[Vision2020] carbon tax

[Donovan Arnold]

Paul,
 
People cannot afford the price of gas now, how could the price be raised without damaging society's most vulnerable?
 
I think nuclear power plants take too long to build and people panic no matter where it is put. 
 
We don't need to reinvent the wheel here. All we need to do is stop making the machines that are destroying the Earth, and build the ones that don't. For example, why are we building automobiles that get only 10 miles to the gallon, when we know how to build automobiles that get 100 miles to the gallon? The solution is simple, STOP building the vehicles that get 10 miles to the gallon, and only build the ones that get 100 miles to the gallon. 
 
Is it really that hard to figure out the best method of preventing machines from destroying the Earth is to not build them, rather than building them and telling people to use them not as often?
 
Donovan J. Arnold

From: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
To: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> 
Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Monday, June 4, 2012 7:42 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] carbon tax



When I suggest a carbon tax, I plead with people to go easy on it at first.  It's insurance because of the uncertainty in the feedbacks of climate change - we're not yet at the "pack a backpack and start hiking north" stage quite yet.  If the carbon tax is relatively small, it will mean a relatively small increase in the price of gas and of electricity from coal-fired plants.  Too much of an increase, and we have people unable to afford gas to get to work so they can afford the increase in their utilities.

Start small, but reassess every few years.  Reassess both the science and the uncertainty.  If there is still a lot of uncertainty, increase it a bit.  It's a hedge against the possibility of the IPCC's worst scenario, not a Solution to the Problem.  

Frankly, shutting off all coal-fired plants and ceasing the use of oil will still leave us with decades of carbon in the atmosphere that has to come out.   We also have China and India and the rest of the up-and-coming nations.  Why do I want the tax, then?  Because there are lots of sensible reasons to get off of oil and coal.  Pollution, political conflict, mining accidents, etc.

What we really need is nuclear ramped up.  Fukushima was a worst-case scenario.

Paul

On 06/04/2012 03:10 PM, Ted Moffett wrote: 
A carbon tax with tax shifting or other compensation, or a fee and dividend system, would offer relief to consumers of low and middle incomes for the increases in the cost of goods and services.  In fact, some economic projections show low and middle income consumers coming out ahead financially, with a carbon tax and tax shifting or other compensation, or fee and dividend systems, to promote a quicker transition away from fossil fuels.  
>
>This of course would depend on their economic choices.  If someone used a lot of coal fired electricity and drove a gas guzzler 100 miles a day to commute, they would see a large increase in the cost of coal and oil energy associated with their lifestyle.  But for those who make choices to avoid intensive fossil fuel associated economic decisions, the reduction in their taxes or other compensation or the dividend payments they would receive, could offer the chance to economically benefit from the tax or fee on carbon.
>
>Incredible that in this thread, Australia's plan, just now being implemented, though in the works for a long time, to tax carbon and compensate families for the increases in costs, was not mentioned once... 
>
>Below are sources of information on carbon tax and tax shifting or other compensation, and fee and dividend systems.  Cleanenergyfuture.gov.au source below claims compensation of 120 percent of the expected increases in costs from the carbon tax:
>
>Lowering Income Taxes While Raising Pollution Taxes Reaps Great Returns 
>Lester R. Brown
>http://www.earth-policy.org/book_bytes/2010/pb4ch10_ss2
>-------------------------------
>Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization
>Lester R. Brown
>Chapter 13. The Great Mobilization: Shifting Taxes and Subsidies
>http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb3/PB3ch13_ss2
>------------------------------
>Info on Australia's "Clean Energy Future" plan with a carbon tax:
>http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/who-will-get-assistance/
>Over 4 million households get assistance worth 120 per cent of their expected average price impact
>-----------------------------
>Info below on a fee and dividend system presented to the US Congress:
>Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade
>Testimony of James E. Hansen
>Committee on Ways and Means
>US House of Representatives
>http://www.columbia.edu/%7Ejeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf
>
>"...Tax and 100% Dividend--tax carbon emissions, but give all of the money back to the public..."
>
>NASA climate scientist James Hansen, quoted above, has opposed the cap and trade system that the Obama administration was trying to pass the US Congress, that failed:
>Cap and Fade
>By JAMES HANSEN
>Published: December 6, 2009
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html
>---------------------------------------
>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> 
>
>=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. http://www.fsr.net mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com =======================================================

=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
              http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
=======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120604/d9f0b894/attachment-0001.html>