[max_power29]

How about tax nothing and subsidize nothing?! Government does not solve problems. It creates them. If you want to create problems, go to the government.

Anyways, once a tax has started the government never gives it up. Instead does not comute when it comes to the govermnet and taxes. You will get the shaft both ways no matter what.

[max_power29]

How about tax nothing and subsidize nothing?! Government does not solve problems. It creates them. If you want to create problems, go to the government.

Anyways, once a tax has started the government never gives it up. Instead does not comute when it comes to the govermnet and taxes. You will get the shaft both ways no matter what.

[SILENTTODD]

Americans need to start using Bicycles!

A very American thing to do! The Wright Brothers were bicycle mechanics until they go side tracked by flying

[ekaggata]

Can I make another suggestion? How about taxing consumption rather than income or carbon?

I mean this may all be far too little too late, but I have a slight problem with concepts such as "carbon footprint" and "carbon tax" - after all it's CO2 rather than carbon that's the problem in climate change terms, and after all CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. Maybe ultimately that isn't a vitally important distinction, but still it bears mentioning.
I also think offsetting and trading (of carbon) are spectacularly problematic ideas. Even appalling ideas. They could represent a big, artificial encouragement to rich countries to keep consuming fossil fuels, and to "offset" with bogus deals. I don't see how it can be policed.

I know there are massive problems with any idea, but I heard about the idea of a "consumption" tax and it seemed to have some merits - if we tax end use of resources/energy nobody can obfuscate their actual obligation based on what they use.
OK, I don't know much about economics. And admittedly it (consumption tax) totally undermines certain ideas about capitalism, which people won't want to accept, necessary or not.

[Kingcoal]

How about tax nothing and subsidize nothing?! Government does not solve problems. It creates them. If you want to create problems, go to the government.

Anyways, once a tax has started the government never gives it up. Instead does not comute when it comes to the govermnet and taxes. You will get the shaft both ways no matter what.

Amen, brother. Our founding fathers wanted it that way. The current situation resembles "bread and circuses," complete with Cesar Augustus Bush. Bring back the Republic and we'll have a system more compatible with nature. The current system amounts to a huge, wasteful, consumption machine.

One thing I'd like to point out is that taxes or laws that limit consumption are not in the worldly interest of oil producers. The House of Saud wouldn't be so accommodative of the US if it went the path of Europe in this regard.

[Smudger]

And this mass transit system you propose with your taxes...

Does it go to each and every one of the hundreds of thousands of small farming and ranching communities across the 9.6 MILLION square km of the US?

If not, everyone's food prices are going to skyrocket because us farmers will be paying most of those taxes to get the food you eat raised, harvested and to your markets.

But you don't mind paying lots more for what you eat. You HAVE to eat. We'll just pass the cost on to you. Enjoy.

One wonders whether applying a mass transit system in the way you describe would be 1). practical or 2). useful. Rather I suspect the CALMER people here who DON'T use CAPITALS a LOT would suggest that creating an urban based mass transit system which when coupled with a tax system that encourages its use would reduce lots of unnecessary short/long journeys. This would reduce petrol consumption and congestion thereby reducing pollution and enabling petrol to be used where it is best used - strangely enough for the farmers etc to get produce to Rail hubs. In terms of cost again i suspect as no-one ever refutes it most people know that the US population pays far too little for their petrol ($2.50 vs $8.00 in Europe) and consequently pays too little for food etc. If Europe can deal with much higher petrol prices then one wonders whether the US can.
oh yes and a car tax system which means the 8mpg cars have a higher tax rate would I would suggest assist in the overall picture.
oh and by the way in the UK and other European countries we have a system of zero taxed diesel so the farmers dont get hit - CLEVER HUH?.....

[TommyJefferson]

oh and by the way in the UK and other European countries we have a system of zero taxed diesel so the farmers dont get hit - CLEVER HUH?.....

The U.S. does too. - CLEVER HUH?...

[Smudger]

oh and by the way in the UK and other European countries we have a system of zero taxed diesel so the farmers dont get hit - CLEVER HUH?.....

The U.S. does too. - CLEVER HUH?...

I thought so too then you had this Boris chap whining about tax increases on petrol would affect farmers so assumed this wasn't the case.

[Smudger]

oh and by the way in the UK and other European countries we have a system of zero taxed diesel so the farmers dont get hit - CLEVER HUH?.....

The U.S. does too. - CLEVER HUH?...

I thought so too then you had this Boris chap whining about tax increases on petrol would affect farmers so assumed this wasn't the case.

[jbeckton]

By taxing according to how much CO² will be emitted, each fuel will compete on that criterion, the only one that really matters for the purpose. Coal would be taxed more heavily than oil, and oil more than natural gas because of the level of CO² emitted compared to the energy content. Biofuels would not be taxed, but of course fossil fuel inputs would be. Therefore ethanol produced using coal for process heat would become more expensive than that using straw or biogas. Each form of transport would compete according to carbon use, therefore rail and bus would increase in popularity and not need a subsidy.

Industries in the US do pay carbon taxes and it hasn't made much of a difference. Maybe they need to continue to raise them.

[zorn]

i always thought it was interesting that Global Warming became big news AFTER the Hirsch Report was released.

Climatologists warned of global warming for years and years, then the Hirsch report comes out - poof! the world is going to stop Global Warming by reducing [s]carbon output[/s] energy consumption.

right?

[katkinkate]

Also, while I'm not sure that this is in the same line of thinking, I think that everyone who has a home garden/small farm should get an income tax/carbon credit. If one could verify that they produced so many pounds of fresh veg, or canned the surplus, someone smarter than me could figure out how much carbon is offset by not purchasing food from 1000s of miles away.

I think that would just add more red tape to the process and give them an oportunity to charge more 'fees' or 'administrative charges' to evaluate your food stores. Isn't it enough that the more you grow and preserve for your own consumption the less you need to buy the carbon-taxed produce?

[deMolay]

All I can see increasing taxes doing is increasing the size of Gubmint, which means more Gubmint employees who are unaffected by that tax. It will also decrease our consumption leaving more oil available for Communist China. The old tradegy of the commons. If you don't use it someone else will.

[Graeme]

Rise of the Carbon-Neutral City

In the windswept deserts of Abu Dhabi, construction is under way on a green oasis planners say represents one of the most ambitious urban building projects ever. On Feb. 7, the United Arab Emirates-funded consortium behind Masdar City, a zero-carbon, zero-waste, self-contained community meant to house 50,000 people, finally broke ground, launching the first of seven building phases to be completed over the next eight years. All told, the $22 billion megaproject will include cutting-edge solar power and water treatment systems, nonpolluting underground light rail, and a small research university operated in conjunction with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Equally ambitious projects to build entirely new, sustainabilitly-focused cities are cropping up on nearly every continent. Well-known architectural firms such as Charlottesville, Va.'s William McDonough & Partners and London's Arup have signed on to create massive green projects in China, which will effectively test the ability of engineers and urban planners to manage that country's staggering and often environmentally ravaging growth.

In a similar vein, the governments of Costa Rica, Norway, and even Libya have announced grand, state-sponsored development plans that promise some version of carbon neutrality—offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, often by producing clean, renewable energy. Smaller private and public developments throughout Europe and North America abound, powered by everything from solar energy and hydrogen fuel cells to even human waste.

businessweek

[thylacine]

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

[deMolay]

I agree with this, if the west has to pay a carbon tax, so should India China etc. Slap a carbon tarriff on all goods from China and India etc. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/je ... /#comments

[dorlomin]

Tax at the point of consumption.

Yep, 100% agree with that, otherwise its just bloody madness.

Edited to add all this "cap and trade" and "carbon trading" is just fraud, bollox and bull. Does nothing to reduce global CO2 production.

[rangerone314]

I have a fairer idea as to carbon responsiblity and energy consumption rights.

It does seem like the developed world consumes too much per capita. It also seems like the undeveloped world consumes less per capita but has more people.

The question is, in terms of arable land and carrying capacity, which countries in the undeveloped world exceed that?

Say Country A has 50 million people and consumes X units of energy.
Country B has 500 million people and consumes 2X units of energy.

Country A would say that Country B needs to cut back more since they use more energy and Country B would say you are using 5X as much as us per capita.

Lets imagine Country A and Country B both have the same amount of arable land and carrying capacity.

The amount of energy they both consume should be equal, if Country A had more responsible consumption and Country B was more responsible about population.

[deMolay]

Ranger way to complicated. The west would have to pay a carbon tax inside their own borders agreed? They would then slap a carbon tarriff on all countries who do not meet the wests higher standards on production. Copenhagen will not reduce pollution in the world. It will only transfer all production to China and India etc. who are exempt from paying carbon taxes under Copenhagen. All companies producing anything in the west will quickly just relocate to China to escape the carbon taxes of Copenhagen. And the pollution will continue. This would force the Chinese who have the majority of the smokestack industries and an excess of capital to clean up the mess.

[rangerone314]

Ranger way to complicated. The west would have to pay a carbon tax inside their own borders agreed? They would then slap a carbon tarriff on all countries who do not meet the wests higher standards on production. Copenhagen will not reduce pollution in the world. It will only transfer all production to China and India etc. who are exempt from paying carbon taxes under Copenhagen. All companies producing anything in the west will quickly just relocate to China to escape the carbon taxes of Copenhagen. And the pollution will continue. This would force the Chinese who have the majority of the smokestack industries and an excess of capital to clean up the mess.

It is complicated BECAUSE we are dealing with TWO separate issues that should be dealt with as two separate issues. The West has excess consumption and the developing world has excess population, and both are irresponsible but in different ways. The developing world has as much right to the same per capita energy use and standard of living as the West does but they need to reduce their population.

The problem with trying to figure out what is fair energy consumption with regards to the 1st and 3rd worlds is that you are comparing apples (population) to oranges (level of development). You need a common frame of reference (optimal population/arable land) to bridge them. This would also be a way to bring that political third rail (population) into play.

My idea of tying land to the consumption of use is the only logical and fair solution that encourages individual responsible behavior of each country, rather than engaging in a tragedy of the commons downward spiral.

We should look at each country in terms of how many people it can reasonably support and what energy consumption should be for that amount of LAND. If a country is not happy with their per capita share of energy then they need to lower the population.

By applying carbon taxes/tariffs based on carrying capacity and arable land, we are also financially incentivising population control as well as carbon reduction. Even IF we were able to ONLY tackle carbon sucessfully using another method, population out of control will still deplete fresh water and soil.