Page 198 of 198 FirstFirst ... 98148188194195196197198
Results 1,971 to 1,975 of 1975

Thread: Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

  1. #1971
    Senior Member Raffy.Roma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Rome (Italy)
    Posts
    2,380
    Quote Originally Posted by flashflood View Post
    It's possible that a Carbon Tax would be a net positive, and I'd gladly trade it for the income tax, but I wouldn't underestimate the law of unintended consequences.
    Maybe that you are right but we don't have time, the transition from fossil fuels based energy to renewables based energy has got to be done as soon as possible. That's why a Carbon Tax is needed.

    Our TMC Member Leilani is fighting to get a complete transition from fossil fuels to renewables based energy in the USA within 2050. That's the way it should be.
    PLEASE NOTE: Posts are the copyrighted intellectual property of the author and are intended as part of a conversation within this forum. My words may NOT be quoted outside this forum without my expressed consent.

  2. #1972
    Model S VIN P01536 Robert.Boston's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Portland, Maine, USA
    Posts
    5,766
    Quote Originally Posted by flashflood View Post
    It's possible that a Carbon Tax would be a net positive, and I'd gladly trade it for the income tax, but I wouldn't underestimate the law of unintended consequences.
    I favor the form of the carbon tax that is revenue neutral: all carbon sources are taxed at the source (minehead, wellhead, port of entry, etc.) and all revenues are distributed equally among holders of Social Security numbers. Of course there will be winners and losers, but I don't see material unintended consequences. The consequences are very easy to see:

    On the primary energy side, demand for fossil fuels will decline, and with it employment in those sectors. Conversely, demand for renewable energy and employment in that sector will rise. Fortunately, the renewable power sector is more employment-intensive than the oil, gas, and mining sectors, so the net impact on employment would be positive. (Foreseeable consequence: unemployed drillers may not have the skills needed to get jobs in the new green sector.) Some fraction of the carbon tax will be passed on in the form of higher energy costs, but some will be absorbed by shareholders of the affected firms (consistent with the long literature on tax incidence).

    On the consumer side, individuals and companies will see higher energy bills, but consumers will have more income. By construction, the typical individual will have more money from the carbon tax receipts than his or her costs: in part, because less than 100% of the tax cost is rolled into prices, and in part because the median consumer has a lower-than-average carbon footprint. (Carbon consumption is skewed.) Individuals who have chosen a high-carbon way of life will be net losers, and this is the greatest potential source of concern from an equity point of view. The rancher in Montana who lives 300 miles from the nearest city doesn't have an easy option to move to Denver and walk to work. And a Model S powered by solar and wind may be out of his financial reach. Such important but relatively infrequent cases can be managed under the program, at least transitionally, and shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of pricing the true negative impacts of unconstrained GHG emissions on our environment.

  3. #1973
    Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter RichardC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert.Boston View Post
    I favor the form of the carbon tax that is revenue neutral: all carbon sources are taxed at the source (minehead, wellhead, port of entry, etc.) and all revenues are distributed equally among holders of Social Security numbers. Of course there will be winners and losers, but I don't see material unintended consequences. The consequences are very easy to see:

    On the primary energy side, demand for fossil fuels will decline, and with it employment in those sectors. Conversely, demand for renewable energy and employment in that sector will rise. Fortunately, the renewable power sector is more employment-intensive than the oil, gas, and mining sectors, so the net impact on employment would be positive. (Foreseeable consequence: unemployed drillers may not have the skills needed to get jobs in the new green sector.) Some fraction of the carbon tax will be passed on in the form of higher energy costs, but some will be absorbed by shareholders of the affected firms (consistent with the long literature on tax incidence).

    On the consumer side, individuals and companies will see higher energy bills, but consumers will have more income. By construction, the typical individual will have more money from the carbon tax receipts than his or her costs: in part, because less than 100% of the tax cost is rolled into prices, and in part because the median consumer has a lower-than-average carbon footprint. (Carbon consumption is skewed.) Individuals who have chosen a high-carbon way of life will be net losers, and this is the greatest potential source of concern from an equity point of view. The rancher in Montana who lives 300 miles from the nearest city doesn't have an easy option to move to Denver and walk to work. And a Model S powered by solar and wind may be out of his financial reach. Such important but relatively infrequent cases can be managed under the program, at least transitionally, and shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of pricing the true negative impacts of unconstrained GHG emissions on our environment.
    A revenue neutral carbon tax would be substantially stimulative as approximately 70 to 80% of lower income individuals will have a net increase in income (and will spend a very high percentage of the increase). S&P has identified the increasing concentration of wealth and income as a substantial impediment to economic growth. The combination of greater local spending, progressive taxation effects and the higher local labour input in renewable energy (replacing money sent offshore to various petro-states) should create very substantial benefits to the vast majority of the populace (but not to the fossil fuel industry).

  4. #1974
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Altos Hills, CA
    Posts
    229
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardC View Post
    A revenue neutral carbon tax would be substantially stimulative as approximately 70 to 80% of lower income individuals will have a net increase in income (and will spend a very high percentage of the increase). S&P has identified the increasing concentration of wealth and income as a substantial impediment to economic growth. The combination of greater local spending, progressive taxation effects and the higher local labour input in renewable energy (replacing money sent offshore to various petro-states) should create very substantial benefits to the vast majority of the populace (but not to the fossil fuel industry).
    My preference would be to replace the income tax instead, because it's so inefficient and so wildly unfair (because it's larded up with literally thousands of pages of loopholes for the well-connected). But given that our politics are wildly divergent and yet we still agree on the general principle of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, surely there's an achievable compromise.

  5. #1975
    Cdn Sig & Solar Supporter RichardC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by flashflood View Post
    My preference would be to replace the income tax instead, because it's so inefficient and so wildly unfair (because it's larded up with literally thousands of pages of loopholes for the well-connected). But given that our politics are wildly divergent and yet we still agree on the general principle of a revenue-neutral carbon tax, surely there's an achievable compromise.
    Evidence that progress is indeed possible!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Global Warming Consensus?
    By tonybelding in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2013-05-21, 12:28 AM
  2. Global Warming: Fact or Mass Hysteria?
    By tonybelding in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 2013-05-21, 12:25 AM
  3. California's new Global Warming label
    By graham in forum Cars and Transportation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2013-05-14, 02:16 PM
  4. Climate Change 101 for Spooks
    By malcolm in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2009-08-11, 02:56 PM
  5. BBC unfair in global warming show?
    By tonybelding in forum Energy, Environment, and Policy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2008-09-29, 11:09 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •