[quote][b]Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass[/b] - A corporation pays taxes when profits are realized. Are saying that GE isn't profitable?[/quote]
Think of a carbon tax as a tariff. If a corporation imports something that has a tariff, don't they pay the tax immediately, or on account? Same with a carbon tax.
The tax will be reflected throughout a company's price structure and passed along. Hence the hit to the economy. But that tax money, or some of it, can be returned to consumers and taxpayers to bolster the economy. Cash has that effect.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 15:47
[quote][b]Farmer GA[/b] - Do any of you long for the good old days when taxes were levied to pay for legitmate functions of government and not as a hammer to modify behavior?
No.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 13:41
Maybe, when ever this newspaper publishes the name of a local person arrested, the paper should follow the case through
conviction or acquittal
Are you at ABH up for it? If not, don't publish the name.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 13:20
post deletedposted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 13:07
[quote][b]Malcom Merriweather[/b] - Climates have always changed.
But only twice have climates changed AS FAST as they are NOW changing. Once when the earth was hit by a massive asteroid about 65 million years ago and that ended the reign of the dinosaurs. Once before that by a massive shield volcanic eruption that darkened the skies all over the earth for several years.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 12:49
[quote][b]Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass[/b] - @swhitney: If we just let energy cost what it actually cost, that would help.
That will work if you include the cost of cleaning up the carbon pollution in the purchasing price. THAT is a carbon tax.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 12:41
@Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass:
A carbon tax is paid when the coal is mined, when the fracked gas is piped, or the petroleum is fracked or imported. The funds generated can be put pack in the pockets of the final consumers of that energy, or could be used to pay off the national debt. Dumping trash at the landfill costs money. But dumping carbon pollution into the atmosphere is still free for the polluters.
"A carbon tax of $25 per ton of emissions would cut the deficit by $1 trillion over a decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The finding was part of a report CBO just put out detailing 103 different ways — in terms of both cutting spending and raising revenue — the U.S. government could reduce its deficit. At a total haul of $1.06 trillion by 2021, the carbon tax was far and away the biggest deficit reducer of any option listed.
It’s a policy that enjoys widespread support amongst politicians, industry spokespersons, economists, and polling of the general public. But it’s also on the legislative back-burner — save for efforts by Rep. Henry Waxman (R-CA) and a handful of other concerned legislators — while the Obama Administration attempts to cut carbon emissions through the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection Agency.
But a carbon tax would be conceptually simpler, would leave businesses free to figure out how they want to reduce their emissions, and would incentivize them to find the most cost-effective way to get those cuts. The regulatory route doesn’t provide that same flexibility, though it comes with greater certainty (as does a cap-and-trade system) in how much carbon emissions will go down. With the tax, government sets the price and then finds out how much emissions drop.
Specifically, CBO modeled a tax of $25 for every ton of carbon put out by most sectors of the economy, including electricity generation, manufacturing, and transportation. The tax would increase at a rate of two percent every year, adjusted for inflation. As a result, CBO projected carbon emissions would fall ten percent from their current level.
There would some negative consequences. Increased fossil fuel costs would push down economic growth and reduce revenues from income and payroll taxes — though CBO accounted for those other losses in its estimate. The tax would also fall heavier on low-income households, because energy use is a larger portion of their overall budgets. But if lawmakers are willing to forego the deficit reduction, CBO has also proposed options for plowing the tax’s revenue back into the economy in a way that could eliminate those impacts.
On the plus side, cracking down on carbon emissions naturally reduces other pollutants that directly harm human health. CBO cited a study that found a tax of $29 per ton would deliver a $10 to $20 boost to the economy for every ton of emissions cut, just from improved health. This same effect is largely why the estimated economic benefits of environmental regulations routinely dwarf their costs to businesses.
Now, a ten percent reduction in emissions isn’t all that impressive given the scale of the greenhouse gas problem. But the CBO also set the tax at $25 merely for illustrative purposes. A separate analysis by the executive branch already pegged the damage carbon emissions will do to the economy at $32 to $37 per ton. Other studies say the price should be $55, $83, or even $266 per ton.
Ultimately, the first and most important justification for the tax is heading off the potentially catastrophic effects of man-made climate change. Deficit reduction is a laudable goal, but hardly one the country should be pursuing while it’s still in the economic doldrums."posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 12:38
[quote][b]marshalld[/b] - Other than the obvious...car tuned up, high efficiency appliances, etc., what exactly can I do about it?[/quote]
What can you do? Use as little fossil fuel derived energy as possible. That's gasoline, electricity, coal, and natural gas. Just like the banks can make $millions a few cents at a time from each of their tens of millions of customers, we can all cut our usage of fossil fuels just a little and that reduction will make a difference in the total carbon pollution emitted into the atmosphere. That might just be enough to keep us from a projected 10 F. increase in the average global temperature projected for the year 2100. (That's enough to end human civilization, if that matters to anyone.)
If everyone reduces their fossil fuel energy usage, the total reduction can and will make a difference. Support a carbon tax.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 09:29
This is a guest post by James Lawrence Powell.
I have brought my previous study (see here and here) up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here.) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here.posted @ Friday, January 10, 2014 - 09:13
[quote][b]OCCountry[/b] - Once again we have photos that are useless because they are taken from such a high angle.
Businesses need to get cameras at face level. [/quote]
Maybe at least one security camera was there to keep the clerks honest, hence the high camera angle.posted @ Thursday, January 9, 2014 - 11:59
[quote][b]Used2baFreeCountry[/b] - As a result, climate scientists have lost much of their credibility, and one must read their pronouncements with a skeptical eye. . [/quote]
But YOU have credibility?posted @ Thursday, January 9, 2014 - 10:35
Stealing $30K worth of comics is not a laughing matter.posted @ Thursday, January 9, 2014 - 09:12
Incandescent bulbs kept my well pump and plumbing from freezing the other night. Two old bulbs couldn't take the temperature shock and burned out and luckily I had replacements this time.
I've seen that 'industrial' incandescent bulbs will still be available for next year, but they will cost $3 each. No more cheap light bulbs; it's not an end for incandescent bulbs, just going upscale.
But using CFLs has knocked 2 kilowatt hours per day from my average daily usage. That's about a quarter$/day, or about $7 per month.posted @ Thursday, January 9, 2014 - 08:29
Looks like they have clean clothes.posted @ Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 21:17
How much did the informant contribute to designing the plot?posted @ Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 09:24
Thank you, Georgia Power and your hard working repair crews! You folks are as important as police, firemen, and other emergency workers when the weather gets extreme.posted @ Wednesday, January 8, 2014 - 09:21
Laugh about it!
Jon Stewart:posted @ Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 07:25
You and your sources know more about the climate and how it is changing, or not changing, than 25,000 climate scientists.
You should feel so smug!posted @ Tuesday, January 7, 2014 - 07:10
[quote][b]Pfunk[/b] - Stupid liberal scientists think that only 80 to 100 years of climate research can prove global warming. Don't they know that one week of snow can disprove all of that?! Liberal idiots. This is just Obama's plan to turn us all into gay, global warming supporting, socialist, terrorists. Next thing you know, he'll try to redistribute this snow to poor people. What has happened to this country?
Your use of the word proof shows a lack of proper science education.posted @ Monday, January 6, 2014 - 21:21
[quote][b]hypocritebuster[/b] - I figured that with this cold snap the deniers would come out of the woodwork deriding climate change. Listen up deniers, you can laugh at Al Gore and liberals now, but your grandkids will curse you. Extreme variations in weather fit climate change models. Nothing has changed the decades of data or the predictions. The problem with deniers of all stripes (evolution, plate tectonics, the Big Bang, fluoridation) is they will never accept anything other than their world view and ideology. The more facts you throw at them, the more vociferously they deny them. They fear reality so live in a make believe world of denial and anger. When deniers in the professional community change their minds, the hard core true believers maintain that a conspiracy is at work. Pathetic.
Well said!posted @ Monday, January 6, 2014 - 20:56
[quote][b]TeeWee[/b] - The climate is changing as it has since the begining of time[/quote]
Yes, but never so fast as it is today, on the order of 100 times faster, except when we had a massive shield volcanic eruption or when we were hit by an asteroid.
By the way, there's a double n in 'beginning'.posted @ Monday, January 6, 2014 - 20:40
@Digdug: My dad had a 67 fastback but it only had the 289. And the hood wasn't on steroids.
Muscle cars don't use any fossil fuel if you don't drive them. Think of them as art.posted @ Monday, January 6, 2014 - 12:02
Drive less. Bicycle and walk more. Use muscle power instead of fossil fuel power whenever you can.posted @ Monday, January 6, 2014 - 09:04
Several decades ago I left a tangerine in a car parked outside while it was -30 F. That tangerine bounced on the pavement like a billiard ball. The oil in the car was so thick, like super glue, that the engine couldn't turn over until it warmed up to zero.posted @ Monday, January 6, 2014 - 09:00
@Thomas Jefferson Snodgrass:
Summary: Fun facts: The first-ever Oscar ceremony, held in 1929, ran a brisk 15 minutes. By contrast, the longest was in 2002, clocking in at a monstrous 4 hours and change. As usual, there are things I loved about it and things I didn't. Rather than be snarky or complain, I'll offer a few suggestions on how the organizers might bring the show into the 21st century. Fun facts: The first-ever Oscar ceremony, held in 1929, ran a brisk 15 minutes. By contrast, the longest was in 2002, clocking in at a monstrous 4 hours and change. As usual, there are things I loved about it and things I didn't. Rather than be snarky or complain, I'll offer a few suggestions on how the organizers might bring the show into the 21st century. First, a few thoughts on the winners: read more
Athens-Clarke County police officers responded to Pinewood Estates North on a 911 call concerning a heated domestic dispute. it reportedly was an argument over the lack of heat and food in a family's trailer and a woman was threatening to stab anyone who tried to take away her 7-month-old child. State patrol responded also, from their post nearby on U.S. Highway 29 North. The situation apparently was resolved. An officer reported he was driving the woman and infant to another home in Athens. read more