Reply With Quote
Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?
I have long been an advocate for the cessation of subsidies for the oil and gas industries, and some good-old fashioned research programs and market-distorting subsidies for renewables to jump-start companies in that sector.
My reasoning for making this argument was based on the following:
Peak Oil will make oil, and energy overall, more expensive at a rate faster than many seem to realize. This means it will never be cheaper to start switching over than right now, and those that do will have some solid comparative advantages over those who don't.
Renewable energy doesn't have to be imported, helping our trade deficit.
Renewables don't face the risks of ecological damage that oil/gas/coal extraction pose. Conspiracy theorists pooh-pooh global warming, but oil spills and toxic metal runoff from mine trailings are pretty tangible certain results, as we have recently been shown rather spectacularly.
I would propose a solid carbon tax of some sort, with the funds being dumped into research on solid renewables, and tax-breaks for companies building/using efficiency and renewable energy sources.
Cap and trade of carbon emissions seems to me to be a fair solution to this problem.
Taxing carbon will drive the price of EVERYTHING up. You do know that, right?
So what? your money- that's the cost of doing business. If we have to pay to ween ourselves off of the that's destroyed an entire patch of ocean, so what? You, me, nobody is en led to a continual free lunch, Darrin.
You are not going to save the world and solve our energy problem by taxing everyone. Tax tax tax crush crush wank wank...why does that always have to be the answer? I know the progressives feel it a necessity to beat the future into submission and speed up the process but please resist the urge.
Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy. The government will not pull it out of the government's ass. It will be a private entrepreneur. It's coming, it is inevitable. No need to have a tax wank off. There is already plenty of incentive, both fiscally and morally, to achieve a solution.
Taxing energy. God Damn.
Last edited by EmptyMan; 06-14-2010 at 11:19 AM.
Exactly, the only way to get alternative/renewable/sustainable fuels and energy is to price coal, nuclear, oil energy fully so "the market", consumers and businesses, can see what the true total/life-cycle/environmental costs are.
Assholes like Darrin only think narrowly about their own pocketbook, and don't have any vision beyond that.
Same with agricultural commodities.
WTF ever. I don't know about you, but I think it's beyond clear that we're running out of time for eventualities. I for one, have no faith in or patience with a private sector that will kill the earth before it delivers progress.Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy.
And I see no reason why we should be avoiding tax incentives designed to curb the use of oil. I don't care whether new tech is developed by the public or private; it's in the public's interest that we use less oil- it's therefore exactly the role of government to yes, speed up that process, by any means.
But you know me, I'd just assume build a gulag in America and nuke everyone else, but in the world of pragmaticism, taxation is (should-be) viewed as the only real solution.
I'm sure all the board lefties will love paying 5-6 bucks for a gallon of gas. Oh, and paying more for all other goods shipped by truck (pretty much everything).
I can't even talk to you. I've said it before, I'll say it again- you're just a ing re . through and through.
In the short term it might be worth it.
Hmm.You are not going to save the world and solve our energy problem by taxing everyone. Tax tax tax crush crush wank wank...why does that always have to be the answer? I know the progressives feel it a necessity to beat the future into submission and speed up the process but please resist the urge.
Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy. The government will not pull it out of the government's ass. It will be a private entrepreneur. It's coming, it is inevitable. No need to have a tax wank off. There is already plenty of incentive, both fiscally and morally, to achieve a solution.
Taxing energy. God Damn.
You kind of missed the point entirely, so I am not sure where to start.
1) Its not "taxing energy". That is a distortion. It is "taxing oil/gas/coal energy".
It is indeed inevitable. I noted that.
I also said that we should simply encourage the private sector to figure out what the solution should be, not the "government pulling it out of it's ass".
The thing about government funding R & D is that it can take a longer view and absorb a bit more risk when it comes to funding projects than private equity that must have fairly short time horizons for payoffs.
You are given the choice between two investments.
Given:
Cost of capital is inflation, 3%
Investment A attributes:
Initial payout is $100
To be increased, on a compounding basis, by 4% for ten years, 8% for years eleven through twenty and by 12% for years twenty-one through thirty.
Investment B attributes
Initial payout is $120
To be increased, on a compounding basis, by 4% for thirty years.
Both investments are offered to you for $1,000.
Which is the better investment?
"In the short term it might be worth it."
GGA, there's no short term. If America would grow up and face the music like an adult, it would realize that the era of cheap, sustainable energy is actually over.
There may be some cheap, sustainable energy developed in the future, but with conservatives/Repugs and most Democrats captured by and pandering to the carbon fuel industries, America will never get there by choice, only by force.
Imagine committing $2T - $3T to renewable, sustainable energy rather than wasting that money by dishonestly invading and destroying Iraq for oil.
Always the solution? Yeah ing right. We don't ever do like this.You are not going to save the world and solve our energy problem by taxing everyone. Tax tax tax crush crush wank wank...why does that always have to be the answer? I know the progressives feel it a necessity to beat the future into submission and speed up the process but please resist the urge.
Something will eventually replace oil for transportation energy. The government will not pull it out of the government's ass. It will be a private entrepreneur. It's coming, it is inevitable. No need to have a tax wank off. There is already plenty of incentive, both fiscally and morally, to achieve a solution.
Taxing energy. God Damn.
In any event, considering all the tax breaks and loop holes oil companies get, we're not feeling the true cost of oil as it is. How do you feel about that?
Yup. There is a very good argument to be made that the true cost of oil usage is MUCh higher than what we pay. In essence we are stealing from our future selves, and our children.
BP has essentially stolen a lot of livlihoods in the Gulf area, and its actions will likely steal more from others as the full extent of the damage becomes known. If they actually do pay out all that they have stolen we will get closer to paying the real costs of oil.
There's no need to tax, just pass through the true cost of nuclear, coal, oil and let the almighty perfect market decide.
Install scrubbers on every ing coal plant, paid for by loans from US govt (not subsidies or tax breaks). The efficiency of the plants goes down so price of electricity goes up, but we won't have methyl mercury, cadmium, lead, arsenic spewing over the the US. Every single stream and river of about 400 tested had fish contaminated with methyl mercury from coal-fired plants.
Coal is also a huge source of coal ash, itself toxic that the coal industry has compromised not to classify coal ash as toxic .
Wow Random.
Do you have a Crystal Ball that tells you the future?
Trust me. Energy companies are in this for profit. If they believed spending more money and effort on other energy means would pay off, they would.
and you know what the worst part about it will be? It'll hurt the poor most of all.
Think of all those poor single mothers who won't be able to feed their children. Oh wait, I guess they should just go on welfare.
now it all makes sense.
the hard thing about pricing an externality like this is it is all just people's opinion of what the "real cost" is. And those people's opinions are usually based on imperfect information. Especially if what you are basing your opinion on is the cost of "climate change."
Then you go assuming that the shaky opinion based on incomplete knowledge is a fact and propose real policies that affect real people in very harsh ways. Then you're surprised when people resist.
cost of "climate change."
not cost of climate change but the hard, quanitifiable, billable costs of stop ing up the air, water, and land. And then the costs of remediating what is ed up. Nothing airy fairy or academic about those costs.
Of course, y'all do know petroleum is used for more -- much, much, much more -- than just fuel, right?
Didn't that terrorist in NYC try to use petroleum to blow up times square, you know the weapons of mass destruction he is being charged with?
Honestly, why in the is this dude being charged with weapons of mass destruction using fireworks and gas knowing what our country thinks weapons of mass destruction is?!?! The mayor is not a repug. The peeps vote dem most of the time. WTF is that about?
+1
This would be the ultimate "free-market" solution. We subsidize these industries by allowing them to pollute. That should stop.
You did not answer my simple question. The answer is readily determinable and fairly easy to find for anybody with a good head for math.
My point is that one can examine alternatives based on likely costs/benefits.
Our answers and assumptions may not always turn out to be perfect, but I think we can make better decisions if we can put issues into concrete terms.
Do you agree that attempting to classify costs/benefits of decisions will likely tell us useful information to make better decisions?
Yes, I do.
The implication you are attempting to make is:
"Even if we used renewable energy, we would still need oil" is a valid statement to a point.
The vast majority of oil ends up being converted into fuel though. Eliminating that usage would drastically reduce oil consumption.
Such tech would still expose us to oil depletion, albeit to the poitn where oil would probably still be around for my great-grandkids, and vastly reduce the coming increases in price over the next 40 years.
Given that they are now working on using algae to make sythetic oil, I would not imagine, however, that bypassing even that would present an insurmountable technical challenge. Certainly such "oil farms" would not be subject to massive ocean-bed oil leaks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
