Replies

If a carbon tax were collected, segregated, and returned to taxpayers in proportion to the amount of tax they paid, it would depress the use of carbon without side effects.

There’s two obvious problems here:

1) That would NEVER happen. Once the tax is collected, the government will waste it in new and unproductive ways, so you can’t separate the carbon regulating function from the growth of government.

2) It’s probably un-necessary and foolish, as AGW is not proven; the data has been politicized and manipulated; and... I’d keep going, but I’ve got to go shovel more snow.

Contrary to your ill spoken “without side effects” there would be enormous effects if the use of carbon was depressed. The reason we use carbon based fuels is because the are abundant, cheap, and efficient which is why a tax is needed to force people to use something else. To be effective at depressing carbon usage the tax must be higher than the extra cost of using an alternative for it to be effective.

Why higher? Because in order to make, distribute, and consume this “no side effects” alternative an enormous investment must be made. That investment in manufacturing new fuels, distributing them, and building new devices that can use these new sources is enormous and must be paid.

Liberals have many many no side effects solutions. Obama even one ups your “no side effects” and claims the switch away from carbon creates wealth and jobs. He is correct and Algorilla and Tom Steyner are getting rich but at our expense.