Not necessarily. But if you do use it, it actually runs the other way.
Posted on 02/07/2007 11:35:13 AM PST by cogitator
End of the editorial:
... "What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries -- rich and poor -- to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change.
Meanwhile, we could temper our energy appetite. I've argued before for a high oil tax to prod Americans to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. The main aim would be to limit insecure oil imports, but it would also check CO2 emissions. Similarly, we might be better off shifting some of the tax burden from wages and profits to a broader tax on energy or carbon. That would favor more fuel-efficient light bulbs, appliances and industrial processes.
It's a debate we ought to have -- but probably won't. Any realistic response would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular. That's one truth too inconvenient for almost anyone to admit."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Not necessarily. But if you do use it, it actually runs the other way.
"It took 911 to get us to act seriously against Muslim fundamentalism."
When did "we" start acting seriously against muslim fundamentalism?
Washington, Feb. 7, 2007 - Pepco, power supplier to the Nation's Capital, set an unofficial record winter peak demand as customers awoke to frigid temperatures and pushed up thermostats to combat the hard freeze gripping the region.Customers demanded 5,639 megawatts of electricity at 7:22 a.m., breaking a new winter peak set only last night at 7 p.m. The previous winter peak of 5,461 MW was recorded Jan. 23, 2003. A final, official tabulation could result in a slight adjustment in the amount of power consumed by customers.
Pepco's all-time record peak demand is 6,947 MW set Aug. 3, 2006.
Pepco encourages its customers to use energy efficiently to keep their homes and businesses warm. Heating costs can account for 25 percent to 50 percent of a home's total energy expense.
Pepco, a subsidiary of Pepco Holdings, Inc. (NYSE:POM), delivers safe, reliable and affordable electric service to nearly 750,000 customers in Maryland and the District of Columbia.
How many would freeze to death if they couldn't afford the Carbon Tax?
In part, but there is nothing to prevent the gummint masters from imposing extra taxes to "make up" the "lost" revenue (into their coffers).
Of course, there is also the problem of people finding ways to circumvent the taxes - i.e.: tax shelters that disappear when the marginal rates are appropriately decreased.
JMHO
Rushing off to fix a problem by radical and expensive means is stupid, before the problem is understood enough to know what and how the fix will improve things...
Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%
Oh yeah, that'd work.
All these problems are related and are due to the population explosion and concomitant huge increase in energy use and industrial by-products. Clearly, we're stressing our environment. Something could break anywhere...
No. User fees and taxes feel just the same in my wallet. And I doubt the economics of this - we recently saw at $1/gallon run-up in gasoline prices, but demand only dampened slightly.
Plus I thought I paid a "user fee" when I bought the gasoline.
I'll believe the enviros are serious about global warming when they quit talking about taxes and start talking about taking the handcuffs off nuclear power.
Oh, I would say our conquests of Afghanistan and Iraq were serious actions. Whether they were serious enough is for another thread.
That's enough nonsense from Anne Applebaum right there. The chick is dumber than a bag of hammers.
I don't know about taxing the energy, or some other stuff. What really is necessary, I think, is the development of new energy sources for two main reasons: first and foremost - in the current political climate - freeing up the West from the dependence on Middle Eastern oil.
The dependence on ME oil is producing two anomalies:
Yeah, that famine in North America that was supposed to happen in the 1980s sure was brutal...
I'm not saying I advocate a carbon tax unless I saw a real plan. But I respect the authors' arguments for one.
Your source is not expressing the problem correctly. The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the beginning of the Industrial Age is almost entirely due to fossil fuel use, and that's the cause of the concern.
Yes, it could. Katrina stretched things quite a bit for awhile. How soon we forget $3.49/gal -- or higher.
Total agreement noted.
Just who is going to be hurt the most by a fuel tax? Think about it. It sure isn't going to be the well off. Freeking increasing taxes will do nothing but fund more pork projects for congress, and that is it!
True, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is a bad thing. The real reason that CO2 has been demonized is that we've succeeded in reducing the real pollutants to the point that the enviro lobby needs a new scapegoat.
Maybe? We have been spending billions on "energy efficiency" since the Nixon administration and the first "oil crisis." I see no sign that all of that spending has resulted in "conservation".
Also go to Econ-101. The more efficient something is, the more it will be utilized. Automobiles are far more energy efficient than they were 50 years ago and adjusted for inflation, gasoline prices are at about the same level as the 1950s. The result is we can drive more miles for the same amount of real dollars today as we did in the 1950s --- and because we can drive more miles, we do.
Another example. In most older cities, the very large 5 bedroom 19th Century Victorian houses became far to expensive to heat for most families so these houses were often broken apartments that spread the heating costs across multiple rental units. Then, along came energy efficient building materials, and what do we see happening? People building very large 5 bedroom McMansions that cost the same to heat as older 3 bedroom ranch houses.
So was the end of days predicted about 2000 years ago...
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.