tailgater
9 years ago

Of course it can jj... but just because it's an opportunity for govt to tax doesn't mean it shouldn't.... (?)

There are certain things government control and taxes are well suited for... ensuring a user of a common resource realizes the cost of that resource is one of them, and governing the exploitation of common resources is another.

The amount of taxation and control is debatable... but air... moving water... the long term use of the planet... these are arguably common resources.

victor809 wrote:



We can have regulations and taxes on "common resources" without a non-debatable climate pandemic threatening us.
In fact, I agree with most efforts to maintain a cleaner environment. From litter, to toxic waste, to better emissions and clean energy. There are a multitude of valid reasons to push these programs without the algore hockey stick being shoved up our collective azzes.



tailgater
9 years ago

I agree we should tax pollution but let's start by taxing imports from foriegn countries that pollute ie China , India , Mexico et al . That would help keep us companies competitive and allow for more pollution controls .

One example Iknow of is the paper industry. 25 years ago my uncle who sells paper to everything from printers, to box manufacturers almost any industry that uses paper sold 95 % domestic paper the imported paper was usually specialty paper made in Europe for food and medical uses . Now almost 50 % of the paper is imported because the paper can't be made here as cheap . Not because of the labor but the environmental regulations made the companies here less profitable than Chinese imports . We can produce the paper here with better productivity ( ie more production per employee ) but not as economically due to the cost of the environmental control . I'd love to see more environmentally made paper here but not at the cost of importing paper from countries that can just dump the pollution into the rivers . Dioxin ,chlorine, carbon ( atmospheric and organic l )and acids all by products of paper . In the us we control how much they can emit and some of the byproducts have been converted to salable commodities. From activated carbon hydrogen sulfide . That's an example of environmental on troll that produced economic benifits but it still doesn't cover the cost of complying. . Why use the carrot of free trade when the stick of economic tariffs ? If the us andt EU Britain also would stick together then those countries would pollute less .

Covfireman wrote:



This.

victor809
9 years ago
I heard tail wants Al Gores to stick a hockey stick up his.... tail...
dstieger
9 years ago
sounds like a very reasonable 'want'
tailgater
9 years ago

I heard tail wants Al Gores to stick a hockey stick up his.... tail...

victor809 wrote:



No.
But I'd like to take his wife and "tipper" over...
Brewha
  • Brewha
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
9 years ago

Nice deflection.
You rant on in dozens of posts, laying down facts and figures to make your point. You've done this in two different threads.
But when asked for specific details that might justify the government intervention, you determine that I won't consider it credible.

tailgater wrote:


In fairness I asked WHO you would believe, since the agencies and countries sited so far have not passed the sniff test.

You didn't like the data from NOAA, who would you trust?
Brewha
  • Brewha
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
9 years ago

you get off on being as condescending as you can
even when unprovoked

must be quite the burden to be that much smarter than everyone else

gummy jones wrote:


It's my manner.
It seems condesending but it really isn't.


....I supposed I could be wrong.....
Brewha
  • Brewha
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
9 years ago

My (step) FIL is a Midwest corn crop consultant....I tried to have a rational discussion about ethanol with him....I'd have rather been trying to reason with Brew and Fuzz.....FIL wasn't exactly swayed by my eloquent, scientific and economic based arguments

dstieger wrote:


Not sure where you think I stand on Ethanol - but this seems to give it a thumbs down in a reasonable manner:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2014/04/20/its-final-corn-ethanol-is-of-no-use/#2e538fb22ca2 

ZRX1200
9 years ago
For Immediate Release:
April 19, 2016

Contact:
Craig Richardson
[email protected]
703-981-5553

E&E Legal Releases Updated ‘Energy Poverty’ Video to Remind World Leaders Gathering at the UN on ‘International Mother Earth Day’ to Sign the Paris Treaty that ‘Climate’ Policies Contained in the Agreement Hurt and Kill the Most Vulnerable

Washington, D.C. (April 19, 2016) – This Friday, April 22nd, in a signing ceremony scheduled to coincide with the day that a 2009 UN Resolution declared as ‘International Mother Earth Day’, nearly 150 political leaders will meet in New York City at the United Nations to sign the Paris Climate Treaty. The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) has released an updated video (below) to help the public understand the terrible consequences for the poor and most vulnerable of this treaty, which replaces the failed Kyoto Protocol.

Falsely described as “not a treaty” in the U.S., as a dare to the Senate in hopes of avoiding the constitutional treaty process, the Paris Climate Treaty is being ratified by legislatures in other countries around the world as the treaty that it is
. It demands policies that are in fact already killing the most vulnerable by the tens of thousands.

“The cruelest and most hypocritical aspect of the ‘climate change’ policies advocated by the Paris treaty — outside of the millions of dollars in jet fuel, gasoline, electricity, and other precious resources being expended to attend the event by those screaming the loudest for energy scarcity — is that these policies are understood to offer no detectable impact on the earth’s temperature, even by their proponents” said E&E Legals General Counsel David Schnare, a thirty-three year veteran of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Worse still is that these ‘climate’ policies have already been tried in Europe, resulting in skyrocketing electric bills, devastating and in far, far too many cases killing the most vulnerable as documented in our video.”

The video features news coverage from Europe, where President Obama used to tell Americans to look if they want to see how these policies will work, yet whose experiences he curiously no longer suggests we examine. That change-of-strategy notwithstanding, we echo Mr. Obama’s now-abandoned call: look to Europe if you want to see the U.S.’s future should the Paris Climate Treaty get U.S. Senate approval and actually become law.

These headlines, from newspapers of all stripes, left-wing groups and social service organizations decry what they acknowledge is the “scandal” of these many premature deaths, generally from hypothermia. Unlike computer-prophesied scenarios of the future, these deaths are real, they are occurring now in dramatically increasing numbers each winter. They are a direct, disgraceful result of government policies in the name of a fashionable cause that we know cannot rationally be what it purports to be, given these policies have no projected climate impact.

This campaign to promote the environmentalists’ energy agenda turns morality on its head, and the public needs to know what, it seems, many advisers are apparently unwilling to let on. The evidence is clear and continued ignorance of the truth should no longer be tolerated.

“It’s appropriate that the promoters of such a cruel, yet somehow fashionable agenda are meeting in New York City on ‘International Mother Earth Day,'” said Craig Richardson, E&E Legal’s Executive Director. “New York City is also the home of the Rockefellers, who have been bankrolling some form of ‘climate’ scare for at least 30 years with their vast fortunes ironically made in petroleum, as well as Michael Bloomberg and native son Tom Steyer, who join with others whose billions are now (surprise!) aligned with the biggest winners from these failed and heartless ‘climate policies, like the renewable energy industries.”

The Energy & Environment Legal Institute (E&E Legal) is a 501(c)(3) organization engaged in strategic litigation, policy research, and public education on important energy and environmental issues. Primarily through its petition litigation and transparency practice areas, E&E Legal seeks to correct onerous federal and state policies that hinder the economy, increase the cost of energy, eliminate jobs, and do little or nothing to improve the environment.
Brewha
  • Brewha
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
9 years ago
E&E are energy industry mouth pieces. These are the guys who are paid by the Koch brothers to think up mis-information like "clean coal".

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Energy_%26_Environment_Legal_Institute 


So, when their article refers to "Left wing extremist", are they talking about China or Russia?


😂
tailgater
9 years ago

In fairness I asked WHO you would believe, since the agencies and countries sited so far have not passed the sniff test.

You didn't like the data from NOAA, who would you trust?

Brewha wrote:



You seem well learned.
Why don't you provide basic percentages:
How much climate change is caused by man.
How much of man's influence is fossil fuels.

Nobody seems willing to address this.
Which means we either don't know, or the percentage is low.

And even if it's low, it begs an honest discussion.

But asking for these figures, which should form the entire foundation for all discussion, one gets labeled as a denier.

Brew, this is ALL about the money. The ability to tax A, but not B. So they chase A as the cause.
And A most certainly is one of the causes, which makes data manipulation easy.

Only a preconceived conclusion would so readily dismiss the steady ice levels in the antarctic.
Only a paid-for tax-friendly conclusion would ignore ice core data that didn't match the Temp/CO2 sequence.

I don't believe in conspiracy. But I do know that money talks. And government money is the best at it.

victor809
9 years ago
Tail... why do you assume it's all about money? Coincidentally the aspects a government tax are also the aspects which it has the ability to effect change.

You can make the claim "it's just about money " on anything a government tries to implement a change, because that's how governments influence behavior.

ZRX1200
9 years ago
Doesn't change the fact they're trying to avoid the treaty process homeslice.
tailgater
9 years ago

Tail... why do you assume it's all about money? Coincidentally the aspects a government tax are also the aspects which it has the ability to effect change.

You can make the claim "it's just about money " on anything a government tries to implement a change, because that's how governments influence behavior.

victor809 wrote:



There are at least 100 things that contribute to climate change. Natural and man induced.
Only one of these can successfully be taxed.
I don't believe in coincidence.



victor809
9 years ago
Again. My point would be... and how many of those can be impacted by government?

Gonna guess the answer you have is 1.

tailgater
9 years ago

Again. My point would be... and how many of those can be impacted by government?

Gonna guess the answer you have is 1.

victor809 wrote:



It's funny how you and Brew have attacked me with questions rather than addressing mine. Especially since the "settled science" and world wide consensus should have a very identifiable and clear cut figure to show man's fossil fuel impact on mother nature.

This thread has become a microcosm of the climate debate.

And in response to your question above, the answer is 1 significant thing (fossil fuel use). Taxing fossil fuels is easy peazy.
Carbon credits is a case study in follow-the-money.
Government can control this, regardless of whether fossil fuels can control climate change, or to what degree.
Which has been my point all along.

opelmanta1900
9 years ago
You made good points tail... it is disturbing that people who consider themselves scientifically minded don't feel like they need scientific evidence to back up scientific claims...
victor809
9 years ago
Note what I'm saying...
Tails assertion that it's only about $$ is unsupportable simply because a venn diagram of things a government can change and things a government can tax is a single circle. This has nothing to do with climate change itself... more to do with claims that simply cannot be substantiated.
tailgater
9 years ago

Note what I'm saying...
Tails assertion that it's only about $$ is unsupportable simply because a venn diagram of things a government can change and things a government can tax is a single circle. This has nothing to do with climate change itself... more to do with claims that simply cannot be substantiated.

victor809 wrote:



Single circle?

First you can't provide a general pie chart (well, it was Brewha, but you two are interchangeable pieces for the sake of argument. Although Brew doesn't kick homeless dudes that we know of).
Now you use venn diagrams to confuse a simple point.

Things that are taxable that the government CAN'T change (or control):
Death
Profits
Loss
Marriage
Chldren
etc.

Single circle? In a myopic world, perhaps.

What you meant to say (if I may be so bold) is that of the hundreds of factors that impact climate, the government will only tax those that can be controlled to some extent.
And on this I agree. So it might be a circle within a circle.

Either way, if the circle of things under our control is just a dot within the climate change circle, then it shouldn't be treated like it's the entire circle. Which you obviously do, else you wouldn't have made that sciency fopar.



tailgater
9 years ago
And I think I just helped Victor win a bet with TW, on who was going to get into a circle jerk with me first...

Users browsing this topic