+- +-


Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Total Members: 44
Latest: Robinquit
New This Month: 1
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Total Posts: 11431
Total Topics: 251
Most Online Today: 1
Most Online Ever: 52
(November 29, 2017, 04:04:44 am)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 0
Total: 0

Author Topic: Future Earth  (Read 10972 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.


  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19076
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Agelbert Truth AND Consequences
Re: Future Earth
« Reply #195 on: November 06, 2016, 03:39:19 pm »
Only a radical change in how Americans (and others) live can reduce carbon emissions.  A carbon tax will do next to nothing in reducing carbon consumption but it will send the message that it is OK to pollute if you can pay for it.  It will also send the message that since it is now taxed we don't have worry about carbon in the atmosphere any more.

I will not be voting for this well meaning but simple minded proposition that would cost me seventy five bucks a year just to drive.  The way the machinery of society works it could soon be a mark of status to conspicuously consume carbon just because you have the money to do so.

Typical American bullshit thinking economic manipulations can fix everything.  This is lip service and liable to interfere with effacious solutions which actually can make a difference.

I expect grief from Agelbert about this and I don't care.


"This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through radioactive materials and a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels."

-- President Lyndon B. Johnson, Feb. 2, 1965


"God always forgives, but the earth does not. Take care of the earth so it does not respond with destruction,"

 -- Pope Francis, at a UN conference in Rome, Nov. 19, 2014

Seems I am not alone, my greatest objection is the burden would be cleverly shifted to the poor.  - K-Dog

From: http://www.progressivevotersguide.com/

Vote NO on I-732

Initiative 732 has divided groups committed to fighting climate change. It would reduce carbon pollution by taxing it and cut other taxes by a similar amount. Although itís well-intended, puts a strong price on carbon emissions, and tackles an incredibly urgent problem, it has some serious flaws that have generated strong opposition from many progressive groups that are committed to reducing carbon pollution. Opponents have several concerns:

    Although I-732 is supposed to be revenue neutral, drafters inadvertently created huge additional tax breaks for companies like Boeing so it would cost more than it will bring in. A recent state budget analysis has determined that these tax breaks would cost taxpayers approximately $797 million over six years. As a result, I-732 would blow a giant hole in the state budget at a time when we are already failing to adequately fund schools, health care, and other essential services.
    It fails to invest any carbon tax revenue in clean energy sources. Increasing our use of clean energy like solar and wind power is a critical part of fighting climate change, as well as decreasing our use of fossil fuels. In addition, it fails to limit carbon pollution or to enforce the carbon pollution reductions already required by law.
    I-732 proponents failed to engage communities of color and workers Ė the ones disproportionately impacted by climate change -- in developing an approach to provide an economically just transition away from fossil fuels. The result is an initiative that does not adequately address their priorities and faces strong opposition from groups representing communities of color and labor unions.

I-732 supporters argue the urgency of fighting climate change compels us to act immediately and that we canít afford to wait for a different proposal. Although we are highly motivated to reduce carbon pollution and appreciate the sentiments of the initiative's supporters, I-732ís flaws are serious enough that we Ė like most statewide environmental groups - cannot support the proposal.

We look forward to working with a wide range of advocates to create and pass a stronger plan to fight climate change in the near future.
Fuse WA, Washington State Labor Council, OneAmerica Votes, Front and Centered, Puget Sound Sage, Progreso, Children's Alliance

Other groups that do not support I-732: Washington Conservation Voters, Washington Environmental Council, Sierra Club

Beware Greeks bearing gifts.


If it is NOT really a carbon tax, but a scheme to put the burden of paying for pollution on the poor, then I am in agreement with you.

But we cannot avert our eyes from the fact that the unsustainable status quo of energy source exploitation already puts the burden of most of the health downsides from fossil fuel and mining pollution on the poor. The S.C.C. (Social Cost of Carbon)_ is disproportionately born by the poorest in the USA and in the rest of the world.

K-Dog, you and I don't see eye to eye on some issues like the level of police racism, but we are generally on the same page as to the environmental destruction going on. I apologize for berating you in the past on the social Cost of Carbon. I am way to passionate for my own good on that subject.

The problem with pricing carbon is that the most powerful energy lobbies want to game the carbon tax so that we-the-people pay for the cleanup. So, yeah, it's just like them to call something a "carbon tax" that is nothing of the kind and is elitist instead of egalitarian.

But that doesn't take away the problem. The problem is that pollution is degrading the biosphere. So, in a sane world, you recognize that you are in a hole, and you stop digging.

Which means, ANYONE that uses polluting energy should pay for ameliorating the effects of that pollution proportionately. But the fossil fuel industry does not want to hear that because they use much more fossil fuels than they advertise in their exploitation of fossil fuels, be they coal, oil or gas. This is the dirty little (actually it's HUGE) secret to their gamed ERoEI numbers. Fossil fuels, when all the energy inputs are computed, are energy return negative. It's only because of their massive "subsidies" that they can claim a competitive product.

What I am saying is that, in a sane world, you and I would NOT pay anything for fossil fuel welfare queen "subsidies" (as we do NOW 24/7), but would pay X Carbon Tax on a fossil fuel product such as gasoline or "natural" (fossil, not from truly natural methanogenic life forms) gas and such ONLY if we are in the business of extracting fossil fuels for refining and marketing.

THEN, the fossil fuel industry can only sell the product at the correct price. But, if TPTB want to pass the buck from the fossil fuel industry straight to us, then it is obviously a scam every bit as heinous as the present "subsidy" structure.

The status quo is not sustainable. Reality will out. The poorest are already paying the highest price for the biosphere degradation for short term fossil fuel profits.

We can transition rationally and equitably or we can transition with a cascade of collapse events forcing the polluters kicking and screaming to stop polluting. Those are the only two futures that are realistic.

I think you would prefer a rational transition.
Leges         Sine    Moribus     Vanae   
if it has not works, is dead, being alone.


+-Recent Topics

Money by AGelbert
February 22, 2019, 08:45:37 pm

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
February 22, 2019, 06:50:36 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
February 22, 2019, 04:57:00 pm

Corporate Profits over Patient in the Health Care Field by AGelbert
February 22, 2019, 03:04:43 pm

The Wisdom of the Books of the Bible by AGelbert
February 22, 2019, 11:40:14 am

Global Warming is WITH US by AGelbert
February 21, 2019, 05:34:50 pm

Photvoltaics (PV) by AGelbert
February 21, 2019, 04:40:53 pm

End Times according to the Judeo Christian Bible by AGelbert
February 21, 2019, 12:09:23 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
February 20, 2019, 05:29:08 pm

Wind Power by AGelbert
February 20, 2019, 02:21:30 pm