A question for warmers

[flogger]

That would depend on how much you want to tax carbon. Nobody could give you a number until there is some agreed to price per ton of carbon.

I posted this on the 'Britains green energy crisis' thread already but just substitute the US for Britain in the following text to see what is likely to come for you if the green envangelists get thier way within your government like they already have within ours . Our green economic slow motion train wreck is really something you dont want to be emulating believe me

It has been admitted by our government , families will be forced to pay almost £1000 ($1700) in green taxes on top of their energy bills by the end of the decade. What is also clear is that our gas and electricity supplies are fast running out .And if, that werent enough our government is imposing a swingeing new tax on all the coal and gas-fired power stations , which provide more than two-thirds of our electricity. Would you not throw up your hands in stunned disbelief if this happened in the US ? But that is what is about to happen with this new 'carbon tax', its deliberately designed not only to double the price of electricity from our remaining fossil fuel power plants within a few years, but to make it hard for them to survive at all. All this adds up to as great an act of political mismanagement as any in our history.

So, how did we come to such a terrifying pass ? There is one reason above all why our energy policy has gone so disastrously off the rails , and it lies in the conviction shared by politicians of all major parties that we must do all we can to save the planet by reducing CO2 emissions. At the time when this belief began to take shape, back in the Nineties, for 40 years Britain had had an electricity industry as efficient as any, based on the coal of which we had huge reserves and the nuclear power with which we once led the world. Then we decided to close down most of our coal industry in favour of a 'dash for gas', because it gives off only half as much carbon dioxide as coal ,this at a time when we still had enough cheap gas from the North Sea not to worry about becoming dependent on costly gas imports. The next move came with the new green energy manifesto , which ruled out building any more coal or nuclear power stations in favour of going flat out for 'renewables'. This was centred on pouring huge subsidies into building thousands of utterly useless wind turbines.

In recent years, so obsessed had our politicians become with the supposed threat from CO2 that Parliament voted almost unanimously for the Climate Change Act, committing Britain uniquely in the world to reducing its emissions by 80 per cent in just 40 years. This basically represents the longest economic suicide note ever written. But what the politicians failed to realise was that wind and solar are not only by far the most expensive means of producing electricity ( hence those green subsidies we all have to fund through our electricity bills ) they are also the most unreliable, because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Yet the terrifying fact is that we really do need those reliable power stations our government is trying to price out of business , not least to provide constantly available back-up for the 32,000 wind turbines our ministers eulogise, for all those times when the wind is not blowing.

A responsible government would reverse this nonsense, and it would stop pouring massive subsidies into the generation of electricity from wind turbines. Such a government would recognise that our only hope of keeping bills down, our lights on and the economy running is to go flat out to exploit Britain's vast reserves of the cheap shale gas, which in America has more than halved gas prices in the past four years. But we do not have such a government. Our bills will continue to soar. Our lights will go out, just as our electricity chief was predicting last week on our news. Our nation will soon find itself having to stumble in the cold and the dark through a self-inflicted crisis that is unique in the developed world.

Heed the warning from what Britain has done to itself. These are the ultimate consequences of green myopia that many on this forum would have the US government embrace too. Thank yourself you dont live here and can watch this green disaster unfolding from a safe distance because the end result will not be pretty

 

[iliveonramen]

I posted this on the 'Britains green energy crisis' thread already but just substitute the US for Britain in the following text to see what is likely to come for you if the green envangelists get thier way within your government like they already have within ours . Our green economic slow motion train wreck is really something you dont want to be emulating believe me

It has been admitted by our government , families will be forced to pay almost £1000 ($1700) in green taxes on top of their energy bills by the end of the decade. What is also clear is that our gas and electricity supplies are fast running out .And if, that werent enough our government is imposing a swingeing new tax on all the coal and gas-fired power stations , which provide more than two-thirds of our electricity. Would you not throw up your hands in stunned disbelief if this happened in the US ? But that is what is about to happen with this new 'carbon tax', its deliberately designed not only to double the price of electricity from our remaining fossil fuel power plants within a few years, but to make it hard for them to survive at all. All this adds up to as great an act of political mismanagement as any in our history.

So, how did we come to such a terrifying pass ? There is one reason above all why our energy policy has gone so disastrously off the rails , and it lies in the conviction shared by politicians of all major parties that we must do all we can to save the planet by reducing CO2 emissions. At the time when this belief began to take shape, back in the Nineties, for 40 years Britain had had an electricity industry as efficient as any, based on the coal of which we had huge reserves and the nuclear power with which we once led the world. Then we decided to close down most of our coal industry in favour of a 'dash for gas', because it gives off only half as much carbon dioxide as coal ,this at a time when we still had enough cheap gas from the North Sea not to worry about becoming dependent on costly gas imports. The next move came with the new green energy manifesto , which ruled out building any more coal or nuclear power stations in favour of going flat out for 'renewables'. This was centred on pouring huge subsidies into building thousands of utterly useless wind turbines.

In recent years, so obsessed had our politicians become with the supposed threat from CO2 that Parliament voted almost unanimously for the Climate Change Act, committing Britain uniquely in the world to reducing its emissions by 80 per cent in just 40 years. This basically represents the longest economic suicide note ever written. But what the politicians failed to realise was that wind and solar are not only by far the most expensive means of producing electricity ( hence those green subsidies we all have to fund through our electricity bills ) they are also the most unreliable, because the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Yet the terrifying fact is that we really do need those reliable power stations our government is trying to price out of business , not least to provide constantly available back-up for the 32,000 wind turbines our ministers eulogise, for all those times when the wind is not blowing.

A responsible government would reverse this nonsense, and it would stop pouring massive subsidies into the generation of electricity from wind turbines. Such a government would recognise that our only hope of keeping bills down, our lights on and the economy running is to go flat out to exploit Britain's vast reserves of the cheap shale gas, which in America has more than halved gas prices in the past four years. But we do not have such a government. Our bills will continue to soar. Our lights will go out, just as our electricity chief was predicting last week on our news. Our nation will soon find itself having to stumble in the cold and the dark through a self-inflicted crisis that is unique in the developed world.

Heed the warning from what Britain has done to itself. These are the ultimate consequences of green myopia that many on this forum would have the US government embrace too. Thank yourself you dont live here and can watch this green disaster unfolding from a safe distance because the end result will not be pretty

You mention a lot of things that fall outside the realm of carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are just about including the price of negative externalities.

So using the OP's post..."if warming exists" then the price of frying the planet should be included in the price of a fossil fuel. Sure it may cost little to extract and ship but it costs a **** ton when London starts flooding and you have relocate individuals from the coastal areas. Who pays for that? It's about realizing the true cost at the pump. That's a major problem with developing renewable resources and pumping money in the technology...you're competing against cheap gas because any side effect of burning more or less of it isn't realized by the consumer it's everybody.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

You mention a lot of things that fall outside the realm of carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are just about including the price of negative externalities.

So using the OP's post..."if warming exists" then the price of frying the planet should be included in the price of a fossil fuel. Sure it may cost little to extract and ship but it costs a **** ton when London starts flooding and you have relocate individuals from the coastal areas. Who pays for that? It's about realizing the true cost at the pump. That's a major problem with developing renewable resources and pumping money in the technology...you're competing against cheap gas because any side effect of burning more or less of it isn't realized by the consumer it's everybody.

Sounds like the reason for your carbon tax is to pay for the costly results of AGW not to stop it from happening.

 

[flogger]

You mention a lot of things that fall outside the realm of carbon taxes. Carbon taxes are just about including the price of negative externalities.

The 40% already added to my energy bills here in four years is set to double by 2020. Thats the harsh realities of such a tax here and now

So using the OP's post..."if warming exists" then the price of frying the planet should be included in the price of a fossil fuel. Sure it may cost little to extract and ship but it costs a **** ton when London starts flooding and you have relocate individuals from the coastal areas.Who pays for that?

Statements like this are simply media sensationalism

It's about realizing the true cost at the pump. That's a major problem with developing renewable resources and pumping money in the technology...you're competing against cheap gas because any side effect of burning more or less of it isn't realized by the consumer it's everybody

And if the hypothesis that CO 2 drives tempertures had merit you might have a point. No empirical proof that it does has ever been established.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

The 40% already added to my energy bills here in four years is set to double by 2020. Thats the harsh realities of such a tax here and now



Statements like this are simply media sensationalism



And if the hypothesis that CO 2 drives tempertures had merit you might have a point. No empirical proof that it does has ever been established.

Holy crap, you guys are soooo screwed.

 

[iliveonramen]

Is there a number in your mind, a tax per gallon of gas that would prod people out of gas cars and into some alternative? One catch I can see is elec cars could very well be taxed the same as gas cars if the elec used came from a fossil fuel powered elec plant. Really not trying to discredit you here I am honestly wondering just how you guys would "fix" AGW. Vague answers like copy Europe don't cut it. Your response is at least honest, thank you.

It would honestly depend on the price that government would want to set. British Columbia sets a price at 10 dollar per ton of carbon the first year and rose 5 dollars per ton each year. That equates to about 9 cents per gallon the first year and 5 cents a gallon each year after.

The "prodding" can be over time by small increments to give individuals time to adjust (less usage) and invest in other measures to reduce their cost.

For me the goal isn't to make everybody buy a gas car and solar panels on the roof but to make the costs of fossil fuels represent the real cost of using them. It's about the fact that pulling something out of the ground or drilling it may not cost as much as creating a solar panel but it doesn't include the other potential costs tied to the burning of it. If warming exists due to the burning of carbon by humans the long term costs are in the 10's of trillions. The major worldwide population centers are on coasts and near rivers. The rising sea levels would slowly push whole cities back. That's expensive. You can either pay the price then....or now. The idea is that if the dollar cost of burning fuels is felt now it make forms that generally are more expensive "cheaper".

You could always use the tax money to subsidize US industry and power plants or individuals to change their habits. Pay a subsidy for solar panels on the roof or solar farms. Pay grants to help industries implement technology for emission reductions.

 

[iliveonramen]

Statements like this are simply media sensationalism



And if the hypothesis that CO 2 drives tempertures had merit you might have a point. No empirical proof that it does has ever been established.

The purpose of this thread is "if warming exists what would you do". There's a gazillion other threads where you can argue against the idea that carbon heats the earth.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

It would honestly depend on the price that government would want to set. British Columbia sets a price at 10 dollar per ton of carbon the first year and rose 5 dollars per ton each year. That equates to about 9 cents per gallon the first year and 5 cents a gallon each year after.

The "prodding" can be over time by small increments to give individuals time to adjust (less usage) and invest in other measures to reduce their cost.

For me the goal isn't to make everybody buy a gas car and solar panels on the roof but to make the costs of fossil fuels represent the real cost of using them. It's about the fact that pulling something out of the ground or drilling it may not cost as much as creating a solar panel but it doesn't include the other potential costs tied to the burning of it. If warming exists due to the burning of carbon by humans the long term costs are in the 10's of trillions. The major worldwide population centers are on coasts and near rivers. The rising sea levels would slowly push whole cities back. That's expensive. You can either pay the price then....or now. The idea is that if the dollar cost of burning fuels is felt now it make forms that generally are more expensive "cheaper".

You could always use the tax money to subsidize US industry and power plants or individuals to change their habits. Pay a subsidy for solar panels on the roof or solar farms. Pay grants to help industries implement technology for emission reductions.

Do you have any idea exactly what BC is doing with all this added revenue? Is it just going into the general fund like our doomed SS plan or is it squirreled away for future AGW damage or put into programs for roof top solar or....?

EDIT: Curious so I looked it up myself. Those carbon taxes in BC do none of the above.

[h=1]Tax Cuts Funded by the Carbon Tax[/h]

---

B.C.’s revenue-neutral carbon tax has allowed British Columbia to reduce taxes for individuals, families and business.

Every dollar generated by the revenue-neutral carbon tax is returned to British Columbians through tax reductions. For the 2012/13 fiscal year, the tax reductions are expected to return $260 million more to taxpayers than the amount of carbon tax paid. In addition to the low-income climate action tax credit, other measures to mitigate the carbon tax for families include the up-to-$200 Northern and Rural Homeowner benefit.
As a result, B.C. now has the lowest income tax rates in Canada for individuals earning up to $122,000. The general corporate income tax rate in B.C. is among the lowest in North America and the G7 nations, and since 2001, B.C.’s small business income tax rate has been reduced by 44 percent.
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/A2.htm

 

[ttwtt78640]

Carbon tax. Have a means to convert carbon pollution into a dollar amount and attribute it to the source. Just because an 1800's era coal plant was cheaper to run and burn coal in doesn't mean that pollution didn't have massive effects on individuals that lived around that plant.

That is not what you would do, that is simply how you would finance it, unless you think that merely taxing carbon emissions will make that form of energy use so expensive as to force a switch to an alternative.

 

[iliveonramen]

Do you have any idea exactly what BC is doing with all this added revenue? Is it just going into the general fund like our doomed SS plan or is it squirreled away for future AGW damage or put into programs for roof top solar or....?

They are actually returning it through tax reductions. It's a "revenue-neutral carbon tax"....so if you use less carbon not only do you avoid paying the higher carbon taxes but you benefit from tax reductions.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

They are actually returning it through tax reductions. It's a "revenue-neutral carbon tax"....so if you use less carbon not only do you avoid paying the higher carbon taxes but you benefit from tax reductions.

I looked it up. Edited my last post but you may have missed it. seems like the carbon tax in BC is punitive in nature and you are correct the money collected is not put into a fund for AGW caused future expenses or to fund non carbon based energy projects.

 

[iliveonramen]

That is not what you would do, that is simply how you would finance it, unless you think that merely taxing carbon emissions will make that form of energy use so expensive as to force a switch to an alternative.

I think taxing carbon emissions will go a long way in helping the situation.

For one you are making the cost of burning carbon realized in a dollar amount so it makes it more expensive.

It means that more individuals would be in the market to reducing their carbon...which would bring in more investment dollars etc. As of now fossil fuels are so cheap it's hard to believe a solar powered cell or any technology can compare. With a carbon tax that escalates over time gradually that makes that a huge possibility. ( A big reason you need to increase the tax over time is Jevons paradox. the idea that as things become more efficient fossil fuels become cheaper driving down the price and making efficient less important).

Not to mention...other than alternatives people would just shop for smaller gas burning cars. Regulations requiring miles per gallon have had a massive impact on fuel consumption in the US.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

I think taxing carbon emissions will go a long way in helping the situation.

For one you are making the cost of burning carbon realized in a dollar amount so it makes it more expensive.

It means that more individuals would be in the market to reducing their carbon...which would bring in more investment dollars etc. As of now fossil fuels are so cheap it's hard to believe a solar powered cell or any technology can compare. With a carbon tax that escalates over time gradually that makes that a huge possibility. ( A big reason you need to increase the tax over time is Jevons paradox. the idea that as things become more efficient fossil fuels become cheaper driving down the price and making efficient less important).

Not to mention...other than alternatives people would just shop for smaller gas burning cars. Regulations requiring miles per gallon have had a massive impact on fuel consumption in the US.

So in your opinion is the BC model the total answer to AGW? Will that stop or even reveres it if implemented in America?

 

[iliveonramen]

I looked it up. Edited my last post but you may have missed it. seems like the carbon tax in BC is punitive in nature and you are correct the money collected is not put into a fund for AGW caused future expenses or to fund non carbon based energy projects.

Those are all possibilities I mentioned. The benefit of a "revenue-neutral" gas tax is a higher gain for individuals that reduce emissions. You benefit from tax reductions in other areas while avoiding the higher taxes.

 

[flogger]

Holy crap, you guys are soooo screwed.

Tell me about it. We are facing power cuts this winter because we are decommissioning most our fossil fuel power stations in favour of green alternatives. Our energy chief told our government last week that there is not going to be enough standby energy generation capacity to keep the lights on when the elements dont play ball. We are then facing further potential charges from importing excess power capacity from France should this happen Its utter madness ! This will increase our bills even further beyond present government projections. God knows how the consumer can take the hit here as his job disappears because manufacturers are queing to leave due to massive energy surcharges.

The reason I post on this so much is that I am living with the consequences of green myopia, not some time in a dim and distant climate model projection, but in the real world here and now. I am fortunate in that I can take the hit financially on this. Our pensioners cannot so whats to happen to them this winter ? All this is happening at a time when Britain has had some of the most severe winters on record in recent years and when globally temperatures have stopped rising. Our government is lost in a bubble of green make believe whilst China and India continue building hundreds of new coal fired power stations every month !

Perhaps you can understand better my motivations for posting here and why I take the position that I do

 

[flogger]

The purpose of this thread is "if warming exists what would you do". There's a gazillion other threads where you can argue against the idea that carbon heats the earth.

I've used my own country as the example of how not to do it. Taxing CO 2 emissions would appear to be an example you would wish the US to follow nonetheless.

Believe me you are dead wrong !

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Those are all possibilities I mentioned. The benefit of a "revenue-neutral" gas tax is a higher gain for individuals that reduce emissions. You benefit from tax reductions in other areas while avoiding the higher taxes.

I have to wonder if you would be on board with this carrot stick approach by government if they had come to some conclusion on a subject that you disagreed with. To me this kind of power being wielded by a government is a scary thing. It sets a precedent for them to decide how we will live based on punishment and reward.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think taxing carbon emissions will go a long way in helping the situation.

For one you are making the cost of burning carbon realized in a dollar amount so it makes it more expensive.

It means that more individuals would be in the market to reducing their carbon...which would bring in more investment dollars etc. As of now fossil fuels are so cheap it's hard to believe a solar powered cell or any technology can compare. With a carbon tax that escalates over time gradually that makes that a huge possibility. ( A big reason you need to increase the tax over time is Jevons paradox. the idea that as things become more efficient fossil fuels become cheaper driving down the price and making efficient less important).

Not to mention...other than alternatives people would just shop for smaller gas burning cars. Regulations requiring miles per gallon have had a massive impact on fuel consumption in the US.

I see that possibility, yet unless alternative energy was truely economically viable (and able to meet the actual energy demand) then the "pollution" tax must be so massive that it would hurt the overall economy (of those subject to it). Another thought about using taxation as a penalty for polluting, is that its true cost is not on really born by the energy producer but merely passed on to the customers (users) of that energy. Your point about increased energy costs reducing demand, by making energy efficiency more important is the best case for that method, yet many are unable to afford to "upgrade" to the more efficient vehicle/appliance simply because they have nothing left over after paying their higher utility bill caused by the new tax.

 

[Threegoofs]

I looked and couldn't find a similar thread. Which one exactly are you referring to? It would be helpful if you could just respond to my simple question in this thread though. Here it is again. We all end up in agreement that man is the cause of global warming. What would you have America do in response to this threat?

My previous post rom the other thread:

Well, first of all, we should banish all the people who have been falsely misrepresenting science to the sidelines. Because the issue is real, and the delay they are causing in working out a solution is inexcusable, much like the people who fought the effects of cigarette smoking and health are responsible for many deaths and untold suffering because they desired short term profit over long term solutions. In fact, looking at this from the perspective of the tobacco fights in the 70s, 80s and 90s is instructive.

That being said, the first thing that needs to be addressed is to mitigate further CO2 emission. That means moving off of fossil fuels, but especially coal and oil, to other means of energy. Alternative energy is critical here, expansion of safe nuclear energy too and I would also think massive funding toward fusion research is helpful. This can be accomplished by a few different means. For those who want heavy government hands involved, mandating this stuff works. For those who prefer a market approach (I concur with this) a carbon tax or a cap and trade in carbon credits will be helpful. Ensuring the developing world gets with the program will also be useful, but since China is actually ahead of the US on this, it wont be too tough.

Coal and Oil can still work if we figure out some way of carbon sequestration. Its not a crazy idea to divert CO2 from coal plants into underground reserviors.

Lastly, geoengineering may be necessary at some point. removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere might be challenging, but its possible to do theoretically. Less useful may be means that have unintended consequences, such as SO2 seeding and encouraging phytoplankton blooms, etc. But science should also be exploring these avenues. Decades from now, things may become clearer on solutions and the early work will give a jump start to solutions.

Of course, there are issues and costs with all of these things. And I expect the AGW crowd will be whining about all of them, just as the pro-tobacco crowd whined about 'freedom' when we resticted smoking rights, increased tobacco taxes, and made smokers paraihs. But I think most people looking back realize that we have all benefitted from a society that is attemtping to limit smoking.

 

[flogger]

I see that possibility, yet unless alternative energy was truely economically viable (and able to meet the actual energy demand) then the "pollution" tax must be so massive that it would hurt the overall economy (of those subject to it). Another thought about using taxation as a penalty for polluting, is that its true cost is not on really born by the energy producer but merely passed on to the customers (users) of that energy. Your point about increased energy costs reducing demand, by making energy efficiency more important is the best case for that method, yet many are unable to afford to "upgrade" to the more efficient vehicle/appliance simply because they have nothing left over after paying their higher utility bill caused by the new tax.

And this is happening here and now in the UK as our government maps out our green utopia

Soaring green energy taxes could force firms out of UK as industry becomes uncompetitive | Mail Online

Industry will become increasingly uncompetitive due to soaring green energy taxes, according to the Government’s own advisers. A shocking report has found UK manufacturers’ electricity bills are already significantly higher than those in other leading nations due to climate change levies. By the end of the decade, our green taxes will be double those in other EU nations and dozens of times higher than those in the US.
Industry groups said the report was ‘extremely worrying’ and could force firms abroad, where regulations are less stringent. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) report looked at the iron and steel, aluminium, cement and chemicals industries in 11 countries, most of which have renewable energy policies.

These energy-intensive industries directly employ 600,000 in Britain and contribute nearly £50billion a year to the economy. Firms will be forced to pay an extra £28.30 in green taxes on top of the market price they pay for every megawatt hour of electricity by 2020 due to climate policies, according to the report by an independent firm. This compares with £15.70 in Denmark, renowned for its renewable energy drive, £15.20 in France, £17.30 in Germany, £10 in China and a fall in the US and Russia.

Terry Scuoler, chief executive of manufacturers’ organisation EEF, said: ‘This report provides clear, independent evidence supporting concerns we have long put to government – that UK manufacturers in energy-intensive sectors are paying more for their electricity than many global and European competitors.’ He said the report showed ‘a mismatch between intent and reality’, given ministerial assurances that costs would not be loaded on to hard-pressed businesses. Ian Rodgers, director of UK Steel, said: ‘The findings paint an extremely worrying picture for the UK’s steel industry. UK Government policy is making it more expensive to do business in the UK.’

The Government has committed to cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. Last May India’s Tata Steel announced 1,500 job cuts in the UK, which it put down to the impact of expensive climate policies

 

[sawyerloggingon]

My previous post rom the other thread:

Well, first of all, we should banish all the people who have been falsely misrepresenting science to the sidelines. Because the issue is real, and the delay they are causing in working out a solution is inexcusable, much like the people who fought the effects of cigarette smoking and health are responsible for many deaths and untold suffering because they desired short term profit over long term solutions. In fact, looking at this from the perspective of the tobacco fights in the 70s, 80s and 90s is instructive.

That being said, the first thing that needs to be addressed is to mitigate further CO2 emission. That means moving off of fossil fuels, but especially coal and oil, to other means of energy. Alternative energy is critical here, expansion of safe nuclear energy too and I would also think massive funding toward fusion research is helpful. This can be accomplished by a few different means. For those who want heavy government hands involved, mandating this stuff works. For those who prefer a market approach (I concur with this) a carbon tax or a cap and trade in carbon credits will be helpful. Ensuring the developing world gets with the program will also be useful, but since China is actually ahead of the US on this, it wont be too tough.

Coal and Oil can still work if we figure out some way of carbon sequestration. Its not a crazy idea to divert CO2 from coal plants into underground reserviors.

Lastly, geoengineering may be necessary at some point. removing the excess CO2 from the atmosphere might be challenging, but its possible to do theoretically. Less useful may be means that have unintended consequences, such as SO2 seeding and encouraging phytoplankton blooms, etc. But science should also be exploring these avenues. Decades from now, things may become clearer on solutions and the early work will give a jump start to solutions.

Of course, there are issues and costs with all of these things. And I expect the AGW crowd will be whining about all of them, just as the pro-tobacco crowd whined about 'freedom' when we resticted smoking rights, increased tobacco taxes, and made smokers paraihs. But I think most people looking back realize that we have all benefitted from a society that is attemtping to limit smoking.

I found that in the thread you were talking about and ignored it because of your opening and closing paragraphs. I'm looking for civil discussion here like the one I am enjoying with iliveonramen. It does seem this has been discussed in a recent thread though. My life is very busy and this forum is one tiny part of that busy life so I spaced it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

And this is happening here and now in the UK as our government maps out our green utopia

Soaring green energy taxes could force firms out of UK as industry becomes uncompetitive | Mail Online

Industry will become increasingly uncompetitive due to soaring green energy taxes, according to the Government’s own advisers. A shocking report has found UK manufacturers’ electricity bills are already significantly higher than those in other leading nations due to climate change levies. By the end of the decade, our green taxes will be double those in other EU nations and dozens of times higher than those in the US.
Industry groups said the report was ‘extremely worrying’ and could force firms abroad, where regulations are less stringent. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) report looked at the iron and steel, aluminium, cement and chemicals industries in 11 countries, most of which have renewable energy policies.

These energy-intensive industries directly employ 600,000 in Britain and contribute nearly £50billion a year to the economy. Firms will be forced to pay an extra £28.30 in green taxes on top of the market price they pay for every megawatt hour of electricity by 2020 due to climate policies, according to the report by an independent firm. This compares with £15.70 in Denmark, renowned for its renewable energy drive, £15.20 in France, £17.30 in Germany, £10 in China and a fall in the US and Russia.

Terry Scuoler, chief executive of manufacturers’ organisation EEF, said: ‘This report provides clear, independent evidence supporting concerns we have long put to government – that UK manufacturers in energy-intensive sectors are paying more for their electricity than many global and European competitors.’ He said the report showed ‘a mismatch between intent and reality’, given ministerial assurances that costs would not be loaded on to hard-pressed businesses. Ian Rodgers, director of UK Steel, said: ‘The findings paint an extremely worrying picture for the UK’s steel industry. UK Government policy is making it more expensive to do business in the UK.’

The Government has committed to cutting carbon emissions by 80 per cent, compared with 1990 levels, by 2050. Last May India’s Tata Steel announced 1,500 job cuts in the UK, which it put down to the impact of expensive climate policies

This is why taxation as a penalty only hurts those subject to the tax, while helping those not subject to that tax. Of course, in the U.S., we now tax wages and subsidize out-of-wedlock childbirth. Some things you just can't explain.

 

[iliveonramen]

I see that possibility, yet unless alternative energy was truely economically viable (and able to meet the actual energy demand) then the "pollution" tax must be so massive that it would hurt the overall economy (of those subject to it). Another thought about using taxation as a penalty for polluting, is that its true cost is not on really born by the energy producer but merely passed on to the customers (users) of that energy. Your point about increased energy costs reducing demand, by making energy efficiency more important is the best case for that method, yet many are unable to afford to "upgrade" to the more efficient vehicle/appliance simply because they have nothing left over after paying their higher utility bill caused by the new tax.

All are good criticisms of a carbon tax. It's not perfect but it's something that's pretty much agreed to as a good efficient method to make changes to energy consumption.

yet unless alternative energy was truely economically viable (and able to meet the actual energy demand) then the "pollution" tax must be so massive that it would hurt the overall economy (of those subject to it).

That's true, which is why you would slowly ramp up the cost over time at predetermined intervals rather than just pass some massive carbon tax on day one. It would allow users of fossil fuels to make long term plans and would also allow time for the development of better technology. If based on an escalating carbon tax the price of burning energy would pretty much reach the cost of alternate sources in say....10 years don't you believe there would be massive investment in alternative sources? Not to mention there would be plans for mass production. One of the issues with competing with fossil fuels is that it's going to be low for the foreseeable future.

Another thought about using taxation as a penalty for polluting, is that its true cost is not on really born by the energy producer but merely passed on to the customers (users) of that energy.

This is true but the main reason is it's just more efficient and easier. You would't want to tax say US producers and allow foreign producers to bypass the tax and provide lower prices.

yet many are unable to afford to "upgrade" to the more efficient vehicle/appliance simply because they have nothing left over after paying their higher utility bill caused by the new tax.

This is a problem as well...a carbon tax isn't a silver bullet and things would have to be worked out. Are there subsidies for cars with higher mpg? Are there subsidies to help install solar panels on your roof? How much of the carbon tax would go for...say tax reductions in other areas and how much used to support the shift to alternate methods.

The main reason I like the carbon tax is that it's direct, it's something you can use to slowly make changes.

 

[iliveonramen]

I have to wonder if you would be on board with this carrot stick approach by government if they had come to some conclusion on a subject that you disagreed with. To me this kind of power being wielded by a government is a scary thing. It sets a precedent for them to decide how we will live based on punishment and reward.

Nobody likes being told what to do. Nobody likes to be punished or rewarded by some entity outside of themselves. If carbon is causing warming though....I find it difficult to find any reason that is more justified. I mean...this whole thread supposes that carbon is heating the earth. That everyone 20 years from now will be living with the consequences and in 50 years at the pace we're going the earth may experience very large changes. That's kind of a big deal.

 

[iliveonramen]

I've used my own country as the example of how not to do it. Taxing CO 2 emissions would appear to be an example you would wish the US to follow nonetheless.

Believe me you are dead wrong !

It seems like a lot of policies passed by your government are well beyond a carbon tax based on your posts.