Carbon Tax, Yes or No?

a reply to: Metallicus

I would ask WHY do we need a carbon tax? I see no compelling reason.

You don't have one. Do you?

But the purpose is to reduce carbon emissions in order to slow the rate of global warming.

originally posted by: ketsuko
If you let them tally and tax for the carbon emissions, then you open the door to being taxed for your exhalations which happen to be carbon dioxide also.

That's right. They can figure out how to tax you for simply being alive.

So, I vote NO.

That's silly. The 'carbon tax' (should be greenhouse tax) is the CO2 from fossil fuels as that is what is causing climate change, the natural CO2 in the biosphere (you eat food and breathe it out) doesn't have this effect and isn't taxed.

We're asking the wrong questions.

Carbon Tax is just another tax. We get bombarded with them every day, week, month year. The question is how much tax are we willing to put up with.

That Documentary "Before the Flood" had it right. I forget who said it but he basically said --congress will never pass a carbon tax unless the citizens want it. What would make us as citizens vote for it or support it. That's the question.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

I would ask WHY do we need a carbon tax? I see no compelling reason.

You don't have one. Do you?

But the purpose is to reduce carbon emissions in order to slow the rate of global warming.

Yes, that is the supposed reason as if rich people taking money from us little people will have any effect on the Earth. This is just another way to screw over the humans by the Global Elite.

originally posted by: Phage
The law of supply and demand implies that increased costs decrease demand so yes, the tax may reduce emissions. Will it? I dunno.

Of course it will. Can't use what you can't afford to buy.

That aside, necessity items tend to be extremely inelastic. So, prices will have to go up at ever increasing rates before it even begins to put a dent into consumption.

The gooberment should have put some effort into the current micro generation policy before they even thought about carbon tax....but, that doesn't have the buzz word charm.

a reply to: peck420

Of course it will. Can't use what you can't afford to buy.

Right. If you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it. If you are poor and get a tax rebate, and use less fuel, you come out ahead.

So, prices will have to go up at ever increasing rates before it even begins to put a dent into consumption.

No. Take a look at the relationship between gasoline prices and consumption. When gas was more costly, I paid more attention to how I used it.

As we would expect, the rapid rise in gasoline prices in 2008 was accompanied by a significant drop in sales volume. With the official end of the recession in June 2009, sales reversed direction … slightly. The 12-month MA hit an interim high in November 2010, and then resumed contraction. Since September of 2014, sales have been on the rise, most likely due to the drop in gasoline prices. The moving average for the latest month is 3.6% below the pre-recession level and -0.3% off the November 2010 interim high.

www.advisorperspectives.com...

Lets simplify to the core:

Isn't the whole question:

Should being Alive on this planet being taxed to a world governing body who can enforce the taxation?


I say: No

Should we have rules not to pollute the environment: Yes
Should we encourage research into clean energy: Yes

Can that all excist together? Sure! Just scrapp politicians and conglomerations

a reply to: EartOccupant

Should we encourage research into clean energy: Yes

Funded, how?

a reply to: Phage

You can not ask an industry to invent their own solvation.

Its not the research, its the WILL and not the will of the people.

Just an example.. Notage the date and the milage...

a reply to: Phage

I've always dialled back my consumption as much as possible. I'm a little cheap that way. My heating bill (gas) from September was $38 total. $33 plus a couple dollars tax, was just the delivery charge. Just heat and hot water on gas.
As the usage goes up, so does the transport rate charge.

Some people may break even, some might come out ahead, with the rebates, but hard to tell at this point.

Electric rates are expected to rise as well, as they shut down the coal plants.
They also have high delivery rates, depending on location,

I've been checking regularly for grants for windows , insulation, etc.
Nothing in place yet.

We'll have to see how it all plays out...

I do expect more pollution as people use more wood.....

a reply to: EartOccupant

I don't know what that means in this context.
But I do know that research takes capital. Where do you propose that money come from?

a reply to: EartOccupant

Notage the date and the milage...

And you believe that. Why?

a reply to: snowspirit

My heating bill (gas) from September was $38 total. $33 plus a couple dollars tax, was just the delivery charge.

So, your carbon tax impact will be what? About $.37?
Kidding, but you see the point.

a reply to: Phage

Because it is in the public record and actually boasted about by Shell. ( At least in our country )


I do agree with you that research need funding. But i also believe that a good idea needs more attention and recognition as money.
Also I do not believe that the intentions and the allotment of that amount of money by organisations on the scale proposed can bring any good.

On paper? It might, even a world government is on paper a very good idea.

Unfortunately history and common sense will tell us that up-scaling is never a good idea, that power corrupts..

And as a human.. I like downscaling, but thats a opinion.

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: D8Tee

I say YESSS!!!!.

Because the politicians are already dying of starvation and scurvy. On top of that, the federal government has proven itself worthy to handle our hard earned 'Monopoly Bills' with care, efficiency, and consideration.

Yes. Why not give them even more money to solve problems that don't exist?

I am going to laugh my a$$ off if we are truly going into an ice age.. Even if we are they will probably not repeal the carbon tax just call it something else.

Let me conclude it differently:

(democratic) Politics is not mature enough to handle that kind of power and money.

a reply to: Phage

Winter being here now, is going to be hurting some people, they have to use what they cannot afford. It's cold up here for another season.

Too many people suffered through job loss and reduction in pay from the downturn in oil and energy related jobs. And all the spin off jobs from that sector.
Far too many people still not properly working....

Hopefully, there will be some green jobs when the snow goes away....

It would also be nice if they made it easier (cheaper) to take advantage of solar, wind, etc.
That clean green tech is crazy expensive

a reply to: snowspirit

My heating bill (gas) from September was $38 total.

Can you look and see how many Gigajoules of gas you used, and multiply that by 1.011 to see how much more that bill will cost you in 2017?

a reply to: D8Tee

The rate isn't a set rate. September bill was 1.268 x 2.02/gj, and my last bill was 10.179 x 3.42/gj
They change the rate every month (Pembina River gas co-op)

At least I have a small house, about 1000 sq ft.
I'd hate to be in a big house - with more family showering and laundry and such.
Most of the time I'm here alone, with dogs that like the heat turned way down...

a reply to: 727Sky

I am going to laugh my a$$ off if we are truly going into an ice age.

Glacial period. We are. In about 5,000 years or so. Soonest.