There Ain't No Galdurned Climate Change! Dagnabit!

RNG

Forum Staff
Apr 2013
41,285
29,568
La La Land North
This study has all the objectivity of a hardcore yankee fan at the World Series
And what institution of higher learning instilled in you sufficient knowledge to proclaim people who have studied and worked in the field for years to be wrong?

Or are you just parroting Druggie Limbaugh and Dotard?
 
Dec 2018
3,296
2,434
Indiana
I personally believe in global warming, but I'm even more sure the answer does not lie in taxing everyone for the benefit of corrupt politicians and corporate globalists.
If you were instead referring to the never ending Bush/Cheney $6 trillion dollar wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I might be convinced.

Some frugal hope: Molten Salt Reactors (incl Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) | No CO2, No High Pressure, No Loss of Coolant Accidents, No Long-Term Radioactive Waste
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: GluteusMaximus
Feb 2007
6,222
3,962
USA
I did not personally insult, it is a valid question. If I hurt your feelings, I do apologize and will try not to in future. Now I have my answer, you do not know.

New taxes always hurt the people least able to pay the most. That should go without saying. Taxes on large corporations/business entities are always passed on to these people, of course. Corporations don't erase their own profits when taxes increase, they have to make their money.

Here's the problem with the whole thing, I think this explains it fairly well although it leaves some things out:

"At first blush, it’s the corporation, i.e, the utility generating electricity, the refinery producing gasoline, the natural gas driller, the car manufacturer, or whichever corporation is legally responsible for paying the carbon tax.

Ordinary people pay for all taxes, including those hidden in the price of products people purchase, where corporations are the involuntary collector of taxes for the government.

This would include any carbon tax that the government might impose.
Corporations are involuntary tax collectors, and would be collecting more taxes if a carbon tax is added to the list of taxes.
When corporate taxes are increased, which would be the case with a carbon tax, the prices of their products are increased.
Higher prices affect the middle class and lower-income groups who use a higher percentage of their income to purchase goods and services than do wealthy individuals.
Lower and middle-income earners are hurt the most when corporate taxes, including any carbon tax, are increased.
The people proposing a carbon tax admit this, because they also propose to redistribute some of the carbon tax, once the government collects it, to low-income people.
In that sense, a carbon tax is merely another method for wealth redistribution.
A carbon tax merely adds to the slush fund that politicians can dole out to their favored communities.
All taxes, corporate, sales and personal, are paid for by consumers, and this includes the carbon tax."

...
...and the text in quotes (above) has been brought to you by a known human caused climate change denialist nutjob from the Heartland Institute, of which can be found here.:

https://dddusmma.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/who-pays-the-carbon-tax/

And a summary of his nutjob denialist positions regarding human caused climate change and his personal activities can be found here:

https://www.desmogblog.com/donn-dears

And a detailed accounting of the Heartland Institute's activities and funding can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute


Meanwhile, here is a carbon tax-related plan which addresses the concern that "New taxes always hurt the people least able to pay the most.":

The Four Pillars of Our Carbon Dividends Plan


I. A Gradually Increasing Carbon Fee

The first pillar of a carbon dividends plan is a gradually rising fee on carbon dioxide emissions, to be implemented at the refinery or the first point where fossil fuels enter the economy, meaning the mine, well or port. Economists are nearly unanimous in their belief that a carbon fee is the most efficient and effective way to reduce carbon emissions. A sensible carbon fee should begin at $40 a ton and increase steadily over time, sending a powerful signal to businesses and consumers, while generating revenue to reward Americans for decreasing their carbon footprint.

II. Carbon Dividends for All Americans

All the proceeds from this carbon fee would be returned to the American people on an equal and quarterly basis via dividend checks, direct deposits or contributions to their individual retirement accounts. In the example above of a $40/ton carbon fee, a family of four would receive approximately $2,000 in carbon dividend payments in the first year. This amount would grow over time as the carbon fee rate increases, creating a positive feedback loop: the more the climate is protected, the greater the individual dividend payments to all Americans. The Social Security Administration should administer this program, with eligibility for dividends based on a valid social security number.

III. Border Carbon Adjustments

Border adjustments for the carbon content of both imports and exports would protect American competitiveness and punish free-riding by other nations, encouraging them to adopt carbon pricing of their own. Exports to countries without comparable carbon pricing systems would receive rebates for carbon fees paid, while imports from such countries would face fees on the carbon content of their products. Proceeds from such fees would benefit the American people in the form of larger carbon dividends or could be used for transitional assistance for industries or regions hurt by the carbon fee. Other trade remedies could also be used to encourage our trading partners to adopt comparable carbon pricing.

IV. Regulatory Simplification

The final pillar is the streamlining of regulations that are no longer necessary upon the enactment of a rising carbon fee whose longevity is secured by the popularity of dividends. Many, though not all, Obama-era carbon dioxide regulations could be safely phased out, including a repeal of the Clean Power Plan. A robust national carbon price would also make possible a historic emissions provision stipulating that no party should be liable for damages from past emissions that were legal at the time. To build and sustain a bipartisan consensus for this regulatory simplification, the initial carbon fee should be set to significantly exceed the emissions reductions of all prior climate regulations, and the carbon fee should increase from year to year.


https://www.clcouncil.org/our-plan/
...of which has been endorsed by...

ECONOMISTS’ STATEMENT ON CARBON DIVIDENDS
The Largest Public Statement of Economists in History

SIGNATORIES INCLUDE

3554 U.S. Economists
4 Former Chairs of the Federal Reserve (All)
27 Nobel Laureate Economists
15 Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers
2 Former Secretaries of the U.S. Department of Treasury

https://www.clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
...as well as being endorsed by a wide array of editorial boards...

https://www.clcouncil.org/endorsements/


But, I guess we should all just listen to some human caused climate change denialist nutjob and mere former GE engineer who speaks for an organization comprised of like-minded individuals which has a history of doing whatever it can to support the fossil fuel industry, all paid for by, of course, the fossil fuel industry?

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Feb 2019
1,319
613
nunya
I did not personally insult, it is a valid question. If I hurt your feelings, I do apologize and will try not to in future. Now I have my answer, you do not know.

New taxes always hurt the people least able to pay the most. That should go without saying. Taxes on large corporations/business entities are always passed on to these people, of course. Corporations don't erase their own profits when taxes increase, they have to make their money.

Here's the problem with the whole thing, I think this explains it fairly well although it leaves some things out:

"At first blush, it’s the corporation, i.e, the utility generating electricity, the refinery producing gasoline, the natural gas driller, the car manufacturer, or whichever corporation is legally responsible for paying the carbon tax.

Ordinary people pay for all taxes, including those hidden in the price of products people purchase, where corporations are the involuntary collector of taxes for the government.

This would include any carbon tax that the government might impose.
Corporations are involuntary tax collectors, and would be collecting more taxes if a carbon tax is added to the list of taxes.
When corporate taxes are increased, which would be the case with a carbon tax, the prices of their products are increased.
Higher prices affect the middle class and lower-income groups who use a higher percentage of their income to purchase goods and services than do wealthy individuals.
Lower and middle-income earners are hurt the most when corporate taxes, including any carbon tax, are increased.
The people proposing a carbon tax admit this, because they also propose to redistribute some of the carbon tax, once the government collects it, to low-income people.
In that sense, a carbon tax is merely another method for wealth redistribution.
A carbon tax merely adds to the slush fund that politicians can dole out to their favored communities.
All taxes, corporate, sales and personal, are paid for by consumers, and this includes the carbon tax."

and this is why I posted previously:


to which you responded:


Now I hope you see clearly why your contention was patently wrong.
You are completely mistaken.

While a tax on oil/natural gas would hurt American consumers in the beginning, it would put more economic muscle on clean energy, making that cheaper and more affordable as more corporations move to solar and other sources of clean energy.

A carbon tax has much more benefits for America as a whole and our planet as a whole. It is a short term investment that puts big businesses and fossil fuels and pushes them over to clean energy. Making solar the new natural gas.

While consumers may have a higher electric bill in the beginning, we would have much cheaper clean energy sources as corporations move to solar.

That is why we need a carbon tax.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GluteusMaximus
Feb 2007
6,222
3,962
USA
May 2018
5,057
4,240
USA
We're already done for as a species. Within a couple hundred years, probably far sooner, the human race as we know it will be extinct. Blame the ignorant morons who believe Republican propaganda on global warming, the politicians who refused to do anything (on both parties, but again mostly REPUBLICAN) and the greedy bastards who didn't care as long as they made a killing in the short term (Republicans, mostly). That's pure evil there, selling out your POSTERITY's future for short term gain now. The biggest polluter on the planet by a country mile (the USA) is led by a simpleton who has PROMISED TO INCREASE POLLUTION FROM COAL PLANTS. And he's convinced over 40% of the population that only HE tells the truth, that all the media is lying! It's firmly convinced me of one thing: the human race isn't WORTH saving.