Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Why is California on fire? and Oregon? Who's to blame?

  1. Top | #41
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,160
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

    In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

    Superstitious nonsense.
    You don't understand that drivers will reduce their consumption of gasoline if the price they pay is higher?
    help me understand... I live 20 miles from where I work... after the cost of gas increases, how many miles will I be from work?

  2. Top | #42
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    USA, California
    Posts
    3,483
    Archived
    5,710
    Total Posts
    9,193
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

    In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

    Superstitious nonsense.
    You don't understand that drivers will reduce their consumption of gasoline if the price they pay is higher?
    help me understand... I live 20 miles from where I work... after the cost of gas increases, how many miles will I be from work?
    On average, people will change their behavior to consume less gasoline. For example, buying more fuel efficient cars. Maybe you won't, but on average, people will.

  3. Top | #43
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    4,345
    Rep Power
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by J842P View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post

    help me understand... I live 20 miles from where I work... after the cost of gas increases, how many miles will I be from work?
    On average, people will change their behavior consume less gasoline. For example, buying more fuel efficient cars. Maybe you won't, but on average, people will.
    Agreed. They will carpool more. Want to live closer to work. They'll find a way.

  4. Top | #44
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    28,516
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    125,268
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    And of course, Cap-Trade created no sudden losers. A law which abruptly erased many billions of valuation from various companies would, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as very unfair.
    Which is why my position is that we cut corporate taxes by the expected take from carbon (and other pollution) taxes. Make it revenue neutral.
    Wouldn't that also render it effectiveness neutral?

    You're proposing that we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    No--you're making the mistake of assuming a static situation. At the time of implementation it does nothing, but going forward it provides a financial encouragement towards less polluting behavior. Companies can change their behavior so as to lower the pollution tax bill. (I would increase the pollution taxes as this happens--it would benefit the ones that did good, hurt the ones that did bad.)

  5. Top | #45
    Veteran Member James Brown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,239
    Archived
    5,844
    Total Posts
    9,083
    Rep Power
    59
    All things being equal, most people would rather drive larger cars rather than smaller. Two advantages: You can carry more stuff (cargo, passengers) and larger vehicles are believed to be safer than smaller cars in collisions.

    When the price of gas goes up sharply--like during an oil shock--then things stop being equal. When driver's gasoline budgets double or triple because they still need to get to work every day, then they gradually shift to smaller, more-fuel efficient vehicles.

    But over time, the price increase stops being a surprise. People stop complaining about the price of gas and adjust their budgets. Particularly if incomes go up but the price of gas does not, then the gasoline budget becomes a smaller and smaller bite. And since people would rather drive larger cars, they gradually shift to larger, less-fuel-efficient vehicles, because they can afford to.

    In the sixties, cars were big and fuel-guzzlers. In the seventies, people started driving smaller cars because the price of gas skyrocketed. And in the eighties, when the price of gas stabilized and even fell, people started driving bigger and bigger cars. The same thing happened during the oil spike in the mid-2000s.

    One way to break this cycle is to make these gas taxes go up every year. Tell people that gas will double in price next week, and they'll bitch and moan. But eventually they'll adjust and keep driving big cars. But tell people that gas will go up (via taxes) ten percent every year for the indefinite future, then we might see people downsize their cars, move closer to work, make the expensive choices to forestall rising fuel costs a decade in the future.

    Will that do the trick? I don't know. Health care costs go up every year much faster than inflation; are people incentivized to eat and live healthier because of it? Education costs have risen quickly too. What incentived behaviors are people adopting to accommodate that?

    But with rising gas taxes will come higher costs on everything, since everything gets hauled around via gas. Are we okay telling people that their lives will be ten percent more expensive every year because of gas taxes, but it's for a good cause (less climate change decades from now)? I personally think it will be a tough sell.

  6. Top | #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Location
    Land of Smiles
    Posts
    145
    Rep Power
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    And of course, Cap-Trade created no sudden losers. A law which abruptly erased many billions of valuation from various companies would, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as very unfair.
    Which is why my position is that we cut corporate taxes by the expected take from carbon (and other pollution) taxes. Make it revenue neutral.
    Wouldn't that also render it effectiveness neutral?

    You're proposing that we rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
    I assume Loren would tax carbon-users, but make tax reductions across the board. So incentives would still be there.

    The problem I see is that the carbon tax would apply unequally — there'd be winners and losers. Companies that use a lot of energy would see their stock prices plummet; companies that don't wouldn't. That may be good from society's viewpoint, but many legislators and voters — especially those who would lose their jobs — would find it very unfair. Politically it is difficult.

    This is similar to America's health-care dilemma. Efficiency and efficacy may dictate putting private health insurance companies out of business! But your sister-in-law, a claims adjustor, would lose her job.

    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

    In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

    Superstitious nonsense.
    You don't understand that drivers will reduce their consumption of gasoline if the price they pay is higher?
    help me understand... I live 20 miles from where I work... after the cost of gas increases, how many miles will I be from work?
    In the short term you might carpool, use rail, or arrange with your employer to work four 10-hour shifts instead of five 8's. In the longer term, your demand for gasoline will be even more elastic: you might accept the job offer 5 miles away, or reconsider your next house purchase. These changes will be good for you financially, and good for society and for the planet.

    More generally, the complaint "But it wouldn't help ME" misses the whole point. Government and the market-place are not here to help Gun Nut or any other gasoline user specifically. There are many millions of other Americans.

  7. Top | #47
    Loony Running The Asylum ZiprHead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Do you like my pretty crown?
    Posts
    19,646
    Archived
    3,034
    Total Posts
    22,680
    Rep Power
    97
    Something I just heard today. California only controls about 3 percent of its forest land. More than fifty percent is under federal control. So Trumpy, why aren't you raking those forests?
    When conservatives realize they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will abandon democracy.

  8. Top | #48
    Mazzie Daius fromderinside's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Oregon's westernmost
    Posts
    13,181
    Archived
    18,213
    Total Posts
    31,394
    Rep Power
    59
    Narcissist-in-chief Quack Terlet Dump only speaks what makes his sycophants call out his name. They don't know either and they don't give a damn anyway. They just want to faun, swoon even.

    More and more it looks like Biden is playing Jesse Owens to NOTUS's American Hitler wannabe.

  9. Top | #49
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,772
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Swammerdami View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    What is the point of setting a "cap"? Why not just tax, or make them pay, for every unit of carbon they burn? The "cap" should be one atom of carbon, or 1000 atoms, or 1,000,000 whatever. Or a price per gallon.
    I agree that carbon tax would be much more sensical than Cap-Trade. Cap'n'trade was adopted as a political expediency: It could be enacted by Congress; a carbon tax could not be enacted.
    (carbon tax = "gas tax") -- You mean the congressmembers were prevented by a screaming mob of idiots from enacted it (screaming because they think cheap gas is a God-given entitlement, and gives them instant gratification, which is all the screaming mob understands) -- yes, that may be correct.


    And of course, Cap-Trade created no sudden losers. A law which abruptly erased many billions of valuation from various companies would, rightly or wrongly, be perceived as very unfair.

    I am still quite curious why you advocate carbon tax in this thread, but unfettered markets in the Fair-vs-Free thread. If your essential dogma is that good government interventions are good, but bad government interventions are bad, I think you'll get broad support for that principle across the entire political spectrum! :-)
    The Utilitarian Principle is common to both issues.

    "Free trade" = greatest good for the greatest number.

    Tax carbon emissions to reduce the damage being done ("externalities") = greatest good for the greatest number

  10. Top | #50
    Veteran Member Lumpenproletariat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    ^ Why don't I get any pretty jewels? Waaaaa!
    Posts
    1,772
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TSwizzle View Post
    First off, Newsom is an insufferable, ignorant prick.

    In what way will raising gas tax impact the global climate ? How many degrees will the average temperature decrease ? How many inches will the sea level decrease ? How many more inches, feet, miles of ice will be regained?

    Superstitious nonsense.
    You don't understand that drivers will reduce their consumption of gasoline if the price they pay is higher?

    You don't understand the principle of incentives to make something happen? You think if the price goes up $1 or $2 per gallon this would not result in less gas consumption and burning fossil fuels?

    How about $3 increase? $4? This would have no impact on drivers to incentivize them away from gasoline and toward alternatives?
    The demand for gasoline is pretty inelastic.
    The key word is "pretty" --- just tax it however high enough to get the job done. It's OK to have the higher tax be phased in gradually. The fact is that gas consumption will decrease as the tax increases higher and higher. It would get the job done like it's not getting done so far.


    Besides, you're coming at it the wrong way--if it is to be done it should be a general carbon tax, not taxing specific forms of carbon.
    I hate to accuse you of being one of the screaming idiots in the MOB of riff-raff who think they're entitled to cheap gas as their God-given right -- but this sounds like a way to get all the motorists-consumers off the hook, to let them keep over-consuming gasoline.

    What better way is there to tax the consumption than to tax the consumers consuming it? What is more logical and transparent than to simply tax every consumer of carbon, individually, where they make the choice to consume more, or maybe to reduce their consumption?

    This would apply to businesses also which burn fuel, in transportation and any kind of production. If they run their air conditioner too much, the higher electricity bill would cause them to make that change.

    I fail to see what makes more sense than to impose a tax -- penalty, cost of damage -- onto every user who makes a decision to burn more carbon. Every consumer, every individual, household, business, etc. They all pay for their fuel, or for their electricity, at some point. Why aren't they the ones who have to change and decide to use less? including switching to alternatives?


    And a further point: this ultimately means that EVERYONE will pay, or sacrifice, because even those who don't drive or pay a utility bill will still pay indirectly one way or another. Such as consumers buying products at the store, which will cost a little more because of the higher transportation costs.

    So the cost will be spread out among everyone, pretty evenly. But everyone who can save somewhere will have the incentive to make the change, to reduce their waste.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •