How about abortion credits? Maybe the market will take care of that too?
Not just an opinion, a stupid opinion.
Not that it would make a difference to him.
No.
The stupid is strong in this one. Scientists could use the inside of his head to perform experiments in a vacuum.
Stop exhaling if you believe CO2 is a dangerous pollutant.
Problem solved.
How about fake legacy news media credits?
The fee would impose a price on fossil fuels as they are extracted from the ground, at the mine, or wellhead. All the funds collected go into one pot, which would be distributed monthly as a dividend to every household in the country.
***********************************
Thinly disguised communism.
If taxes are your answer you are asking the wrong questions.
Simply: a tax like this is a benefitless cost ... it increases inefficiencies, funds those who consume resources without producing goods and services, and contributes to ACCELERATING the use of energy and resources by directing them away from where they actually help and advance human welfare.
...Because Mark Reynolds apparently thinks that before man came along, the climate was "stable."
(sigh).....once again.....
IT’S NOT A MARKET BASED SOLUTION IF YOU ARE SCREWING WITH IT TO ACHIEVE A DESIRED OUTCOME!!!
No. You can’t say “carbon tax”, o Philly Inquisitor! You have to be more specific. Do you really mean JUST Co2, but are too stupid to say that? Or do you mean ALL carbon. Hmm. Carbon can form complex molecules, and is found in the compounds that are part of living organisms. Is that what they mean?
Then you’ll be taxing my dog’s pups when she has them.
Q: Why collect the fee in the first place if you are going to redirect it back to households.
A: well we won't redirect all of it back to households.
Q: So you're skimming off the top?
A: No - of course not. We will invest a certain percentage into green projects.
Q: You mean green projects like those we hear about that go into bankruptcy?
A: No. We will use a portion of the carbon fees to send to the green companies so they no longer go bankrupt.
Q: So you skim off the top to send to your political donors?
A: No. Of course not.
Q: But of the amount left you will send to each household an amount that varies depending on how much they paid in carbon fees?
A: Well not exactly. We will send each household the same amount. Otherwise it would not be fair.
Q: So how is this different from communism?
A: It's not. But we will implement communism better than other countries have because we are smarter.
Q: You mean you are smarter because you come from European heritage?
A: No. We are smarter because only smart people believe in socialism and communism.
Q: OK. I see.
Yes, it probably would. But what it overlooks is that C02 is NOT a greenhouse gas and is not responsible for atmospheric warming. I've read many books by real experts, not junk science zealots, who spell it out clearly: atmospheric C02 rises some 600 to 800 years on average *after* warming occurs. There are many causes for global warming and cooling that are not dream't of in Algore's philosophy.
Prepare a whopping yuge tax bill addressed to the Sun. Stamp the envelope “COVFEFE” and make sure to wrap it in heat resistant material. Load it onto a rocket that shoot that bad boy right at Old Sol. Good luck to yee.
So basically, just give taxes to the government, and at that point let the problem take care of itself!
Which is consistent with the whole goal of the climate change hoax! It’s all about $ being transferred from citizens to the governing class.
DUH!. Maybe we can use the bonus to pay for the higher oil prices.
Stupid idiots. A politically motivated and mandated tax is not a “market”, it’s a political scheme, attempting to do what actual science, technology and natural markets will not.