Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade - do we know the difference?

Its too bad this topic has been twisted to where
we think its a personal tax and we are going to get raped again!
It figures though, as skeptical as we are and since al gore is the devil
and all, the one chance we have of making polluters pay
for the cleanup they caused, HAS been polluted itself!
May even qualify for superfund cleanup money.
Apparently the economy needs a superfund cleanup also.
Whats the difference, everything is about money anyway!

No its just another tax to deride and rail against! Enjoy the air!
In other words, whatever, knock yourselfs out.
If you really give a hoot, study the way it really works.
I wont do it for you. We're done progressing, now we'll just choke........

But before the word "tax" sets off alarm bells, consider the effect of combusted fossil fuels on the environment. They cause ground-level ozone, acid rain, global climate change and a myriad of other problems. Carbon tax is one of two major market-based options to lower emissions, the other being cap-and-trade schemes. While cap-and-trade seems to have won over most politicians, many economists and consumers prefer carbon tax for its simplicity and impartiality.

Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more­ expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency.

Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put -- if you're polluting to everyone else's detriment, you should have to pay for it.

science.howstuffworks.com...

If done right, carbon taxes on the major polluters will be a good thing.
Or, are you siding with the polluters?
I am sure we will end up screwing it up anyway. Sorry for the wet blanket!
What do you all think? Have you really looked into it or not?
Good thing, bad thing? Why not make the worst polluters pay the stiffest tax?
Makes sense to me! Just a thought.......

I dont really think it matters whether its a Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade its just the same BS by a differnt name. We are still going to end up paying for it either through higher taxes or higher utility rates because businesses will just raise the price since their cost of business just went up.

SHOOT! I posted this in general conspiracy instead of fragile earth!

Oh well maybe the mods will fix it? hint hint? Sorry everyone, geez.
When I think about it maybe it is a conspiracy!
Everyone seems to think so!
As well as global warming or whatever its called now!
If you all was a farmer you could see sumpins happnin' anyway!

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Thats exactly why I posted this. There IS a difference.
Same scare tactic different topic!
All we need is some pictures of terrorists on the glacier and we'll be convinced!


P.S. The way they spend our tax money I see why we are concerned though!
We'll tend to "greed it up" for sure! Good point!


[edit on 17-4-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by dodadoom


Well i can tend to be stupid sometimes. So please explain the difference. I read your OP twice and I dont get the difference. One is a tax meant to change everybodys behavior and the other is a tax meant to change the big polluters behavior.

All I really care about is am I going to half to pay more for steak because cows farts produce a lot of co2?

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


Thank you for your interest and reply!
I love your name btw! You must be to want to know this!

I applaud you!

Economists like carbon tax for its predictability. The price of carbon under cap-and-trade schemes can fluctuate with weather and changing economic conditions. This is because cap-and-trade schemes set a definite limit on emissions, not a definite price on carbon. Carbon tax is stable. Businesses and utilities would know the price of carbon and where it was headed. They could then invest in alternative energy and increased energy efficiency based on that knowledge. It's also easier for people to understand carbon tax.

science.howstuffworks.com...
Its simple polluters pay, innovations grow!

reply to post by dodadoom


Ahh i see. And yes i am just some really bored dude. Been home with my kids all week. They are on spring break. Cant wait until its over so I can go back to work. But I do love the little banshees.

Ok here is my 2 cents on global warming/carbon taxes and I will be the first to admit I am no expert.

1. I dont really see the oceans rising from the ice that is melting now. Why not?

2. I am all cool if you want to cut carbon emissions, but it cant be done cost effectively overnight by taxing the hell out of everyone.

3. They just cut down the whole Amazon rain forest. So maybe we could fix this by planting a bunch of trees either back in the rain forest or all over the place. I just feel like we are totally overreacting, like alwyas.. There always seems to be something out there that they say is going to make us go extinct next week. Nukes, freon, the sun, earthquakes.

4. One good volcano can spew out more C02 then we created in the last 100 years.

5. Since the whole world is going broke at once maybe we should fix that before we start chasing the Carbon Phantom...

6. Al Gore is full of crap. I dont care what he is talking about because he is an idiot. Luckily there are a bunch of scientists to back him up on this. So I kind of trust them.

7. We emit C02 when we breathe so are they gonna tax us for breathing?

8. Who am I to say that world wont be a better place if the temperature rises a few degrees. Might be kind of nice. Plus wouldnt more trees grow in all those places where the ice melts. Well not in antartica because it will all be water I guess, but you get my point. Nature will balance out at some point, either before or after we are all dead.

What do you think?





[edit on 18-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by dodadoom


1. Regardless of size, no polluter will "eat" the tax. No! It is another "cost of goods sold" passed to the consumer.

2. Most consumers have reduced use of fossil fuels to a minimum, i.e. to work and back; to the grocery and back; to school and back. Any increased cost of fuel comes off the top of their budget.

Carbon taxes force a desired social outcome ahead of the time it would otherwise have become a necessity. Whatever happened to subsidies?

Simple, really.

deny ignornace!

jw

[edit on 18-4-2009 by jdub297]

Even for those who do not believe CO2 emissions cause global warming, there's another big reason why CO2 emissions matter: Ocean acidification. When CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere, most of that CO2 gets absorbed by the planet's oceans. Because CO2 is slightly acidic, this causes the oceans to become more acidic, too.

www.naturalnews.com...

Ecological footprinting is a new technique to measure the environmental impact of a population on nature. It can be used by national, regional and local governments. An ecological footprint calculates how much land area is required for an average citizen for everything they consume (products and resources) and produce (waste and emissions) per year.

A footprint is expressed in global hectares (gha) of 'earthshare'. If we divide the bio-productive land and sea on the planet by the number of people who need to use it, we currently get an earth-share of only 1.89 gha per person (WWF 2004). This is basically how much natural resource there is to go around. Footprints of countries show how unsustainable our western lifestyles are. An average United States citizen has a huge footprint of 9.5 gha which is 5 times their fair earth-share. An Indian citizen only has a footprint of 0.8 gha, well within their fair earthshare.

www.cardiff.gov.uk...,3148,4119

reply to post by dodadoom


NO! Consumers pay, economies stagnate. Neither regime forces resort to an alternative.

Subsidies do. Just ask any ethanol producer or corn grower.

Simple, really.

reply to post by dodadoom


Holy crap now I see where this is going. This is bullstuff. There is no way we are harder on the environment than a billion Indians or Chinese peeing and pooping in the gutters.

reply to post by jdub297


Making Ethanol from corn was a brilliant idea. It just doesnt seem so smart to put your food in your gas tank. Another fine choice by our government. You know they just did it to make the corn growers happy and now everything with corn in it costs a freaking fortune. I can see makng it from grass or something we just throw away or we can regrow real quick but corn?

[edit on 18-4-2009 by justsomeboreddude]

reply to post by justsomeboreddude


If you base it on PRODUCTIVITY, we'd be entitled to DOUBLE what we have.

Marxism died an inglorious death last century. No one believes in it any more.

Well, almost no one.

jw

reply to post by jdub297


That sounds about right. We should get double everyone else. Just kidding. But I think you make a good point about production in regards to pollution.

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

Congrats on the rug rats! I hear ya!
1. Evaporation because of more heat in the atmosphere?
Global sea levels have risen. There are islands in the south pacifc
that are actually going underwater! (whatever the reason)
2. taxing may be the only way to make it seriously pay!
One day we will have to pay for our living high on the hog ways!
The longer we wait the worse it will be on those little ones!
3. true, only a matter of time regardless, we should try to do the right
thing by the next generation or maybe its just me being humble....
4.Lets not find out please!
5.You have a good point! We have already wasted a generation already!
6.Yes there are indeed thousands of scientists that agree, the climate is changing....
7.Get real. Now with the cow farts? Thats something else again!

[edit on 18-4-2009 by dodadoom]

reply to post by jdub297


1. Good point! There would have to be safeguards!
You know like with the banker bailouts!
Ya nevermind it would never work come to think about it.
Your talking land of the greed, home of the 'fraid!
Sorry, its late and that was a good one! I crack myself up!
2. I hope so! They needed to!

An average United States citizen has a huge footprint of 9.5 gha which is 5 times their fair earth-share.

www.cardiff.gov.uk...,3148,4119

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

What we dont want to admit we use 5 times our share of resources?
Fine, no prob, I was just making a point. WE USE TO MUCH OF STUFF!
Sorry for telling it like it is. We consume too much thats all.
Just a personal opinion. Does one need to drive a V8 when a V4 will do?
I'm just sayin'!
Thanks for the replies everyone! Wow, I dont think I can type fast enough!

reply to post by justsomeboreddude

I know first hand about this boondoggle! An ethanol plant
was put in right here! We did the concrete work.
Guess what, yep closing down, subsidies ended.
Dont get me started on subsidies! Perfect case in point, farm subsidies! The ones in power make it so their rich buddies get all the "subsidies".
The little farmer? Well....you guess what he gets.

Subsidies are fine and dandy if the RIGHT PEOPLE get them!

Hey all! I found some more good stuff for this thread!

Instead governments are retreating to feckless “cap-and-trade”, a minor tweak to business-as-usual. Oil companies are so relieved to realize that they do not need to learn to be energy companies that they are decreasing their already trivial investments in renewable energy. They are using the money to buy greenwash advertisements. Perhaps if politicians and businesses paint each other green, it will not seem so bad when our forests burn.

www.columbia.edu...
Some wise words spoken in this link. Please read! It is a pdf file it takes a minute to load....do we really know how much is spent on "deception advertising"? I've read it is more than is spent on alternative technologies!

It seems that we need a three-point strategy:

www.columbia.edu...

There are a few things that bother me with this whole subject.

First, Americans consume five times their "Fair Earth Share" of global resources? How, exactly, is that number calculated?

I'm also rather surprised to find so many 'green' folks diving aboard the 'carbon tax' and 'cap-and-trade' bandwagons (and yes, I know they're separate bandwagons), since the most developed carbon-free energy source we have is nuclear power, which tends to send most environmentalists on a ballistic trajectory of pure hysteria. It might become a classic case of 'be careful what you wish for'.

Yet another minor issue with both 'carbon taxes' and 'cap-and-trade' is the economic one. As others have pointed out, businesses pass along the cost of doing business to the consumer. If they want to stay in business, they really don't have a choice. Both the carbon tax and the cap-and-trade schemes wind up passing the cost of 'green' down to those of us who don't have a lot of 'green' to start with...the end users. It's not just the price of your gasoline that will get hit, folks...it's the cost of everything...the cost of transportation for goods will rise, so will the end price. These schemes (and I don't use that word pejoratively, simply as a collective reference) put a huge burden on consumers who (particularly during an economic slump / recession / depression) don't need any more help running out of cash.

I also don't hear anyone pointing out a major problem that the 'big oil' and 'big auto' companies are facing regarding alternative energy sources. I'll bring it up here and see if anyone has a good solution. Simply put, every alternative to petroleum distillate fuels faces a catch-22 where infrastructure is concerned. No car company (particularly in their current financial shape) can really afford to dedicate huge resources (design engineers, parts supply contracts, production lines) to developing an 'alternative energy' vehicle unless they're fairly certain that enough units will sell to make the project economically viable. No consumer wants to buy a car (no matter how 'cool', 'high performance', or 'efficient' it might be) that doesn't have a readily-available energy supply (how far is it to your nearest gas station?). No fuel station owner can afford to devote massive resources (tank space, pumping equipment, and space on their pump islands) to selling a fuel if nobody will buy it...so we have the car companies waiting on the fuel supply, and the fuel supply waiting on the cars. It's not so much a massive conspiracy to 'hold down' alternative fuels (after all, he who gets in on the bottom of the alternative fuel market is going to make huge cash) as it is the simple uncertainty on both supply AND demand side regarding what fuels the future will need. Resolve that uncertainty, and the alternative fuels market will take care of itself...and very possibly take care of the carbon-emissions problem in the process.

I don't know what 'the ultimate answer' to the problem is, but basing my guesswork on past experience, it isn't going to be found by any form of taxation or cost-raising. It's going to be found through technical innovation, which costs money, and takes time.