Home > Political & Other Important Issues > Political Issues > R's Push CARBON TAX

R's Push CARBON TAX

  1. Al Gore must be rejoicing that now he gets to make lots of money!:fist:
     
  2. America must be punished, and if Kerry can't do it we'll find Rhino's to do it to us.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-admits-american-co2-cuts-would-be-pointless/

    "........Secretary of State John Kerry made an astounding confession today at the COP-21 climate conference in Paris: Emissions cuts by the U.S. and other industrialized nations will make no difference to global climate, he said.
    Here are Kerry’s exact words:

    … The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.


    If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world............"
     
  3. Doubt if this gets off the ground.
     
  4. Republican corrupt morons may be worse than the Dems. At least the idiotic libs probably are stupid enough to believe the fake man caused climate change BS. The Republicans are simply totally corrupt.
     
  5. I recall that a carbon tax was part of Gary Johnson's campaign platform. These kooks come in all flavors and affiliations...

    .
     
  6. Why would these nearly "has been's" want to do this. It's gotta be about money.
     
  7. "Old guard", early RINO's. You say tomato.........
     
  8. dumb idea
     
  9. From how I read it, the supporters think it's a good "compromise" with environmentalists over the dropping of hundreds of Federal environmental regulations. They say it's a free market, conservative approach to it. Sounds squirrelly to me.................. but I don't know much more about it than what the article posts. Seems they got an audience with Trump's top people. I hope it gets placed in File 13 after they leave.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
     
  10. Yes hopefully Trump will tell these people to screw off. But there is no reason for Repubs who control both houses of Congress, the Oval Office and hopefully soon the Supreme Court to compromise with lying enviro scammers. When the Dems had full power we got Obama Care shoved down our throats. They didn't compromise.
     
  11. Carbon Tax = Scam of Epic Proportions.

    We will all pay for it one way or another.
     
  12. Cuckseratives are going to ****.
     
  13. Trump is on record calling it a hoax. Baker could be meeting with Ivanka about something completely different but the NYT is crossing their fingers and hoping it's a carbon tax.
     
  14. Could also be CYA for the greenies.......many of them are true believers, and vote.
     
  15. Someone is going to get Rich behind this. They are not doing this because they are "born again environmentally aware." Of that you can be sure. They seem to be treating the "carbon tax" as a, what is it the pope gives to sinners when they donate money? Special dispensation or exceptions?

    They seem to be planning to use these tax credit in lue of EPA regulations. Some shenanigans are getting ready to happen.
     
  16. Money money money, that's what it's about it . Pay to play for the elite
     
  17. If you want to reduce carbon emissions all we have to do is replace coal power plant with nuclear power. If you want to reduce the CO2 already in the atmosphere it has been proposed that we add iron to the barren parts of the ocean. This would cause massive plankton blooms and that would absorb huge amounts of CO2. It would also mean more fish and that would help feed people high quality protein.
    The left hates both of these ideas because they might be solutions to problems. If the problem is solved they just lost an issue to b!+ch about.
     
  18. That and probably another good dose of smoke and mirrors if the "greenies" can stay involved.
     
  19. More bought and paid for establishment types, have them removed from the Rolodex and all contact lists.
     
  20. I doubt it too. From the article:

    "Two weeks into this new administration, we have positioned our solution as the most promising climate solution -- if they want to go there."

    I don't think they want to go there. Deep down, I believe Trump (rightfully) thinks man made climate change is total BS. The whole scam is starting to crumble, if you dig a little and find out the truth of the situation. Of course, the MSM is still pitching the hoax as reality, which ultimately just damages the economy.
     
  21. I found another article that shed some more light on this..................


    Establishment Politicians Using ‘Carbon Tax’ to Foil Trump

    A number of mostly elderly very important persons have been compromised by the global warming hoax. The following wise men signed a tract: “The Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends.”

    • George Shultz - 96
    • James A Baker - 86
    • Martin Feldstein - 77
    • Thomas Stephenson - 74
    • Rob Walton - 72
    • Henry Paulson - 70
    • N. Gregory Mankiw - 59
    • Ted Halstead - 48
    The carbon dividend tract was promoted in a Wall Street Journal article published on February 7th and signed by former Secretaries of State, Shultz and Baker. According to Shultz and Baker: “…there is mounting evidence of problems with the atmosphere that are growing too compelling to ignore.” That statement is simply wrong. There is no mounting evidence. Global temperature has been flat for 2 decades. The seas are not rising more than usual and the weather is not more extreme than usual. These important persons have simply fallen for the global warming hoax.

    Ironically, just as our gang of global warming gentlemen launch their campaign for a carbon tax, the latest global temperature estimates from the government have been exposed as fraudulent, and inspired by politics, by a highly placed whistle blower.

    Their carbon tax scheme is supposed to begin with a $40 per ton carbon tax. The proceeds from the carbon tax would be distributed to all persons with a valid Social Security number. This would appear to include every man, woman and child in the country except for illegal aliens who have not figured out how to get a Social Security number. Children are entitled to such a number at birth. Purportedly, this would provide a family of 4 with approximately $2000 per year.

    Although the global warming gentlemen say they want to tax carbon, it is apparent that they are confused and are really proposing a tax on carbon dioxide (CO2), not carbon. Their numbers only make sense if that is what they are proposing. U.S. emissions of CO2 are about 5500 million metric tons per year, or 6,000 million 2000-pound tons. Assuming that 320 million people have Social Security numbers, or will quickly get one when they become lucrative, the $40 per ton tax on CO2 works out to $750 per person or $3,000 for a family of 4, not $2,000, as they state. A tax on carbon as opposed to CO2 would provide less than one third as much money, or about $800 for a family of 4.

    If you work through the details, a $40 per ton CO2 tax would increase the cost of coal-generated electricity by 4 cents per kilowatt hour (KWH). For electricity generated by less-carbon natural gas, the increase would be about 2 cents per KWH. The cost of gasoline or diesel fuel would increase by about 12 cents per gallon. This amount of taxation is not enough to substantially change the use of fossil fuels or greatly reduce emissions of CO2. It would slightly advantage the use of natural gas compared to coal for generating electricity.

    Wealthier people, with more automobiles and larger houses, would pay much more for energy than they would get back from the government. Low income people with fewer cars and smaller houses, particularly in areas with little coal use and mild climates, like California, would get back far more than they spent for energy. The tax would be very popular with lower income people, who would see it as free money from the government. That would ensure political support for the tax. At least that is what the carbon tax wise men assume.

    The carbon dividend is designed to fight populism (i.e. Trump). The authors want to “…redirect this populist energy in a socially beneficial direction.” By handing large sums of money to the less prosperous citizens who voted for Trump, these wise men think they can defeat Trumpism and regain political control for themselves and their friends. This is an unholy alliance between global warming believers and establishment political forces that have been shut out of power by the Trump victory. Trump’s policy is to restore jobs that have been exported to low wage countries. The carbon tax advocates want to buy the Trump voters by giving them cash rather than jobs. Global warming provides a convenient excuse for distributing cash.

    The carbon tax is supposed to increase according to a regular schedule. These wise men seem to assume that if we simply tax carbon enough, the carbon will disappear due to the workings of the free market. The problem with this theory is that the market is not actually free. For example, if the government declared that all electricity should be generated with nuclear energy and all automobiles should be fueled by natural gas, carbon dioxide emissions would be reduced by more than half. Considering that the other half of carbon dioxide emissions disappear into the ocean, U.S. responsibility for carbon dioxide growth in the atmosphere would be eliminated. But this approach is not likely to emerge from the workings of the free market unless prompted by government guidance, research and changed regulations. Currently the government guidance promotes windmills, solar power, and electric cars. These are overpriced non-solutions.

    The idea of reducing U.S. carbon emissions makes no sense because most carbon emissions come from Asia, not the U.S. China alone burns 4 times as much coal as we do. Reducing carbon emissions also makes no sense because the evidence is rapidly accumulating that CO2 is a minor actor in the Earth’s climate. Further, CO2 is beneficial for agriculture. Crops grow better with less water when the amount of CO2 in the air is increased.

    What level of carbon dioxide tax would be required to actually cause a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions? At $40 per ton there will be some effect due to a gradual shift away from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. This shift is already taking place due to the current low price of natural gas and the disproportionate regulatory burden placed on coal. If all coal generation were replaced by natural gas, national CO2 emissions would drop by about 15%. This would probably not happen anytime soon with a $40 tax, but it might happen faster with an $80 per ton tax that would increase further the cost per KWH differential for coal versus gas.

    The carbon tax is a deeply corrupt idea. By handing out money, using bad science as an excuse, a discredited political class hopes to regain power. It is hard to see how this scheme would favor either Republicans or Democrats. Both parties would be obliged to support the carbon tax if a large part of the population is getting “free” money. The part of the population that would lose money might not notice the increase in the cost of electricity and gasoline, and they too would get checks from the government. Although the wise men propose that all the money collected would be returned to the citizens, the temptation to skim part of the tax for the government would become almost irresistible. If the carbon tax actually succeeded in eliminating carbon emissions, then there would be no money to distribute.

    A somewhat similar scheme is going strong. A large part of the corn crop is converted to overpriced ethanol that is mixed with gasoline and burned up in cars. The scheme is justified by fake claims that it reduces global warming. Corn ethanol is popular in corn states, particularly politically crucial Iowa. Most people don’t notice the increase in the cost of gasoline, but the corn farmers notice the higher price of corn due to the ethanol mandates and subsidies. Such schemes are economic and political poison. Taking money from one group and giving it to another does not enhance prosperity.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/arti...liticians_using_carbon_tax_to_foil_trump.html
     
  22. Between a proposed carbon tax and ethanol mandates, this country has it so wrong I don't know where to begin. Well, maybe just a couple of facts...
    • CO2 accounts for 6% of the greenhouse effect, with water vapor coming in at 90%. Man accounts for about 3.2% of the total CO2 in the atmosphere. Conclusion: Man's burning of fossil fuels accounts for 0.02% of the greenhouse effect.
    • It takes more energy to make ethanol than you get out of if. Ethanol production adds CO2 to the atmosphere. Conclusion: Making ethanol to burn in cars to cut pollution is pure insanity.
    The things we are doing as a country in energy and the environment are just plain stupid. Any politician who talks about ethanol or a carbon tax has a political motivation. It will do no good for the country and will only make everything more expensive.

    I am just so sick of this crap!!!! :fist:
     
  23. Give Pruitt some time, he'll get things straightened out.