PDA

View Full Version : Carbon Tax




CUnknown
05-05-2010, 10:02 PM
So what happened to his carbon tax idea? I heard him in the debates and he distanced himself from the carbon tax. I am a liberal, environmentally-conscious libertarian, and I actually like the idea of replacing the income tax with a carbon tax. Or perhaps like James Hanson's idea of a carbon tax, but then distribute the proceeds equally among the population.

So, I don't mean to start up controversy, I am just wondering. Obviously, he is against the cap-and-trade hoax, like I am as well.

BenIsForRon
05-05-2010, 10:40 PM
I agree with a carbon tax replacing an income tax as well. Unless somebody can show me a logical economic argument against it.

I didn't see this debate where he distanced himself, do you remember where you saw that?

I imagine he would distance himself in the primaries because he's talking to a Fox News viewing audience (and guys, I'm a state delegate for the NCGOP, so trust me, they all watch Fox News).

Or maybe he has a more advanced alternative idea for dealing with fossil fuel consumption.

Style
05-06-2010, 06:54 AM
BJ is very vocal about being against income tax. I believe he supports the fair tax. (With the requirement that it is a replacement for income tax, NOT in addition to it!) I know that he's against cap and trade. Not sure on the carbon tax.

CUnknown
05-07-2010, 09:31 AM
I didn't see this debate where he distanced himself, do you remember where you saw that?


It was the debate right before the primary, just a few days ago. He said something like "My opponent has been saying I support cap-and-trade or a carbon tax, this is just wrong. I don't support these bills as they are currently written."

To me, "as they are currently written" says to me that he would support it if it were modified, but I don't know exactly. I guess he doesn't want to talk about this too much in a primary in front of FOX news type people, so he didn't really elaborate.

White Knight
05-07-2010, 10:51 PM
Many think global warming is a massive conspiracy to create a carbon tax. I'm one of them, it's a terrible idea.

BenIsForRon
05-08-2010, 01:10 AM
Many think global warming is a massive conspiracy to create a carbon tax. I'm one of them, it's a terrible idea.

The extraction process for fossil fuels is very toxic. Look at West Virginia, Lousianna, or Tenessee. Whole towns having to move because some coal company wasn't watching after their slurry pond.

It needs to be taxed (after we kill the income tax) to disincentive it's use.

If you're a farmer who brings you food to a local market, you're not spending too much money on gas, so you're making way more money than the big companies that have to ship their shit 2,000 miles to get to you.

White Knight
05-08-2010, 02:12 AM
The extraction process for fossil fuels is very toxic. Look at West Virginia, Lousianna, or Tenessee. Whole towns having to move because some coal company wasn't watching after their slurry pond.

It needs to be taxed (after we kill the income tax) to disincentive it's use.

If you're a farmer who brings you food to a local market, you're not spending too much money on gas, so you're making way more money than the big companies that have to ship their shit 2,000 miles to get to you.

I disagree. Taxing anything is what big government socialists do. I am a right leaning libertarian, so I'm opposed.

aclove
05-08-2010, 06:57 AM
I also disagree. Levying a tax to discourage an economic activity of which you don't approve is just a form of central planning. You can accomplish the same thing by simply enforcing property rights and making companies clean up after themselves if they damage someone else's property with their waste products. If we did that consistently while at the same time doing away with subsidies of coal and oil, the market would naturally encourage the private, voluntary development of alternative energy sources. Oil and coal are as prevalent as they are mainly because they've enjoyed decades of subsidies while the barriers to entry for alternatives has been set artificially high by red tape.

Turning around and doing the reverse isn't going to make it any better. Don't subsidize wind farms and biodiesel, but also don't subsidize oil and coal, and lower the barriers to entry. Then everyone can compete FAIRLY, and may the best energy source win.

CUnknown
05-08-2010, 09:32 AM
I'd like to respond to aclove, first let me start with what I agree with:


simply enforcing property rights and making companies clean up after themselves if they damage someone else's property with their waste products. If we did that consistently while at the same time doing away with subsidies of coal and oil, the market would naturally encourage the private, voluntary development of alternative energy sources.

I agree with this, however recognize that this means that mountaintop removal coal mining would be completely banned in this case. Additionally, for causing an oil spill such as the one we have currently, BP (or whoever was responsible) would be fined just about to bankruptcy. The amount of damage caused by this spill eventually may be astronomical, if fisheries don't replenish themselves soon, or if the marshlands are destroyed beyond repair.

So understand what you're saying when you say "making companies clean up after themselves". I personally think this is a far more radical idea than a simple carbon tax. It would mean that many of our natural resources would simply be unextractable, at reasonable cost.


Levying a tax to discourage an economic activity of which you don't approve is just a form of central planning.

One problem with pure capitalism is that it doesn't price in systemic factors. The current price of oil and coal especially is far too low, even if subsidies were removed. This is because of the destruction to our ecosystems that these forms of energy require, not even including the effects of global warming. A carbon tax would bring the price of fossil fuels up to the true cost of their use to society. At that point, I agree that the free market would be able to step in and develop alternative energies without direct subsidies.


Then everyone can compete FAIRLY, and may the best energy source win.

I agree with this as well, but the best way this can be accomplished is through a carbon tax, preferably one that was distributed to the population equally and didn't even go to the central government, ala James Hanson's idea.

Nathan Hale
05-09-2010, 07:56 PM
Many think global warming is a massive conspiracy to create a carbon tax. I'm one of them, it's a terrible idea.

I think the point was that it's better to have a carbon tax than an income tax. I would agree. Provided that we could replace one with the other. Same logic as a national sales tax.

White Knight
05-09-2010, 09:39 PM
I think the point was that it's better to have a carbon tax than an income tax. I would agree. Provided that we could replace one with the other. Same logic as a national sales tax.

Is it better to die by fire or by a bullet? I choose neither.

Nathan Hale
05-10-2010, 07:36 PM
Is it better to die by fire or by a bullet? I choose neither.

Then you'll die by fire.

That's the problem - we aren't going to get to choose neither. Since we can't replace the revenue stream with nothing, our second best option is to replace the revenue stream with a revenue stream that does the least damage to society.

Travlyr
05-10-2010, 07:40 PM
I agree with a carbon tax replacing an income tax as well. Unless somebody can show me a logical economic argument against it.

I didn't see this debate where he distanced himself, do you remember where you saw that?

I imagine he would distance himself in the primaries because he's talking to a Fox News viewing audience (and guys, I'm a state delegate for the NCGOP, so trust me, they all watch Fox News).

Or maybe he has a more advanced alternative idea for dealing with fossil fuel consumption.

Good grief... you want a tax on breathing?

White Knight
05-10-2010, 09:36 PM
Then you'll die by fire.

That's the problem - we aren't going to get to choose neither. Since we can't replace the revenue stream with nothing, our second best option is to replace the revenue stream with a revenue stream that does the least damage to society.

Then go with a national sales tax or something. The carbon tax is the worst, because it alludes to the myth/hoax that humans are responsible for global climate change.

Nathan Hale
05-10-2010, 09:43 PM
Then go with a national sales tax or something. The carbon tax is the worst, because it alludes to the myth/hoax that humans are responsible for global climate change.

Worse than the income tax? I don't think so. That's my point. I don't support a carbon tax, but I'd rather have a carbon tax than an income tax.

Travlyr
05-11-2010, 12:21 PM
The extraction process for fossil fuels is very toxic. Look at West Virginia, Lousianna, or Tenessee. Whole towns having to move because some coal company wasn't watching after their slurry pond.

It needs to be taxed (after we kill the income tax) to disincentive it's use.

No it does not need to be taxed! How could you possibly be a libertarian and "for a carbon tax?" The carbon tax is simply a tax on breathing.

I am all for clean energy and clean air, but we've been lied to for so long that the truth is hard to find.

Fossil fuels is a myth (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46888) perpetrated by your masters. Oil is, and has been, a blessing for the people through its many uses of warmth, light, transportation, and many other benefits it has brought to civilization. Is there a better fuel? There may be, but the ignorance that has been taught in government schools about how horrible oil is to society needs to stop. It's sad.

Unless you live in a metropolis where the concept is to remove all plant life and replace it with concrete, you would be hard pressed to prove dirty air from the use of oil.

Seriously, in the last 50 years, about the only time I remember having to deal with dirty air was when I lived in the city (even then it was only on certain days) and when Mt. Saint Helens erupted. I enjoy the fresh air the world provides in the country.

The EPA and environmentalists are responsible for the oil that is currently pumping into the Gulf. If not for their lies and collusion with the masters, responsible oil drilling could be maintained on land rather than 5000' below sea level where it is so difficult to manage.

CUnknown
05-11-2010, 05:11 PM
Then go with a national sales tax or something. The carbon tax is the worst, because it alludes to the myth/hoax that humans are responsible for global climate change.

Even if you are unsure about the reality of global warming, it makes sense to have a carbon tax (certainly over an income tax!) because of the possibility that humans are contributing to global warming. And even if that turns out not to be true, all you have to do is look in the Gulf of Mexico to find a good reason to stop using oil so much.

Mountaintop removal is also horribly destructive, and if a carbon tax encourages more sustainable and less destructive forms of energy being used, well I'd say that's a good thing, wouldn't you?

To those who say the carbon tax is a tax on breathing, or that environmentalists are responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf, please try to take a step back and rationally evaluate the issues involved. No one's breathing is ever going to be taxed. And saying environmentalists would cause an environmental disaster knowingly is probably the craziest thing I've ever heard.

White Knight
05-11-2010, 06:02 PM
Even if you are unsure about the reality of global warming, it makes sense to have a carbon tax (certainly over an income tax!) because of the possibility that humans are contributing to global warming. And even if that turns out not to be true, all you have to do is look in the Gulf of Mexico to find a good reason to stop using oil so much.

Mountaintop removal is also horribly destructive, and if a carbon tax encourages more sustainable and less destructive forms of energy being used, well I'd say that's a good thing, wouldn't you?

To those who say the carbon tax is a tax on breathing, or that environmentalists are responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf, please try to take a step back and rationally evaluate the issues involved. No one's breathing is ever going to be taxed. And saying environmentalists would cause an environmental disaster knowingly is probably the craziest thing I've ever heard.

We're not contributing to anything, humans are powerless to change the world with present technology. It's a myth/hoax and the liberals know it.

I guess this is one of the few disagreements paleo-conservatives like me and libertarians have.

BenIsForRon
05-11-2010, 06:33 PM
No it does not need to be taxed! How could you possibly be a libertarian and "for a carbon tax?" The carbon tax is simply a tax on breathing.

I am all for clean energy and clean air, but we've been lied to for so long that the truth is hard to find.

Fossil fuels is a myth (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46888) perpetrated by your masters. Oil is, and has been, a blessing for the people through its many uses of warmth, light, transportation, and many other benefits it has brought to civilization. Is there a better fuel? There may be, but the ignorance that has been taught in government schools about how horrible oil is to society needs to stop. It's sad.

Unless you live in a metropolis where the concept is to remove all plant life and replace it with concrete, you would be hard pressed to prove dirty air from the use of oil.

Seriously, in the last 50 years, about the only time I remember having to deal with dirty air was when I lived in the city (even then it was only on certain days) and when Mt. Saint Helens erupted. I enjoy the fresh air the world provides in the country.

The EPA and environmentalists are responsible for the oil that is currently pumping into the Gulf. If not for their lies and collusion with the masters, responsible oil drilling could be maintained on land rather than 5000' below sea level where it is so difficult to manage.

Get out of here with that abiotic oil shit. No reputable geologist believes that.

torchbearer
05-11-2010, 06:38 PM
Get out of here with that abiotic oil shit. No reputable geologist believes that.

doesn't the moon Titan have oceans of hydrocarbons and methane?

BenIsForRon
05-11-2010, 07:11 PM
doesn't the moon Titan have oceans of hydrocarbons and methane?

I think it has liquid CO2, but that's because it's so friggin cold.

Look for yourself, abiotic oil was a theory that some Soviet scientists had in the 60's. No one has held that belief since.

Travlyr
05-11-2010, 07:13 PM
Get out of here with that abiotic oil shit. No reputable geologist believes that.

I'm guessing that BenIsForRon has been schooled in the government schooling system.

torchbearer
05-11-2010, 07:23 PM
I think it has liquid CO2, but that's because it's so friggin cold.

Look for yourself, abiotic oil was a theory that some Soviet scientists had in the 60's. No one has held that belief since.

not so-
Titan's Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/media/cassini-20080213.html

don't tell me there were dinosaurs on titan.

torchbearer
05-11-2010, 07:24 PM
from wiki-

Liquids
Main article: Lakes of Titan

False-color Cassini radar mosaic of Titan's north polar region. Blue coloring indicates low radar reflectivity, caused by hydrocarbon seas, lakes and tributary networks filled with liquid ethane, methane and dissolved N2.[6] Photographs suggest that the large body at lower left, Kraken Mare, has about twice the extent visible here. Ligeia Mare is at lower right.The possibility of hydrocarbon seas on Titan was first suggested based on Voyager 1 and 2 data that showed Titan to have a thick atmosphere of approximately the correct temperature and composition to support them, but direct evidence wasn't obtained until 1995 when data from Hubble and other observations suggested the existence of liquid methane on Titan, either in disconnected pockets or on the scale of satellite-wide oceans, similar to water on Earth.[63]

The Cassini mission confirmed the former hypothesis, although not immediately. When the probe arrived in the Saturnian system in 2004, it was hoped that hydrocarbon lakes or oceans might be detectable by reflected sunlight from the surface of any liquid bodies, but no specular reflections were initially observed.[64] At Titan's south pole, an enigmatic dark feature named Ontario Lacus was identified[65] (and later confirmed to be a lake).[66] A possible shoreline was also identified at the pole via radar imagery.[67] Following a flyby on July 22, 2006, in which the Cassini spacecraft's radar imaged the northern latitudes (which were then in winter), a number of large, smooth (and thus dark to radar) patches were seen dotting the surface near the pole.[68] Based on the observations, scientists announced "definitive evidence of lakes filled with methane on Saturn's moon Titan" in January 2007.[8][69] The Cassini–Huygens team concluded that the imaged features are almost certainly the long-sought hydrocarbon lakes, the first stable bodies of surface liquid found off Earth. Some appear to have channels associated with liquid and lie in topographical depressions.[8]

In June 2008, the Visual and Infrared Mapping Spectrometer on Cassini confirmed the presence of liquid ethane beyond doubt in Ontario Lacus.[70] On December 21, 2008, Cassini passed directly over Ontario Lacus and observed specular reflection in radar. The strength of the reflection saturated the probe's receiver, indicating that the lake level did not vary by more than 3 mm (implying that surface winds were minimal).[71][72] On 8 July 2009, Cassini's VIMS observed a specular reflection in 5 micron infrared light off Jingpo Lacus, a lake in the north polar region, shortly after the area emerged from 15 years of winter darkness.[73][74]

BenIsForRon
05-11-2010, 07:55 PM
From the first article you posted.


At a balmy minus 179 degrees Celsius (minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit), Titan is a far cry from Earth. Instead of water, liquid hydrocarbons in the form of methane and ethane are present on the moon's surface, and tholins probably make up its dunes

Quite different from earth. Seriously dude, show me one geologist from the past 30 years who believe the abiotic origin of oil.

torchbearer
05-11-2010, 07:57 PM
From the first article you posted.



Quite different from earth. Seriously dude, show me one geologist from the past 30 years who believe the abiotic origin of oil.

but the hydrocarbons- the oceans of hydrocarbons- did not come from life. they came from the processes of the planet. abiotic.
nasa confirms this position.

Nathan Hale
05-11-2010, 07:59 PM
I'm of the opinion that peak oil is a viable problem, but unfortunately that's something that's only going to be discovered in hindsight.

BenIsForRon
05-12-2010, 01:53 AM
but the hydrocarbons- the oceans of hydrocarbons- did not come from life. they came from the processes of the planet. abiotic.
nasa confirms this position.

Yes, on Titan, not on earth. It's fucking freezing on that planet. If it were negative 200 degrees celcius on earth, you'd see some hydrocarbon oceans too, if you weren't dead.

That is not how our subterranean hydrocarbons got here. Any rational person understands this.

Bman
05-12-2010, 02:07 AM
Yes, on Titan, not on earth. It's fucking freezing on that planet. If it were negative 200 degrees celcius on earth, you'd see some hydrocarbon oceans too, if you weren't dead.

That is not how our subterranean hydrocarbons got here. Any rational person understands this.

Are you saying Titan as a whole, through to the core, maintains a temperature of -200 degrees celcius?

BenIsForRon
05-12-2010, 02:25 AM
I'm saying the reason it has hydrocarbon oceans is because it's so cold at the surface. I'm sure its hot under the crust. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

Bman
05-12-2010, 02:33 AM
I'm saying the reason it has hydrocarbon oceans is because it's so cold at the surface. I'm sure its hot under the crust. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything, though.

All I'm suggesting is that the hydrocarbons didn't have to have been created at the surface layer. Besides composition the process that created earths oil is still up for grabs. Abiotic seems more than likely unreasonable. But no more so than it took billions, millions, or even 10's of thousands of years for Earth's oil to be created.

Nathan Hale
05-12-2010, 06:25 AM
All I'm suggesting is that the hydrocarbons didn't have to have been created at the surface layer. Besides composition the process that created earths oil is still up for grabs. Abiotic seems more than likely unreasonable. But no more so than it took billions, millions, or even 10's of thousands of years for Earth's oil to be created.

I consider it far more likely that it takes time on a geologic scale to create oil, as it is a naturally-occurring liquid. But that's just my base opinion, I'm no geologist.

BenIsForRon
05-12-2010, 10:57 AM
All I'm suggesting is that the hydrocarbons didn't have to have been created at the surface layer. Besides composition the process that created earths oil is still up for grabs. Abiotic seems more than likely unreasonable. But no more so than it took billions, millions, or even 10's of thousands of years for Earth's oil to be created.

Dude, read a fucking book on geology. This shit is not "up for grabs". Oil and coal are created from dead organisms that have been put under extreme heat and pressure for millions of years.

Bman
05-12-2010, 02:25 PM
Dude, read a fucking book on geology. This shit is not "up for grabs". Oil and coal are created from dead organisms that have been put under extreme heat and pressure for millions of years.

Maybe you have some titles you have read?


In the leading theory, dead organic material accumulates on the bottom of oceans, riverbeds or swamps, mixing with mud and sand. Over time, more sediment piles on top and the resulting heat and pressure transforms the organic layer into a dark and waxy substance known as kerogen.

Theory dude. It's up for grabs. Learn to understand basic english.

BenIsForRon
05-12-2010, 05:29 PM
Dude, oil might come out of giant's unicorn's ass, does that mean that we have any evidence to back that up? Stop spouting your bullshit ideas like they have any scientific backing.

Nathan Hale
05-12-2010, 06:36 PM
Dude, oil might come out of giant's unicorn's ass, does that mean that we have any evidence to back that up? Stop spouting your bullshit ideas like they have any scientific backing.

Well said. Evolution, for instance, is a theory. "Intelligent Design" is a hypothesis. A theory has been tested and confirmed. Hypothesis is just an idea.

CUnknown
05-12-2010, 09:28 PM
Dude, read a fucking book on geology. This shit is not "up for grabs". Oil and coal are created from dead organisms that have been put under extreme heat and pressure for millions of years.

Yeah. I think the other thing on Titan that causes hydrocarbons to form is that there is very little oxygen. In a reducing environment, they are much more likely to form, but in an oxidizing environment like we have on Earth, what you get is CO2.

Anyway, I just don't see the issue with a carbon tax, as long as it replaces the income tax, that's at least a wash, right?

mrsat_98
05-12-2010, 09:52 PM
So what happened to his carbon tax idea? I heard him in the debates and he distanced himself from the carbon tax. I am a liberal, environmentally-conscious libertarian, and I actually like the idea of replacing the income tax with a carbon tax. Or perhaps like James Hanson's idea of a carbon tax, but then distribute the proceeds equally among the population.

So, I don't mean to start up controversy, I am just wondering. Obviously, he is against the cap-and-trade hoax, like I am as well.

WTF is a liberal,...., libertarian ? Sounds like your an oxy moron with a missing oxy.

Danke
05-12-2010, 10:03 PM
Anyway, I just don't see the issue with a carbon tax, as long as it replaces the income tax, that's at least a wash, right?

The income tax doesn't kick in for me (and most Americans). But I doubt I could avoid the carbon tax.

Bman
05-13-2010, 01:11 AM
Dude, oil might come out of giant's unicorn's ass, does that mean that we have any evidence to back that up? Stop spouting your bullshit ideas like they have any scientific backing.

lol. Keep living the peak oil dream my friend.

CUnknown
05-13-2010, 10:37 AM
The income tax doesn't kick in for me (and most Americans). But I doubt I could avoid the carbon tax.

Well I assume you plan on having an income at some point. And remember that the social security tax is essentially an income tax as well.