Carbon Tax

Maybe this tax will help, but how about trying to encourage these companies not to develop “convenience” items that contributed to the pollution problem; i.e., use once to steam the vegetables, then toss plastic bags. How about a one-time purchase of a “tupperware” type steamer that you can re-use in the microwave? Let’s not encourage the production of these environmentally unfriendly pollutants (from manufacture to disposal) by voting at the checkout.

It will be the same as our clean air campaign which gets us to pay $25 each year for emissions and each year the air gets dirtier. Same concept. Government makes the people pay for the problems industry and overcrowding (lack of immigration enforcement)create. We pay and the problem just gets worse.

The comment about the oil companies being the ones to pay seems reasonable in relation to their record profits, from consumers. Having worked at Exxon while their CEO retired, I saw quite a few extravagant scenes. Especially for the CEO’s retirement party.

Since when did Americans start believing that taxation was the cure for everything? Since when did Americans start believing the Federal Government was entitled to our money? Nevermind the junk science on the idea of Global Warming (guess that Global Cooling of the 70′s didn’t last too long), what business does the Federal Government have in telling us what to drive or how much to drive it? Taxing the Corporations isn’t going to do a whole hell of a lot of good, either they pass it on to us or they leave the country. We are doing this to ourselves. Tell the Federal Government to get out of our lives!

Yes, it’s time for the big car manufacturing companies as well as the oil companies to pay a carbon tax. Stop hitting the little guy! These industrial pigs have got to pay their fair share for creating a market where the consumer is dependent on driving to work and bringing their children to school and other necessary activities. We grew up on this market and pay enough in state and federal taxes and high gas prices and car prices!It’s time for a revolution.Tax the rich,They’ve got the money, we don’t.

What if – The companies producing the product that causes emission are given an incentive to produce a product that causes less emission. What if every time they lowered the emission rate by a specified amount from their factory or product they are given a discount on their taxes. The person buying the item that causes less emission is given a break at the time of buying to encourage purchasing the item. Just a thought.

As long as we have a moronic-dummy as our president, these measures will not go into effect. Just like the healthcare bill he will vetoed.

Myrtle, that is the greatest idea I’ve heard reguarding this whole debate.

What a shame it is that the USA, the so-called example of what we SHOULD be, has sunk to the cheap tawdry cellar of nations who place economy above the very heart of life, that of our ecology. BRING IT ON!!! Let’s get on board and start living responsibly and respectably to the very environment that supports us.

Quebec is not part of canaduh , they are a separate part of the country .
(it s in the constitution of canaduh )
Trust a weird French socialist to feel it can change the global climate with a tax.

It should be noted the money this global tax takes in is equal to what the French weirdo in quebec lost with the “sponsorship scandal” under Paul martin and the liberals

You can not tax at the source, the manufacturer will just poses the cost on. You have to tax the user. That way the end user will budget how much is used, the more expensive the item the less used.

Read my lips: NO NEW TAXES.
This will be like a cigarette tax, which started out as a revenue-neutral means of discouraging smoking. Over time, our “leaders” used funds from cigarette taxes to fund various government programs. Now, the federal and state governments are so dependent on these taxes as a source of revenue that if the tax ever achieved its original goal (eliminate smoking) my income taxes would have to be raised to compensate.
The carbon tax will be no different.

This country is in a sad state of affairs if her people can’t see past the junk science and headline stories about “man-made climate change”! The amount of money the “eco-nuts” are making off of this scare is ridiculous and we sit there and buy it all. They want nothing more than to have the government control the people – our forefathers would be ashamed of us! Tax this, tax that – that has become our new motto! The Founders of this country fought and in some cases gave everything to stand up against taxes that amount to mere pennies today and yet we have given over our lives to the government and continually rationalize the ridiculous amount of money we provide for the government in order to finance their unconstitutional programs! We have certainly become the mindless sheep they desire!

People pollute, plain and simple. More people equals more pollution, fewer people equals less pollution. Why not tax the real cause of pollution? Instead of making heros of people who have 10 kids and giving them tax breaks, why not tax anyone who increases population levels by having more than 2 kids per family? Cut per-capita pollution all you want, as long as you increase population at the same rate you haven’t done a thing.

This is great. One person who posted suggest that we reduce our standard of living, when it is the American dream to pursue freedom and to improve our standard of living. Then there are those who are so green with envy that you feel it. Tax the rich, the oil company, make them pay. That’s not even American – tax success. Fine, if you don’t want to be rewarded for success, but I do. When you tax the producers, they just hand it down to us, duh! C’mon people. A lot of the debate about global warming included the belief that there is no evil motive. Check out the carbon tax. It is just a start. That tax is just like the settlement from big tobacco. Where’s the money going to? You would be shocked to see what the states are doing with that money. It’s barely going to discourage smoking. Puhleeze! Don’t give me that guff about how the government is here to help us. GW is just another excuse to grow the tax revenue towards socialism.

How about everyone frist read the research by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery called: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years before feeding this incredible con.

Add another tax on Americans… Can People think of another way to screw the American Public!! Leave it to another useless Government official to come up with anoth Idea on how to screw the American People. If Congress was patriotic they would have made changes back in the 70′s. We need a MAss transit system in America… not More Nukes !!! This Tax would only be filtered down to the consumer like all Corperation taxes. At the Least it may cost more American Jobs. Americans need to wake up… The Government is nothing but a shaft job!!!

well this is the greatest con by the greens i have ever seen the real objective is the tax once accepted itwill just keep rising and anyone who believes this rubbish about c02 needs to read ALL the facts that dispute this ,carbon trading and taxes will never ever control the weather ,people are sure gullible seeing as it takes 30 yrs to even see any change if there was one ,to pay billions for what might happen in a hundred years is just stupid the worlds weather hasllways changed since the beginning of time even when there was no industrial activity and will continue to do so ,this is like a religion lead by fanatics ,when bin larden mentions climate change you know its a con to drain countries of funds and give it to poor nations ,help the climate what a joke ! h

It never ceases to amaze me how the whiners whine over this issue. Some people just seem to believe that mankind can continue to s..t all over the planet and somehow the planet will just make it all disappear without being bothered at all. Before the 20th century, sewers were likewise thought by many to be superfluous. And in the 1950′s when folks were thinking about what the town upriver was dumping into that river and thus into their own drinking water, some folks even thought THAT issue was superfluous: “Who needs sewage treatment? the RIVER fixes it!” Right.

There is a word which describes “fighting global warming”: quixotic.
The word comes from Don Quixote, who was “tilting at” (jousting with) windmills.
Trying to reverse a climate cycle which has been going on for millions of years… long before any recognizable ancestors of humans existed… is like trying to fight the law of gravity or move the solar system to a new location in our galaxy.
At SOME point, we will have to recognize that humans are NOT “all-powerful” and NOT EVERYTHING revolves around us, good OR bad.
The ONLY thing over which we COULD exercise control is our disastrous overpopulation of Earth. But you can be sure this won’t happen… until it’s too late.
We can reduce our standard of living and send civilization back to the Stone Age, but Earth’s climate cycles will continue. The dinosaurs couldn’t have stopped weather cycles, even if they had evolved intelligence. And we can’t either. Get over it! (And think before making more babies.)

Firstly, to those who don’t understand the science of global warming and think it’s a con – please, go back to high school… it’s rather simple – burning carbon based fuels creates C02 (and we know how much) from the carbon in the fuel and the oxygen in the atmosphere (ever noticed how a fire can’t burn without oxygen?).
We also know that carbon dioxide is much better at trapping heat than oxygen or nitrogen (methane is even better at trapping heat). Why do you get warm under a blanket? Because it traps the heat your body gives off close to your body. This is the same thing.
Usually they do an experiment to this effect in high school. If you went to a school that was too busy teaching you that god built the world in 7 days and didn’t have a decent science curriculum, then I guess out missed out.
All the fuel (oil and coal) is the product of a much warmer time in history (a time when humans couldn’t have lived) that was essentially a massive green-house. The carbon dioxide that warmed the atmosphere at the time was trapped by plants (photosynthesis, part of the process by which plants exhale oxygen) as carbon, much of it at the bottom of the then sea (which become gas, oil and coal depending on the level of compression etc.). We’re talking before the dinosaurs here, so forget about that last hundred thousand years of carbon dioxide graph.
It was a time of abundant life but none of that life was *humans*. In fact, very little of it was animals in general. These dead plants created an atmosphere and climate that we could thrive in.
By burning carbon fuels we are restoring the planet to the state when it was a very warm place, when algae ruled the earth. Good for tropical plants and algae… not so good for humans, bears or cows.
Secondly, carbon trading (with heavy penalties for fraud) is a much better scheme than carbon tax. Not only does it allow the market to put a price on carbon, it allows a global yearly cap for effective targets. It also allows people to choose to help reduce emissions themselves by buying up credits.
Carbon trading should not have a tax benefit, unless you use less carbon than your credits allow you to. This is a good incentive to emit even less without providing incentives to emit carbon.
Oil companies will have to by carbon credits on behalf of their customers though. This is mainly for efficiency and convenience. Yes, petrol prices will rise – but this produces incentives for alternative fuels.
Fines for carbon over-use/fraud should be levied against shareholders (negative dividends) and board members (i.e. those responsible for decisions). This will not effect the profit of the company on paper, but it will prove the best penalty against fraud as it introduces very large levels of accountability.

Global warming is not junk science.

Electricity is the worst polluting form of power in the world. Maybe we should look at that too….A man in my church was complaining about oil company profits recently. He also stated that the wars in the mid-east were only for more oil. I pointed out that he drove a full size pickup and his wife drove a full size SUV. They also live in a large house. If you contribute to the problem don’t yell about it. … At least that’s part of the argument I plan to use in a few months when I tell my wife I’m buying a motorcycle to start riding again. 45 mpg on a bike is much better than 17 in my pickup.

IN the USA, our government is falling into the U.N.’s plan of Agenda 21.
If the UN had their way, USA citizens would be taxed for everything, as well as they keep asking for more money from us.
Gas tax,cigarette tax, taxes if our idiots pass the L.O.S.T. bill…so the UN can tax anyway they want, over the seas.
Before long, one will go to work, and actually hand over their full pay check to pay all the taxes.
P.S. Anyone willing to take the U.N. in their country? I’d like to see them gone from the USA!

First, I congratulate the people of Quebec for holding up the French tradition of rolling over before anyone asks.
Second, a calculation has already been done and a suggestion made that people who want children pay a carbon tax on the “lifetime accumulated carbon release” estimated for the life of an average human. Of course that will differ based on the life expectancy where you live. Seems fair, right?
I want Quebec and the French to jump ship at first word of water in the bilge.
How long before you have to pay a tax to jog an extra mile?

The global warming scare is all about raising taxes. And remember, taxes almost never go down.
You can’t keep letting millions of uneducated third-worlders into civilized countries and not have to shell out a LOT of money in welfare. Where is this money supposed to come from? Simple, scare the sheeple and tax them into submission. This tax will merely be diverted to welfare payments.
If you think we are really running out of water, stop the mass immigration that is killing us in more ways than one.

W. D. Zeller’s Oct. 3, 2007 posting that global warming is a myth because the degree days of heating in 74 U.S. cities have increased between 1935 and 1990 may be wrong for at least two different reasons.
The issue is GLOBAL warming. Global means in both time and space. Winter is not the only season of the year. What if the temperature actually declined in the winter but increased in spring, summer and fall? I am also a little suspicious about the two particular years chosen for the comparison. Could it be that 1935 was unusually warm and 1990 was unusually cold? Why not a more recent date? Global warming proponents argue that the effect has increased in recent years. Many web sites list not only heating degree days but also cooing degree days for the summer season. I’d feel a lot better about the argument if this data was presented too.
The other issue is that the data is limited to 74 U.S. cities. Are the number of them in Alaska proportionate to that state’s area? Proponents of global warming assert the effect is exaggerated at the poles compared to the lower latitudes. Suppose the United States is unusually cold but Europe and Asia are unusually warm. Considering data from only one country might be terribly misleading. The earth’s surface is mostly water. Neglecting this area might also produce a very misleading result.
NASA needs to gather the right data to put an end to these arguments. We need to at least measure the earth’s average global temperature going forward. If telescopes on earth can determine the temperature of the ice caps on Mars, observations from space directed back at earth should also be able to measure our globe’s average temperature. The average must be both over latitude and longitude. The satellite must be in a polar orbit to get a good look at the high latitudes. It must be out far enough, with a fuzzed IR detector, to measure temperature average over a considerable longitudinal range. The measurements must cover a broad enough wavelength of the spectrum so deconvolution analysis can determine an average temperature. Only yearly averages should be compared, since earth’s distance from the sun varies over the course of a year. A polar orbit at the moon’s distance satisfies these requirements. I have no idea how stable such an orbit might be.