However I have to disagree with those that think that it is impossible to domestically (internationally it is a nightmare) impose a cost on carbon dioxide emissions at low cost in spending power for individuals. The current legislation doesn’t do that but it doesn’t mean that it is impossible. If you doubled the cost of fuel but gave all the new taxes back as equal tax cuts or direct reimbursements (yeah right), people would then spend the money. Some would go to defray the new additional costs of energy but people would have an incentive to maximize the return and cut fuel usage. This shift in spending would encourage shifts in production (my cousin tells me that year-old Hummers are now selling for $15,000 at auction).

It is simple economics. If you double the cost of gas but hand someone $2000 cash. Most people won’t spend that $2000 to make up the gas increase. They will try to maximize the value of the money and cut the amount of gas they use.

The problem of course is that politicians CAN’T not spend the new taxes and even if we had saintly politicians there is a cost to collecting the taxes so you end up with a net loss. If kept low-enough, it is possible to reduce usage without actually reducing people’s spending money too much. The political class just aren’t up to doing it.

Personally I assume that the Dems are looking to pay for universal health care with the carbon tax but are afraid to admit it since health care is supposed to be cost neutral because of all the cost cutting they can provide and a carbon tax is supposed to neutral because they are magical.

I find it beyond amusing when anyone cites him as an authority on anything. He still can’t get over the fact that he was fired by Reagan because his forecasting sucked ass. On the other hand, maybe he would make a good climate modeler for this reason.

And we have Princeton to thank for this charlatan, Warren….

Unfortunately, you were silly to think that they’d behave any differently. They’re just the opposite side of the same coin (or should I say slug, since “coin” might imply that there was something of value involved?)

Also, apparently admitting that the climate changes comes with a whole host of other conclusions: climate change is, in a significant way, caused by humans; climate change is a problem; climate change can be “solved” through legislation; and probably several others.

There seem to be many holes just in this excerpt. It only bothers me, though, if other people read it and believe it. I don’t know to what extent that happens.

Also, I would ask that we keep Transformers 2 discussion off this thread (and on the original thread), as I haven’t seen it yet, but would like to read this thread.

I would point the “deniers are evil people; of COURSE it’s warming disastrously, and it’s ALL our fault” camp to the recent findings on the missing limbs and extra limbs in frogs. My, what a surprise that after being ‘certainly due to mankind’s abuse of the environment’, it turns out to be Mother Nature–in the form of dragonfly nymphs feeding on hind legs of tadpoles, and another natural pathogen causing extra limb growth.

What will it take to get these religious, guilt-toting zealots to say “Oh, wait; never mind”? Collapse of society? An ice age? A CME/solar flare squarely aimed at us to kick us back a century (or just fry the bejesus out of us)? An asteroid hit? This whole disastrous AGW obsession is nothing less than a mass psychosis.