View Full Version : Warming proposals(dodd proposes a tax)
Im not in favor of more federal taxes, given the system we are in and the state we are at I thought this was at least an attempt to move the discussion forward here in the U.S.
Warming Proposals
The presidential candidates and climate change
Monday, May 14, 2007; Page A14
ONE OF THE benefits of being in the second tier of presidential candidates is feeling freer to promote worthy ideas that might seem too risky to a front-runner. That may be the case with Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), whose plan to tackle climate change involves a bold move for any politician: a new tax -- in this case, on carbon emissions. "You cannot be serious about acting on the urgent threat of global warming, about making us less captive to Middle East oil, or investing in renewable energy, unless you have a corporate carbon tax that eliminates the last incentive there is to pollute -- that it's cheaper," Mr. Dodd said in a speech last month.
He would spend the $50 billion in annual revenue on research into renewable technologies. And he would couple the tax with legislation to mandate reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and raise automobile fuel economy standards to 50 miles per gallon by 2017. Mr. Dodd's tax proposal in particular goes far beyond the standard fare of the better-known Democratic candidates, who advocate a cap-and-trade approach to spur companies to reduce emissions combined with other incentives to increase production of renewable energy and to cut consumption.
Under a cap-and-trade system, government would set a limit on the total amount of carbon dioxide that could be emitted. It would issue allowances to companies that emit CO{-2}, which would be able to buy and sell these rights. The theory is that the market would reward those able to reduce their emissions and make money from selling the rights. This has been a promising approach, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) in particular deserves credit for pushing it, especially within a party of global warming skeptics and 2008 opponents who have little to say on the subject.
In theory, a well-designed cap-and-trade system -- one that does not simply hand out allowances but auctions some off, that applies across all sectors of the economy and that has some flexibility to keep energy prices stable -- could achieve the same ends as a carbon tax. In practice in Europe, cap and trade, at least in its early stages, has proved ineffective and susceptible to manipulation. Those who advocate this approach -- including not only Mr. McCain but Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- ought to explain why this cumbersome system is better than a straightforward tax.
Conversely, Mr. Dodd and other backers of a carbon tax need to address its drawbacks, which are a matter of both political feasibility and conceptual design. What happens to particularly emissions-intensive sectors such as the coal industry, for instance, when an across-the-board carbon tax is imposed? Is a political system in which tax hikes are electoral poison capable of adopting a carbon tax, or is cap-and-trade more likely to win support? Would a tax end up being so riddled with loopholes as to be ineffective?
Mr. Dodd would combine a tax with emission caps, which he says are necessary for certainty in emission reductions, but the details of how those two approaches would work together are fuzzy.
Neither a U.S. cap-and-trade system nor a U.S. carbon tax will, in itself, deal with the daunting truth that the greatest growth in greenhouse emissions is in the developing world, particularly China and India. But a domestic policy that encourages the development of alternative technologies could reap a double benefit, generating U.S. sales of these innovative products overseas and helping address greenhouse gas emissions there as well.
Warming proposals (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/13/AR2007051301050.html)
I'm intrested in what other U.S. voters think about this because I havent been sold on a corporate emission tax just yet, but in the back of my mind it seems to be a viable way to control emissions and draw new revenues to support new green technologies.
Any other voters hear this from thier candidates?
Don Corleone
06-12-2007, 13:16
It sounds like a great idea. The problem, as I see it, is two-fold.
One: There's no attempt to apply the Law of Unintended Consequences. Dodd's policy guys have assumed that they know exactly how the market will behave, and that's not always the case. Think rent control. It was supposed to make appartments in New York City cheap and readily available. Instead, it decimated the supply, because all the owners went condo. This tax may very well do what its intended to do. But it might not, and I see no analysis of how it might go wrong and what are some mitigating steps they can take to lessen the likelihood or the severity of unintended (and undesirable) consequences.
Two: It's been my experience that new streams of government revenue (taxes, lotteries, etcetera) are always introduced for the best of intentions. They always intend to spend the money on some noble goal. But almost always, the money gets diverted, there winds up not being enough to fund the desirable program, so either the program gets discontinued (with the revenue vehicle left intact) or the program starts requiring additional funding, which means tax hikes in other areas.
For a good example of #2, let's look at state lotteries to fund education. The state of Connecticut held out to being one of the last states in the area to have a lottery. We were told how backwards we were, how much money we were losing to neighboring states, etcetera. All these beautiful predictions of how much money would be created... So finally, around 1992, they instituted a lottery. And the state cut back on the amount of the general fund that went to education, because of all the money pouring in from the lottery. After a year or two, expensive educational programs were added, because the lottery made it possible. Well, 2 or 3 years down the line, interest in the lottery started to dry up. People still played, but nowhere near at the rate as when it was new. Now, education was facing severe shortfalls. Obviously, programs couldn't be cut, so the state had to start picking up a big part of the tab again. Only now, the bill was much larger. So they had to introduce NEW taxes beyond what they had in 1991. They still had the lottery too.
One: There's no attempt to apply the Law of Unintended Consequences. Dodd's policy guys have assumed that they know exactly how the market will behave, and that's not always the case. Think rent control. It was supposed to make appartments in New York City cheap and readily available. Instead, it decimated the supply, because all the owners went condo. This tax may very well do what its intended to do. But it might not, and I see no analysis of how it might go wrong and what are some mitigating steps they can take to lessen the likelihood or the severity of unintended (and undesirable) consequences.
Fair enough, but it does strike right at the perps of the problem, corporations dont like decreased profits due to taxes based on thier own output. As I understand the concept, its a progressive tax, the more you emit, the more it costs you. I concede it bares more thought and research, but on its surface it appears to address the issue in a balanced way (if its based on the amount you emit)
Two: It's been my experience that new streams of government revenue (taxes, lotteries, etcetera) are always introduced for the best of intentions. They always intend to spend the money on some noble goal. But almost always, the money gets diverted, there winds up not being enough to fund the desirable program, so either the program gets discontinued (with the revenue vehicle left intact) or the program starts requiring additional funding, which means tax hikes in other areas.
Well yes thats my problem as well and I suspect will be the larger issue, a liberal proposing a new tax is a red flag. That said, I dont think its a bad way to generate more revenue on the whole. Even if its spent somewhere else that it was intended for, it still taxes corporations with high emitions.
Gawain of Orkeny
06-12-2007, 13:35
Give the government more of my money . Are you insane? When there is no proof were even causing warming. Over my dead body. Thats what most americans will tell you. Even if they believe it they wont go for it. Were all bitching about the price of gas now. You want to see the economy go in the tank you just go ahead and do this. Raising the price of oil raises the price of everything.
Are you insane?
Well technically yes, having spent years on acid and other wonderful narcotics I think I might be, however I am able to temper it with logic from time to time.
When there is no proof were even causing warming.
Carbon emissions cause global warming.
Don Corleone
06-12-2007, 13:52
Come on, you know what Gawain's point was. Carbon emissions are a proven mechanism that CAN cause temperatures to rise. AFAIK, other than that report that got published last year that started with the conclusion statement, then was written to prove it(I'm still reviewing it and will have a rebuttal in detail later this week), there's no strong data on how much of the global rise in temperatures was due to man's activity.
Come on, you know what Gawain's point was. Carbon emissions are a proven mechanism that CAN cause temperatures to rise. AFAIK, other than that report that got published last year that started with the conclusion statement, then was written to prove it(I'm still reviewing it and will have a rebuttal in detail later this week), there's no strong data on how much of the global rise in temperatures was due to man's activity.
Yes I know what his point was, but you know sometimes I like to be cute. I agree, there is no conclusive data on mans activity and its contribution to the rise in tempatures.
But, increased carbon does increase the green house effect, which causes tempatures to rise, of that I am pretty certain, but will stand corrected if someone posts data to the contrary.
Decreasing carbon, or proposals to penalize those who do emit carbon seems a logical approach to the issue. Carbon emitions are the problem, so you worry about and address the area you can control, this seems to be an effort in that vein.
Therefore I cant dismiss it out of hand so readily, like our dear friend from NY Gawain.
Don Corleone
06-12-2007, 14:44
Well, after an initial read of the IPCC-AR4 for which Byzantine Mercenary so kindly provided a link, I'm relatively unconvinced as to the science they use to ascribe >50% of the temperature forcing due to carbon emissions. I agree that its a factor, and I agree we should certainly try to limit our greenhouse gas emissions, but the IPCC reads like an apocolyptic fairy tale. Some of the original authors dropped out of the report because they felt their studies were being over simplified in conclusions.
* In January 2005, Dr. Chris Landsea who was already an author on the 2001 report (TAR), withdrew his participation in the Fourth Assessment Report claiming that the IPCC had become "politicized" and that the IPCC leadership simply dismissed his concerns. He published an open letter explaining why he was resigning and to "bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process"[37].
The conflict centers around Dr. Kevin Trenberth's public contention that global warming was contributing to "recent hurricane activity", which Landsea described as a "misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC". He has stated that the process of producing the Fourth Assessment Report is "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and "scientifically unsound".[37]
Landsea writes that "the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author."
* Roger A. Pielke (Jr), the University of Colorado professor who originally published Landsea's letter, expressed his opinion that the report "maintain[s] consistency with the actual balance of opinion(s) in the community of relevant experts"[38] but notes the political influence on the process of negotiation of the report's contents:
"The open atmosphere of negotiations in the IPCC is probably something that should be revised. How anyone can deny that political factors were everpresent in the negotiations isn't paying attention."
* Stephen McIntyre, an IPCC reviewer, attempted to obtained unpublished research which was cited by the IPCC drafts he was reviewing. He found that it was impossible to get access this data. When, following up on a suggestion by one of the researchers, he requested the data from the Journal of Geophysical Research, the IPCC threatened to remove his credentials as an expert reviewer and accused him of using "your access to unpublished material on our review web site to attempt to influence editorial decisions by the Journal of Geophysical Research". McIntyre claims that he sought the data for the sole purpose of reviewing the IPCC report and that he never did anything of the sort. As of March 2007, McIntyre has still not been able to obtain the data used in the cited papers. McIntyre recommends that the "IPCC should require authors who submitted papers for citation to consent to provide data." The IPCC has responded that to do so would be interfering with journals.[39]
Note that third criticism. When one of the appointed independent reviewers sought the original data from a summary point in the report, the IPCC threatened to strip him of his reviewer credentials. Not the thorough review by peers its been touted as.
Maybe we need scary bedtime stories to get us to respond. But we should acknowledge them for what they are, and not claim that the IPCC is hard science.
Sorry, there's 3 Global Warming threads right now :rolleyes4: I'm cutting back to just one.
When one of the appointed independent reviewers sought the original data from a summary point in the report, the IPCC threatened to strip him of his reviewer credentials. Not the thorough review by peers its been touted as.
Im not saying its doom and gloom nor is dodd. I think the point of the tax is a logical approach, you recognize an issue (carbon emission) and you attempt to take a corrective action. Essentially, you worry about what you can control, not what you cant.
Unless you dispute that carbon emission is a legit issue? If you do dispute it, then we disagree.
Sorry, there's 3 Global Warming threads right now :rolleyes4: I'm cutting back to just one.
Okay, however this wasnt meant to be a discussion on global warming, but a discussion on the viability of penalizing companies through tax for carbon emissions. As I see it global warming as a whole can be broken down to cause, increased carbon in the atmosphere, it isnt complex.
Determining the who is responsible for the cause might be complex, or assigning blame, but identifying the culprit isnt. To Dodd's credit he is, as far as I can tell, one of the only pres candidates who have bothered to put forth a plan to correct carbon, not assign blame.
The blame game or the responsibility game is like watching a dog chase its tail, is it the tails fault, or the dogs? :dizzy2:
Don Corleone
06-12-2007, 15:25
Yeah, like I was hinting at, the whole IPCC-AR4 report came up in another Global Warming thread.
As I said, I agree that the globe is getting warmer (and has been for the past 100 years). I disagree with the IPCC (who notoriously edited graphs of global temperature that demonstrated that temperatures in the Middle Ages actually exceed current temperatures). I agree that man's activities have had some impact on the temperature rise. I disagree that man's activities have been the primary mechansim for elevated temperatures. And finally, to the point of this thread, I agree we should attempt to find methods to cut our greenhouse gasses.
They say a picture is worth 1000 words. Well, here's my picture of the cure:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/NuclearReactor.jpg
Also open to wind, tidal, fusion, solar and any other power source that keeps us from exhaling greenhouse gasses (and more importantly, breaks our dependence on foreign oil). :yes:
Also open to wind, tidal, fusion, solar and any other power source that keeps us from exhaling greenhouse gasses (and more importantly, breaks our dependence on foreign oil). :yes:
I am for nuclear power, to be blunt I think its the best way forward as it compliments many issues.
But nuke plants are expensive to build, someone has to be impressed with thier viability, my personal goal as a consumer/voter/taxpayer is to support measures that target carbon emission.
I dont care how we cross the finish line, as long as we get there because as much as I detest the doom and gloomers, a little voice in my head says dont dismiss them outright.
Where will we be in 2050 when my kid is my age now?
Im not a gambler.
Don Corleone
06-12-2007, 15:38
Tell you what... you let me get one or two more nuclear power plants built up here in Seabrook. Then pass all the fossil fuel taxes you want. I'll be more than willing to export electricity over the grid.
I'm actually surprised more people aren't doing this. I'm seriously considering contacting whomever the trade group for nuclear reactors is and seeing about getting involved. Control the waste properly, have properly trained personnel and it's a goldmine.
HoreTore
06-12-2007, 19:12
They say a picture is worth 1000 words. Well, here's my picture of the cure:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v334/tharris00/NuclearReactor.jpg
Very fun until something goes wrong...
Though having kids with 6 legs can be quite amusing too, I suppose...
Though having kids with 6 legs can be quite amusing too, I suppose...
Mythology is great isnt it? (coming from a cat who goes by the handle Odin)
Don Corleone
06-12-2007, 19:47
Very fun until something goes wrong...
Though having kids with 6 legs can be quite amusing too, I suppose...
I'll take the boogeyman of a child with 6 legs over the very real threats we face from our current energy policies any day of the week.
Not to mention that burning coal for power emits more radioactive emissions than a nuke plant.
dodd proposes a taxOf course he does, he's a Democrat- that's their solution to everything. :beam:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.