Carbon taxes [modified]

[GenJerDan]

Eric__V wrote:

Another good reason to do so is to stop pumping billions of dollars and euros into the middle east. If we did, then alot of todays problems would go away.

That was one of the added benefits alluded to. Use it all up and they'll have to get real jobs. :laugh:

We were waiting, We were watching. Yes we knew it all along. You were wrong. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.

[Lost User]

Yeah. You see already how desperate they are to broaden their economies.

============================== Nothing to say.

[RedSonja]

To irritate them I ask what they mean by carbon, and whether they know what carbon dioxide is. Then I can go onto the ban-sodium-chloride-because-chlorine-is-bad campaign. If I meet a real fundy greenie I can try and get them excited about banning H2O. You can drown in H2O.

------------------<;,><-------------------

[wizardzz]

Isn't this essentially taxing the air you breathe, well, exhale?

"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson

[Jorgen Andersson]

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO? Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are: Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities. Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage. Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects. DHMO is a major component of acid rain. Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns. Contributes to soil erosion. Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals. Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits. Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes. Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions. Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks. Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S. Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect. Excerpt from http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

List of common misconceptions

[jschell]

Eric__V wrote:

Yes, develop alternative energy sources

So for example the common man starts driving around electric cars (or hydrogen, etc). And then those that are rich would no longer be able to buy fossil fuels? Could you please explain how the first leads to the second?

[Lost User]

Because currently the carbon taxes, as are all taxes, a burden to the middle classes. Scrapping carbon taxes, but at the same time developing alternative energy sources (that are not expensive) will mean that everyone can benefit.

============================== Nothing to say.

[jschell]

Eric__V wrote:

Because currently the carbon taxes, as are all taxes, a burden to the middle classes.
 
Scrapping carbon taxes, but at the same time developing alternative energy sources (that are not expensive) will mean that everyone can benefit.

That has nothing to do with what you said. You said: "What they will do is ensure the continued supply of fossil fuels for the rich." Again - what strategy of any kind will not allow the "rich" to continue to procure fossil fuels if that is what the "rich" want to do?

[Lost User]

jschell wrote:

Again - what strategy of any kind will not allow the "rich" to continue to procure fossil fuels if that is what the "rich" want to do?

What strategy? Its called opening your eyes and protesting. The pro AGW crowd think Al Gore a hero, and the scientists gods. They have been duped into making millions for Gore in Carbon trading and successfull careers for the scientists. The first prerequisite to not getting screwed by the rich and powerfull is to know its happening. :) Fortunately democracy proivides us with a way of objecting to this when it becomes apparent.

============================== Nothing to say.

[jschell]

Which has nothing to do with what I said. One isn't "rich" unless there is in fact something that one can acquire which others cannot. And most often it means many more options and substantially much more accumulation of those optionals items as well. A billionaire might not be able to build and run a super tanker fleet and a large oil processing plant but they wouldn't need to either to support whatever fancy they had. They can buy a small well, find ways to transport the crude and process it at a small plant can thus continue use it as they want. Your original statement suggested that there was some strategy that would preclude the "rich" from acquiring fossil fuels even if they wanted it. Which simply is not true. Again because that is the basis of the very definition of what "rich" means.