[deMolay]

Your idea is a pipe dream. It will mean 100 years of negotiation. The direct carbon tarriff is immediate with no negotiation. Instant results on pollution. Besides most enviromentalists call for a population cull. Another non starter. Will never happen by negotiation. They always want to cull the west tho, funny eh!

[rangerone314]

Your idea is a pipe dream. It will mean 100 years of negotiation. The direct carbon tarriff is immediate with no negotiation. Instant results on pollution. Besides most enviromentalists call for a population cull. Another non starter. Will never happen by negotiation. They always want to cull the west tho, funny eh!

I'm not arguing against a direct carbon tariff - I am in favor of it.

But what I am arguing for is basing the AMOUNT of the carbon tariff for a given country being based up what its carbon output should be.

[deMolay]

Each Nation would simply apply the Carbon Tariff at the level that created a local level playing field ie; If it cost the US company 40 cents on the dollar of production to comply with all enviromental compliance laws in the USA that is the amount that would be slapped on the imported goods, adjusted country by country according to the status of the countries enviromental regulations and compliance. No need to hire thousands of paper shufflers at the UN, And no need to send money off shore. Use the tarridd tax income to advance pollution control and subsidize enviromental upgrades in the US and further clean up our water and countries. If you want to control population lobby your government to end food aid to the 3rd world.

[Dr. Ofellati]

Taxes are a mechanism of control.

Period.

[Arthur75]

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.

Also agree 100%
Cap and Trade is really crap

Make the tax partly directly redistributed (as proposed by James Hansen), and you in effect set up a personal carbon trading mechanism, without trade, and more importantly fully anonymous, without any need for citizen activity monitoring.

The fact that monitoring isn't necessary is really key to me, otherwise the Orwellian schemas are not far, and in fact they are coming, like in Holland for instance :

Drivers will have to pay per kilometer driven in a bid to end chronic traffic jams and cut carbon emissions. The system, which will use Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to monitor cars, could be used as a test case for other countries weighing options for easing crowded roads. Singapore has a similar scheme for charging according to the amount of travel.
Related articles

When the plan takes effect in 2012, new car prices could fall by as much as 25 per cent with the abolition of purchase and road taxes. Instead, an average passenger car will pay €.03 per kilometer (£.04 per mile), with higher charges levied during rush-hour and for travelling on congested roads.

But the Dutch Transport Ministry said trucks, commercial vehicles and bigger cars emitting more carbon dioxide will be assessed at a higher rate. The GPS devices installed in cars will track the time, hour and place each car moves and send the data to a billing agency.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 21268.html

[rangerone314]

Taxes are a mechanism of control.

Period.

Exactly.

We have taxes for police so they can control someone who robs a bank, and for firemen who control a fire from spreading to the next building or forest.

[Ludi]

Besides most enviromentalists call for a population cull.

No, they don't. Most environmentalists don't call for killing people.

[Dr. Ofellati]

Taxes are a mechanism of control.

Period.

Exactly.

We have taxes for police so they can control someone who robs a bank, and for firemen who control a fire from spreading to the next building or forest.

You could pay for police and fire and the other, very few, essential services through means other than property and income and sales taxes.

[Pretorian]

Taxes are a mechanism of control.

Period.

not really. Not at all actually. You can't tax somebody you have no control over in the first place. I can email you and tell you to direct deposit 20% of your income into my account and, well, I can guess the answer. I can show up at your door with the same claim and well may be you will call the police. But what if I have a key from a place where the Sun never shines? And police, judge, public prosecutor and FBI are buddies of mine and will get some sweets from those 20% as well. Now that would quickly change your mind, wouldnt it.

[ralfy]

Arguments for and against cap and trade will prolly not matter because with peak oil we'll end up wtih "cap".

But if there will be a carbon tax anyway, maybe we can make it retroactive.

[Pretorian]

Besides most enviromentalists call for a population cull.

No, they don't. Most environmentalists don't call for killing people.

they do not care for environment then.

[rangerone314]

Taxes are a mechanism of control.

Period.

Exactly.

We have taxes for police so they can control someone who robs a bank, and for firemen who control a fire from spreading to the next building or forest.

You could pay for police and fire and the other, very few, essential services through means other than property and income and sales taxes.

Pass a collection plate around at the local church...

[Pretorian]

Anyways, what is a point of Carbon Tariff, or Carbon Tax or whatever you want to call it if the proceeds will be a part of a general income which is used to keep population numbers up and breed people in general, including countries with 7-8 successful spawns per female? What does it supposed to do anyway, reduce consumption? Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally. By massive I mean youhavenotseenonelikethatbeforeanddidntthinkitwasevenpossible . Stop drinking tea and coffee, stop eating chocolate and sugar and Sri-Lanka,Kenya Ghana, Ivory coast , Brazil become one big Haiti in a moment. Stop smoking and Malawi joins them, along with others. Now, Haitian and African examples show that one doesnt need to have a job or any kind of income in order to have 10-15-20 kids.
In fact a job might be even a hassle as one wont have as much time devoted to baby making and upbringing. So, who will be feeding all those new Haitis and Zimbabwes? More importantly, how are the borders will be protected from (hundreds of millions?) of economic, climate and all kinds of other "refugees" ?

[rangerone314]

Anyways, what is a point of Carbon Tariff, or Carbon Tax or whatever you want to call it if the proceeds will be a part of a general income which is used to keep population numbers up and breed people in general, including countries with 7-8 successful spawns per female? What does it supposed to do anyway, reduce consumption? Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally. By massive I mean youhavenotseenonelikethatbeforeanddidntthinkitwasevenpossible . Stop drinking tea and coffee, stop eating chocolate and sugar and Sri-Lanka,Kenya Ghana, Ivory coast , Brazil become one big Haiti in a moment. Stop smoking and Malawi joins them, along with others. Now, Haitian and African examples show that one doesnt need to have a job or any kind of income in order to have 10-15-20 kids.
In fact a job might be even a hassle as one wont have as much time devoted to baby making and upbringing. So, who will be feeding all those new Haitis and Zimbabwes? More importantly, how are the borders will be protected from (hundreds of millions?) of economic, climate and all kinds of other "refugees" ?

It is possible to reduce consumption without decreasing employment. Peak oil may help reduce productivity. In otherwords, instead of 1 worker in a factory producing 10 shoes for one customer, maybe you have 5 workers working by hand to produce 5 shoes for 5 customers.

A slow decline in productivity by a reversal of automation may result in more jobs, and less-centralized ones.

[Arthur75]

Anyways, what is a point of Carbon Tariff, or Carbon Tax or whatever you want to call it if the proceeds will be a part of a general income which is used to keep population numbers up and breed people in general, including countries with 7-8 successful spawns per female? What does it supposed to do anyway, reduce consumption? Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally. By massive I mean youhavenotseenonelikethatbeforeanddidntthinkitwasevenpossible . Stop drinking tea and coffee, stop eating chocolate and sugar and Sri-Lanka,Kenya Ghana, Ivory coast , Brazil become one big Haiti in a moment. Stop smoking and Malawi joins them, along with others. Now, Haitian and African examples show that one doesnt need to have a job or any kind of income in order to have 10-15-20 kids.
In fact a job might be even a hassle as one wont have as much time devoted to baby making and upbringing. So, who will be feeding all those new Haitis and Zimbabwes? More importantly, how are the borders will be protected from (hundreds of millions?) of economic, climate and all kinds of other "refugees" ?

I see a carbon tax as an acceleration mechanism, pushing whatever will make sense quicker in terms of investment, the truth is that it is an architecture and urbanism issue in the end (amongst other things), and the US fuel tax is still grotesque beyond belief.

[mos6507]

Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally.

I don't think you get it. What we have here are a series of alternatives that range from bad to worse. Powerdown of some sort is inevitable whether it's proactive or reactive. BAU will not be sustained. You can hold onto your illusion that it can be for now, but the trendlines are pretty clear.

[Dr. Ofellati]

Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally.

I don't think you get it. What we have here are a series of alternatives that range from bad to worse. Powerdown of some sort is inevitable whether it's proactive or reactive. BAU will not be sustained. You can hold onto your illusion that it can be for now, but the trendlines are pretty clear.

True. All signs point south. Resist descent at your own peril.

[rangerone314]

Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally.

I don't think you get it. What we have here are a series of alternatives that range from bad to worse. Powerdown of some sort is inevitable whether it's proactive or reactive. BAU will not be sustained. You can hold onto your illusion that it can be for now, but the trendlines are pretty clear.

I look at it like being in a building during a fire.

Do we jump off the roof and go *SPLAT!* or do we use the fire escape to climb down?

[Pretorian]

Anyways, what is a point of Carbon Tariff, or Carbon Tax or whatever you want to call it if the proceeds will be a part of a general income which is used to keep population numbers up and breed people in general, including countries with 7-8 successful spawns per female? What does it supposed to do anyway, reduce consumption? Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally. By massive I mean youhavenotseenonelikethatbeforeanddidntthinkitwasevenpossible . Stop drinking tea and coffee, stop eating chocolate and sugar and Sri-Lanka,Kenya Ghana, Ivory coast , Brazil become one big Haiti in a moment. Stop smoking and Malawi joins them, along with others. Now, Haitian and African examples show that one doesnt need to have a job or any kind of income in order to have 10-15-20 kids.
In fact a job might be even a hassle as one wont have as much time devoted to baby making and upbringing. So, who will be feeding all those new Haitis and Zimbabwes? More importantly, how are the borders will be protected from (hundreds of millions?) of economic, climate and all kinds of other "refugees" ?

It is possible to reduce consumption without decreasing employment. Peak oil may help reduce productivity. In otherwords, instead of 1 worker in a factory producing 10 shoes for one customer, maybe you have 5 workers working by hand to produce 5 shoes for 5 customers.

A slow decline in productivity by a reversal of automation may result in more jobs, and less-centralized ones.

That is possible in US and some other countries where most people employed in service industry, or in another words, don't do anything anyway. Try that in a country where 60-80% employed in agriculture and manufacturing, making all those plastic coffee mugs and cashew nuts you plan to stop buying.

[Pretorian]

Reduced consumption means massive job loss, internationally.

I don't think you get it. What we have here are a series of alternatives that range from bad to worse. Powerdown of some sort is inevitable whether it's proactive or reactive. BAU will not be sustained. You can hold onto your illusion that it can be for now, but the trendlines are pretty clear.

Oh I do get it, it is you who don't get my question. Perhaps my English is to blame. It is a very simple question really. If global warming is caused by people, what is a point of collecting an additional tax that will be spent on breeding more people?