Originally posted by whodeyI'm not going to bother to keep responding to posts like yours which are based on laughable lies. The idea that I support dependence on foreign nations is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant further comment.
IF nuclear power plants, for example, were made available via government creation, then it would be a source of energy that WOULD make obsolete many carbon emitters that are used today. Looking at my electric bill, I notice that the majority of my energy is produced by coal burning facilities. If there were a nuclear facility availabe instead, that would al ...[text shortened]... that money that is being paid for them to police the world to be used for research if you like.
None of your ideas, all of which would require massive government expenditures and thus much higher taxes (which you constantly complain about), would reduce emissions in the short or medium term. In fact, by not addressing the demand side of the equation, they might not reduce emissions in the long term either; any per unit savings might be overshadowed by increased aggregate energy use.
Originally posted by kmax87In the end the consumer always foots the bill (but since it is a tax the consumer gets the money back). If energy use is taxed more heavily then people will use less of it, which will hurt power plants. Subsidies for cleaner power will encourage the power industry to change to cleaner fuels.
but then the power industry for example, does not have to do anything about the way it produces energy, the consumer foots the bill....where's the upside to that? Cap and trade at least gives industry a monetary incentive to become more efficient and emit a smaller footprint. Each year the EPA can revise the cap set for each industry ie make it smaller if eff ...[text shortened]... market forces then spring into action and hey presto its in everyone's interest to emit less.
Originally posted by no1marauderWe will see what the outcry is when gas goes to $5-6 a gallon at the pumps becomes as well as peoples electric and gas doubling in price. It will then become a call to arms in terms of the cry to drill for oil at home as well as make a gradual conversion to natty gas which is abundant in the US.
I'm not going to bother to keep responding to posts like yours which are based on laughable lies. The idea that I support dependence on foreign nations is so ridiculous it doesn't warrant further comment.
None of your ideas, all of which would require massive government expenditures and thus much higher taxes (which you constantly comp ...[text shortened]... ong term either; any per unit savings might be overshadowed by increased aggregate energy use.
Of course, you and your progressive looney friends can feel free to punish people for needing to drive their car and heat and cool their homes all for the sake of wanting them to use less energy. We shall see who prevails in the end.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou really think that the American tax payers ever sees their tax dollars again? I guess you don't follow the money trail in the American political system of late.
In the end the consumer always foots the bill (but since it is a tax the consumer gets the money back). If energy use is taxed more heavily then people will use less of it, which will hurt power plants. Subsidies for cleaner power will encourage the power industry to change to cleaner fuels.
Although I think the notion that one can make something unaffordable so that people will find better alternatives, the same could be done by using those tax dollars to go directly towards alternative fuels. Of course, they will not want to do that will they?
Originally posted by no1marauderSince when does massive government spending necessitate raising taxes? I guess you have not followed the "W"/Obama administrations. 😛
None of your ideas, all of which would require massive government expenditures and thus much higher taxes (which you constantly complain about), would reduce emissions in the short or medium term.
Originally posted by whodeyEffectively a higher tax on energy use (with the total amount kept constant) will mean those who use a small amount of energy will pay lower taxes, while people like Al Gore will pay more taxes.
We will see what the outcry is when gas goes to $5-6 a gallon at the pumps becomes as well as peoples electric and gas doubling in price. It will then become a call to arms in terms of the cry to drill for oil at home as well as make a gradual conversion to natty gas which is abundant in the US.
Of course, you and your progressive looney friends can feel ...[text shortened]... omes all for the sake of wanting them to use less energy. We shall see who prevails in the end.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyYou're right whodey, the US government puts all the tax dollars in massive incinerators. This work is done by volunteers. The army, police, Medicare, etc. are all just figments of your imagination.
You really think that the American tax payers ever sees their tax dollars again? I guess you don't follow the money trail in the American political system of late.
Although I think the notion that one can make something unaffordable so that people will find better alternatives, the same could be done by using those tax dollars to go directly towards alternative fuels. Of course, they will not want to do that will they?
Originally posted by whodeyIf it's soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo abundant, why aren't the big corporations extracting it and getting filthy richer, my idiot friend? If our energy use was anywhere near what advanced countries like Japan and France use per capita, we'd be net exporters. And amazingly people in those countries actually drive and cool and heat their homes!
We will see what the outcry is when gas goes to $5-6 a gallon at the pumps becomes as well as peoples electric and gas doubling in price. It will then become a call to arms in terms of the cry to drill for oil at home as well as make a gradual conversion to natty gas which is abundant in the US.
Of course, you and your progressive looney friends can feel ...[text shortened]... omes all for the sake of wanting them to use less energy. We shall see who prevails in the end.
If you knew anything about economics (which you clearly don't), you realize that decreased energy use would lead to lower, not greater, prices.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo now you're in favor of a massive increase in the deficit largely to pay big corporations to build nuclear power plants?
Effectively a higher tax on energy use (with the total amount kept constant) will mean those who use a small amount of energy will pay lower taxes, while people like Al Gore will pay more taxes.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, but any such tax plan should not be regarded as a tax increase plan but as a tax restructuring plan. There may be good reasons to increase taxes but that is a seperate issue. As for government subsidies for nuclear plants, I don't have any objection to that.
So now you're in favor of a massive increase in the deficit largely to pay big corporations to build nuclear power plants?
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI see. So they are going to double our energy prices so that it will be cheaper for us? Brilliant!! 🙄
If you knew anything about economics (which you clearly don't), you realize that decreased energy use would lead to lower, not greater, prices.[/b]
As for the progressive plan, we will see where they take us since they are firmly in control. My guess is the US will still be dependent on foriegn oil with troops remaining overseas and double or triple energy prices.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyComparing US prices to my own, there doesn't appear to be much difference, the average US price is $.115, while I pay $.11 per kWh (excl. taxes).
I see. So they are going to double our energy prices so that it will be cheaper for us? Brilliant!! 🙄
As for the progressive plan, we will see where they take us since they are firmly in control. My guess is the US will still be dependent on foriegn oil with troops remaining overseas and double or triple energy prices.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraListen to your messiah in his own words. Energy rates will NECESSARILY skyrocket under cap and trade.
Comparing US prices to my own, there doesn't appear to be much difference, the average US price is $.115, while I pay $.11 per kWh (excl. taxes).