71–80 of 139 posts
Spending is a lot easier than taxing. A country could just offer to buy a increasing amount of zero emission electricity and sell it on the free market until electricity was no longer generated from sources that yielded carbon. The same approach could work for battery cells that could be used in cars until non-electric vehicles were no longer competitive. This could be funded by that country's current (probably) prog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's revenue neutral and lowering income taxes, where would the big `victims' be?
The big victims are the owners of fossil fuel deposits and infrastructure. Have a guess who is funding all the FUD about global warming. Personally I think we should just buy the fossil fuel owners out at current market prices and shut them down as soon as possible. FUD in this area is just too effective to counter with logic or science so lets pay them off. If we wanted to be really clever we could do a 1 for 1 swap…
Just think of this in terms of Exxon &c having an effective negotiating position for blocking the carbon tax. We don't have to buy things at current market prices, but at a discount. Recognizing that there's room for negotiation is what everyone overlooks.
Not just a carbon tax, but a system of well thought out taxes that cover the negative externalities of every part of pollution so that the market can efficiently allocate investments. For example, most people don't know that coal causes more radiation damage to humans than nuclear. Why is this? Because coal gets released right into the atmosphere, while spent fuel rods get stored away from human contact. I know that…
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-...
Not that I disagree (in fact I strongly agree), but is Musk really the person we should be taking this from? It's a bit like taking investment advice from your bank, meseems. Not necessarily a bad idea, but you might want to hear with people who don't have an active interest in the placement of your money first.
Aren't there significant carbon emissions released during the production of a Tesla car and its components?
Spending is a lot easier than taxing. A country could just offer to buy a increasing amount of zero emission electricity and sell it on the free market until electricity was no longer generated from sources that yielded carbon. The same approach could work for battery cells that could be used in cars until non-electric vehicles were no longer competitive. This could be funded by that country's current (probably) prog…
what?
They effectively want the government to spend a lot of money to bankrupt the fossil fuels industry and fossil fuel vehicles, with subsidies toward the generation of renewables and producing electric vehicles.
They're wrong that spending is easier however. Republicans control Congress and the US made a massive mistake in taking on ~$15 trillion in new public debt between 2000 and 2015. Simply put, the US doesn't have vast excess spending room (which means it would require tax increases or new taxes). It would cost trillions over a few decades to pull off the parent's plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, your barber is an expert on hair.
Well, if you really want to drill down on this example: the barber doesn't have substantial interests in which type of haircut you get. Tesla has substantial interest in which kind of carbon tax you get -- high carbon tax would be a boon. Doesn't materially effect how good an idea carbon taxes are, though. Also, do people ask their barber what haircut they should get? I have only ever done a buzz cut or given a descr…
Apparently it's not as well-known as I thought.
Not that I disagree (in fact I strongly agree), but is Musk really the person we should be taking this from? It's a bit like taking investment advice from your bank, meseems. Not necessarily a bad idea, but you might want to hear with people who don't have an active interest in the placement of your money first.
>> Don't you hate when Fox News and the other MSM spin-meisters use simple tricks to skew and misrepresent data and statistics? How about when the World Meteorological Organization does it? Or NASA? Or the Journal of Climate? Or GISS? Join James for today's thought for the day as he shows you some of the grade school level parlour tricks the global warming alarmists use to misrepresent their data and bamboozle the public.