minister has said 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).
I am a believer that we are trashing our planet beyond all usefulness.
However, I also believe the cir stances are being used to the advantage of the few.
Whoa. Never saw this coming. The whole "give money to the government, earth gets cooler" arguement just made so much sense!
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.
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.
CO2 is just the environmental boogeyman of our times.
just the left's boogeyman. the right has no shortage of them. they are all ing power grabs
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 ing 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....
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.
Because it's a big ing 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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by Parker2112; 11-17-2010 at 09:55 PM.
east coast was probably dirty as , 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.
I was specifically referring to this statement in the original post:
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 " part of the article and not the "factually inaccuracy designed to cater to opinionated phobia" part of the article, just say so next time.
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 re o 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
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?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
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
