|
Go
 |
New
|
Find
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters  |
Hey way to get the joke you humorless windbag.  "Well one might assume there could be many reasons a chicken might cross the road.' - the wit and wisdom of Heck. WSS WSS[/b] |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
L F
And that's the bottom line. A tax (which I'll bet will send dollars directly to the pockets of the supporters) no matter what lofty name you give it and no matter what it's intended purpose will wind up as graft or wasted research with no real required goal. "Take this money and do good! Call us if you need more." Like every other new tax. May as well airlift cash into Somalia. But I get your reasoning Heck. You don't have to change you wasteful ways and we punish the rich (except the Dem rich) and we further tank the economy so socialism looks better. A trifecta for the left!!!! WSS |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Well, you have your choice:
Steve: "No matter how serious it is I say the carbon tax will be ineffective in halting anything but the economy." The CBO: "Most analyses suggest that a carefully designed program to begin lowering CO2 emissions would produce greater benefits than costs. ...A tax on emissions would be the most efficient incentive-based option for reducing emissions and could be relatively easy to implement." Take your pick who is full of shit and who isn't. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Tupa, can you get in on this? It'd be nice to bring it back to reality.
|
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Sorry, I've been ignoring this thread, missed all the invitations.
The only relevant question is whether or not emissions/pollution/whatever are very harmful. If they are (yes, they are), then the government needs to take action to limit them, because individuals and businesses dont have strong incentives to do it themselves. The best solutions make the emissions more costly and give businesses ways to shift the costs around and incentives to come up with alternative ways of doing business. Most cap and trade systems fit that description. Mankiw is a Pigou fanatic - he gets a little too excited by almost every proposed tax on behavior for my taste. Related topic: new book on behavioral economics in policy making has recently come out; "Nudge" by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. Freakonomics blog has an interview with the authors here: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/from-p...thors-of-the-latter/ |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Well I'd say it's you. Read your own rubbish. "carefully designed program" means jack shit. There isn't one on the table. And when there is it won't be implemented. I've given you a list of things that won't change. You know it but, as usual, counter with barking. Then tell me how this non existant specific free and never to be implemented magic "program" would be great if it in fact, there was one. WSS WSS[/b] |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Um, sure.
Tupa, do you want to get in here? I'm not even sure you're on the global warming page to begin with. But a carbon tax is clearly the most economically efficient way to address the problem at home, and to meet whatever international treaty obligations we may enter into. And I'd hope and expect they'd revisit all sorts of other business costs to help offset the costs of the carbon tax. Would you like to be part of a bipartisan agreement to address global warming, Rep. Tupa? ...Oh, no. You didn't take a "no new taxes" pledge, did you? |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
LOL There ya go. Like one hopes and expects the turnpike fee to disappear when the turnpike was paid for. Oops. Remember that rock you talked about praying to while you were on one of your anti Christian rants? There's your "hope." WSS |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
I was hoping one brief post would fulfill my obligation here, but I'm not too busy yet so...
Something should be done. Whatever it is is going to be ridiculously detailed, so I wont bother with a proposal of my own, but a carbon tax is probably a good place to start. I do agree with Steve when he says we arent going to be reversing emissions immediately, but that the world isnt going to blow up in 2025 either. So I prefer taking incremental steps to overstepping and then trusting the government to back off. I'm a bit hesitant about international agreements on the issue, but I'm sure there are ways to do that well also. |
|||
|
|
Skipper of the Lake Erie Booze Patrol Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
The 10 th 20 year point of no return wasn't from me Toop, It was from Heck. And I maintain three things. The population will not sit still for the restraints on our lives this will require. The developing nations will continue to get worse and worse. World population will continue to explode. Now if you and Heck agree to trust the government to "back off" I guess we'll have to differ on that. WSS |
|||
|
|
Hall of Famer |
There was a good article in the Atlantic Monthly on how Kyoto was hopelessly flawed, but everyone pretends it was fantastic because Bush withdrew from it. You can read the article here. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Well, it was defeated 95-0 in the Senate, so I can't imagine people pretended it was that fantastic.
The problem was that we didn't then move to negotiate a better treaty. We simply withdrew from the process. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
I guess my post wasnt very clear. I meant that I agreed with you that the world wasnt going to blow up in 2025 and that I dont want to the government to overstep and then hope that they back off - I prefer incremental action. |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
As for cap and trade, Tupa, it's more of a political winner than a carbon tax (even though cap and trade is a form of a carbon tax) but a simple carbon tax is more economically efficient than cap and trade. It also creates less bureaucracy and is easier to police and is less susceptible to industry creating exemptions through Congress.
I'd take it over nothing, but I'd rather focus on doing the most efficient thing and focusing instead on easing the tax burden elsewhere to offset the costs. No? |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Not disagreeing with you heck on whether it is or isn't but the notion that the CO2 tax is the most economically efficient solution is a troubling one. As I've stated previously, it will be 3-10yrs before the tech catches up. (As in the benefits begin to offset the costs).
How many individuals can handle that kind of problem over that amount of time? Comparing it to the housing market, it only takes a year or 2 (month or 2???) before people get completely waxed from that additional cost. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Efficiency? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I think the cap and trade would be useful in that A) it should be more likely to result in a specific decrease in emissions (or the growth of them), B) it should do a good job of instructing us as to how valuable/costly emissions/new technology is to companies, and C) it could be set up to positively reward firms that reduce their emissions the most. Honestly, this isnt something I've thought much about in a couple of years - figured nothing was getting done for awhile (almost because of the attention it was getting - how ironic). Cap and trade is alot more fun to watch, I'm confident in that. Any proposal's real effectiveness will come down to the dirty details of who gets exempted, where the loopholes are placed, etc. Quick guess, cap and trade has more examples to learn from and would draw more interest/advice from experts and business people alike. |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
No one wants the hoverboard?? This country is going to hell if I can't draw inspiration for a post while listening to a little Huey Lewis..  |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
They both have examples to draw from. We did cap and trade for acid rain. Worked pretty well because it was managed well. We know how to do this, but you'd also have to have an administration that believes in the goal, and this one doesn't. And if you don't, this becomes the easiest way to pretend like you're doing something without really doing something. That's my fear, though it'll probably subside with this administration's passing.
As for the carbon tax, it'd work the same way that the coal and oil taxes do. It's not hard to implement at all. The only problem it has is that it's called a "tax." So why don't we hire Frank Luntz and we'll change it from "the carbon tax" to "the pollution tax", or "milk and cookies"? |
|||
|
|
Hall of Fame Legend |
Heck I have no doubt that the tax would be easy to implement. Do you not forsee a lag in the benefits catching up with the cost of tax?
I mean, when I eat milk & cookies, I'm pretty immediately happy. What I'm saying is that there are billions to be made off of the new technology to replace Carbon gas emmitting technology (to lump it underneath that umbrella for simplicity). Don't you think if the tech was available (and by "available" I mean efficient & easy - not just existing) that those who controlled it would be seeking to cash in right now? |
|||
|
|
Numbers Retired and hangs in the rafters |
Yeah, I don't expect people to instantly come up with a new way to power cars that emit no carbon. But that's not really the point. The point is to make that market more viable, and instead of creating regulation after regulation to get firms to comply, which is needlessly cumbersome, you simply make emitting carbon more expensive, which decreases its use, and promotes the development of new technologies.
The other function has nothing to do with creating a market for new technologies. It's simply to lower the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. As for the firms seeking to cash in on this now, you're right. They already are out there. What the tax would do is create an even bigger market. Right now it's much cheaper and easier to simply burn carbon. We want to make it cheaper and easier to not burn carbon, and to run on something else, and to incent business to come up with ways to achieve that. American entrepenuers will **** some shit up if they know there's a real market for them. And we want them to own these patents, not the Europeans or the Japanese. Everyone is headed this way, but we should lead. Ex: do you think GM wished they owned the hybrid patents that Toyota does? As it stands now, many of the hybrid elements in American cars have to be liscened from Toyota. I think they have something like 300 patents on hybrid technology. Yo, let's do this. Milk and cookies, baby. |
|||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | CLEVELAND SPORTS FORUM | ||
| Servlet | eve2da013 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Groupee" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Designed by: CreAtens