<div><span>On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:</span></div><div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>"I still think the best way to fight the carbon pollution is to force the engineering of more fuel <span><span>efficient</span></span> systems rather than sucking what little <span><span><span>resources</span></span> </span>away they have left from those that must use them." </span></div>
<div> </div><div>Actually, upon a moments reflection, I realized in the past I have agreed in part, in different terms, with this statement. </div><div> </div><div>It has been advocated that to quickly transition away from fossil fuels a massively funded "Manhattan" style project, to develop new energy technologies, whether it be the promise of fusion power, next gen fission, solar, wind, geothermal, wave, tidal, biofuels, fuel cells, etc. or even coal with massive CCS (carbon storage and sequestration), the later being a very questionable technology. A few sources on this idea are below. Some approach this not primarily from the climate change problem, but from the national security risks of continued massive dependence on fossil fuels, especially oil; and of course eventually no matter how we force the issue extracting fossil fuels, they will run out:</div>
<div> </div><div><a href="http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf">http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1339.pdf</a></div><div><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-d-intriligator/why-we-need-a-new-manhatt_b_544464.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-d-intriligator/why-we-need-a-new-manhatt_b_544464.html</a></div>
<div>--------------------------------</div><div>Please provide a specific reference or references regarding your statements about the "Mom and Pop distribution businesses" going extinct, under Australia's "Clean Energy Future" plan: </div>
<div><a href="http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/">http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/clean-energy-future/securing-a-clean-energy-future/</a></div><div> </div><div>You may be right. There will be winners and losers under this plan. No economic system, of any kind, guarantees everyone doing every job unending economic survival, with changing technology and environments. But most low and middle income families are compensated on average to offset the increases in the costs of goods and services associated with the carbon tax.</div>
<div> </div><div>Consider this plan an experiment. If it does not work as expected, it can be changed or some other plan adopted. </div><div> </div><div>But at least it is a start, though too late and too little, given the magnitude of the problem.</div>
<div> </div><div>What is appealing about NASA climate scientist James Hansen's fee and dividend plan is actually how little government engineering of the economy is involved. For the most part, the plan is to assess a carbon fee at the well head or mine for domestic fossil fuels, or at the point of importation of imported fossil fuels, distribute all the fees (100%) to the citizens, in a manner commensurate with their economic position, and let the economic choices of citizens decide if a intensive fossil fuel economy or a more alternative energy economy will result.</div>
<div> </div><div>The fees are not put in government coffers to be handed out as pork by politicians... Well, at least ideally.</div><div>No government support for boondoggles like solar cell company Solyndra, though I do not mean to say I oppose all government subsidies of alternative energy technology.</div>
<div> </div><div>Info below on a fee and dividend system presented to the US Congress:</div><div>Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade</div><div>Testimony of James E. Hansen<br>Committee on Ways and Means</div><div>
US House of Representatives</div><div><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf</a></div><div>---------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div><div> </div><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM, Donovan Arnold <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class="gmail_quote"><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,new york,times,serif;font-size:10pt">
<div><span>I think this idea of taxing fuel is going to be more destructive to businesses and the economy than helpful to the Australian environment. One group of people that will go <span><span>extinct</span></span> for sure is the Mom and Pop distribution businesses. Up to $6500 in assistance for new machines and "advice" from the government isn't going to help a small business that must use an abundance of fuel. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Many of the families that cannot afford to upgrade and don't get enough assistance, or cannot wait for the assistance from the government, will also be greatly hindered. A $300-$500 tax credit isn't enough to keep up with the increases of needed goods and services, much less buy new <span><span>appliances</span></span> the government expects them to. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>I still think the best way to fight the carbon pollution is to force the engineering of more fuel <span><span>efficient</span></span> systems rather than sucking what little <span><span><span>resources</span></span> </span>away they have left from those that must use them. </span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>In addition, the equipment western society is engineering and building today, will be the equipment used by developing countries in the future. These countries and <span>continents </span>with 100s of millions and even billions are the ones more greatly impacting world <span><span>environmental</span></span> conditions. Third world countries follow our <span><span>technologies</span></span>, not our social engineering. Depending<var></var> on social <span><span>engineering</span></span>, which is what this tax is, to solve the Earth's <span><span>environment</span></span> <span><span>issues</span></span>, rather than creating only machines that will not destroy the planet,
I think is <span><span>foolhardy</span></span>. Does it not make more sense to not to build the machines that will destroy the Earth in the first place than to build them and try to control human behavior not to abuse them?</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="font-family:tahoma,new york,times,serif;font-size:10pt">
<div style="font-family:times new roman,new york,times,serif;font-size:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">
<div style="margin:5px 0px;padding:0px;border:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);line-height:0;font-size:0px;min-height:0px" readonly></div><b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Ted Moffett <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br>
<b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Moscow Vision 2020 <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Monday, June 4, 2012 4:10 PM<div class="im">
<br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] carbon tax<br></div></font></div><div><div class="h5"><br>
<div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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... </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Below are sources of information on carbon tax and tax shifting or other compensation, and fee and dividend systems. <a href="http://cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Cleanenergyfuture.gov.au</a> source below claims compensation of 120 percent of the expected increases in costs from the carbon tax:</div>
<div><br>Lowering Income Taxes While Raising Pollution Taxes Reaps Great Returns </div>
<div>Lester R. Brown<br><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/book_bytes/2010/pb4ch10_ss2" target="_blank">http://www.earth-policy.org/book_bytes/2010/pb4ch10_ss2</a></div>
<div>-------------------------------</div>
<div>
<div><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb3" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization</a></div>
<div>Lester R. Brown</div>
<div><font>Chapter 13. The Great Mobilization: Shifting Taxes and Subsidies</font></div></div>
<div><a href="http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb3/PB3ch13_ss2" target="_blank">http://www.earth-policy.org/books/pb3/PB3ch13_ss2</a></div>
<div>------------------------------</div>
<div>Info on Australia's "Clean Energy Future" plan with a carbon tax:</div>
<div>
<div><a href="http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/who-will-get-assistance/" target="_blank">http://www.cleanenergyfuture.gov.au/helping-households/who-will-get-assistance/</a></div></div>
<div>Over 4 million households get assistance worth 120 per cent of their expected average price impact</div>
<div>-----------------------------</div>
<div>Info below on a fee and dividend system presented to the US Congress:</div>
<div>Carbon Tax and 100% Dividend vs. Tax and Trade</div>
<div>Testimony of James E. Hansen<br>Committee on Ways and Means</div>
<div>US House of Representatives</div>
<div><a href="http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMeans_20090225.pdf</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>"...Tax and 100% Dividend--tax carbon emissions, but give all of the money back to the public..."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:</div>
<div>Cap and Fade</div>
<div>By JAMES HANSEN</div>
<div>Published: December 6, 2009</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/07/opinion/07hansen.html</a></div>
<div>---------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</div></div><br></div></div><div class="im">=======================================================<br>List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>=======================================================<br>
<br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br>