Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 7/10/08 05:37 AM, afuckingname wrote:

On January 1, 1991, Sweden enacted a carbon tax, placing a tax of 0.25 SEK/kg ($100 per ton) on the use of oil, coal, natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, petrol, and aviation fuel used in domestic travel. Industrial users paid half the rate (between 1993 and 1997, 25% of the rate),

and if his intial argument of carbon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon changes to this it will be a joke

Sweden has only 9 million citizens and is the approximate size of California, which ironically enough has a population over 36 million.

second, judging by the information, the tax that was implemented posed a significant enough burden on their economy to have been reformed two years later.

At 7/10/08 06:09 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: to have been reformed two years later.

it still exists, there alternatives too

and make your judgings longer

At 7/10/08 06:10 AM, unowned wrote:

it still exists, there alternatives too

and its even right after that in the wiki that youre all supposed to read
look, oil wont last forever, do it for your grandchildren, do it for america

*YOU ARE RETARDED*

Multiple user accounts must be fun to troll threads?! You were capable of having an intellectual conversation but obviously lack the necessary motivation. To bad.

i just don't get it

on a positive note, i hear short buses are not as bumpy as the regular ones you will at least be comfortable.

hahahaha, ive seen this before, divert away, you just dont know how to read

and you take more time to reply thus you are the one thats retarded

At 7/10/08 06:25 AM, afuckingname wrote: and you take more time to reply thus you are the one thats retarded

hes probably using google, this is not an alt, you can tell by the different persona and typing style

idiot is not a persona.

At 7/10/08 06:41 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: idiot is not a persona.

and you lose, goodnight

any futire reply will be something as short as your posts

you know... i have an idea.

Pros and cons of carbon tax
Bruce Johnstone, The Leader-Post
Published: Saturday, July 05, 2008

To hear some people talk, the Liberal green plan is nothing more or less than the National Energy Plan updated for 2008.

Calgary Herald columnist Lorne Gunter recently attacked Stephane Dion's Green Shift carbon tax proposals as "a Green Shaft for western energy-producing provinces."

Gunter comes to this conclusion based on the assumption that the carbon tax will be placed on energy producers rather than consumers

With Saskatchewan and Alberta producing 40 per cent of Canada's carbon emissions, ergo, the two provinces will pay the 40 per cent of the carbon tax levy, Gunter tells us.

He claims Alberta's tab for the carbon tax will be $4 billion a year -- roughly one-quarter of the total tax take for the whole country.

I'm not sure where Gunter gets his numbers. But I'm sure of one thing. This is not the way carbon taxes work.

The carbon tax, as proposed by the Liberals, is broad-based, revenue-neutral tax that would be placed on fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, at the wholesale level.

(Gasoline would be exempt because the 10-cent-a-litre excise tax is the equivalent of a $42 per tonne carbon tax, which is already higher than $40 per tonne carbon tax proposed by the Liberals in year four.)

As such, the carbon tax is a tax on consumption, rather than production.

Don't take my word for it, or even Stephane Dion's.

Former C.D. Howe president and University of Calgary public policy professor Jack Mintz says one of the advantages of the Liberal carbon tax is the broad base of the tax.

"An advantage of the Liberal plan is that it will price carbon more generally rather than being applied to certain sectors and large facilities.''

Moreover, because the carbon tax is on consumption, it should be relatively region neutral.

"The incidence of the carbon tax will fall on households and energy-using industry, so it generally affects all regions, especially those with resource and manufacturing sectors.''

It's important to note that the tax will not be applied to exports, which represents the overwhelming majority of the oil produced in Saskatchewan and Alberta.

Only oil consumed domestically would be taxed, and only that portion not refined into gasoline or diesel, where the excise tax is currently being applied.

Of course, as Mintz points out, the Liberal plan doesn't exist in a vacuum; it should be compared with the Tory plan to regulate carbon emissions.

The Conservatives green plan would hit large emitters with "intensity targets,'' or emission reductions per unit of production, which would see the "intensity'' of carbon emissions reduced 18 per cent from 2006 by 2010 and 33 per cent by 2020.

Those companies that don't meet the targets could buy exemptions by contributing to the government's technology fund, trading for carbon credits, or making payments to the Kyoto-based Clean Development Mechanism, essentially paying a fine for polluting the air with carbon.

Mintz said the impact of the Conservative green plan will largely fall on consumers and businesses purchasing energy-intensive products. Mintz said if industry isn't able to reduce emissions to meet the intensity targets, they may respond by cutting production.

"Canadians could be faced with brownouts, high fuel costs and lost jobs,'' Mintz says.

So which plan is better? Mintz says both have their pros and cons. The Tory plan is more focused on reducing carbon emissions, while the Liberal plan is more broad-based.

On the con side, the Tory plan could be costly to industry and consumers, without the offsetting tax reductions inherent in the Liberal plan. By the same token, the Liberal plan should target more money towards carbon reduction technology and less towards low-income Canadians, Mintz says.

The point is that neither plan is perfect, both have their advantages and disadvantages.

Consumers and taxpayers need to keep an open mind and compare both plans, and forget about the rhetoric and vitriol from politicians and critics alike.

- Bruce Johnstone is the Leader-Post's financial editor.

Canada.com

, the Liberal green plan is nothing more or less than the National Energy Plan updated for 2008.
is that what it is

a tax on consumption instead of production, its been implemented here, there are less cars driving around, this was in my first post

Contention 1 - Inherency
A. Despite growing consensus among experts that a Carbon Tax is the best way to make the
switch to alternatives, there is no legislative support for it because of lobbying power of the
energy industry. Only a carbon tax would enact the changes needed before irreversible
damage is done.
LA Times, 2007
["A WARMING WORLD: Time to tax carbon," May 28, 2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-e dcarbontax28may28,0,2888366.
story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail download date: 6-12-08]
There is a growing consensus among economists around the world that a carbon tax is the best way
to combat global warming, and there are prominent backers across the political spectrum, from N.
Gregory Mankiw, former chairman of the Bush administration's Council on Economic Advisors, and former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan to former Vice President Al Gore and Sierra Club head Carl Pope. Yet the political consensus is going in a very
different direction. European leaders are pushing hard for the United States and other countries to
join their failed carbon-trading scheme, and there are no fewer than five bills before Congress that
would impose a federal cap-and-trade system. On the other side, there is just one lonely bill in the House, from
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), to impose a carbon tax, and it's not expected to go far. The obvious reason is that, for
voters, taxes are radioactive, while carbon trading sounds like something that just affects utilities and big corporations. The many
green politicians stumping for cap-and-trade seldom point out that such a system would result in higher and less predictable power bills.
Ironically, even though a carbon tax could cost voters less, cap-and-trade is being sold as the more
consumer-friendly approach. A well-designed, well-monitored carbon-trading scheme could deeply reduce greenhouse gases with
less economic damage than pure regulation. But it's not the best way, and it is so complex that it would probably take many years to iron out all
the wrinkles. Voters might well embrace carbon taxes if political leaders were more honest about the
comparative costs. The world is under a deadline. Some scientists believe that once atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels have doubled from the pre-industrial level, which may happen by mid-century if no
action is taken, the damage may be irreversible.
B. Congress is not going to extend credits for renewable energy alternatives this year -
congress wont renew the plan without a new source of revenue
Coile, June 18, 2008
[Zachary, "Congressional stalemate over renewable energy," San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com/cgibin/
article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/18/MNVE11ALRM .DTL download date: 6-19-08]
Even as lawmakers of both parties talk about the need to shift the country toward clean, renewable energy, Congress is in danger of
letting key tax credits that have fueled the growth of wind and solar power expire at the end of the
year. The Senate failed for the second time in a week Tuesday to pass a bill to help businesses and homeowners
switch to renewable energy. The tax incentives have strong bipartisan support, but they have been caught up in a
fight between Democrats and Republicans over how to pay for them. The stalemate is causing
jitters among utilities and investors, including Bay Area venture capitalists and companies that are making billiondollar
bets on new technology, solar power plants and manufacturing sites to build solar panels and
wind turbines. Many projects are being put on hold until Congress acts. Arno Harris, CEO of Recurrent Energy in San Francisco, which
helps finance and operate large-scale solar power projects, said his company is rushing to finish projects before Dec. 31, when the credits expire.
Because large solar projects can take six months to build, the company is delaying new U.S. projects until the credits are renewed. "It creates a
hiccup that is very unfortunate," Harris said. The stalemate is a classic example of how even popular programs
can fall victim to gridlock in Washington. House Democrats, seeking to abide by "pay-as-you-go" budget rules,
insist that the tax credits must be paid for by raising revenue elsewhere. But Senate Republicans have balked at
every proposal so far to find that money.

Contention 2 - Harms
A. Fossil fuels compose 85 percent of U.S. energy usage
Canes, Ph.D in Economics, 2007
[Dr. Canes, Senior Research Fellow, The Logistics Management Institute. He previously was vice president and chief economist of the
American Petroleum Institute where he sponsored the early development of the Charles River Associates multi-sector, multi-regional trade model
for climate change policy analysis. He's been a member of the faculty at the graduate school of Management at the University of Rochester. He
has a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA and a masters of science and economics from the London School of Economics. E&ETV's Event
Coverage Vol. 10 No. 9, March 5, "Former API economist Michael Canes says cap and trade costly way to constrain emissions"]
So what are the implications of that, in terms of trying to curb fossil energy use, which is of course what we have in mind when we talk about
curbing greenhouse gases? Well, fossil fuels make up about 85 percent of total U.S. energy use. And it breaks down,
approximately, oil takes up about 40 percent of our energy use, coal about 23 percent, natural gas about
23 percent. So that's 85, 86 percent, and nuclear accounts for about 8 percent, and renewables for about 6
percent. So when we think of we have to curb energy use and we have to curb fossil energy use we are
thinking in terms of curbing the vast majority of the energy that we use. Constraints on fossil use will force
substitution of higher costs, less productive inputs, and hence reduce the growth of U.S. GDP. Sort of an implication of what I was saying before,
that if you curb the use of one of the efficiently used inputs and use other inputs, which are higher cost or less productive, you are going to have
some impact on GDP or the growth of GDP. And the magnitude of these costs will depend, in part, on how the constraints are imposed.
B. Power generation causes CO2 pollution and greenhouse emissions
UK Parliament, 2006
[October 2006 Number 268 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/uploa d/postpn268.pdf. "Carbon footprint of electricity generation"
download date: 6-9-08]
All electricity generation technologies generate carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gas
emissions. To compare the impacts of these different technologies accurately, the total CO2 amounts emitted throughout a system's life must
be calculated. Emissions can be both direct - arising during operation of the power plant, and indirect -
arising during other non-operational phases of the life cycle. Fossil fuelled technologies (coal, oil,
gas) have the largest carbon footprints, because they burn these fuels during operation. Non-fossil fuel
based technologies such as wind, photovoltaics (solar), hydro,biomass, wave/tidal and nuclear are often referred to as 'low carbon' or 'carbon
neutral' because they do not emit CO2 during their operation. However, they are not 'carbon free' forms of generation since CO2 emissions do
arise in other phases of their life cycle such as during extraction, construction, maintenance and decommissioning (Fig 1).

Debate-central.org Carbon Tax AFF

and this will not do, posting links and copy and pasting, youre just finding the next one, but your options have run out, and and your intial post was something different, and didnt wasnt even relevant to my first post, which was a question

you want to troll i want to educate. enjoy.

At 7/10/08 06:53 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

not this one isnt related to the british columbia one, which was your last paragraph, so fuck off

At 7/10/08 06:53 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote:

Despite growing consensus among experts that a Carbon Tax is the best way to make the
switch to alternatives, there is no legislative support for it because of lobbying power of the
energy industry. Only a carbon tax would enact the changes needed before irreversible
damage is done.

and all that means is emissions are bad, but the lobbying power is against it, there arent any better ways to reduce it

I think Carbon tax is a stupid idea personally. The govament dont care about the enviroment, they just care about making more money

great, i like less cars on the road and less smoke in my nose

slower: I
idiot trollers: 0

was a cool topic too... its a shame.

At 7/10/08 08:26 AM, slowerthenb4 wrote: slower: I
idiot trollers: 0

was a cool topic too... its a shame.

give areason, you did not post anyinput, just random links

At 7/10/08 05:51 AM, NOTunowned wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_tax#
Implementation
look whats being taxed it isnt carbon

Look at what a carbon tax would be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stupidity

I love how we get tax'd for pretty much everything.

We get taxed before we get money, we're taxed while we're getting it and then taxed when we buy something and there also has to be more tax for the product and tax for keeping it and then taxes for the tax of the other stuff and taxing to get rid of it and some more tax just for fun.

There's a fucking limit here people.

thats great, the article says It is an example of a pollution tax, which some economists favor because they tax a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income). Taxing something that is undesirable is favoured by economists as a method to confront us...
maybe there could be a shift in taxes and a shift in
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/cars chemicals.htm

might be like brazil

At 7/10/08 07:39 PM, afuckingname wrote: thats great, the article says It is an example of a pollution tax, which some economists favor because they tax a "bad" rather than a "good" (such as income). Taxing something that is undesirable is favoured by economists as a method to confront us...
maybe there could be a shift in taxes and a shift in
http://www.nutramed.com/environment/cars chemicals.htm

might be like brazil

um what? Governments tax "pollution" because it is a reliable stream of revenue. It will not help get rid of it. If pollution is bad then I'd want it to be 100% gone. It's going to do more harm to the economy because people can't travel like they used to.

If pollution is bad then I'd want it to be 100% gone. It's going to do more harm to the economy because people can't travel like they used to.

it is bad, and you cant get it "100% gone
travel where? blockbuster? they can bike

Sin Taxes don't work in my opinion, some states have them for places like mcdonalds, yet i've never heard of any place where that actually works.

If you want to reduce consumption, you cannot Target the consumption by making consuming more difficult. Especially with a tax on energy, a much more necessary item of living, the demand for energy will still outweigh the penalty of additional costs [unless you really throw taxes over the hill], people will still need to USE energy yet they'll be stuck having to pay more.

Another issue with this energy 'sin tax' is that it [like most liberal policies] hurts the suburban middle / uppermiddle classes the most. Public transportation is not as effective as it is in cities; many many people HAVE to drive their cars to work because the buisnesses they work in are too far away to use a bike, but they are too close to use a train. Also, still being in the middle class, cannot afford

Essentially, in these areas, the demand for gas is still REQUIRED, a tax can do nothing but make them suffer with something they cannot change.

There is a smarter way to target carbon emissions [Despite the fact that Global warming in itself is a joke as far as i am concerned, a very unfunny and expensive joke] Target the demand, you lower people's demand for an item consumption will drop immediately without needing to use pressure.

The lobbing power of the energy companies would hinder movements to lower demand as much as it would consumption; so that argument does not really work. The best way to lower demand would be to invest in a source of energy that is cheaper than what we have now.

is all business good business? selling something harmful? you work for a magazine company? is that how you make money? photoshoping people and selling it as a magazine?

Essentially, in these areas, the demand for gas is still REQUIRED, a tax can do nothing but make them suffer with something they cannot change
there are alternatives to gas,
peak oil?

[Despite the fact that Global warming in itself is a joke as far as i am concerned, a very unfunny and expensive joke]

observed science?... expensive?? expense on research? stellar evolution? a joke in what sense,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_radia tion
lets read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_deple tion

and the lack of melanin wont help, just possibly, humanity will end because of this

but no one cares because they care about themselves, and now