Skip to comments.Why We Still Need a Carbon Tax
Posted on 09/28/2012 8:45:20 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
.... I am a proponent of carbon taxes. One criticism of this policy that you hear, for instance here from Noah Smith, is that they are pointless because you need international cooperation to make a real dent. But among non-tradeable goods this is not really the case. We dont have to worry about transportation shifting abroad, since you cant really outsource driving your car or shipping a package. And this matters, as transportation accounts for 70% of U.S. fuel consumption, and 30% of U.S. greenhouse gases.
But even if carbon taxes are problematic, surely higher gas taxes are a good idea. In his Pigou Tax paper Mankiw cites on study that shows of the $2.10 optimal tax on gasoline, only 6 cents was due to global warming. The rest came from other externalities like congestion and accidents.
Gas taxes also show us that international coordination is possible, and that the U.S. is simply failing to coordinate with other developed countries. .....
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
"Other developed countries", which ones imposed a carbon tax and enjoyed booming economy growth?
Stupid ideas. Carbon dioxide and Nitrous Oxides are valuable commodities, if you recognize and use them as such. Pumping them underground is a stupid waste.
Algae based biodiesel can be downright simple, and with the addition of CO2 and NOx gases, the algae grows much, much faster. Some types of algae are 50% vegetable oil by weight.
Squeeze out the oil, mix it with ethanol and lye, as a catalyst, then filter it, add 1% petroleum diesel as a preservative, and bingo you have biodiesel. The leftover algae makes good animal fodder.
You can use gray (non-potable) waste water, even before the first drop of biodiesel is produced it is profitable, because it is expensive as hell to dispose of CO2 and NOx otherwise. There are a vast number of diesel engines on the road right now, from motorcycles to cars and trucks to trains, and even ships. Minor modification and they work fine with it.
South of the Mason-Dixon, continual production is probably good for 10 months out of the year.
Add it all up: waste disposal, minimal infrastructure, small resource demand, existing engines and diesel pumps, and it probably even beats gasoline as being efficient.
I think most of us would rather live next to an oil well than the algae pond that will produce anything close to the equivalent. YMMV...
Carbon credits are a financial scheme. No wonder Forbes is for the Carbon Tax.
Raise the price of energy and you raise the price of everything.
Energy is how you multiply human effort. It is the basic building block of wealth. Jacking the cost of it puts your thumb directly on a country’s carotid artery. Freedom, rule of law, and abundant energy are fundamental for building prosperity.
surely higher gas taxes are a good idea.
i noticed several weird articles from Forbes this past week.
but this, by far, is the most insane!
1) Global warming is a hoax.
2) higher taxes are bad for everyone, except politicians.
Absolutely. It does three things. Since absolutely everything you do generates carbon, it gives government veto power over every area of your life.
And it gives people who create nothing a percentage of everything you create.
And it is a world-class money laundering scheme that puts every other money laundering scheme to shame. The Madoffs of the world dealt in millions and occasionally billions. The carbon credit scammers will deal in trillions.
All central planners must be utterly destroyed (metaphorically speaking, not calling for violence)
Aye, it’s a rich mans con game.
If reducing fuel consumption is the goal, that's easy enough to accomplish, keep people too poor to drive.
But the goal of a tax is to bring in money and if a carbon tax really worked it would have to keep increasing just to maintain the same level of income.
Why this great enthusiasm for taking the few pennies I have left at the end of the month?
Trafficking in lines on paper to reduce a company or household’s tax burden. For a fee.
The gummit can’t manage social security, the most simple of all things the gummit does.
After all, it is nothing more than an annuity and there are thousands of investment managers that know how to do that.
Gummit can’t manage:
The post office....when the lowest ranking exec in UPS or FedX could.
And now we see what a mess they have made of foreign policy.
Can’t even tell the truth to people who already know the truth.
And we want to turn over more management duties to them?
Some people will never get it.
And to get to the heart of the matter, it has NOT been shown that man is heating up Earth’s environment or that man is capable of changing the weather by altering farming and production methods.
the hot air from academia, politically biased science, phony crony capitalist tax schemes, and the entire Left wing of politics are more responsible than ANYTHING else for “global warming”
just reduce the “carbon footprint” of everything they do, day in and day out, of their entire existence, and peace and tranquility will reign again, including in the weather
no efficient economy needs any of them
Your entire premises is based on buying into THE TOTAL FRAUD AND POLITICAL SCAM that AGW/CO2 is going to destroy the planet therefore we need to do something to stop it. Yet your own leftist EPA head Lisa Jackson as admitted the CARBON TAX idea would not have any affect on stopping any warming you leftists think is occuring by man. The AGW/IPCC CO2 scam has been revealed to be nothing but a POLITICAL HIJACKING BY ANTI AMERICAN LEFTISTS to raise taxes and re-distribute our wealth as they see fit after taking their cut. There has not been one assertion proven that AGW is causing any additional warming or cooling that is not occuring naturally. NOT ONE.
It seems most Freeper responses to the global warming question are predicated on the idea that man-made climate change isn’t a real threat.
What if it was? What do we do?
It seems in that case, the conservative and prudent approach would be of three things:
1. Carbon taxes, with taxes reduced elsewhere.
2. Government-sponsored research into low-carbon energy generation, preferably through awards for private breakthroughs.
3. Doing pro-growth policies so the people of the future are wealthy enough to deal with whatever troubles climate change will cost.
#3 is a good idea anyway. #2 can have some great bang for the buck. #1 can’t be ruled out, though.
You know, this is the second article I have read by this Forbes writer in the last couple of weeks with a definite liberal slant. They either have a Trojan Horse in their midst at Forbes, or he is their token liberal, or they’ve been snookered into hiring a true lib. Wonder which it is.
Forbes is a self styled business magazine.
That is not this country any more.
“Your entire premises is based on buying into THE TOTAL FRAUD AND POLITICAL SCAM that AGW/CO2 is going to destroy the planet therefore we need to do something to stop it.”
reread what I said
you’ll see I was making a joke
I do not accept the AGW theory put out by the ICCP
my joke was in sugggesting that all the hot air from all the groups supporting AGW cretes GW and by eliminating 100% of their “carbon footprint” we’d solve the GW issue - IT WAS A JOKE!!!!!!!
The largest producers of NOX?
Want to shut them down?
Naah, let us blame the electric generators so that ratepayers can pay the hidden tax.
Sponsored by and lining the pockets of "algore enterprizes"
Companies and Corporations do not pay taxes, they pass the cost on to the consumer. When the price passed on becomes so high the consumer quits consuming the Company goes bust and more people are out of work.
Increasing taxes to companies is increasing taxes to us all.
It’s really not all that hard to understand.
Give the Government more money when it refuses to submit a budget for almost 4 years ?
Give it to the UN ?
The same UN that this country has been subsidizing since its inception ?
The UN who has NEVER been audited , even by its own investigators ?
Carbon Tax is an excuse for taxation ~ not controlling Greenhouse gases !
Methane is known to be 25 X - 30 X more destructive , than carbon gases.
Methane is naturall leeching into the atmosphere as the tundra warms up. There are bubbleing pools in Sibera of water and methane .
To ignore methane is to ignore reality !
The carbon issue is a Red Herring ; if you want to do something constructive to slow global climate change or warming , control methane .
Carbon tax is a means of controling industrialization , and wealth redistribution through sales of ‘carbon credits’ (now being sold through Al Gore ). Enough said ..
First, thanks for the thoughtful post. But.
We have had too many government run ‘policies’ already, based on ‘sound scientific data at the time’ let alone ‘what ifs’, that created far more problems later on than what the original policy intented to solve.
There is no rational base to promote global policy change for such garbage as man-made climate change.
One plus is that they could be put out in the boonies, on poor land not worth farming. The water cannot be open to the air, however, or else other strains of algae would contaminate it.
Years ago, they set up wide clear laminate tubes to carry the water and algae at MIT, and even in the weak light of Massachusetts, and just bubbling with CO2, not NOx, the algae grew at a tremendous clip.
In the southern US, the biggest problem would be to keep the water from getting too warm, so they would need to set up cooling towers.
All this is about, in the end, is to establish a tax on breathing.
Those that can’t pay the breathing tax... are to be “indentured” (made slaves of) those who can and will pay it “for them”
Wuli, I was addressing the Forbe’s article author. I did understand your’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.