Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: disscutions and debates on obama and gillards pollicies

  1. #1 disscutions and debates on obama and gillards pollicies 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    this is a debate and discussion thread.

    to start of with, should jullia gillard go through with the carbon tax?
    should obama show his birth certificate?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    I don't see how anyone could advocate a carbon tax. It's just another way to give the government more power, and take away from the people. Energy already costs more by the regulations imposed, and I think we should focus on making power cleaner instead of more expensive juts to reduce consumption.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Huh, Democrats are not against Fourth of July celebrations, that's just a ridiculous assertion.
    "I almost went to bed
    without remembering
    the four white violets
    I put in the button-hole
    of your green sweater

    and how i kissed you then
    and you kissed me
    shy as though I'd
    never been your lover "
    - Leonard Cohen
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: disscutions and debates on obama and gillards pollicies 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    to start of with, should jullia gillard go through with the carbon tax?
    Yes. We need to change people's behavior in ways that reduce carbon emissions. Tying it to their wallets is one of the single fastest ways to do that, and also to inspire competition and creation of cleaner sources in parallel.

    I also agree that your suggestion about the left wing in the OP is a bit crazy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: disscutions and debates on obama and gillards pollicies 
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    to start of with, should jullia gillard go through with the carbon tax?
    I don't know the details, but in principle yes, a carbon tax is about the only straightforward way to get people to think about the future instead of focusing always on unsustainable growth.

    and is obama and the left wing party taking things to far?
    Obama is approximately as left wing as Eisenhower was.

    (e.g. left wing says '4th of july is only a celebration with a political agenda in the right wing policy.
    Specifically who said this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Your Mama! GiantEvil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Vancouver, Wa
    Posts
    2,310
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Obama is approximately as left wing as Eisenhower was.
    The current Republican party is so far fascist right that comparatively Eisenhower looks like a godless communist.
    If Eisenhower were here and POTUS today he would never capitulate to, nor even compromise with, them to the degree that unfortunately Obama has.
    Any modern Republican, or for that matter Democrat, who openly advocated a platform identical to Eisenhower's wouldn't last a day in their own party, but they would become a populist hero to the general electorate I believe.

    I like the idea of a carbon tax, but unfortunately it would be levied against individuals and there would be no enforcement of it for corporations.
    I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
    Lucky me. Lucky mud.
    -Kurt Vonnegut Jr.-
    Cat's Cradle.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    i did not say alldemocrats said that, but on the news, it was said by a small left group in harvord. as for the carbon tax, its just to create money. ther ios a rumor that people have nothing to do with global warming, and thats to make money.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    ther ios a rumor that people have nothing to do with global warming, and thats to make money.
    And that "rumor" is little more than a lie. Human activity is very much impacting our climate. This is a fact. Just because some people ignore that fact does not make it untrue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i did not say alldemocrats said that, but on the news, it was said by a small left group in harvord.
    So there is no connection between this alleged statement and Obama, yet you choose to link them in you opening post. Why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i did not say alldemocrats said that, but on the news, it was said by a small left group in harvord. as for the carbon tax, its just to create money. ther ios a rumor that people have nothing to do with global warming, and thats to make money.
    Read the actual study. There's not evidence the authors are leftist or against the 4th of July in any way. Their study just showed a strong connection between children viewing the 4th of July and them becoming republicans. This is not a surprise really. It should be no surprise that republicans are more successful at exploiting the emotionalism associated with patriotism and flag waving that borders on blind jingoism at times.
    http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-even...nagizawa-drott
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    this is a debate and discussion thread.

    to start of with, should jullia gillard go through with the carbon tax?
    and is obama and the left wing party taking things to far? (e.g. left wing says '4th of july is only a celebration with a political agenda in the right wing policy.
    Lewis; Ms. Gillard, I assume ran for PM (Australia) under some kind of "Man Caused Global Warming" agenda, much as Obama did in the US. Elections have consequences so folks from both Countries, will gain or suffer based on those consequences. Again in both cases, the voters apparently had no idea or didn't realize THEY were going to be effected with higher cost and all that's involved.

    I'm not clear how your linking "patriotism" with "taking things too far", but in the US it's being assumed the recent surged in patriotism is a Republican, probably "Tea Party", phenomenon. I'd suggest that movement, was a reaction to the realization the Federal Government under the US Constitution (State Sovereignty) and/or "Capitalism/Free Market" principles were being replaced by that Federal Government.

    And that "rumor" is little more than a lie. Human activity is very much impacting our climate. This is a fact. Just because some people ignore that fact does not make it untrue.
    inow; Granting humans and human activity does play a roll, why does it have to mean for the worse. By weight, I understand their is more "Ants/Termites", than mankind and I have no idea how much plant life weight there is and very much influences the environment.

    Forgetting the additional cost already imposed on people over the past 20+ years of this nonsense, most Nations today haven't got the resources to remotely change there own economical systems.

    I've been waiting for someone to answer this very simple question; What is the international plan and/or timeline for a viable international solution, STARTING with the highest, so called polluters?


    Read the actual study. There's not evidence the authors are leftist or against the 4th of July in any way. Their study just showed a strong connection between children viewing the 4th of July and them becoming republicans. This is not a surprise really. It should be no surprise that republicans are more successful at exploiting the emotionalism associated with patriotism and flag waving that borders on blind jingoism at times.
    LF; Since the 4th of July has been celebrated for generations, please explain how all those American Liberals have managed to evade the indoctrination? Patriotism itself in ones Nation is celebrated in most every Country and not very many of them compare in anyway, to the US...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    And that "rumor" is little more than a lie. Human activity is very much impacting our climate. This is a fact. Just because some people ignore that fact does not make it untrue.
    inow; Granting humans and human activity does play a roll, why does it have to mean for the worse.
    <snip>
    Forgetting the additional cost already imposed on people over the past 20+ years of this nonsense, most Nations today haven't got the resources to remotely change there own economical systems.
    Well, of course "better" and "worse" are subjective concepts, largely dependent upon the view of the perceiver. However, when the literature is reviewed objectively, it's not too difficult to make a case that the climate change will result in strongly negative outcomes. The increased energy in the climate system is likely to lead to extreme weather, more severe droughts and more intense floods, as well as limiting drinking water for large sections of the population, rising sea levels for coastal regions, and other similar outcomes like the accelerated loss of countless species and ecosystems.

    In short, if you take the way we live currently as a baseline, things are going to be really fucked up really soon, and there is going to be mass issues of refugees, suffering, and strife.

    I'd call that worse, but I suppose YMMV.



    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I've been waiting for someone to answer this very simple question; What is the international plan and/or timeline for a viable international solution, STARTING with the highest, so called polluters?
    Excellent question. Part of the challenge is that we've had to spend the last 30 years rebutting people who deny facts instead of focusing our energy on mitigation of the risk. There are many countries which have begun taking steps, but there is still much more to do. Unfortunately, there is such an entrenched notion that... as our OP put it... Global warming has nothing to do with people and it's all just a big scam to make money"... that we spend more time correcting people on basic facts than on taking action to improve our world.

    I'm encouraged that China has placed such a huge investment in green energy, and how many countries in the middle east are doing the same, but we still have a very long way to go, and things get worse with each second we delay (obviously, worse from my perspective... those who eagerly await apocalypse and the second coming of christ may see this all as a good thing... which gets back to my previous point about subjectivity).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    (1)Well, of course "better" and "worse" are subjective concepts, largely dependent upon the view of the perceiver.
    (2)However, when the literature is reviewed objectively, it's not too difficult to make a case that the climate change will result in strongly negative outcomes.
    (3)The increased energy in the climate system is likely to lead to extreme weather, more severe droughts and more intense floods, as well as limiting drinking water for large sections of the population, rising sea levels for coastal regions, and other similar outcomes like the accelerated loss of countless species and ecosystems.
    inow; (1) Correct and after living through a reasonably cold period, some in Alaska and Newfoundland (1957-60), I would think those folks would appreciate a warm up. However weather patterns have always changed, generally from year to year and in some places it's traumatic for those that live there. How many tornado's do you think bother ANYBODY in Europe, Asia or even South America. (2) Again negative is suggestive as most often is literature your reading. What you feel are negative outlooks, just might be positive to others or IMO not consistent with what little historical records we think we have. (3) I do agree the energy received, primarily from the sun (Solar activity) or lack of plays a role on weather patterns, but the minor amount of retention from CO2 is not the problem. Deserts have formed in many places long before man was around, just a tiny example.

    In short, if you take the way we live currently as a baseline, things are going to be really fucked up really soon, and there is going to be mass issues of refugees, suffering, and strife.

    I'd call that worse, but I suppose YMMV.
    The current baseline for what your describing is 7B people (never happened before) and if there is a breakdown in the Worlds Economic System, leading to mass distribution problems, you might see what you fear, but this has nothing to do with weather patterns.

    Excellent question. Part of the challenge is that we've had to spend the last 30 years rebutting people who deny facts instead of focusing our energy on mitigation of the risk. There are many countries which have begun taking steps, but there is still much more to do. Unfortunately, there is such an entrenched notion that... as our OP put it... Global warming has nothing to do with people and it's all just a big scam to make money"... that we spend more time correcting people on basic facts than on taking action to improve our world.
    Over the past 30 years, likely since man could first reason, dooms day advocates have preached the end of something to everything for all kinds of reasons, AGW reasonably new, just the latest fad where others with social agenda's have joined in, kind of a catch all. Pick you own historical time line, but almost every dooms day has come and gone without any problem.

    Countries that import energy, have tried to use alternatives, each with different levels of success. The problem has always been any action can cause a reaction. If you want to question those reactions, visit your local grocery...My question however remains unanswered, in that I'm looking for a conclusive and viable explanation on how all (nearly 200) Nations can be brought under one objective/tent to eliminate fossil fuels, with in a reasonable time line.

    I'm encouraged that China has placed such a huge investment in green energy, and how many countries in the middle east are doing the same, but we still have a very long way to go, and things get worse with each second we delay (obviously, worse from my perspective... those who eagerly await apocalypse and the second coming of christ may see this all as a good thing... which gets back to my previous point about subjectivity).
    China is not building 50 coal powered generation plants per year, buying up resources (not just energy) from anyplace on the planet that will sell to them or shipping as much Solar and Wind Energy parts around the world, they can produce, with AGW in mind. Do you really think many people are unconcerned about the future, simply because they won't be around?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Over the past 30 years, likely since man could first reason, dooms day advocates have preached the end of something to everything for all kinds of reasons, AGW reasonably new, just the latest fad where others with social agenda's have joined in, kind of a catch all. Pick you own historical time line, but almost every dooms day has come and gone without any problem.
    Jackson - I'm not talking doomsday. I'm sharing very realistic likelihoods. The fact that humans impact the climate in significant ways is a fact, not a fad. Closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and going "lala lalala la la... I can't hear you!" won't change that fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    My question however remains unanswered, in that I'm looking for a conclusive and viable explanation on how all (nearly 200) Nations can be brought under one objective/tent to eliminate fossil fuels, with in a reasonable time line.
    The answer is actually somewhat simple. Replace the need for hydrocarbon energy devices with cheaper, cleaner alternatives. People will tend to select the better option when it's presented to them, especially when that option has a lower cost. People don't need to be forced to do anything. They just need to have the right incentive. Cheaper, better, cleaner is a solid incentive for pretty much everyone, regardless of location, ideology, or economy.

    Where we run into ideological challenges is in the fact that we'd probably need to subsidize those alternatives during the early years with funds from something like a carbon tax.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    the carbon tax does not seem to benifit the public at all.
    i am starting a new thread soley on the carbon tax if anyone is interested.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    the carbon tax does not seem to benifit the public at all.
    One can only say this if they choose to take a VERY narrow, restrictive, and myopic view of what "benefits the public."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    inow, you have not given any proof to what you say, so i will ask you to pls stopo posting on my threads until you do so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    inow, you have not given any proof to what you say, so i will ask you to pls stopo posting on my threads until you do so.
    I am happy to support any of my comments. Where would you like me to begin?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    well, you say i am wrong, i ask you to prove that your right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    http://ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm
    here is a site that might supply some answers
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    well, you say i am wrong, i ask you to prove that your right.
    About which part? Are you asking me to demonstrate that there would, in fact, be benefits to the public if we implemented a carbon tax? If so, I am happy to do so, just need you to please first validate that I've understood your question correctly.

    Also, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say you were wrong. I said that one can only suggest that the carbon tax would have zero benefit to the public if they work from a very narrow, restrictive, and myopic view of "benefit to the public."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    i said that the carbon tax does not benifit the public becouse it does not solve anything. even if i didf believe in global warming, what would taxing the people achieve. what about the industries that produce carbon? it is just for money
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    even if i didf believe in global warming, what would taxing the people achieve.
    It would provide a monetary incentive for both people and companies to reduce their carbon emissions, and would also bring in more funds to motivate further expansion of green energy, including incentives, subsidies, and tax breaks. If people and companies reduce their carbon emissions, they would reduce their tax burden. The lower their carbon output, the lower their taxes. If they reduce their carbon emissions, it will also reduce the severity of the impact on the global climate.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i said that the carbon tax does not benifit the public becouse it does not solve anything.
    There is a good precedent in the CFC tax which "solved" the ozone depletion problem. But perhaps you don't believe in ozone depletion.

    even if i didf believe in global warming, what would taxing the people achieve.
    If gasoline costs more we will use less. If you don't believe in global warming then this means nothing to you and I hope you will soon come to realize your error.

    what about the industries that produce carbon? it is just for money
    Yes those industries are just for money; that is their legal reason for existence. If we reduce our consumption of their products their shareholders might lose a little but the world benefits in many ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    Americans spend way too much time imagining differences between the democrats and republicans. Bush was chastised for tax cuts to the rich, while the first thing Obama did when he took office was bail out the filthy rich investmant bankers that caused the economic meltdown. If anything Kennedy and Johnson were more warlike ( Bay of pigs, missile crisis, Vietnam, etc ) than Eisenhower ever was. One should look at their policies and not be polarised by their being republican or democrat, although lately the republicans do seem to have been hijacked by a bunch of wingnuts.

    As for carbon taxes, and this is not an acceptance or denial of global warming, I see them as a way to redistribute wealth, which is not the government's mandate. And they have failed abysmally in Europe. Rich countries, who are by definition the biggest users of carbon fuels, will just pay more to keep on using the same amounts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i said that the carbon tax does not benifit the public becouse it does not solve anything.
    There is a good precedent in the CFC tax which "solved" the ozone depletion problem. But perhaps you don't believe in ozone depletion.
    There's a very real chance that he's not even aware this ever occurred, since the bulk of the issue occurred before he was born.



    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Bush was chastised for tax cuts to the rich, while the first thing Obama did when he took office was bail out the filthy rich investmant bankers that caused the economic meltdown.
    Nope. Actually, Bush did that, too.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trouble...Relief_Program
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bailout...lated_programs



    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    As for carbon taxes, and this is not an acceptance or denial of global warming, I see them as a way to redistribute wealth, which is not the government's mandate.
    This comment can be applied to ALL taxes, and hence is fairly useless as a point of conversation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    And they have failed abysmally in Europe. Rich countries, who are by definition the biggest users of carbon fuels, will just pay more to keep on using the same amounts.
    It's actually had a fairly significant impact on behavior and purchasing decisions in Europe. Do you have any numbers to back up your point? Specifically, I'd like to see more about countries "using the same amounts" of carbon fuels despite higher costs. That seems to run counter to the evidence I found, and appears like another one of those myths we often encounter when the topic of AGW is raised.

    http://www.carbontax.org/myths/

    Usually what we see are exemptions and special loopholes preventing it from working as intended, flawed regulations for where the money goes and how it's traded, or that the tax is too low to have the needed effect, not the flat out failure of the system itself.



    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/10/bu.../10carbon.html
    Sweden has had such a tax in place since 1991, when the government imposed a tax equivalent to €28, or $41, for each ton of CO2 emitted. The Swedes currently levy a tax of €128 for each ton of CO2, although industries that are exposed to international competition are permitted to pay the tax at a lower rate.

    Emissions in Sweden would be 20 percent higher without the tax, yet the economy has still grown by 44 percent since it was put in place, said Susanne Akerfeldt, a senior adviser on tax issues at the Ministry of Finance in Stockholm.

    “We have found that our carbon tax is entirely compatible with economic growth,” she said.

    Denmark instituted its carbon tax a year after Sweden, while Finland, Norway, Switzerland and parts of Canada use similar systems, she said.


    http://www.economist.com/node/144603...ry_id=14460346
    As it is, Mr Sarkozy’s carbon tax has many exemptions. Heavy industry will not pay, on the ground that it is already contributing through Europe’s cap-and-trade system. Fishermen and farmers, who anyway pay far less tax on fuel than ordinary French consumers, will get special compensation. Moreover, by not taxing electricity at all, the government is sending a somewhat mixed message about what constitutes good green behaviour. In many ways, Mr Sarkozy’s new tax is more of a fuel tax than a real carbon tax.

    As an incentive to change behaviour, the tax rate also looks too low. Who will keep the car in the garage just because of an extra four cents a litre on petrol? Sweden’s carbon tax is levied at fully €108 per tonne of CO2, over six times the French rate. Earlier this year, an official carbon-tax commission, headed by Michel Rocard, a Socialist former prime minister, proposed a rate of €32, arguing that anything less would not change habits.

    Mr Sarkozy says that he will increase the tax rate in time. Indeed, this is what Sweden did, having started in 1991 with a lower carbon-tax rate of €26. “The truth is that if you start too high, you’ll never get it through,” says Dieter Helm, an environmental economist at Oxford University in Britain. “You can always raise it later.” Until then, a far greater incentive to reduce fuel consumption may turn out to be a quite separate plan—expected to be unveiled next week—for a generous cash subsidy to buy electric cars.


    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/rearvision/...11/3085312.htm
    I was involved in a Europe-wide study on the competitiveness effects of these instruments, and we could not find any effects on competitiveness of these taxes at all. We looked at it every which way, on a metric analysis, individual sectoral analysis, looking at the cost of inputs, looking at exports, looking at profit ratios from the ETR countries, the non-ETR countries; they really have not appeared to have any effect on the energy intensive industrial sectors at all. Whereas they have had a slightly positive effect on the economic performance of the countries that had introduced them overall.

    <...>

    And as I say, the macro-economic performance of the economy improved. So there were more jobs, GDP went up very slightly, and of course you'd expect there to be more jobs, because in almost every case the countries that introduced the carbon tax reduced the tax on jobs in compensation, so labour became cheaper, so employers hired more people. We were able to quantify that effect, and it amounted to several million jobs across Europe, if you take in the European labour market as a whole.

    <...>

    When I studied this I looked at it from 1990 to 2006. I looked at growth and CO2 emissions per capita in tons. And in Norway you actually have a slight increase in CO2 emissions despite this carbon tax, whereas in Denmark you have .14 ton per capita decrease in CO2 emissions over 1990 to 2006. I don't know if the number means anything to your listeners, but it's quite significant. It's the most that we've seen in any country in that period.

    And the main thing that I think is going on is that the Danish government made it very easy for Danish firms to substitute away from coal and towards other sources. It is clear to firms what they have to do. They have to give up coal, and they have to go into say national gas or wind, and that's the second thing that Denmark did, is at the same time that they put this carbon tax in place, they invested massively in wind power. So it isn't just the presence of the carbon tax that's important but also the presence of the alternative fuel, in this case, wind energy. I think they're up to over 20% of their electricity comes from wind energy now, and they're thinking it's going to be up to 50% in a few years. So I would say the element is having a substitute for coal. Investing in alternative energies, because without that, people are just going to continue to emit carbon dioxide and pay the tax. So you get a lot of tax revenue, but you don't really get reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

    <...>

    Businesses innovate either to save money or to make money, either to find new products which will find markets and make new markets, or to cut their cost. And if you increase the cost of a major input like energy, then you will change the direction of innovation, so that companies will start looking harder than they were before for energy saving innovations, or new products that use less energy, or perhaps don't use any energy at all, or use renewable energy, or whatever it may be. And it's certainly possible to see that high energy priced countries, not only do they not suffer competitively, but they have a much lower energy intensity in their economy and they have tended to be the innovators, in terms of energy-efficient appliances, energy-efficient motor cars. The most obvious example of that of course in the motor industry where the United States has very low petrol prices, and continue to make very gas-guzzling cars, whereas Europeans and Japanese car makers make much more efficient cars, and then when the oil price went up, in 2007, 2008, of course the American car makers were in big trouble because people started wanting energy-efficient cars.

    It works, but requires an alternative energy source to replace the carbon sources. The revenues collected can be invested into greener energies, and the cycle will self-reinforce to a large extent.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Just to add, a fairly nice report here:


    http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy10osti/47312.pdf

    • Finland started carbon tax program in 1990, emissions in 1998 were 7% lower than they would have been without the tax.
    • Netherlands also started in 1990, emissions went down by 2.7 metric tons annually in 2000.
    • Sweden started in 1991, emissions were reduced by about 15% from 1990 to 1996 because of the carbon tax, decreased by 9% from 1990 to 2006, and decreased by more than 40% from the mid-1970s to 2008.
    • Denmark started in 1992, emissions decreased by 15% per capita from 1990 to 2005.
    • The UK started in 2001, emissions decreased by more than 58 million metric tons CO2 from 2001 to 2005, and by 12.8 million metric tons CO2 per year (15% of commercial and public sector energy demand) in 2010.
    • Quebec started in 2007, emissions were reduced by 11.2 million metric tons C02 by end of 2011.
    One benefit of a carbon tax is that it continuously encourages emissions reductions, whereas a cap and trade system only encourages reductions to the point of the cap. Further, taxes are straightforward to administer and less subject to gaming. Taxes are also viewed as beneficial because the price is known, in contrast with a cap and trade system, which can create volatile prices, because of the unpredictable nature of supply, demand, and regulatory conditions (Nordhaus 2008). Also, taxes create revenue, which can be used to address distributional inequities by returning it to low-income consumers.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    what was said about the petrol prices, i don't see how that would help. raising petrol prices would start to run people out of the ability to drive. what would people do? buy electric cars? it would cost them and you don't find alot of places around to buy these cars. this would mean it would cost the car companies and the majority of them would not switch to selling electric cars, but would shut down a large amount of there stores.
    weather the goverment and presedent or PM is leftwing or rightwing does not make as much of a difference as there polcies. the only difference it does make, is you already have an idea of what some of those policies might be.

    even if i did believe in global warming, i still don't see why the people should be the ones to suffer. people will take what is given to them. and when supplied with so much carbon, they will use it. i bet that every one here has used carbon before. weather it be by using a car or somthing else, everyone has done it. and if you have not, or hardly do, you will still pay the same amount as everyone else.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    even if i did believe in global warming, i still don't see why the people should be the ones to suffer. people will take what is given to them. and when supplied with so much carbon, they will use it.
    There will be some people who face financial hardship as a result of a carbon tax. That is correct. However, you seem to be missing the bigger picture. If you're seeking to avoid suffering and resource constraints for large groups of people on this planet, then we need to look beyond the short term (next 1 to 2 years) and into the long term (next 20 to 50 years). We need to seriously curb our carbon emissions and get on to a greener path immediately if reduction of suffering and hardship is your goal. If we do not, then there will be a lot more people suffering in some significant ways in the long-term, and it will be several orders of magnitude higher than the few low income people who suffer from the tax in the short-term.

    Further, as several of my sources above have displayed, some of the revenues from those taxes can be shared to offset the burden on low income families. It won't be perfect, but it will certainly help.

    Additionally, you need to realize that the added cost burden will do much more than merely cause people to suffer. It will encourage innovation, new ideas, higher efficiency, new technology and new ways to do things without the need for dirty fuels. It will, in fact, drive the economy toward a more sustainable one where we pollute less, provide less of our income to terroristic countries, and will spur huge economic growth and new jobs in manufacturing.

    Again, I've already shared data above in support of my points. I merely ask that you read it and acknowledge it, instead of ignore it and continue making the same comments over and over again as if I'm talking to a wall.



    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    i bet that every one here has used carbon before. weather it be by using a car or somthing else, everyone has done it. and if you have not, or hardly do, you will still pay the same amount as everyone else.
    Except, that's not true. If you use less of a high carbon energy source, you will consequently pay less in carbon tax. It's the same way with cigarettes. If you smoke less (or not at all), then you pay less tobacco tax than those who use a lot. The extra tax is an added incentive to avoid that behavior because it impacts peoples wallets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    I'll agree with you, the implementation of the European carbon tax was flawed from the beginning, although it sems like agood idea ( if you agree that governments have a mandate to redistribute wealth ). I seem to remember another good idea which was supposed to bring equality and wealth to all people, it was called communism.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the hardships inposed on a population that cannot afford cheap crbon fuels for electricity and food cultivation/transportation ?
    I would think our mortality rates in the west are a direct result of cheap electricity to power our hospitals excess food so our people don't starve ( although its swung too far and we now have a problem with obesity in the west ). I wonder if the number of people saved from early death and starvation, through increased consumption of cheap carbon based power, in sub-saharan Africa would be greater than the number of deaths and hardships incurred by a rise in global temps of several degrees.

    Just thinking out loud.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    the implementation of the European carbon tax was flawed from the beginning, although it sems like agood idea ( if you agree that governments have a mandate to redistribute wealth).
    As I stated previously, your argument applies to all taxes, not just a tax on carbon output. Hence, it adds literally nothing to this conversation. There is zero merit in this specific point.

    Let me say again... ALL TAXES redistribute wealth, and pretty all governments are empowered to do that, so it's a bullshit argument to use when disagreeing with the carbon tax specifically.


    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    I seem to remember another good idea which was supposed to bring equality and wealth to all people, it was called communism.
    I'm confused. Since when was the intent of the carbon tax to "bring equality and wealth to all people?" That seems like a pretty robust strawman you've decided to submit to this discussion. The carbon tax is about using monetary leverage to change the behavior or people and businesses in such a way that they reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

    Trying to get people and business to reduce CO2 emissions bringing equality and wealth to all people.


    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Have you ever stopped to consider the hardships inposed on a population that cannot afford cheap crbon fuels for electricity and food cultivation/transportation ?
    Yes, and I've also stopped to consider the hardships that will be imposed on all of us if we don't do something to change our behavior when it comes to the use of dirty fuels in the present.

    Your point is akin to saying we should allow kids to eat candy any time they want because otherwise they'll cry. Who cares about the diabetes they'll get in the future, or the cavities, and other health issues. It will make them cry now, and we don't want that, do we?

    How short-sighted some people can be with this topic. Did you happen to notice all of the jobs which could be created, and how evidence shows economic improvement when these programs are implemented? I assume not given your comments. Please read some of the references I've shared. I don't put them there merely for decoration purposes. They're actually useful contributions to the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    I would think our mortality rates in the west are a direct result of cheap electricity to power our hospitals excess food so our people don't starve
    Implicit in your argument is the requirement that there is no replacement option available to us if we do away with high carbon energy sources. This is very plainly untrue.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    85
    jobs would not just be be created by the carbon tax- no, it would destroy even more jobs. the carbon tax would do little more for people than cause them issues and problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewis Pratt
    jobs would not just be be created by the carbon tax- no, it would destroy even more jobs. the carbon tax would do little more for people than cause them issues and problems.
    What is your evidence of this claim? As should be obvious if you've been reading this thread you created, your comment here is in direct contradiction to the information shared by others previously.

    Let me summarize. Some people will struggle, yes. Some job sectors will decline, yes. Some short-term hardship will be experienced, yes. However, overall there is likely to be growth in the economy from the implementation in a carbon tax. Overall, there is likely to be strength in many new sectors and a lot of job creation. Overall, the reductions in CO2 output will help everyone, and be a step in the right direction toward mitigating the risk we're causing to the climate with our behavior.

    Overall, in the long-run, this is a good thing, and the benefits are generally seen within the first decade, even though a few people will experience greater hardship in the short-term as a result.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    The answer is actually somewhat simple. Replace the need for hydrocarbon energy devices with cheaper, cleaner alternatives. People will tend to select the better option when it's presented to them, especially when that option has a lower cost. People don't need to be forced to do anything. They just need to have the right incentive. Cheaper, better, cleaner is a solid incentive for pretty much everyone, regardless of location, ideology, or economy.
    inow; Your not acknowledging the "International Implication", which for all practical purposes is impossible, other than through a time consuming free market process, which has been underway for 40+ years. Fossil fuel prices are determined by market forces, short of banning shipments from places with these resources, those prices will be cheaper than alternatives and banning shipments would be foolish. I'd suggest in 100 years or so, while the US and maybe a 1/3rd the Nations have gone 75% Green (for other reason), 2/3rds the Nations will still be using these fuels. Another minor point, is the international infrastructure, surely valued over trillions of dollars already exist, employing millions of people and a fast, convenient method for people to access.

    Where we run into ideological challenges is in the fact that we'd probably need to subsidize those alternatives during the early years with funds from something like a carbon tax.
    I know you understand, those subsidies come from tax payers, which in one form or another is everyone. In the US it can also be used as a political tool, to punish uncooperative States, generally by ignorant or agenda driven bureaucrats. For instance, the so called ethanol subsidies were primarily for refiners, to blend the ethanol into gasoline, which will now be discontinued, that 9B$ will be added to the US fuel prices.

    The carbon tax or the EPA's version of cap and trade, to avoid Congressional approval will only be a targeted tax and increase on targeted States, then primarily TEXAS...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Fossil fuel prices are determined by market forces
    No, they are not.

    http://www.ftc.gov/reports/gasprices...spricesrpt.pdf



    Frankly, I'm disappointed by the defeatist position you seem to hold, Jackson, like there's nothing we can do. You may not like some aspects of the solution being proposed, but at least people are putting forth ideas which will actually result in real improvement. There is no need to throw our arms up like a bunch of fatalists. Grow a frackin spine, acknowledge that strong leaders have to make tough decisions, and get it done. If you don't care any more, then bugger off.



    Edited out some unnecessarily harsh comments in my final sentence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Fossil fuel prices are determined by market forces,
    I know that oil at least is about as far from market forced pricing as can be. The supply is almost entirely artificially driven and controlled by government owned companies.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    419
    I see you like making analogies, Inow, even though yours with the kids and candy is way off the mark. You also like to throw out internet postings to back up your claims, so do a search for average life expectancy in sub-saharan africa or alternately infant mortality rates, in makeshift hospitals that don't have electricity. Are you gonna tell these people they can't have cheap power to save their kids from dying so that future generations' kids can survive? Its not the same as witholding candy from them is it ?

    I would say energy prices are not determined by oil market forces, but, in north america anyway, by refinery costs and stockholder greed.

    Going back to analogies, Inow, making CO2 polluters pay can be compared to trying to change a speeder's mentality by giving speeding tickets. At least here in southern Ontario, Canada, when everyone speeds by 20-30 km/hr, no-one gets a ticket. It is only when speeding by yourself on an empty road, or driving a flashy car, or WHEN THE MUNICIPALITY/POLICE NEED EXTRA REVENUE ( at month's end) that tickets are issued.

    Oh, now i get it. Re-reading the capitalised section above and applying it to governments, explains why governments all over the world are falling all over themselves to implement these schemes
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    do a search for average life expectancy in sub-saharan africa or alternately infant mortality rates, in makeshift hospitals that don't have electricity. Are you gonna tell these people they can't have cheap power to save their kids from dying so that future generations' kids can survive? Its not the same as witholding candy from them is it ?
    Try reading my comments more closely, MigL. I said that we need to use the revenues from a carbon tax to lower the cost on the cleaner options. People will naturally select the cheaper options.

    Your argument requires that there are no alternatives to dirty fuels. There are, and we can make them accessible. Why you cannot see this is beyond me.


    Quote Originally Posted by MigL
    Oh, now i get it. Re-reading the capitalised section above and applying it to governments, explains why governments all over the world are falling all over themselves to implement these schemes
    Or, maybe people are trying to be mature about what the science says and do something about it. There's always that as a possibility, too.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I know that oil at least is about as far from market forced pricing as can be. The supply is almost entirely artificially driven and controlled by government owned companies.
    inow & LF; I'm unable to fully download, getting about a third, of your link. However I'd probably still have the same comments.

    There are many factors involved with how the FUTURE MARKETS determine prices, which includes current or expected future demands, another major factor being inflation deflation against the US$, oil traded with US$.

    When the US Dollar gets stronger, it takes fewer dollars to buy any commodity that is priced in $USD. When the US Dollar gets weaker it takes more dollars to purchase the same commodity.
    http://www.kitco.com/kitco-gold-index.html?
    utm_source=kitco&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=201 10215_KGX_tb1&utm_campaign=KGX

    Note LF, this mentions all commodities traded in US$, but you'll find which ever currency is used, the increase decrease by other National currencies would reflect near the same changes. For the record actual currency to virtually every agricultural product, is traded in the same manner and neither the owners of the currency, the farmer or any producer has much to say about what those future prices will be....

    Yes, OPEC Nations generally follows where Saudi Arabia sets the price for a following month and that's generally set according to the futures first setting, that is at the end of any month, all contracts for the previous month have been taken (delivered). If the current supplies are more than expected, the price will drop or if less they will go up...

    (from little of what I saw in the link) Yes gasoline/petrol from a REFINERY, can and does vary by circumstances. Most often this amounts only to the various State/City blending requirements, but a pipe line or refinery breakdown can influence local prices, but this has nothing to do with crude prices and does reflect supply under the supply/demand principle.


    I do need to mention, the recent planted US Corn acreage report did make cause a 20% drop in corn futures, but note this was all the farmers (largest producer in the world for corn) and a drop in planted other crops, will soon be reflected. It's all about future supply and demand!!!




    Frankly, I'm disappointed by the defeatist position you seem to hold, Jackson, like there's nothing we can do. You may not like some aspects of the solution being proposed, but at least people are putting forth ideas which will actually result in real improvement. There is no need to throw our arms up like a bunch of fatalists. Grow a frackin spine, acknowledge that strong leaders have to make tough decisions, and get it done. If you don't care any more, then bugger off and die. We're the ones who are going to have to live in this world after you're long dead and gone.
    inow, I'm not a defeatist but believe altering the capitalist system to accommodate political rhetoric, over the past 30-40 years has been very expensive and nothing more could have advanced under the green lable, probably hurting the original efforts to be independent from unfriendly producers for crude.

    As mentioned, what you and most the environmentally concerned (being polite) wish to happen is simply not achievable. If you mentioned a time line of say 100 years and a slow itemized changeover, where all Nations can be involved (not possible today) with a practical consumer participation, then I wouldn't even bother arguing. Said another way and no where near possible or practical, if the US became 75% free of fossil fuel energy in 10 or 20 years, the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere worldwide will not change. Taxing and/or punishing our society or those in Australia or any individual Nation is not setting any example, only prolonging the perceived problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I guess those liberal treehuggers in India, Japan, Indonesia and soon China aren't buying your arguments Jackson, since they all have or plan to introduce a carbon tax of some type. When the US introduced a tax on CFCs we also placed a tariff on imports of CFCs from countries that didn't follow suit. Wouldn't it be annoying if countries with a carbon tax slapped carbon tariffs on US goods.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    inow, I'm not a defeatist

    <snip>

    what you and most the environmentally concerned (being polite) wish to happen is simply not achievable.
    These two statements contradict one another.


    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Said another way and no where near possible or practical, if the US became 75% free of fossil fuel energy in 10 or 20 years, the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere worldwide will not change.
    An argument like this is internally inconsistent, and doesn't even make sense. You're essentially arguing that if one major producer of CO2 decreases their CO2 output by 75%, the amount of CO2 globally being added to the atmosphere won't change.

    That doesn't make sense, Jackson. I don't even need evidence to back up my point this time. That's just simple algebra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I guess those liberal treehuggers in India, Japan, Indonesia and soon China aren't buying your arguments Jackson, since they all have or plan to introduce a carbon tax of some type. When the US introduced a tax on CFCs we also placed a tariff on imports of CFCs from countries that didn't follow suit. Wouldn't it be annoying if countries with a carbon tax slapped carbon tariffs on US goods.
    Bunbury, without trying to rehash the CFC debate of the 70-80's, the change over was an either/or situation and not very costly. As for US exports being "carbon taxed" or for that matter the US placing tariffs of Chinese or Indian products for non compliance, they already have systems to allow just exactly what they want imported.

    Imports of the top 5 Nations;

    USA 13.5M/D
    Japan 5.5M/B/D
    China 4.4M/P/D
    So. Korea 3M/B/D
    India 2.9M/B/D

    http://factoidz.com/10-largest-impor...-in-the-world/

    Economically, it's harmful for any Country to import anything and today crude or products from crude are high dollar products. If the US were to decrease imports, either by producing more crude, using other natural resources or alternatives, Internationally the price will come down, allowing the 3B people in Asia to afford more. The current US Administration is playing this card today, by restricting production on US territory and Europe is by heavy fuel user taxes. As previously mentioned the original reasons for less fossil fuel consumption, were political in nature, picked up by what your calling "tree huggers" and are still being used control populations, increase revenues or just maintaining a portion of the electorates, IMO.


    These two statements contradict one another.
    inow; In context they are consistent and you know it. I am (opposed to "am not") a practical ideologue and what's been proposed or imposed are self defeating of the goals many environmentalist are suggesting...

    An argument like this is internally inconsistent, and doesn't even make sense. You're essentially arguing that if one major producer of CO2 decreases their CO2 output by 75%, the amount of CO2 globally being added to the atmosphere won't change.
    Remember I also said it's not possible, but if the US reduced consumption of fuel oil by 75% in a short period, the price of that product would naturally fall (say to 30US$/B), ALLOWING millions, if not billions of consumers in Asia (China, India) to increase usage. China is out there exploring for and buying up futures on everything they can (any natural resource) and I believe because they think prices will continue to rise, over the long run. I'd disagree, feeling Truck diesel fuel can be replaced by Natural Gas, inside a couple years and honestly feel by January 2013, a new US administration will PROMOTE US Natural resource usage. What 310M people consume in the US, can easily be replaced by the couple billion in Asia, whom probably use very little today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33

    Remember I also said it's not possible, but if the US reduced consumption of fuel oil by 75% in a short period, the price of that product would naturally fall (say to 30US$/B)
    Not true at all. The Middle East government oil companies would just pump less oil to keep the price up. The idea that oil is strongly market price based is just as much a fantasy as the idea the US can rapidly reduce its oil imports or pump enough of its own oil to matter by very much.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Also, by Jackson's logic, fuel prices should have dropped globally when Europe implemented their carbon tax, however, exactly the opposite has happened. Prices have been rather high relative to decades past.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Here are some tangible bullet points about what is being done here:


    Key points of the carbon price package
    http://www.climatespectator.com.au/n...-price-package


    And (as I just shared elsewhere), another good one here: http://theconversation.edu.au/frank-...t-deliver-2255
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Not true at all. The Middle East government oil companies would just pump less oil to keep the price up. The idea that oil is strongly market price based is just as much a fantasy as the idea the US can rapidly reduce its oil imports or pump enough of its own oil to matter by very much.
    LF; Half the crude oil used in the US or more, goes to refining Heating Fuel Oil, otherwise known as diesel fuel, used by most all heavy duty trucks and other vehicles, including some autos. It WOULD probably take more than 10 years to covert the industry to "Natural Gas", then probably the infrastructure, but it could be done in far less time than building Windmills, Solar Farms or my favorite, geothermal driven turbines.

    Once again, market prices are set by market forces and what your arguing is, influencing those forces, better known as supply or demand. Yes, if OPEC decides to withhold crude from the supply can be seen by the markets and futures will go up, but OPEC can't set the price, even when it has tried to influence supply, resulted have been opposite to the desired. Frankly and IMO crude today, without middle east problems, a US Energy Program (there isn't one) and the price in 2001, including inflation could be around 40-50US$/B.

    http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

    Crude oil prices behave much as any other commodity with wide price swings in times of shortage or oversupply. The crude oil price cycle may extend over several years responding to changes in demand as well as OPEC and non-OPEC supply.
    http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm



    inow; Your second link is interesting and frankly might help clean up some local exhaust problems in Australia, when you consider they have basically a "Natural Resource" economy. It would be my feeling, that special tax deductions for those 500 "biggest polluters" to sequester more carbon emissions would work better than raising cost to the "average household" 120C$/Y. On the other hand the program seems to be designed to increase Government and pick and choose the winners/losers.

    Also, by Jackson's logic, fuel prices should have dropped globally when Europe implemented their carbon tax, however, exactly the opposite has happened. Prices have been rather high relative to decades past.
    Markets are not concerned with local laws, until it appears it might influence either supply or demand. I can't emphasize the "futures" in this discussion enough as even the crude being refined today was set by prices established six months ago and many large consumers of crude products (Airlines) and with many other commodities, long before mined or planted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    I'm sorry, Jackson, but you continue to move forward on the falase assumption that oil and fuel prices are subject to ideal free market principles. They are not. There are many factors involved in these prices.

    I regret that you were unable to review the link on my previous post, but it shows in great detail the factors involved, and makes clear how your "market forces" argument doesn't even begin to hold water.


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Fossil fuel prices are determined by market forces
    No, they are not.

    http://www.ftc.gov/reports/gasprices...spricesrpt.pdf



    Also, sorry, but this claim too is painfully mistaken:

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Half the crude oil used in the US or more, goes to refining Heating Fuel Oil, otherwise known as diesel fuel
    Only about 20% goes into diesel, and only 2% to heating oil... not "half the crude used in the US or more."


    http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/i...=oil_home#tab2






    Facts actually matter when having these discussions. We should make sure that our arguments are supported by them whenever possible, and that the claims we make don't directly contradict them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    http://www.endoil.org/site/c.ddJGKNN..._Oil.htm#other products

    Yes inow, I stand corrected and was placing all other than gasoline in my figures as remembered from years ago, however the point still stands and whatever the diesel figure is (w/o heating oil), the change over could be achieved, sooner than many other programs. Anyway I picked up on this from a fellow Texan and believe he includes cars with diesel engines can also be transformed. If interested here's a link to T. Boon's program...I believe still in progress and WITH OUT GOVERNEMNT.

    BNET has an article on natural gas suggesting that low prices (and not the Pickens Plan) are what have lead to natural gas capturing 20 percent of the new bus and garbage truck markets.
    http://www.tboonepickens.com/media_summary/061411.pdf
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •