I support clean energy, but not clean energy which is forced on our economy before technology has found a better way.
The problem there, as i see it, is that there is very little incentive to get serious about making alternatives to fossil fuels attractive until the cost of using fossil fuels hurts people bad enough.
I don't think people really understand the impact these carbon taxes will have on us, especially those of us struggling. The govt doesn't have any more $$ to subsidize products for the people, nor should they.
I think you're wrong about people not understanding the impact, which is why we've been kicking that can down the road for many years.
FredHayek wrote: I like tax credits for conservation. And in the summer, the utility company essentially fines large homes, so I would also support premium pricing in the winter if you go over a certain usage level. Hopefully this would encourage smaller, more fuel efficient homes.
I've got no issue with something like this. The $$ would go to the provider of the energy, and reward those who use less.
SC...under your carbon tax idea, how are wood burning stoves and fireplaces handled? These put out a lot of carbon...would you ban them, or somehow tax their use?
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
I support clean energy, but not clean energy which is forced on our economy before technology has found a better way.
The problem there, as i see it, is that there is very little incentive to get serious about making alternatives to fossil fuels attractive until the cost of using fossil fuels hurts people bad enough.
I don't think people really understand the impact these carbon taxes will have on us, especially those of us struggling. The govt doesn't have any more $$ to subsidize products for the people, nor should they.
I think you're wrong about people not understanding the impact, which is why we've been kicking that can down the road for many years.
I pretty much see those who are low energy users (due to their type of work) being ones who tout carbon taxes. Forcing technology which isn't there yet just makes $$ vanish from the economy. It doesn't go anywhere, it is just gone.
The incentives should be from research. Plow $$ into it, give awards for inventions, make people rich who figure out a better way. Hurting the economy does nothing.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
lol Guess I'm sort of an exception to your rule then. I use a ton of electricity, due to a medical condition and, being on a fixed income, I cry when the bill comes in and fret about how I'm going to pay it but we don't get anywhere by putting the situation off. These days, I live where almost everywhere i have to go on a regular basis is within about 5 miles of my home and i bundle my trips, so the fact that I only have to fill my gas tank about once/month (what a concept after living in the mountains!) helps offset the power needs in my home but, still...
Plow $$ into it, give awards for inventions, make people rich who figure out a better way.
Agree with you there but suspect, for a while at least, that incentives will have to be given to get people to agree to actually use the better way.
Science Chic wrote: The question I have is: do you understand what I mean by we will require a fundamental shift in our lifestyle? Our way of life as we know it may require inexpensive energy now, but that's going to change. Most people don't realize how huge it will be, but it's coming. And it doesn't have to change for all that much worse if we plan it right and start now. Renewables are almost competitive right now and are only going to come down as fossil fuels rise. The days of cheap fossil fuels are coming to an end, like it or not and we have a choice to either proactively prepare, or reactively suffer. Because if we don't start doing something about it, it's the poor that are going to bear the majority of the burden - they already do in higher food costs, higher health burden, requiring crappy government subsidized insurance, etc.
Speaking of the 30s, did you see that we're already topping Dust Bowl temps and getting dryer by the year? It wouldn't be such a bad thing to cut back on the number of electronic devices that we think we need every day. I mean, do we really need a sports bar on every corner with 18 TVs showing golf and baseball?
Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels? Most construction companies and trucking companies are barely squeaking by. Most would go out of business. At this time, the technology isn't there to have a "clean" OTR truck or heavy equipment. The amount of fuel used in these businesses would cause a massive ripple effect. Costs for everyday foods would skyrocket. Many companies would go out of business, OR construction would cease for all those companies hanging on by a thread now.
I support clean energy, but not clean energy which is forced on our economy before technology has found a better way. Just spending more $$ for the same things won't help, especially now. I do support tax incentives or govt grants to research these things, but not to destroy our economy in the process.
I don't think people really understand the impact these carbon taxes will have on us, especially those of us struggling. The govt doesn't have any more $$ to subsidize products for the people, nor should they.
Lets get the economy rolling again...then dump $$ into research to find products that are actually cost efficient.
Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels?
Did not think so.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels?
Did not think so.
Huh???
I know what it would cost. Tons of jobs. Lots of vanishing $$.
No, you have unfounded opinions based on your biases. Again, what are these "costs to our economy to implement these carbon taxes on fossil fuels". You accuse others of not knowing, but in reality, you have no idea.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels?
Did not think so.
Huh???
I know what it would cost. Tons of jobs. Lots of vanishing $$.
No, you have unfounded opinions based on your biases. Again, what are these "costs to our economy to implement these carbon taxes on fossil fuels". You accuse others of not knowing, but in reality, you have no idea.
If you spend X$, in order to produce X$ in product, and now you have to spend X$+(carbon tax) to make same X$ in product, you will either raise prices (if you can) or lose $$. There is no free lunch. Right now we don't know what a carbon tax would entail. What we do know, is it will increase costs of doing business which means all products will cost more. This means more people can't afford them, or wages will have to go up, not to make the employee richer, but just to cover their living expenses. Those of us who live up in the foothills will have property values decrease.
I'm assuming since you appear to claim there is no negatives here...you must not deal much with energy. Technology isn't there yet...when it is, I'll fully support it.
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
I'm assuming from your tirade, that you really DON'T have any idea about the financial effect of it other than the usual right-wing-blog talking points that it MUST be bad and it's going to "cost somebody something", so therefore it must trickle-down to you in some overly expensive manner....But you don't actually know.
(If it does trickle-down, it will be the only thing that has in the last 40 years... It's obvious that the money from the top tier rich-folks hasn't...)
Something the Dog Said wrote: Do you have any idea of the costs right now to our economy to implement these "carbon taxes" on fossil fuels?
Did not think so.
Huh???
I know what it would cost. Tons of jobs. Lots of vanishing $$.
No, you have unfounded opinions based on your biases. Again, what are these "costs to our economy to implement these carbon taxes on fossil fuels". You accuse others of not knowing, but in reality, you have no idea.
If you spend X$, in order to produce X$ in product, and now you have to spend X$+(carbon tax) to make same X$ in product, you will either raise prices (if you can) or lose $$. There is no free lunch. Right now we don't know what a carbon tax would entail. What we do know, is it will increase costs of doing business which means all products will cost more. This means more people can't afford them, or wages will have to go up, not to make the employee richer, but just to cover their living expenses. Those of us who live up in the foothills will have property values decrease.
I'm assuming since you appear to claim there is no negatives here...you must not deal much with energy. Technology isn't there yet...when it is, I'll fully support it.
I am not assuming anything. However, to claim the sky is falling, we can't afford carbon taxes, the economy will go into the tank, without having a clue as to what the actual costs are, is an assumption on your part. Why not rely upon careful studies on the economic impact of different policies against the cost of doing nothing. There is an incredible cost on not doing anything, to just continue business as usual, as we are finding out with the costs of the impacts of Sandy, the increased severity and frequency of droughts, the melting of the Artic ice, etc.
To simply dismiss the use of such policies as cap and trade, which has proven to work with the treatment of sulfur dioxide emissions, without quantifying the costs and benefits of such policies is extremely dangerous.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The problem there, as i see it, is that there is very little incentive to get serious about making alternatives to fossil fuels attractive until the cost of using fossil fuels hurts people bad enough.
