Comments on: The best solution for climate change is a carbon tax Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: mayapan1942 Mon, 25 Mar 2013 02:05:14 +0000 JL4 above has it right, almost.

Sure, we’re all trying to save ourselves first. That’s natural, and obvious. However, it does make sense to reduce carbon emissions, if only to help ensure we keep on trying to save ourselves. Simply look at recent pix from some Chinese cities to see how they’ve affected local pollution, with no end in sight.

Excess of anything is a danger. Excessive CO2 and related pollutants should be reduced/removed when lives are in danger through increased health risks. Nobody complains about the cost to remove/isolate nuclear contamination.

CO2 is more pervasive, just as invisible and just as deadly over the long term. Forget about climate change and global warming: just concentrate on getting CO2 back to its stable point of 3% of global gases.

All else is distraction.

By: 123456951 Fri, 11 Jan 2013 07:27:08 +0000 I do not think that mankind’s impact on the earth is as great as some people have been led to believe. Some impact, yes, especially on a local (cities) and even regional basis; but globally the impact has been minimal. There are two reasons I feel this way. One is that natures impact on itself is far greater than mankind’s impact could ever be. How much bigger? In my view it has to do with energy – energy thrown at the earth, and energy created on the earth. It is only with the release of energy that by products (pollution if it is man made) are created. Without energy from the sun or the creation of energy on the earth, our earth would like the planet pluto – dead. The reality is that the sun throws the same amount of energy at the earth in an hour or two that mankind creates in a year. So in essence the sun’s impact on the earth is about 5,000 times greater than man’s impact. The impact of the sun is enormous. Just think about a single hurricane. Virtually all of it’s energy is the result of the sun. The second reason I do not think that man’s impact is all that great are the natural long term weather cycles that the earth is subject to. The present warming of our planet has been going on now since around 1400 AD. And then there are the ice ages. From what I understand, the earth cooled about 6 degrees during the ice ages. The scary part about that is that no one really has a good explanation as to why. But the ice ages did happen. I live in the eastern part of the state of Washington, and the geologic evidence here for the ice ages is obvious and undeniable. Want a more recent natural impact? Read about Tambora in 1816, the year without summer. It may seem a little trite to say so, but the natural processes of nature here on earth are like an enormous washing machine, and what will be will be. Nature is far too big for us to control – or to have much affect.

By: DHGIII Tue, 08 Jan 2013 16:57:08 +0000 We’ve reduced emissions more than the European Union because of the switch to natural gas from Coal. A carbon tax gives less incentive to switch to natural gas from coal as it cuts back the return on investment.

By: JL4 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 19:55:30 +0000 So, according to some posting here –

#1: It’s GOOD for corporations to make money, but it’s NOT GOOD for Al Gore to make money. I’m confused by that logic.

#2: If it’s cheap, then it’s right. Anything that costs me money is wrong.

#3: If I don’t understand it, it’s automatically a lie.

#4: If we can’t stop other countries from doing something bad, then we shouldn’t stop doing it either.

#5: If the Earth creates CO2 naturally, then we should, too, even if we’re making inordinate demands on the planet’s ability to balance the atmosphere.

I have news for everyone, we aren’t trying to “Save The Planet”. The planet will be here and repair itself no matter what we do it. What we’re really trying to save is ourselves.

By: jcfl Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:57:24 +0000 as well written as this article is, i still hold nader responsible for allowing bush2 to be appointed pres in 2000, causing far more damage to the usa i suspect than global warming has.

By: Dave54 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 09:01:14 +0000 One problem with this article is that the solution doesn’t fix the problem. Taxing carbon for all its worth doesn’t necessarily mean a reduction in emissions. If the product of the goods is inelastic then rising costs doesn’t change behavior as much as desired. You need to cap emissions and the cheapest way is with a CO2 market as opposed to an outright ban. This way the private sector will find the most cost-effective way to cut emissions. It’s not pretty – the Europeans show that – but it does drive down emissions like it or not.

By: Great1973 Mon, 07 Jan 2013 03:06:02 +0000 If households can rebate the GHGs tax from the government, there are no incentives for them to change the way how they’re consuming the power. The power plants owners can make the electricity prices higher to absorb the GHGs tax, so no incentives to shut their business down. Overall this policy just makes all goods’ prices become less affordable, and because nuclear power doesn’t bear any tax, this might mislead more nuclear power plants been built. The best way would be to guide the capital to the clean energy industries, for example, reduce the tariff on the material for solar panels and wind turbine manufacturing, etc. To create competitors against the fossil industry by enlarging the whole economy will be smarter.

By: agsocrates Mon, 07 Jan 2013 02:36:08 +0000 Carbon tax will only mean more pollution abroad and less work for Americans unless it is applied at the point of sale and includes the cost of shipping. By using the constitutionally dubious process of mandating that domestically produced goods and energy it only incentives corporations to look elsewhere to produce. Even if a factory itself doesn’t produce CO2 the higher energy costs will shift jobs overseas just as they are starting to come back. I urge you Mr. Nader to think about tackling climate change in an era of globalization, and to consider the vast majority of us that have to work in the real world when enacting legislation. The American workers should not be the only ones to bare the costs of CO2 reduction, and if we are then it will surely fail as levels will rise elsewhere. Other countries may be considering carbon tax, but they aren’t the sweat shop states.

By: OneThing Mon, 07 Jan 2013 01:02:30 +0000 Introducing a market mechanism to tackle greenhouse gas pollution is separate question than the overall level of tax and other efforts to tackle these issues (investment in transit etc.).

The Carbon consumption tax should be applied to imports, exempt exports (jast like value added taxes – VAT, GST), and be slightly more than offset by other tax cuts.

This inoculates us from the need for industry specific changes to ensure that we remain competitive.

The tax code can be made simpler by removing other inefficient or complex taxes.

Taxes are a good way to address externalities.

People concerned with the damage to the economy should also look at both the damage from the other taxes we can remove or reduce, and the risks of economic damage from climate change.

By: StormPetrol Sun, 06 Jan 2013 14:49:53 +0000 One great quality of a carbon tax instead of cap and trade, is elimination of the cost of profits provided to traders.

Another is that a tax, levied on all carbon fuels wherever they enter the economy, will actually be an effective way to begin to include the considerable real, externalized, environmental costs of their use.

However, in order for such a levy to be iintroduced, the almost insurmountable influence of special interests must be overcome.

The only way an effective carbon tax will be politically viable is to return all of the proceeds to the adult population of the United States. In this way, the support of the electorate may be engaged with sufficient vigor to overcome the very effective resistance that will be offered by the energy corporations and their minions in government and the commercial media.

This approach presumes that the real motivation and intention of such a fee is to rapidly reduce the use of carbon fuels, rather than raise revenue for redistribution by elected officials to those same special interests!