NASA blows hole in global warming alarmism

So.. what do you think about carbon tax? proposed CAFE hike? funding of alternative energy related research?

Also do you recall what happened with the Light bulb? How many t-baggers voted against EPA de-funding?

GOP Votes To Defund EPA On Light Bulb Enforcement » Pirate's Cove

 

Or show me 5 tea baggers who understand 1/2 of the basic concepts of modern economics, and especially the relationship(s) between government spending, employment, growth etc. (not to mention the effect of their actions on the US economy and it's net effect on the world economy if we were actually do what they are asking. For example, I saw a guy interviewed who said,,(sic) "we just need to cut 20% across the board of federal spending" Does he have any idea how that would effect the world and by extension the US economy? I doubt!

Then people like PC espouse the concept that the gist of the "problem" is 'dead beats who are too lazy to work". I think it is ignorant folks who are too lazy to spend some time learning facts,, especially that of cause and effect,, and history!

 

Well hello ick,,, it has been awhile. I guess you are assuming that I am a proponent of wasteful spending you mentioned above but you would be wrong.

 

Icky do you have two accounts?

 

Mr.Parker,

So I repeat my question,,, please define "the basics" as you see them?

Icarus

 

IMO the proper thing to do with any sin tax is to use such revenues to help pay for the effects of such sins.

Gas taxes should be used for pay for transportation infrastructure.

Cigarette taxes should be used to pay for health care.

Pollution taxes should be used to pay for negating the effects of pollution.

 

hey spidey R U from Ultimate or Classic continuum?

to answer your question nope we are 2 different people, different age, lifestyle, etc.. name it. The only thing we have in common that unlike majority of t-baggers we have a little bit higher then room temperature IQ, perhaps also not as blindfolded and gullible to what shepherds have to say and did not get our knowledge from Classics Illustrated Comics Perhaps why we have a little bit more prospective then you.

 

That it is an ineffective, poorly functioning, approach to address a serious pollution issue. Government controlled economics work much worse than government generated regulations that "successfully" address the problem. For example, the great reduction in car pollution (excepting C02) was via direct pollution regulation, not a "tailpipe" tax. Also, if the carbon tax only results in China generating vastly more CO2 because we overtax our energy sources, do we actually make the problem worse?

Same comment, government trying to solve a serious problem by picking one technical override path rather than direct addressing the fundamental issue. I've mentioned quite often that California actually implemented (at least for a while) the exact right regulations of xx% non-polluting transportation and energy generation. It allowed the free market to pick the technologies and approaches that met the end goal without CA having to micromanage specific technologies and parameters. It also allowed future increments to get to a sustainable endpoint.

Let the free market and sensible government regulation work together. First, eliminate oil & coal subsidies and special energy subsidies at the national level. Let the states provide the solar, wind, or other subsidies that best apply to their state. Next, put the regulations on power plants, such as coal, to ensure that their pollution is constrained and handled properly. If you look at my avatar, you can see I'm a big supporter of solar energy. My biggest hurdle is deeply embedded government subsidies for fossil fuel industries, primarily the "pass" that they get on pollution. The amount of national funding for sustainable energy would be a mere pittance of what would be spent by the private sector if the playing field were level.

Sure. Same concept described above applies. Government usually likes to micromanage the problem rather than let the free market solve it. Is the problem really light bulbs? Or is the problem extremely wasteful energy use?

Don't know, especially since there is no official definition of what makes someone a "tea-bagger". Now how many actions does the EPA take based on politics? Why does the EPA have to address issues that are really state issues, not national issues?

 

Ooh, ouch that really pierced the heart... Not. Definetly not icky, he wouldn't have stooped this low he has more dignity than that.

 

Some real words of wisdom in there FL. Psychopathic would realize that too if he wasn't on the warpath.

 

There's the problem, and the anti-sin-tax people are actually correct on this. Gas taxes SHOULD be used to pay for transportation infrastructure, I agree, because gas use isn't going to go down any time soon, and the folks who use the gas are the same folks and only folks who use said infrastructure.

Cigarette and pollution taxes, however, should be there to encourage people to smoke and pollute less. Don't think of them as a tax, think of it as a fine. We don't fine speeders because we need the money (OK, way too many places do, but that's beside the point); we fine them to get them to speed less. Yes, Cigarette taxes should be used to HELP pay for health care, but the moment you start depending on them for your health care budget and people start smoking less (due, in part, to cigarette taxes), you're just asking for trouble. Same with most other "sin taxes".

 

Which is all of us. Much of our food and products are shipped overland via roads and trains. Just saying.

 

Yes. The trucking company pays gas tax, which they then pass on to the food company for trucking their food, which they then pass on to the consumer. So still the people who use it are the people paying for it.

 

So you are for government regulations but against this specific regulation (CAFE?). Would you think the Euro approach (grams of CO2 per km) would be better? What do you think it would be easier at this point to abolish CAFE and pass new CO2 standard or just raise the CAFE?

First of all this where the ideological differences lie. Any time you guys face the problem you don't know answer to you mumble "free market" :blah:. Well there is no such thing as "free market". It is a pathetic fallacy. We live in keynesian economy, which most of t-baggers don't know what "keynesian" means so you call it a "socialism". Look it up, perhaps you'd be if not more careful at least more educated.

2nd, I am all for stopping fossil fuel subsidies out and passing the true costs. Unfortunately we don't even collect enough fuel tax to cover highway infrastructure upkeeping. Add the other costs (policing, ambulance, etc) costs of wars, subsides, etc and can you imagine what implication it would have for economy?

B/C DOD budget does not come from state? And what is the logic in "I am against regulation XYZ on federal level, but I am for the very same XYZ regulation on state level?"

 

We are ALREADY paying the true costs. That is why we call them true costs. Moving the paying agent from general fund taxes to gasoline or CO2 taxes, should (in theory) have no impact on the economy. It would of course need to be done carefully and smoothly (that is the theoretical portion).

 

Actually we are not paying the true costs on fuel.

 

We are paying them, but not in the price of fuel. The true costs are distributed into other costs, such as DOD, EPA, and medical expenses.

Tom

 

you are 100% correct. I should have said "true costs at the pump"

Now it would be nice if the taxes were re-distributed to pay at pump, but unfortunately it is not possible w/o wrecking havoc on economy. The true costs of gas were estimated at $15/gal back when gas was $1.02, way before the decade of oil wars. Even if you question the study (which many will) still $14/gal is hard to bridge. Imposing $14/gal taxes is unrealistic.

I started new thread on this, pls comment there, thnx.
http://priuschat.com/forums/environmental-discussion/96723-true-costs-gasoline.html

 

We are NOT paying the true and entire costs, we are accruing many of these costs and passing them off on to future generations!

Icarus

 

I specifically mentioned the California approach of technology independence. The specific possibilities of how to implement this is a seperate discussion. Note that a solution that has no effect on the rest of the world might not work out too well for us. (e.g. The ripple effect of extensive CAFE regulations that shifts a lot of the US car manufacturing to China.)

It's hard to have a discussion when you state there is nothing to discuss. I see some diatribe, but no questions.

The economy works better when the cost for services is charged at the source of those services. I don't agree that police and ambulance should be financed by fuel taxes, but I'm not sure if that was what you were trying to state.

Yes, the logic is that the state has more focus and motivation for solving local problems than the national government does. California pioneered improving car polution standards in response to the heavy stagnation of the LA basin. You can be assured that Michigan politicians (R&D) opposed that. Good regulations from a national level are severly compromised when it's a local/state problem.

Also, the national party in power changes fairly consistently and national support or oppostion to state regulations changes with those politics. Meanwhile the states are much more focused on addressing the problem.