Comments on: Conservatives Falsely Assert That Green Economy Legislation Would Impose $3,100 Tax On Families

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 17:25:49 +0000

Tom11: Actually, no. Cap and trade is not a tax, what happens to energy costs is completely different from the value of the carbon market created. The “benefits created” aren’t what “drop the cost.” Putting a price on pollution only means that costs rise if people pollute as much. Pollution is waste — reducing waste saves money and strengthens the economy, from the household to the national level.

President Obama has called for revenues from a cap and trade market to be directed into a middle class tax cut. The money comes from pollution and goes into rewarding work.

Maybe those aren’t your values but they are mine.

By: tom 11

tom 11 — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:45:30 +0000

One thing for sure – each household will pay much more for energy. Out of their pockets. $3100 per year extra. The benefits returned by imposing the tax, which supposedly drop the cost to $79, will show up where, exactly? Certainly not in my bank account. Perhaps somewhere else that I might agree is beneficial to me, but I would like to know where, and I would like to know who is going to bestow this upon me.

By: Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co.

Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 20:24:36 +0000

I guess if we are talking about coal it is reasonably correct chemistry to speak of “carbon.”

Why not just say “coal?”

By: Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co.

Jim Bullis, Miastrada Co. — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 19:44:51 +0000

Wellington once said critically of one of his generals, “He gets involved in battles he can not win.”

It is personally aggravating to find myself acknowledging serious good sense in Boehner’s position. Yes, he definitely oversimplifies. Saying it will cost $3100 per year in added electric bills per household might not be correct; we can indeed defer the added cost to future generations, either in bond issues as we do in California, or by piling on more national debt or in printing money at the federal level.

Some might argue that the business world will absorb the cost of higher priced coal. Surely, we know by now that all costs ultimately descend on the consumer. As discussed above, they will be paid now or later.

Of course tax cuts could help. Huh? Certainly redistribution of wealth by tax cuts could help some people; but when applied to the middle class, it can not be meaningfully done. If tax cuts provide people with enough disposable cash, they will simply be able to afford continued use of energy, unabated. The net effect on CO2: Zero.

Well, there is one other escape path for the consumer. That is to conserve. Insulation is a meaningful answer for new construction but for existing buildings this is quite limited in applicability since much that could be imagined turns out to be quite cost prohibitive. Thus, insulation offers slow remediation. Squigly light bulbs will help too, but not to the degree needed.

So the only thing left seems to be more use of non-coal sources. Now comes the nasty question of affordability. Again it has to be seriously thought through so a further load does not come down on the consumer. No, don’t think rebates, tax credits, or whatever; these all deplete the public trough which has to be refilled, sooner or later.

Where is a battle we can win? We better get looking because this carbon (CO2 gdit) tax thing is not looking like a path to climate progress.

By: PeterW

PeterW — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 14:22:56 +0000

Eric, the irony in your post is simply stunning.

By: Eric

Eric — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:54:34 +0000

The truth is science changes mind it’s mind about the facts to much !!!!!
We shouldn’t base our economy and future on facts we aren’t so sure about.
My fear …..Is my generation will go down in history looking foolish ignorant of our own history!!!! Get out and get the facts people!!!!