Educated" opinions on climate change - Part 4 27

[jmw]

Hmm.
Then come winter the UK government has to increase is "winter Fuel allowance" for pensioners.

However, many who don't qualify for rebates or any kind find yet another drain on their finances.

Yes, it may result in less fuel being used but how many people actually use significantly more fuel than they need? How much reduction can be meaningfully targetted in the budget of the average low income earner who makes up the bulk of the population.
Yet, the main impact of all these taxes is that they target the poor i.e. those who can least afford it.

If a low income earner has a choice between fuel to get to his work and car tax (also increasing for same reason), insurance, maintenance and MOTs, then fuel comes first.
Does that matter?
Yes, of course it does and we should anticipate the other areas the low income earner have to economise or make poor choices. Food? clothes? books for the children?

There are an awful lot of financial sticks being brandished (mainly because these ideas are first sold to governments who love to make money) but damn few genuine carrots that can make balance the equation.

Simply increasing subsidies to enable the poor to pay their bills is a likely outcome and the poor are also the least likely to have invested in double glazing, extra insulation etc.

These sound like nice simple solutions but it is the law of unintended (but not necessarily unpredictable) consequences that will dominate. It may even prove counter productive unless well managed.

By how much must fuel prices increase to impact on useage? Experience of gas prices suggests it must be very significant. The higher the burden the less well received it will be and the more problems it will cause to those who can afford it least.

I wonder who owns all the old gas gazzlers? When will a Prius become the affordable used car for the poor?



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> The utility would pay the carbon tax on ALL the fuels they buy. The end user pays what the electricity cost to generate, which includes the effect of these FUEL taxes.
Sure, that's the easy on paper, but it's also totally ineffective. The people paying the taxes aren't the ones buying the fuel. The utility company is the one buying the fuels, but it's the end user who ends up paying the taxes in the costs to generate electricity.

Since the utility company is simply passing on the costs directly to the consumer, the utility company has no incentive to reduce their costs. If you raise the carbon tax, they pass that on to the end user. And the end user, the ones actually paying the carbon tax, have no control over what fuels are used to generate that electricity.

Like I said, if levy that tax at the gas pump, then you're taxing the consumer, and that's fine. But if you levy that tax on the middle man or a front man, such as a utility company, then the tax is passed on to the wrong person, thus undercutting any incentive on the actual polluters.


Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[zdas04]

JMW,
The "don't harm the poor" argument has been used as a cudgel against the rest of us for generations. Had communities invested in public transit instead of facilitating sprawl, then the number of poor people who had to have vehicles to get to work would not have become epidemic. We didn't make those investments and kept building mega-malls and supermarkets instead of encouraging community shopping districts, so people feel that they must have multiple vehicles in each family.

The "fuel tax" that moltenmetal is talking about is really the only sledgehammer that has any chance of slowing the trade deficit. Your "protect the poor" rhetoric comes down to a cusp--do you cause disruption in the community by making fuel expensive with all the requisite hardships; or do you wait for the total collapse of the world economy? Don't doubt that when the U.S. economy falls into chaos the rest of the world follows within weeks. We are not the world economy, but we are most decidedly the lynch pin.

Moltenmetal,
It is interesting how much we can agree on. I've been concerned about imports since 1981 when I saw that they had gone from nearly zero in 1974 to nearly 50% in 1981. That kind of bleed is just not sustainable. Low energy costs have gotten a lot of politicians elected and re-elected, long-term be danmed. A Fuel Tax will not get anyone elected and may get some of them thrown out of office. Probability of it passing is near zero. Cap & Trade on the other hand will take a few years to fail and the amount of misery and stuipd decisions it causes will be epic.

David

 

[ornerynorsk]

"If you use up clean air, you should pay rent for it."

Ah, I see. Tell me, who owns the air that they are allowed to charge for it? How much power are we as citizens comfortable to bestow upon our overlords? It seems that I have been correctly identified as an American, but I spent enough time in the "Former" Soviet Union that this kind of thing, IN MY OPINION, mind you, just reeks of Communism of whatever flavor you care to call it. It's not about the environment, and it's never been about the environment. It's about power and control. What better way to control someone than to control their financial potential? Yes, communism.

Apologies to anyone I may have offended, that certainly was not the intention.

It's Friday boys and girls. I for one have been taking this post too seriously. Enjoy the weekend everyone!

 

[cranky108]

With a carbon tax, would it not hit steel hard? At least new steel.
So with the in mind, why are we substidiseing wind power? Why isen't the push tward nucular which is much lower carbon producing?

The whole issue with cap and tax isen't is it fair? The issue is why are we trusting the goverment to fix the problem they created?

And a question on cap and tax, would a tax be placed on wood, or other biofuels? Would there be a credit for companys that convert natural sources of CH4 to CO2, which is far less... What ever, I'm not a greenie.

And would we cap and tax plastics which are made from carbon fuels?

Lets face the facts, this is a goverment assult on the coal industry.

 

[jmw]

I wasn't saying "protect the poor", but because I live in this society I don't want to see it degenerate any further or any faster than absolutely necessary; not just because it affects the poor (if that offends) but because I don't want to have to live in a society that degenerates even more than it already does (if you prefer a selfish motive) and poverty is already blamed as being the cause of most of the ills in society without introducing measures that will aggravate the situation.

I was also saying that the effect of using the big financial stick might not be as effective as everyone would like to think besides maybe causing more problems than it attempts to solve.

Simply, that many other things may be given up long before a fuel tax bites and with unpleasant effects on society.

Then if you try to moderate the effect via subsidies etc you neutralise the effect you are targeting, or you create a means tested society with ration coupons designed to ensure that subsidies are spent not on fuel but on other things.

Like they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The effect of increased fuel tax has already been demonstrated to contribute to a rise in the incidence of uninsured drivers in unsafe vehicles to mention the most obvious effects.

But what level of tax would be necessary to make a significant difference?

Fuel use has proven very robust at withstanding taxation - it is why in the UK every budget has included a tax increase on petrol, alcohol and tobacco. It is a safe tax.

The revenue from fuel taxes is already very high and it might be expected that to seriously or significantly impact on fuel use, it might have to get very much higher still.

But if usage drops meaningfully then it will then impact on tax revenues significantly, how can it be otherwise?

That means either the tax will continue to rise (chasing higher returns from a smaller turnover) or the revenue will be replaced by taxation elsewhere adding another burden to the poor.

It isn't as if fuel is tax free so that by reducing fuel use through taxation there is still a net revenue gain for the government, it will necessarily result in a net loss as fuel tax is already a substantial revenue raising mechanism.

So, if you believe in a carbon tax, show that it will work or find a better way to do it.

If the goal is to reduce inefficient use of fuel then it has to also include a provision that it doesn't create a burden and the way to that solution may well be not to hit people with a stick but encourage them to alternative behaviour patterns; perhaps to invest in subsidised public transport and it may also require that we change the way shopping malls etc contribute to adverse behaviour. But at some point you make the transition from a relatively free society to a 1984 style police state.
So you'd better factor in how to replace lost tax revenues or curtail government spending.

Simply taxing fuel isn't a sensible solution.
No isolated measure will be and particulalry one likely to have counter-productive or undesirable side effects.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SnTMan]

cranky108, NOBODY KNOWS who will be favored, who will be punished. The ag industry has already been pretty much exempted. The arm twisting and influence peddling will have to be on a scale never before seen.

There will be winners and there will be losers, the surest losers will be consumers, who will pay for it all.

Regards,

Mike

 

[SnTMan]

I should have added, that, in my opinion, the reason Big Oil seems to favor this legislation all of a sudden, is to be able to get in there and start throwing elbows.

Mike

 

[SnTMan]

Sorry, I meant to say "protecting their interests"

 

[zdas04]

There is a villain in this piece, and it isn't Big Oil, Big Steel, Big Auto, or any other industry. They are all trying to make the best of the playing field they find themselves on.

The people that are defining the playing field are in Washington. The villain of the piece is an ignorant, uninformed electorate that keeps sending the same self-serving idiots to Washington time after time. Nearly all of us are convinced that term limits are useful (86% in the last poll I saw), but I guess we all mean "limit the term of the other crooks, my crook is doing a good job for me" and we keep sending the same gang of thieves to Congress. We, the electorate, have told these guys that how they look is more important than how well they serve the public interest, so their whole goal-set revolves around looking good while feathering their own nest.

We deserve what we get, just don't start blaming the people who are following the convoluted rules that these Beauty-Queen Prima Donas have written. Big Oil is not the villain here, you and I are.

You wonder how well the "Fuel Tax", "Carbon Tax", or "Cap & Trade" would work? None of them can work at all. The loopholes will be so large and pervasive that everyone will have an exemption, exception, or an evasion and the net result will be more imports and more crap in the air. A "Fuel tax" applied over several decades has been shown to do some good, but we lack the attention span to think past yesterday's headlines.

I can provide an easy method to cut government spending--ask what is the proper role of government. Is FEMA continuing to provide "temporary" housing to Katrina victims after 4 years a proper role of government? Gotta say that the answer was "NO" after 4 weeks, it is just plain stupid after 4 years. Health & Human Services is over half the federal budget and should be closer to zero. Direct government funding for non-military R&D is a waste of resources. If we go back to the Founding Father's idea of the appropriate role of government then the budget balances itself. None of this is going to happen until the current crooks finish destroying this country and the survivors come up with a new plan to get mucked up in implementation.

David

 

[SnTMan]

zdas04, boy, that's about as close to my own view of government as it's going to get especially:

I can provide an easy method to cut government spending--ask what is the proper role of government.

I think we should also be able to vote on OTHER states congressman too. Why should the whole country have to put up with, say, Ted Kennedy forever just because the people of Massachusets like him?

BTW, I was not blaming or singling out Big Oil, or Ag either. Who can blame them?

Regards,

Mike

 

[cranky108]

It sort of goes back to "Life dosen't have to be fair, it just has to work".
The over all restrictions, corruption, and bans, have kept the black market working for years.

We can say goverment is the fastest growing industry in this country, and along with it corruption, and the black market.

Maybe we need to develop oil, gas. and coal in this state, use it in this state, and tell Washington they have no jurstriction for state internal affairs.

 

[BJC]

This is post number 1,000 and we still don't know how many imps can dance on the head of a pin.
We don't seem to know much about po;tics either.

"We, the electorate, have told these guys that how they look is more important than how well they serve the public interest"
FWIW my congressman is supporting the Carbon Tax or whatever else comes along that looks like it. So I'll send him back.
It's my air I want it clean.

"Maybe we need to develop oil, gas. and coal in this state, use it in this state, and tell Washington they have no jurstriction for state internal affairs. "
Great Ideal, be sure and build a dome over it so the crud in the air stays there.

 

[hokie66]

"Tell Washington they have no jurstriction (sic) for state internal affairs". That has been tried before.

 

[zdas04]

BJC,
Well you're close enough to Washington that the growth industries around "Carbon Trading" should keep your economy strong for weeks after the west collapses into economic depression and anarchy. After the end of the Industrial Devolution the air and water should clean up nicely without industries or most of the people.

I see a pressing economic need to reduce oil imports. I think that the only way to do that is increase fuel costs. If this results in less total consumption, then less stuff will go into the air and we both win. I don't believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is a threat to the planet. I don't believe that climate change is new, necessarily accelerating, or subject to the actions of man. You do. Rather than always attacking everyone who disagrees with you, why don't you try discussing the common ground?

David

 

[jmw]

Thread 4 and it is growing faster than its predecessors.

We keep rehashing the arguments, we are each accused by those who disagree with not being climate scientists and therefore we do not know what we are talking about.

In other words, listen to your parents, they know best.

Thing is I suspect it isn't that we can't argue the science, it is that we know the science has been corrupted by the politics and the special interest groups.

The point is we can keep going like this for ever and not achieve anything, we'll still be in a variety of opposing camps and in the end, the outcome will be determined by propaganda, not science.

What is really wrong is that we don't have this division of ideas amongst our politicians.
Politicians are competing with each other to see which can adopt the greenest stance.
That should worry everyone.

So, I'll tell you what I'd like, and given the trillions the politicians are prepared to spend it shouldn't cost more than pocket money by comparison.

I'd like the science back and with it the the scientific approach.

What I'd like a second set of scientists to make up a review body (but with no politicians, no NGOs, no interest groups, no evidently partisan (untrustworthy) members.
It will be set up to start again with the source data and try and evaluate everything the IPCC had and what has been discovered later.
It will be empowered to question contributors to the debate.
It will be independent of the UN. It can be sponsored by one or another governments or a coalition of governments.

I want them charged with an impartial review of the data and charged with investigating the claims from both sides of the argument.

They can say:
[ul][li] AGW proven[/li]
[li]AGW wrong[/li]
[li]Not proven, more work needed[/li][/ul]

I'd like a report in neutral language written by the scientists.

Why?
Because that is what we don't have. We don't have the application of the scientific method. We don't have any serious attempt to prove the theory wrong even if only that by failing that might show it more nearly right than wrong.

Of course, at the end of it we will still have all those different camps but maybe with different sets of blood pressure data.
But what we won't any longer have is such a good excuse for poo-pooing the opposition views.

Bottom line is that politicians can't simply stick with the IPCC sponsored world view like seventh day adventists when so many credible scientists disagree with different bits of what has been said. They owe it to us who will pay the bills to set up a situation where a fair review of all the arguments is possible.

That is the problem with Climate change, too many criticisms not answered in the right way.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[SomptingGuy]

BJC: "It's my air I want it clean"

Another brainwashed engineer that now thinks CO2 is "dirty".

- Steve

 

[jmw]

By a coincidence, it seems I am not the only one to want an independent review:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...change-The-sun-and-the-oceans-do-not-lie.html

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[hokie66]

jmw,
Do you think an impartial and independent review panel of scientists can be found? I think they have all chosen sides. There should be a better chance of finding impartial engineers, but who is going to sell that idea?

 

[jmw]

Well, I don't know about impartial, but contrary - yes.
The good news for Australians is here (

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/climate_change

and it is worth reading the reports) though Alan Carlin's report fared less well Deep Science and Watts up with that take different views on this (

http://deepclimate.org/2009/06/28/epas-alan-carlin-channels-pat-michaels-and-the-friends-of-science/

and

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/27/released-the-censored-epa-document-final-report/#more-8964

and note the comments by Watts Up with That.

Meanwhile, on the Carbon tax front it is announced that over 4 milion families in the UK are officially in "energy poverty" and will need government measures to try and help them out. This is simply due to costs, a carbon tax hasn't yet been applied but just the ots of meeting "Climate change" measures s expected to increase the number by another 1.5 million over the next few (5-10?) years, all other things being equal.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com