Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 12:08 pm
"There is an alternative and that is to place a carbon tax on all fossil fuels...Would you prefer a government mandated tax or a marketplace approach that allows for efficient, least cost approaches? "
There will be no "alternative" in this regard if the greens/liberal dems get their way. We will have both --- a very flawed, and near useless, carbon credit scam, er scheme, and carbon taxes.
Whether Al Gore is ultimately the Democrat nominee for President in 2008 or not, the other candidates and top dems are fawning all over him re this GW movement. The following legislative changes are being currently pushed by Gore:
1. immediate "carbon freeze" on all US CO2 emissions;
2. replace payroll taxes with new pollution/CO2 taxes;
3. give portion of CO2 taxes to poor;
4. create new Kyoto Treaty and ratify by 2010;
5. institute moratorium on coal-fired power-plant construction;
6. create an "electranet" grid to feed excess energy back into the electric power grid;
7. raise CAFE (fuel economy) standards on vehicles;
8. ban incandescent lightbulbs by date certain;
9. create CNMA ("Connie Mae"), a carbon neutral mortgage association to finance energy saving technologies;
10. order SEC to require corporations to disclose CO2 emissions as a "material risk".
I strongly disagree with items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. These are unnecessary and too radical given the state of the science to-date.
I agree with raising the CAFE standards (modestly and gradually) to reduce our dependence upon and slowly ween ourselves off of foreign oil and improve our national security.
If better and more energy efficient light bulbs can help us save huge amounts of energy, then I have no problem with item 8 (so long as it is a gradual phase out).
Item 6 is a great idea, provided that it is cost effective.
Item 9 is a good idea, so long as proper regulations are in place to prevent investment in junk science. Helping folks purchase proven, more energy efficient technology could be a very good thing.
Clearly, one of Gore's key proposed legislative initiatives includes placing additional taxes on US citizens.
The carbon credit schemes are nothing more than a way for most of the GW proponents to exempt themselves from any lifestyle changes. I've already outline several problems with the system, and why it won't work. Not one such credit system has been proven yet to be working to actually reduce CO2 emissions. Its a "feel good" scheme to reduce guilt and line the pockets of the scam artists.
There will be no "alternative" in this regard if the greens/liberal dems get their way. We will have both --- a very flawed, and near useless, carbon credit scam, er scheme, and carbon taxes.
Whether Al Gore is ultimately the Democrat nominee for President in 2008 or not, the other candidates and top dems are fawning all over him re this GW movement. The following legislative changes are being currently pushed by Gore:
1. immediate "carbon freeze" on all US CO2 emissions;
2. replace payroll taxes with new pollution/CO2 taxes;
3. give portion of CO2 taxes to poor;
4. create new Kyoto Treaty and ratify by 2010;
5. institute moratorium on coal-fired power-plant construction;
6. create an "electranet" grid to feed excess energy back into the electric power grid;
7. raise CAFE (fuel economy) standards on vehicles;
8. ban incandescent lightbulbs by date certain;
9. create CNMA ("Connie Mae"), a carbon neutral mortgage association to finance energy saving technologies;
10. order SEC to require corporations to disclose CO2 emissions as a "material risk".
I strongly disagree with items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10. These are unnecessary and too radical given the state of the science to-date.
I agree with raising the CAFE standards (modestly and gradually) to reduce our dependence upon and slowly ween ourselves off of foreign oil and improve our national security.
If better and more energy efficient light bulbs can help us save huge amounts of energy, then I have no problem with item 8 (so long as it is a gradual phase out).
Item 6 is a great idea, provided that it is cost effective.
Item 9 is a good idea, so long as proper regulations are in place to prevent investment in junk science. Helping folks purchase proven, more energy efficient technology could be a very good thing.
Clearly, one of Gore's key proposed legislative initiatives includes placing additional taxes on US citizens.
The carbon credit schemes are nothing more than a way for most of the GW proponents to exempt themselves from any lifestyle changes. I've already outline several problems with the system, and why it won't work. Not one such credit system has been proven yet to be working to actually reduce CO2 emissions. Its a "feel good" scheme to reduce guilt and line the pockets of the scam artists.
