Global Warmists -- Read ( Climategate )

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

No you missed my question before, what would you do about it if we absolutely knew that human-caused climate change was actually happening?

Oh, hmmm. Cap and tax wouldn't solve anything because companies will just move the jobs elsewhere (given the liberal assumption that companies would rather profit than save the planet). And taxing companies wouldn't really do anything except jack up prices for consumers.

I'd say start throwing incentives at companies I suppose. Something along the lines of no income tax for for any company that manages to sell 10 million non-fossil fuel cars a year. Something along those lines.

[Kuya]

Doesn't the government have a deficit? Are tax breaks a good idea in that case? Unless you are saying that incentivizing companies for the purposes of slowing down dangerous climate change is more important than the deficit.

[Solefald]

some form of carbon tax is desirable because the entire fucking point is to make emitting CO2 costly, even for consumers! it's like cigarette taxes, when you artificially raise the price of smoking through taxes, fewer people will smoke.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Wait a second, wait just a minute. Liberals only care about the poor. Are you saying we should create a regressive tax on the poor?

And Kuya, even Obama admitted that tax breaks actually create more revenue for the government.

[Cadsuane]

Oh, hmmm. Cap and tax wouldn't solve anything because companies will just move the jobs elsewhere (given the liberal assumption that companies would rather profit than save the planet). And taxing companies wouldn't really do anything except jack up prices for consumers.

I'd say start throwing incentives at companies I suppose. Something along the lines of no income tax for for any company that manages to sell 10 million non-fossil fuel cars a year. Something along those lines.

Except that assumption is easily verified in economic terms by realizing that historically free market enterprises are notoriously bad at acknowledging and taking responsibility for negative externalities that are caused by their doing business. It's not specifically a liberal assumption either (in b4 economists in academia have liberal bias) making your comment trite and inflammatory.

Incentives are cool but they ultimately just transfer the economic cost of environmental legislation from poluters to tax-payers in general, which might be a better or worse way to do it depending on how that tax revenue is raised. You're going to have to make it clear why you would advocate this as opposed to some other tax scheme.

[Kuya]

even Obama

Who made Obama the authority on economics, governance, or liberalism?

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

No one, but if he can see the light, then no matter how illogical this reasoning is, it must be true.

[Kuya]

I am kind of not sure if you're joking because of your track record.

[Solefald]

Wait a second, wait just a minute. Liberals only care about the poor. Are you saying we should create a regressive tax on the poor?

And Kuya, even Obama admitted that tax breaks actually create more revenue for the government.

who says it has to be regressive? cap and trade isn't necessarily regressive afaik.

and tax breaks never raise revenue for the government and obama never said that, let's not have a rehash of voodoo economics.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't know, it doesn't matter. Regardless, it is no longer theory that tax breaks increase revenue.

Edit: Obama said it in the debate with Charlie Gibson. And poor people spend a higher % of their income on energy so until that changes it does have to be regressive.

[Cadsuane]

Answer my question please? Also I'd like to point out that you suggested a subsidy (very un-conservative!) and not just a tax break. (edit: nevermind! You didn't, sorry)

[Solefald]

subsidies and tax breaks are effectively the same, unless the party receiving the break already pays less tax than the break amount

[Cadsuane]

No, actually, there's a huge difference. Though I know what you mean, yes, a tax break for one party necessarily entails a tax increase for some other bloke. There is a varying net welfare loss for consumers and producers exceeding the value of the tax revenue depending on where the tax is levied, and the same is true for subsidies.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Incentives are cool but they ultimately just transfer the economic cost of environmental legislation from poluters to tax-payers in general, which might be a better or worse way to do it depending on how that tax revenue is raised. You're going to have to make it clear why you would advocate this as opposed to some other tax scheme.

Is this the question you wanted answered? I think I know what you're saying but just to be sure, could you simplify this? You're saying that if we don't put the costs on businesses we have to put it on taxpayers?

[Cadsuane]

Yeah, that or reduce government spending to accommodate the loss in tax revenue. I'm just wondering who you think the carbon tax burden should be borne by.

[Dimmauk]

Global warming is real. It was 65 degrees F today in San Antonio. Remember when Global warming was fake cause it snowed in Texas?

[Solefald]

el niño is back, 2010 could be a contender for hottest year ever. 1998 and 2005 were also el niño years, you may remember them from such records as "hottest year in recorded history" and its sequel, "second hottest year in recorded history"

[Dimmauk]

el niño is back, 2010 could be a contender for hottest year ever. 1998 and 2005 were also el niño years, you may remember them from such records as "hottest year in recorded history" and its sequel, "second hottest year in recorded history"

Tugg Speedman starring as El Nino!

[Bingbong]

Global warming is real. It was 65 degrees F today in San Antonio. Remember when Global warming was fake cause it snowed in Texas?

Except for that part where the Normal High's for San Antonio in December is 64 degrees.

http://www.accuweather.com/us/tx/san...her&traveler=1

[eunhye]

Shhh global warming is real.