[Loki]

There is essentially no effective left and precious little real environmentalism in the US, so I'm not sure how one could hijack the other.

Hijacking this thread is another matter.

I would invite Agent, P and others to start a thread to present their proposal for distributing even more wealth to the super rich than they already have (A, at least, used to be a bit more honest about this being his goal).

Can we keep the discussion here to the proposal noted in the title and in the article by the same title linked to at the top, please?

Um did you even read your own OP?

A high enough carbon tax will cut carbon emissions and a high enough tax rebate will reduce unemployment – for the low-paid at least.

We're discussing the carbon tax and the rebate. You just don't like that some folks don't agree 100% with you on everything

We should reduce carbon and we should reduce unemployment, but there's no good reason whatsoever to link those two into one unworkable solution unless you want to use the pretense of environmental protection to advance a social agenda. In which case neither will be achieved.

[Shaved Monkey]

A social agenda like clean air and water and a sustainable economy within a liveable environment ?
Wont work,the greed driven capitalist model needs cheap labour and cheap polluting and obsessive shopping to survive,so the 1% can build mountains of money,bugger the planet they can afford glass domes over their gated communities.

[dohboi]

Nicely put.

My read of the main point of the main article is that we need to shrink our economy immediately, as this is the only possible way to quickly reduce levels of emissions of GHGs. In this, he is in agreement with Kevin Anderson (and by implication at least with Hanson) and a growing number of others willing to stomach certain hard truths.

But, for most marginally sane people at least, the main objection to this planned recession is that it would cause unemployment.

So this guy is just trying to point out to those worried about such increases in unemployment (rather than those worried about the perilous state of the poor 1% who only control about half of all wealth rather than the 99% of all wealth that is rightfully theirs! ) that there are mechanisms by which a planned recession need not through millions into unemployment.

If Agent or others want to set out their clever plan to use the AGW crisis as a pretext for funneling the last 49 percent of the world's wealth that they don't already control up to the top 1%, I continue to invite them to open their own thread to present their brilliant schemes.

[americandream]

dohboi: "Can we keep the discussion here to the proposal noted in the title and in the article by the same title linked to at the top, please?"

That seems impossible these days. My earlier comment was from a purely pragmatic standpoint which others 'hijacked' as being political/ideological. I wonder how much time/energy we waste on partisan thinking. The point of highlighting the income disparity issue isn't out of concern for lower income folks so much as it is about concern for society as a whole. Societies with increasing economic divisions tend to fail eventually; often spectacularly. Where will your carbon tax be then? Where the climate?

From a purely logical standpoint, reducing carbon emissions will necessarily be a collective process; from each according to his ability to sacrifice consumption/income. Failure to address this reality will mean failure of the process.

There is nothing partisan about our choice of socio economic arrangements vis a vis this planets limits. This is a non negotiable relationship and we are on the receiving end in failing to recognise this.

[careinke]

Offering a rebate or even better a "Prebate" is not a show stopper for conservatives. As a matter of fact, conservatives seem to be the only ones that have supported the Fair Tax.
http://archive.fairtax.org/

The Fair Tax is a proposal to tax consumption with a "prebate" that pays everyone what someone at the poverty level would pay in taxes. This effectively untaxes the poor. The proposal uses this tax to replace ALL other taxes.

You could easily apply the same model to a carbon tax. It would be a win, win, win, scenario. The poor don't get taxed, CO2 prices go up hopefully reducing emissions, and the tax becomes "voluntary" in that you do not HAVE to pay them if you don't consume ff's.

Cap and Trade on the other hand, is just another power grab by the government.

[Loki]

If Agent or others want to set out their clever plan to use the AGW crisis as a pretext for funneling the last 49 percent of the world's wealth that they don't already control up to the top 1%, I continue to invite them to open their own thread to present their brilliant schemes.

1% yada yada yada. Here's a hint: while the "1%" may be a big part of our social problem, they are only a small part of our environmental problem. Please refer to my watermelon comment above.

It's pretty clear you wouldn't support a plan that would lead to actual reductions in our GHG emissions if it conflicts with your social values. The cooptation of the environmental movement by the New Left is so complete you are utterly blind to it.

And that is why the planet will cook. Congratulations for being part of the problem.

[ralfy]

It's possible that revenues earned from fines or taxes may ultimately lead to more consumption of energy and resources.

[AgentR11]

I sometimes wonder if the lefties honestly believe the science. Its clear that the social justice objective is far more important to them than any potential remedy that would work and could pass.

And no, dohboi, you don't get to kick people from threads, simply because they are voicing the view contrary to the proposition of the original post. Doesn't work that way. In addition, by falsely characterizing my suggested change to the proposition you invite my further participation and elaboration.

The change I suggested does nothing to alter the burden sharing table. That is the WHOLE point. It does not funnel more of anything, anywhere. It leaves it the same. My point is that the tax code is the absolute worst place to do social insurance payouts, funnelling, or anything else. A tax code that would be effective on carbon, would tax CARBON, it would count CARBON, and it wouldn't care whether the user of the CARBON is a billionaire (who is likely to use a huge amount, and pay a huge amount), or the poor guy in a one bedroom apartment who uses almost none, and would pay almost nothing.

If you want the government to then come around and redistribute some funds to that poor guy; then pass a program that writes the guy a check, because he needs the help (eg SNAP, etc); don't bury it in the tax code.

In the end, we're so dead, the left will not tolerate any climate change tax policy that does not increase revenue into the government; and the right will not tolerate any climate change tax policy that increases revenue, no matter how its masked or sold. No party in the US has any realistic chance of getting the 70/30 type numbers that would be required for such a one side only tax code change; thus, its done. We will have only debate, and fund raisers, and speaking tours right up to the point of systemic failure. The dead will then blame the dead; and the lizards will silently mock the stupidity of primates.

[Loki]

I sometimes wonder if the lefties honestly believe the science. Its clear that the social justice objective is far more important to them than any potential remedy that would work and could pass.

The Dohbois of the world claim to believe the science. But only so far as it coincides with their social beliefs. If the two conflict, the social trumps the environmental. Always.

And that's what's wrong with the environmental movement today. It's been coopted by the left to become a social movement, with a thin green veneer.

I'm an old-school treehugger. I actually think we should be protecting the biosphere first and foremost. The solutions to achieve that are anathema to both left and right.

Dohboi, you need to read more Edward Abbey.

[americandream]

I sometimes wonder if the lefties honestly believe the science. Its clear that the social justice objective is far more important to them than any potential remedy that would work and could pass.

The Dohbois of the world claim to believe the science. But only so far as it coincides with their social beliefs. If the two conflict, the social trumps the environmental. Always.

And that's what's wrong with the environmental movement today. It's been coopted by the left to become a social movement, with a thin green veneer.

I'm an old-school treehugger. I actually think we should be protecting the biosphere first and foremost. The solutions to achieve that are anathema to both left and right.

Dohboi, you need to read more Edward Abbey.

The social is the foundation on which economics sits I would suggest getting to grips with that before presuming to pronounce on an issue as critical as planetary risk management.

[Loki]

The social is the foundation on which economics sits I would suggest getting to grips with that before presuming to pronounce on an issue as critical as planetary risk management.

Like I said, anathema to both left and right. And in your case, so far left you make Trotsky rethink his philosophy.

Google this watermelon boy:

I come more and more to the conclusion that wilderness, in America or anywhere else, is the only thing left that is worth saving.

This one, too:

Narrow-minded provincialism: Sad to say but true--I am more interested in the mountain lions of Utah, the wild pigs of Arizona, than I am in the fate of all the Arabs of Araby, all the Wogs of Hindustan, all the Ethiopes of Abyssinia.

[americandream]

@ Loki

You may like whatever takes your fancy, why even flying pigs. However, effective management of this planet will require tackling current socio economic arrangements so as unreasonable expectations as to what this planet can deliver are consigned out of human memory for the duration of our occupancy.

[dohboi]

"the left will not tolerate any climate change tax policy that does not increase revenue into the government"

LOL. Who is proposing this? This is just your paranoia.

For the record, I presented this guys argument because I thought it was an important contribution to the discussion.

I actually think we are beyond mere taxation. We need to directly ban the burning of fossil fuels because it is the same as burning our and our children's future.

So if you think I am prioritizing some paranoid conception some of you may have about 'left' redistributive politics over CC science, please disabuse yourselves of that notion (unless you are just having too much fun with self-abuse! ).

...

This is another approach to the general issue of taxes and climate change:

Climate Change Is a Tax, and Rates Are Going Up

Read more: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/business/cl ... z3NaQaR9df

A new study released by Tatyana Deryugina and Solomon M. Hsiang from the National Bureau of Economic Research claims that the hotter the world gets, the more expensive every day life will become. Specifically, the researchers draw a comparison between declining economic activity and how high the temperature is on a given day.

By comparing and contrasting economic and climate data from the past 40 years, the study comes to the conclusion that for every degree warmer than 59 Fahrenheit, the country’s economic input decreases by about 1%.

[AgentR11]

"the left will not tolerate any climate change tax policy that does not increase revenue into the government"
LOL. Who is proposing this? This is just your paranoia.

That is exactly what fee and dividend tax models do. Its not paranoia, its simple accounting. And paranoia implies fear. There is no fear, since the model is impossible to pass within the US constitutional framework. There are simply no political permutations available that will give you the numbers required to make such a thing law.

As to banning the burning of carbon. Another option that can not happen.

[dohboi]

Here is a further paper by the GeoffBacon who authored the article at the top of the thread:


2. "Economic models for climate policies"
http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/economic- ... -policies/

This has a suggestion for modifying "Tax carbon subsidise jobs" but more importantly worries about the link between climate models and economic models. It ends:

The route from the results of the sophisticated Earth systems models of climate scientists to the sophisticated models of economists is via political channels. (Even the IPCC is political). In the two economic models mentioned here the scope of the studies are set by their sponsors. In the case of Strathclyde’s work, it is the Scottish Government. In REMI’s case it is the Citizen’s Climate Lobby and while the CCL have a deep concern about the climate and future generations, their approach has been chosen to have the best political impact in the USA.

These limitations are madness. We need a richer toolbox of climate/economic policies than those constrained by the current political climate.

[KaiserJeep]

It would seem likely that - purely as a reaction to Obama's overzealous use of Executive Privilege, which has alienated both major political parties - that the Republicans will own the White House and both halves of Congress in the 2016 elections. It is a natural consequence to attempting to bypass Congress rather than to actually work with it. Barring unforeseen events, it's almost a certainty.

One of those unforeseen events is whether Obama will sink the US economy as a final act, for the sake of the Environment. I believe that is unlikely because Social Justice is his #1 priority and Environment #2. I believe that is so because of his history with the national healthcare agenda - and doubt that he would be willing to sink what would be his only legacy, just to save the Climate.

Like many Democrats, he pays lip service to Climate, but it's purely a political issue, not an emergency.

[careinke]

"the left will not tolerate any climate change tax policy that does not increase revenue into the government"

LOL. Who is proposing this? This is just your paranoia.
[/b]

[/quote]

Well the Gov of Washington is proposing just that. Just saying...

On Wednesday at REI’s flagship store in Seattle, Gov. Jay Inslee unveiled a new proposal aiming to meet those goals. The Carbon Pollution Accountability Act, as proposed by the governor, would create a cap-and-trade system in the state that would raise $1 billion in funding in its first year that would be steered to transportation, education and other priorities.

http://www.govexec.com/state-local/2014/12/washington-state-inslee-carbon-cap-trade/101556/

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to decide you are wrong.

[dohboi]

OK, careinke. I confess to not having perfect knowledge of every single piece of legislation proposed by every legislator and governor in every state of the union, and I shouldn't have made a statement that implied that I did.

But really, are any of the people proposing anything like that remotely like what can really be called the 'left'?

Are any of them from a Labor Party, a Green Party, a Socialist Party, a Communist Party...?

Please don't tell me that (nearly any) Dems are 'left' in this traditional sense of the term. They are the business party 'lite.'