The boiler rooms are firing up.
A tax/fee/credit that is “purchased” that doesn’t immediately reduce net “emissions” and/or go directly into carbon fuel free energy technology, wastes time, effort and money.
That’s why the Green Shift was a joke. The idea of taxing externalities, such as pollution, BTW, is nothing new. The theory is sound, except it hasn’t translated well into human behaviour.
Governments distort environmental benefits by collecting tax and misallocating revenues (ie-tire tax), and individuals behave “incorrectly” by absorbing the extra tax cost/emissions (picture someone paying $40 extra/week for gas rather than take the bus to work).
That’s why I don’t like government collecting more tax. They invariably waste the money for negative economic and environmental results.
I refuse to vote for any political party that is willing to collect carbon taxes/credits/fees, but not willing to put revenues directly into energy technology.
Who cares if humans are (not) causing warming. We should focus on what we know, humans are causing pollution. We should therefore all agree that getting off carbon fuels should be our long-term goal. Let’s get on with it.
But, let’s create proper “incentives” to drive energy technology, right here, rather than paying credits, hoping China and India (the overwhelming areas of emissions growth) will do it for us. It’s not going to happen.
Just don’t let Al Gore, David Suzuki and the UN do it.
Agreed Sham, I think, although I’m not convinced that “We should therefore all agree that getting off carbon fuels should be our long-term goal.”
No New Taxes! Raise the ones we have, but No New Taxes! This should be the first and most often reiterated concept taught to all kids and students.JMO
Posted by: anon at August 21, 2009 4:14 PM
great riposte, anon. And lo! It seems not stunned enough is predictably quiet when his leftish misdirection stunt is identified, and trumped.
Who saw that coming?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
The boiler rooms are firing up.
A tax/fee/credit that is “purchased” that doesn’t immediately reduce net “emissions” and/or go directly into carbon fuel free energy technology, wastes time, effort and money.
That’s why the Green Shift was a joke. The idea of taxing externalities, such as pollution, BTW, is nothing new. The theory is sound, except it hasn’t translated well into human behaviour.
Governments distort environmental benefits by collecting tax and misallocating revenues (ie-tire tax), and individuals behave “incorrectly” by absorbing the extra tax cost/emissions (picture someone paying $40 extra/week for gas rather than take the bus to work).
That’s why I don’t like government collecting more tax. They invariably waste the money for negative economic and environmental results.
I refuse to vote for any political party that is willing to collect carbon taxes/credits/fees, but not willing to put revenues directly into energy technology.
Who cares if humans are (not) causing warming. We should focus on what we know, humans are causing pollution. We should therefore all agree that getting off carbon fuels should be our long-term goal. Let’s get on with it.
But, let’s create proper “incentives” to drive energy technology, right here, rather than paying credits, hoping China and India (the overwhelming areas of emissions growth) will do it for us. It’s not going to happen.
Just don’t let Al Gore, David Suzuki and the UN do it.
Agreed Sham, I think, although I’m not convinced that “We should therefore all agree that getting off carbon fuels should be our long-term goal.”
No New Taxes! Raise the ones we have, but No New Taxes! This should be the first and most often reiterated concept taught to all kids and students.JMO
Posted by: anon at August 21, 2009 4:14 PM
great riposte, anon. And lo! It seems not stunned enough is predictably quiet when his leftish misdirection stunt is identified, and trumped.
Who saw that coming?
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm