New Tax For The Middle Class, Thought That Wasn't Happening?

[TheScotsman]

So, while the white house is trying to baffle us with BS to keep our attention away from the important decisions, congress is trying to pass the crap-and-fade bill.

Ready for what analysts agree is the single biggest tax ever imposed on the middle class? The "Average" citizen will pay an additional 3.3% of their after tax income to this new tax. The "Rich" will only be paying about 1.7%. Businesses will leave the USA over it, but then, we have an excess of jobs, so that's ok, right?

There is your change, believing in it yet?
No, well, believe it or not, it's going to cost you your $. Sounds good, eh? After all, we all have an additional 3.3% to give to the government for nothing more than, well, nothing at all.

It's a tax that is afraid to call itself a tax, from the party that said no taxes in "this" economy, well, we have to give them that one, the current state of the economy isn't the same as the one obambi was referring to in his campaign. After all, then the unemployment rate was around 6.9% at the end of qtr IV in '08, now it's over 10%. Oh, and that was after the stimulus obambi insisted on, saying without it unemployment would go over 9%. Hmmm... how is that plan going for us?

We are on our way to being a 3rd world banana republic, or maybe we are there already.

[Barnaby]

link please

[TheScotsman]

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123655590609066021.html
http://www.carbonoffsettings.com/are-you-r...ase-in-history/
http://masterresource.org/?p=2355
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commer...l-cost-you.html
http://www.americanissuesproject.org/blogs...ade-part-1.aspx --- 1.25-2.25 million jobs lost as a result, sweet, eh? THAT is what we need.

Put you to sleep faster than a bottle of ambien and a beefeater chaser... http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/92xx/doc9276/05...imony.1.1.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...9053102077.html


By the way, that projected cost to your billfold doesn't include the additional costs of any agricultural products (read you big mac, steak, whatever) as a result of gasses emitted by animals! I can't wait, can you?


Oldie, but a goodie... http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories....64103&EDATE ...

Laffer's analysis, entitled "The Adverse Economic Impacts of Cap-and-
Trade" concludes that:
-- Cap-and-trade may reduce U.S. economic growth by 4.2 percent -- even to
achieve the comparatively modest GHG reductions of the Kyoto Protocol
i.e., GHG emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-2012). The cost
to reach the ultimate goal of some GHG control proponents (e.g.,
reducing GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050) would
be significantly greater.

[RogueSmoker]

Eh everytime Obama opens his mouth the economy goes farther down the poop shoot.

[Barnaby]

Obama is just a puppet.. It'd be going the same way, regardless of who they put into office..

[Dr. B]

The cap-and-trade agenda is a bonus for people entering into business ventures which don't involve carbon emissions. Being that energy is an oligopolistic endeavor with regard to the regions in which firms operate and trade, this kind of boost to venture capitalism is what we need. We need to view this as essentially a tax (in some way shape or form) and if I'm incorrect in that assumption, then allow my presumption of its consequences to define it: it reduces consumption. Consumption is a function of disposable income and the consumer's marginal propensity to consume (MPC), and we are essentially holding MPC constant while diminishing disposable income (correct?). Because private savings, which is a summation of total productivity in the economy minus consumption minus the trade balance of government (also held constant), is a component of national savings, we can deduce that national savings is going to increase overall. We know that in some way shape or form all investments (plus NET capital outflows) must be financed by savings. From this we determine quantity of savings in our economy to equal the supply curve in a supply and demand schedule in the market for loanable funds, with investment and NCO as the demand for loanable funds. The point at which these equilibrate is the real interest rate. If you want to believe that a lower interest rate spurs savings, fine, but because we reach the same conclusion regardless I'm going to treat national savings (as a curve) as a vertical line, meaning the supply of savings is fixed at some quantity. When we examine an increase in savings, as a result of consumption decreasing, against a downward-sloping demand curve, we see an new, lower, real interest rate at the new equilibrium, and a variable quantity depending on your assumptions about the supply of loanable funds - but at any rate the quantity of loanable funds available increases.

What this means is that it will be much easier to finance your new business endeavor. Especially with the low interest rate environment we are operating in already, the decrease in the real interest rate makes it a good time to borrow money. Either we'll see a lower nominal interest rate (not likely) or we'll see an increase in expected inflation (go ahead and grab an investment now). The inflation and the influx of dollars is another issue.

This new, lower interest rate is not just limited to our domestic economy. The change in real interest rate leads to a decrease in the real exchange rate in the market for US currency and makes our exports more attractive, which our nation could really use at a time like this (take that China)

I guess I'm just saying that the future is now, find that higher ROI while it's cheaper and safer. Just don't trade energy...

[Sonthert]

First, we have overly-restrictive labor laws, so jobs go to China. Then we have overly-restrictive environmental laws...and jobs will obviously now come back to the United States? Its amazing that politicians are really as stupid as they are. If you want to take a shit, pull your pants down. Politicians are still operating under the auspice of thinking they can take a shit if they pull their pants half down. If you want to do something, do it right, don't use half-measures. They want to combat the recession? Bring jobs home to the USA before its too late. Global warming is a farce, in my opinion, and now they are using it to enact a carbon tax, tampering with our ability to retain jobs? Brilliant. Why do they seem to want to drive the United States to poverty? The democrats have some good ideas, and some awful ones. The republicans, for all their lack of credit, take what could be decent ideas and go way too far with them and make them into bad ideas almost universally. This carbon tax is a good example of a stupid, reactionary democrat idea.

China won't participate in a similar program, nor should they. They partially view carbon taxes as a 1st world attempt to reign them in and keep their economic power under control by limiting their ability to economically develop by controlling their fossil fuel consumption...which is what this bill is.

Ultimately, the truth is deeper and darker. In 1973, a decision was reached. The Arab Oil Embargo was to mire the United States and its declining oil base in a shortfall of oil. Two obvious solutions became apparent. 1st is let the price run free to control the demand. 2nd is to control the prices, ration the fuel. America chose the second choice. It was a mistake, a big mistake. The world reserves of oil are petering out. They are not out nor will they ever be out completely...but the government wants to set the mechanisms in place to be able to have strategic control over oil in the United States. Is this necessary? I don't know. Lacking a real solution otherwise, perhaps. This carbon tax is the beginning of this taxation on businesses who use lots of oil. Could it be expanded to ration oil to businesses in the future? Quite possibly...or something like it anyhow.

It is better than the alternative, which is what they do here in California regarding water (also in short supply). In California, 70% of the water is used by business and industry...only 30% is used by residential customers. Now, as the aount we can legally take from the Colorado River goes down, we have less to go around. So what does the State do? Tell people they can't water their lawns...tell people they have to ration water. Of the 70% used by business and industry, it is estimated that half of it is wasted. What would be the easiest route? Help businesses to reduce their water wasting. A proportional improvement with businesses would provide more than twice as much savings as forcing the public to skimp even more than they have. Note, these numbers are old, granted. It is a point though that the people responsible for the smaller usage are having to bear the weight of the burden...rather than go to the most efficient way of solving the problem.

This carbon tax is stupid, but the alternative is to let the problem float around and then let the American People bear the full weight of shortages in oil over the next four decades. I know its not much for comforting you, and I agree with you guys, but it might be the smartest thing to do in the circumstances.

[Dr. B]

This carbon tax is stupid, but the alternative is to let the problem float around and then let the American People bear the full weight of shortages in oil over the next four decades. I know its not much for comforting you, and I agree with you guys, but it might be the smartest thing to do in the circumstances.

That's another sentiment I wanted to touch on. I feel as though it's going to require some tightening of our belts today to enjoy a better future, particularly with regard to oil consumption and carbon emissions. Call me a saver...

Left to peoples' own ambitions, the selfish result of over-consumption tends to prevail. Although I typically disagree with coercement, as a believer in alternative fuels and global climate change I am willing to compromise for some intrusive legislation so long as I believe it'll get the job done.

I was just trying to show yall the silver lining initially.


corrections to my first post:
Private savings is the total of: Total productivity - Consumption - non-income taxes.
Some people believe that a higher* interest rate spurs savings, in which case the supply curve has a positive rather than undefined slope. in any case, the result of an increase in savings is qualified in the same manner. Edited June 25, 2009 by Dr. B

[Scalliwag]

the funniest thing I see are all the republicans that had no problem spending a trillion dollars in Iraq after all the bs they fed us about how they were going to greet us as liberators.
Then there is the bs about how GW kept us safe as though he was not prez for 8 months at the time we were attacked.
And now we have people trying to lay blame on Obama for every problem we have from even before he set foot in office.
Republicans are either ignorant or evil. They are the same party that brought us McCarthyism and Watergate and then saying democrats were "terrorist sympathisers" after 9-11. All three events had a common denominator, they were all events where republicans set out to destroy their opposition through dirty tricks.
So while there needs to always be an opposition party, republicans just need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

If you voted for GW and his ilk and did not bitch about the results we live with now then why the hell are you getting bothered now? Have you been living under a fucking rock and just crawled out?

[TheScotsman]

And what VALID alternative energy sources are you saying we should back?

Remember, it has to be a valid source that lacks an insane organization blocking the project.

I am trying to think of one, but not coming up with any. Seriously I can't think of one.

That fact alone makes this nothing more than a gov't money grab. If there was an actual viable replacement for carbon based fuels we could give the benefit of the doubt, and think the goal was to cause a shift in usage. As an example, the tax on R-12 refrigerant put in place to move usage to less ozone-damaging compounds that existed at the time. (And we were all supposed to die from unsurvivable UV exposure by 2010 when they jammed that tax on us. Another fine example of gov't by fear) Remember when they jammed the catalytic converter down our throat? No, ok, well... back then they said it "turned engine exhaust into harmless gasses such as CO2..." Now they say the CO2 is bad, which only proves they have absolutely no idea exactly where their ass is, much less what might damage the environment.

Build a hydroelectric dam, and some jackass will sue them for drowning a rare mouse, or blocking the free flow of some river, ok, whatever. Never mind this is THE number on best, viable, cost effective, and safe means of generating massive amounts of power.

build a bank of large wind turbines, and Ted Kennedy sues them to stop because they are destroying the views of the coastline. Then some fool "scientist" says the turbines destroy the weather patterns in the immediate area as a result of impeding the prevailing wind.

Try a giant solar-thermal plant in the desert, and you are destroying the habitat of some damn snake, or some such creature.

Solar-voltaic generation uses more energy to create the panels than they are capable of generating before they begin to degrade.

Tidal capture generation, well, back to dear old democrat Ted K. and his vistas.

Nuclear, well, here is the most viable alternative, but we all know the chain of enviro-waccos that get in the way there.

Geothermal? Well, I use a heat pump system here, it (sorta) works. much better at cooling than heating!

Wave motion hydraulic-electric? Pretty decent idea, but back to the vistas, and possible damage to some sea-snail, ocean floor, yada-yada.


What's left to encourage the use and development of?
It's just a tax, calling it anything but that is to drink from the kool-aid fountain. Pretty good idea on their part, put a tax in place to compel a change, then make sure no one can easily find a viable alternative. It's like a guaranteed income of never ending funds, with absolutely no cost other than collection. Money for nothing for the gub'mint.

[TheScotsman]

the funniest thing I see are all the republicans that had no problem spending a trillion dollars in Iraq after all the bs they fed us about how they were going to greet us as liberators.
Then there is the bs about how GW kept us safe as though he was not prez for 8 months at the time we were attacked.
And now we have people trying to lay blame on Obama for every problem we have from even before he set foot in office.
Republicans are either ignorant or evil. They are the same party that brought us McCarthyism and Watergate and then saying democrats were "terrorist sympathisers" after 9-11. All three events had a common denominator, they were all events where republicans set out to destroy their opposition through dirty tricks.
So while there needs to always be an opposition party, republicans just need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

If you voted for GW and his ilk and did not bitch about the results we live with now then why the hell are you getting bothered now? Have you been living under a fucking rock and just crawled out?

Wow, did you miss the topic, or what?

[Scalliwag]

the funniest thing I see are all the republicans that had no problem spending a trillion dollars in Iraq after all the bs they fed us about how they were going to greet us as liberators.
Then there is the bs about how GW kept us safe as though he was not prez for 8 months at the time we were attacked.
And now we have people trying to lay blame on Obama for every problem we have from even before he set foot in office.
Republicans are either ignorant or evil. They are the same party that brought us McCarthyism and Watergate and then saying democrats were "terrorist sympathisers" after 9-11. All three events had a common denominator, they were all events where republicans set out to destroy their opposition through dirty tricks.
So while there needs to always be an opposition party, republicans just need to go the way of the dinosaurs.

If you voted for GW and his ilk and did not bitch about the results we live with now then why the hell are you getting bothered now? Have you been living under a fucking rock and just crawled out?

Wow, did you miss the topic, or what?

Not at all. You seem to miss the point that you can't have trillion dollar wars and expect to just keep writing bad checks and IOU's. Repubs talk a lot of talk about being against spending and taxes but the truth is that they just want to pass the buck.
Reagan spent out the ass on Star Wars all the while complaining about out of control spending.
Going off of your thread you post as though taxes should never have to go up. Well Bush said a lot of shit prior to being "selected" that was far from true as well. "I'm a uniter not a divider".
Playing the BS that Obama is somehow accountable for all of this is not realistic.
So after 8 years of a total dildo and all his rightwing cronies raising the debt ceilings so they could spend more and not have to pay for it strikes a nerve with me. Republicans are completely full of shit on the subject as well as so many others.

Maybe you know how to pay off GW's debt without taxes?

[Sonthert]

Word, Scalli. I concur.

Scotsman, I concur with your assertions, to some degree, there are few solutions. I have heard several experts dismiss most of the alternate energy solutions, with the exception of solar power. I find it suspicious that computer chips are so oil-intensive and that they could be a solution, but experts on the matter assert it to be the case. In real terms, we are left with a problem, even then. Nobody mentions coal as an energy alternative for a very specific reason. This problem is the flow of energy. Some form of energy is used for electrical generation. Some form of energy is used for moving mechanical contrivances. There is no significant way to transform electrical power into energy for mechanical contrivances. Hydrogen and methanol are intended to be that bridge, but they are crummy and inefficient to this point. A better way of putting it is 'How do you run bulldozers on electrical power?" Coal and solar are fine for providing electrical power, coal being dirty and plentiful, although still inherently limited. Solar power has a much longer lifespan, but is predicated on computer chips that consume much oil in their production. Yet the same experts that poo-poo geothermal, nuclear, wind, biomass, hydrogen and ethanol advocate solar power, so I'm inclined to believe it...it still doesn't explain how we will make the tractors and sea-going cargo ships run without oil. Cold fusion is a lovely idea, but is predicated on non-renewable resources and is still not a proven technology. Coal can theoretically be converted to gasoline type applications, but the process is expensive and inefficient.

So the future of energy requires the following keys.

A cheap type of fuel for transportation and mechanical contrivances (developing a way to convert coal, principally)OR
A manner of transforming electrical energy into chemical energy, using fusion, coal or solar power for the electricity.

At least that's what I've heard.

I agree with your sentiment, though Scotsman. This disturbing trend in the United States to rule by fear (inaugurated with George W. Bush and the War on Terror), regarding the ozone, the greenhouse effect or whatnot sucks. This is what my general point was, stop trying to shit with your pants half down. Tell the American people the truth and stop trying to trick them...it won;t work for long and make the government unreliable...or more so than it already is.

[Scalliwag]

I think solar and wind have the most immediate potential as far as reducing the need for other less enviromentally friendly sources but every bit used helps. More efficient appliances, vehicles, etc. will make a huge difference.
If all TV's and PC monitors in use right now were non-CRT's alone would be huge. Incadecent lighting to fluorescent, same thing.
Politics has been a problem from both sides of the aisle. Republicans giving tax incentives for large SUV's up until gas hit $4 a gallon. This thread here starts right into the situation without any lead up to how we got here and I call that bullshit.
Does anybody remember Dickhead Cheney having the closed door discussions setting energy policies and letting energy companies actually partake in writing the policies? Then they would not release who was in the meetings and disregarded court rulings to turn over the list of people over. The Bush administration felt it was above the rule of law.
At least the democrats will try and address energy and healthcare. The republicans are on the take by the companies and sure there are dems as well but let's face it, if "drill baby drill" is the republicans answer to energy then they don't understand the fucking question.
In 1994 Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and other repubs said that they would introduce healthcare legislation that would be better than what Hillary was proposing. 15 years later and repubs just now released a farce of a plan that is just to be a distraction.
So while dem plans are far from perfect the track record and current healthcare costs and energy costs are something repubs are very content with> because they are bought and paid for by the likes of Enron

[TheScotsman]

I think solar and wind have the most immediate potential as far as reducing the need for other less enviromentally friendly sources but every bit used helps. More efficient appliances, vehicles, etc. will make a huge difference.
If all TV's and PC monitors in use right now were non-CRT's alone would be huge. Incadecent lighting to fluorescent, same thing.
Politics has been a problem from both sides of the aisle. Republicans giving tax incentives for large SUV's up until gas hit $4 a gallon. This thread here starts right into the situation without any lead up to how we got here and I call that bullshit.
Does anybody remember Dickhead Cheney having the closed door discussions setting energy policies and letting energy companies actually partake in writing the policies? Then they would not release who was in the meetings and disregarded court rulings to turn over the list of people over. The Bush administration felt it was above the rule of law.
At least the democrats will try and address energy and healthcare. The republicans are on the take by the companies and sure there are dems as well but let's face it, if "drill baby drill" is the republicans answer to energy then they don't understand the fucking question.
In 1994 Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and other repubs said that they would introduce healthcare legislation that would be better than what Hillary was proposing. 15 years later and repubs just now released a farce of a plan that is just to be a distraction.
So while dem plans are far from perfect the track record and current healthcare costs and energy costs are something repubs are very content with> because they are bought and paid for by the likes of Enron

You obviously do not know the history of that which you proselytize for.
Enron was the original author of the cap & trade framework!
http://cei.org/gencon/019,02898.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Economy/wm1723.cfm
http://masterresource.org/?p=2559

So, let me understand, you tell me how bad Enron was, and that they were in bed with GW, AND you tell me how great crap & fade is. Can't have it both ways. If you lack the understanding of the bill, you are in good company. The house didn't even have a copy of it on the floor through the discussion or vote. Gotta love those dems.

Bought and paid for by WHO?? No conflict of intrest to be found in these transparent dems! Don't make me laugh.


• Nancy Pelosi has $50,000 to $100,000 in Clean Energy Fuels Corp.


• Rep. Edward Markey has investments between $51,000 and $115,000 in the Firsthand Technology Value Fund (which as three solar-energy manufacturers)



Where are you going to put your solar panles? http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/04/23/23...ts-t-10660.html Ah, what the hell, California doesn't need that water, they will adjust, right?

[Sonthert]

I think solar and wind have the most immediate potential as far as reducing the need for other less enviromentally friendly sources but every bit used helps. More efficient appliances, vehicles, etc. will make a huge difference.
If all TV's and PC monitors in use right now were non-CRT's alone would be huge. Incadecent lighting to fluorescent, same thing.
Politics has been a problem from both sides of the aisle. Republicans giving tax incentives for large SUV's up until gas hit $4 a gallon. This thread here starts right into the situation without any lead up to how we got here and I call that bullshit.
Does anybody remember Dickhead Cheney having the closed door discussions setting energy policies and letting energy companies actually partake in writing the policies? Then they would not release who was in the meetings and disregarded court rulings to turn over the list of people over. The Bush administration felt it was above the rule of law.
At least the democrats will try and address energy and healthcare. The republicans are on the take by the companies and sure there are dems as well but let's face it, if "drill baby drill" is the republicans answer to energy then they don't understand the fucking question.
In 1994 Newt Gingrich, Bob Dole and other repubs said that they would introduce healthcare legislation that would be better than what Hillary was proposing. 15 years later and repubs just now released a farce of a plan that is just to be a distraction.
So while dem plans are far from perfect the track record and current healthcare costs and energy costs are something repubs are very content with> because they are bought and paid for by the likes of Enron

At this point, my friend, we diverge.

Wind power has a low energy density, is inherently unpredictable (unless they figure out how to predict the weather ), at best it is estimated from the experts I've heard on the matter to amount to no more than .1-.9% of our yearly energy needs. Some people might try to distort the numbers by citing the amount of electricity needed, but thats the smaller amount of the two types of energy the United States needs.

Solar power is a nice idea, it has a lot of potential, we've known how to do it for the better part of 40 years, but it requires a significant infrastructure and capital investment nobody wants to make. We also have little cognizance of how removing a large portion of the sunlight from given areas will impact the ecology of a given area. The same thing is true for groundwater, they don't use it all, they have to allow some of it to go to maintain the ecology of the downriver areas. Collecting 100% of water (or 100% of sunlight) would likely be damaging to the ecology. Somebody needs to make studies of whats going to happen when we collect large amounts of sunlight from a given area for use in photo-voltaic cells.

Attacking the problem of electricity and what type of energy it uses is a weaker approach to a comprehensive energy plan. Electricity represents the smaller portion of our energy needs. All your solutions will reduce the amount of energy consumption in terms of electricity, but not address the problems for transportation, industry, agriculture and manufacturing we face. We have plenty of coal for now, so electricity is not the problem we should be thinking about. Granted, coal sucks and is highly polluting. The rest of our other stuff is what needs addressing first, before we worry about where we're going to get electricity from. This is, like the water example I cited, another example of the government asking the people to make sacrifices that may or may not address the problem and alleviates them, from a public perspective, of having to make unpopular decisions that will alienate business and industry and deter campaign contributions, so they don't have to actually make an expensive, risky long-term plan that is comprehensive for this country's needs. The democrats make sounds like they're doing something, but they're just imposing on the American people to alleviate them of responsibility. All the Priuses and fluorescent lights won't help us. Its probably along the lines of the water example again, too. Consumer electricity represents 10% (I don't remember the exact number, but its very small) of the electricity demand in the US, so in real terms, business and industry make up the largest, by a long, wide margin of energy needs in the U.S., and again electricity being the smaller portion of the energy needs. As an example, you are spending too much money and you are rapidly running out of money. You spend 65% of your monthly expenses on rent, 35% on food and clothing. Of the amount of money you spend on food and clothing, 90% goes to food, 10% goes to clothing. So, Rent represents 65% of your money spent, 31.5% goes to food and 3.5% goes to clothing. So, if you wanted to reduce the amount of money you were spending...you might reduce the amount you were spending on clothing, but you could make better improvements attacking rent expense or food expense. If you really want to make a dent in America's energy needs, business and industry need to be the frontline of improvement. In terms, given that, how do you do that? You control the amount of energy they use...the direct link to the amount of energy they use is carbon-based...a carbon tax. The more carbon a sector uses, the more pollution it releases...in general.

The carbon tax represents the government enacting police powers over business and industry. Of course Cheney had closed hearings...I'm sure it involved things that would both panic and dismay. War in Iraq, shortfalls of oil and gasoline, all sorts of things that would create the idea that government wasn't doing anything good in the impending energy crisis.

In terms of healthcare, doing something is a good idea, doing something badly isn't a good idea. The republicans aren't going to offer a suggestion thats going to hurt big business, thats why they will fail. Democrats, on the other hand, have to do something that helps the American people but doesn't impact our way of life.

All this being said, asking the American people to make sacrifices is absurd, it creates little benefit to our energy crisis and really misdirects people's attention away from the real problem.

[tinyj316]

Actually, with regards to wind energy, major advancements have been made over the past year. Many people are switching from large wind (fields of turbines) to small wind (small, household generators). These new generators can still produce energy with really weak wind gusts, and some of them even include solar panels on the turbine itself. Granted, these options only make financial sense if you 1) live in a high wind area 2) see the cost of electricity rising above the current average price of wind turbines to install and maintain (and depreciate, etc.).

Scottsman, 90% of your pro-repub/anti-dem/fox news rhetoric makes me want to send you a years supply of Reynolds wrap so you can make all the hats you could ever want, though I understand that your guy lost the election, and you're in the same boat that many of us were in for the past 8 years of hell.

When it comes to energy, you're going to have insane groups trying to block every effort for every type of energy. Its a fact of life. Where one person has a "good idea", 10 people will be there with a "better idea" or trying to shoot down the original idea because it infringes on their rights, or it hurts some species that probably would have weeded itself out anyway, etc. Just because there is a study that says a type of energy isn't good, doesn't mean it isn't bad either. If I had to choose between solar, wind, wave, hydroelectric, LNG, oil, nuclear, and geothermal as ways to solve our problems, I'd probably say the least detrimental to the ecology of the world would be solar and wind (i.e. these can be placed on top of buildings, negating the need for massive arrays in the Mojave or coastal ranges) with the others being more detrimental (carbon emissions, death of ocean life, flooding of a particular area, possibility for meltdowns). Its a battle of the lesser of the evils...which energy type gives us the most positive gain with the least negative impact. No one solution is going to fix our problems, we need to find a combination of them that will work, and work well.

Also, I hate to burst your bubble about the whole catalytic converter/CO2 comment, but technology....get this...changes! *GASP!* I know, its a stretch to believe, but its true. Over a 20 year period, many technological changes can occur that make testing more accurate, make processes run smoother, and allow us to gain insight into the fact that something we thought was true, is indeed false (Unless of course you still believe that the Earth is flat, and the sun rotates around us, or that most plastics are biodegradable and safe for the environment, etc.). So at the time, it was a "safe" assumption that CO2, and other CFC's for that matter, were safe for the environment...but as we found out, with the increase in CO2 emissions, CFC emissions, and an increasing population, that none of those were safe for the environment, and they actually deteriorated the O3 (ozone) layer around the Earth. Sure, I'm sure that a bit of tin-foil-hattery was to blame, but we're probably in a better position as a result of the change.

As for the carbon tax.... While its true, this will impact certain small businesses, and the middle class to an extent...but it will be on a lesser scale compared to the upper-class and big businesses. The bigger the business, the less efficient they are...How many times have you driven past a mom-and-pop and seen the lights left on all hours of the night, compared to big-box-mart? That right there, is waste, and its the problem.

Of course, if you want to bitch and moan about all the energy taxes, you can always live off the grid... Collect rainwater, use candles, produce your own electricity, dig a well, use a septic, burn wood... that way, you're not accountable to anyone when it comes to public utilities, and you're actually less of a burden to the environment...

[Sonthert]

Well Tiny, I'd say well said, but Scotsman claims to be a conservative, not a republican. Apparently, there's a difference. I don't see the difference, but Scotsman might be able to clear that up...or am I thinking of Gnu World Order?

Tell me, Tiny, this is the problem, I don't see yet...what proof is there that CO2 emissions affect us? How much CO2 do humans produce in relation to what all the other biological systems on Earth produce? Nobody seems to be able to answer that question. It would seem that answering that question would provide some sort of reflecting pond to address how dangerous or undangerous CO2 emissions are. Since the anthro-global warming people haven't mentioned it, something like "humans produce 16 times the amount of CO2 as all the other living things on the Earth.", I don't think its substantial. There is no proof, that CO2 increases global temperatures. The correlation has been done to death, though. The climactic history definitely shows a correlation between temperature and CO2 level. The graphs that Al Gore uses are conveniently (and inappropriately) lack units, so we don't know what the change in temperature is, the scales could be distorted. The studies I've seen show no more than a 2-3C temperature increase. So where is the risk from the emissions? Is it that increases in temperature create more CO2? Not the reverse, like is being proposed? Some of the CO2 increase is consistent with the CO2 from the temperature increase, some of it from human activities, assuming the data is right. A big deal is made about Venus and its shroud of CO2 and how hot Venus is because of the greenhouse effect. Venus' atmosphere is 89 times more dense than Earth's. Its almost a liquid, its so dense...not literally, but its way thick. The CO2 in Venus' atmosphere is from a common mineral that can exist as an oxide X-O or a carbonate X-CO3. The difference is CO2, of course. On the Earth, this mineral exists as the carbonate, on Venus, it exists as the oxide. What causes it to change? Temperature, the warmer the temperature, the more the equilibrium lies towards being X-O and releasing CO2 gas...thats why Venus has so much CO2...from a higher temperature. In the case of Venus, higher temperatures produce more CO2 in the atmosphere. That doesn;t necessarily apply to the Earth, true, but it does demonstrate that increases in temperature lead to higher CO2 levels...the relationship may not be one way...it may be two way...it has to be, in part, because that mineral exists quite commonly in the Earth's crust. Nobody has even mentioned that the Earth might be going through a warming period that is releasing more CO2...its only the CO2 man is releasing, its all our fault, we need a carbon tax. Its pure bunk.

[tinyj316]

Eric, While its true that human CO2 emissions are relatively small when compared to those of nature, you have to take into account that most of the natural CO2 emissions are, at least they used to be, a non-issue due to vegetation and the oceans absorbing them. With the expanding population and the increase of impervious surfaces, decimation of forests, pollution of the oceans, etc., the human emissions have become more of an issue, as the natural "filters" of CO2 are being depleted and more CO2 is lingering in a result...it simply can't be offset to the point where the earth can "filter" it (I'm using the term filter for the lack of a better term...its been a long day).

Here are a couple studies that have been done that provide a glimpse into the impact of human CO2 emissions:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-...l-emissions.htm
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/...df/375666a0.pdf
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/faq.html

You also have to take into account that while 2-3C might seem like a minuscule change, it is actually very significant. When you think of the change, you can't think of it in terms of "its 40C today, now its 42C with a 2C change..." those temperatures are average temperatures for the earth. Over the past 500 + years, the earth's temperature has varied between +/- 1C; however, the temperatures have been edging closer and closer to the +2C mark over the past 40 years. What happens when that happens? Well, hypothetically, the polar ice caps could melt even more than they already are, causing flooding, horrific storms, desertification, elimination of species, etc. Here's a video from National Geographic (on youtube) that explains a little bit about the impact:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_ZQRIsn2pA

Sure, this could be a bit of foil-hattery on my part, but if its something that's preventable with a minimal change to the quality of life, why not make that change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlkOx3v-uCo)? I liken it to the big recycling push of the 70's-90's... People used to just throw anything and everything away, it wasn't that big of a change for people to throw the stuff into a different basket, and some people still don't... but the fact of the matter is, its a small change that can yield noticeable results.

[Dr. B]

If you'll allow my quick interjection, I would like to share my personal belief about carbon emissions.

We see through most feed-back loops in the environments of the world that the earth itself has little propensity to deteriorate - that is that the natural ecology of habitats typically does not diminish the proliferation of life, measured in totality. There is an inherent balancing act involved in ecosystems which keeps a slow, sustainable growth pattern until a catastrophe restarts the growth cycle.

The earth accounts for fluctuations in "greenhouse" gases like methane and carbon dioxide and the temperature increases associated with higher levels of them through things like alga blooms and hurricanes. This we know. With regards to the human population, even our most basic contribution of greenhouse gases (agriculture) could be balanced by the natural forces of the environment.

However, as far as we have evolved, we have not solved the problem of sustainability. Few would argue that we have not, as a species, come to live extraordinarily far outside of our natural carrying capacity. Furthermore, no other species has harnessed, or disrupted, the earth's natural resources for purposes of industrialization like we have. Yes, primates destroy trees to make primitive tools, but they do not slash and burn the rainforests or drill for oil and minerals, for example. Our quality of life is causing contributions to the feed-back cycles beyond what the earth has been historically accustomed to. Our presence on this planet is causing the feed-back loops to become negative: effectively maintaining our population growth at the expense of a disproportionate number of other lifeforms - we are diminishing the aggregate quantity of life on this planet. Whether that is solely the result of our carbon emissions is yet to be determined, but we are undoubtedly affecting our ecosystem to a higher degree than was naturally occuring before our proliferation.

The question of whether the earth will adapt its balancing act to account for our influence does is of no controversy. It will adapt. However, the only logical means to adapt, given that most other species operate in a sustainable manner, is to destroy the environments in which humans proliferate, being that we are the single species responsible for disrupting the feed-back loops.

To bring this back to greenhouse gases (including carbon emissions), I feel it is one of the impacts on the earth that we are most capable of controlling. Being that rises in temperature are closely correlated with increases in particulate carbon matter, water vapor, and methane in our atmosphere; and that increased temperatures are detrimental to our proliferation, it seems only logical to me that we ought to make efforts to reduce our harmful impact on the earth, less we halt our industrial progress and reduce our species's population.

The earth will be fine, it is the humans I'm worried about.

[Sonthert]

I agree.

Also, what the pro-global warming err over constantly, and Al Gore made the same egregious mistake in "An Inconvenient Truth" is that trees and surface vegetation make a very tiny impact of global CO2/O2 balances. 90% of the Earth's oxygen (and reflexively 90% of the CO2 is consumed by) phytoplankton in the world's oceans. If Al Gore is correct that CO2 levels go up in the Northern Hemisphere's winter than in the Southern Hemisphere's winter, because there is more land mass north of the equator (and the trees lose their leaves in wintertime), than something is seriously wrong. The CO2 level should go down in the Northern Hemisphere's winter because the Southern Hemisphere has more ocean surface (And its their summertime) and more sunlight means the phytoplankton are working harder and sucking up more CO2...right? Its a number of inconsistencies and glossing over facts and data that makes the whole global warming thing suspicious. Its bad science when the linch-pin of an argument is predicated around a 4th grader Al Gore went to school with.

[Bulldog_916]

I dont think anyone in the scientific community cares much about CO2 in the atmosphere anymore. That's a problem that has come and passed. It's now methane that has scientists worried. Greenhouse gasses, as we know, dont allow heat to be dissipated into space, they retain heat. The polar ice caps reflect light back out into space, the oceans retain light, in turn, retaining heat. The more heat that is retained in the ocean, the more the oceans warm. The more the oceans warm, the more the ice caps melt and so on and so forth. When tundra in the arctic and antarctic regions melts, methane deposits are released. Methane is supposedly a gas with a more powerful heat retaining effect than CO2. So if more heat is retained, then the oceans warm more, etc.

My point is that the time in which to do something about the problem has long passed. Now we have to develop technologies to deal with it. We should really burn as much coal and oil as we can. It's of no consequence to us anymore. Maybe republicans will jump more wholeheartedly into the environmental movement when we foul the air some more for their kids. We think we have it good, so we feel like we can argue back and forth about whether the movement would work...err...would HAVE worked, it's no longer relevant. So I guess, the worse we make the planet the better it will get, the more incentive there will be to change our ways. Go out into your backyard today and build the biggest bonfire you can, burn as much wood as you possibly can, you'll be helping the planet.

[Dr. B]

Methane, CO2, water vapor - it matters not. The point is that we are qualitatively contributing to the amount of pollutants in our environment. At this point we cannot quantify any impact these pollutants will necessarily have, but to me that's all the more reason to dwindle our contribution. I'm fine with a trade-off and some cost-benefit analysis, but because we cannot measure the footprint of our existence with much specificity, we should hold off on going gung-ho until we know it's not such a big deal.

I agree that "An Inconvenient Truth" is conveniently misleading, Eric. I still kind of respect Al Gore though because at least he's taking a shot at quantification. Same goes for the scientists.

I still laugh when I have to defend the label "Climate Change" as opposed to "Global Warming". The cons honestly seem more aware of the cyclic nature of the earth than the average pro.