dagblog - Comments for ""Cap and trade" is the "Earth Hour" of Climate Policy"

I'd like to subscribe to your

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 06:40:49 +0000

In reply to Are you saying that the rich

I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.

I want to make my stand early

elliottness — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:41:56 +0000

I want to make my stand early on - pumping CO2 into the bottom of the ocean and "fertilzing" the ocean are two of the worst ideas I have heard in a long time.

Multiples worse than Iraq.

Are you saying that the rich

elliottness — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 04:36:59 +0000

In reply to Just to be clear, a heavy

Are you saying that the rich will build space craft to escape?

Just to be clear, a heavy

DF — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:17:04 +0000

In reply to In my comment to which

Just to be clear, a heavy fuel tax would be no more effective than cap and trade. My post was about trying to fully understand what science is telling us about the anthropogenic nature of climate change; namely, that we've already punched the ticket.

In my comment to which

HSG — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 04:56:01 +0000

In reply to Just to clarify, none of us

In my comment to which Deadman replied, "none of us disagreed about raising the gas tax," I wrote "[t]he only truly effective and efficient way to address the global heating catastrophe is to tax the consumption of all carbon based fuels at a very high level and then to keep raising the tax."

I did not and do not advocate a small hike in the tax on carbon-based fuels. We need a very significant hike that will make it far more expensive for everyone to use them. DF does not say that a $5 a gallon tax will not slow down global warming. He says that cap and trade will not be effective. It could be if the cap is set very low and it is enforced. But the first will not happen and if it did, then the second wouldn't.

I always wonder why obvious and simple solutions - like a very high tax on carbon-based fuels - are not rapidly embraced. But, then again 1) we pour billions of dollars into drug cartels every year by fighting the "war on drugs," 2) we don't have single-payer health coverage, and 3) we let crazy people buy handguns without background checks at gun shows.

Just to clarify, none of us

Michael Wolraich — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:18:08 +0000

In reply to Genghis - The only truly

Just to clarify, none of us disagreed about raising the gas tax, but you were advocating an immediate $5/gallon tax, which would be the hammer blow that would put our already staggering economy into a coma. Raise it, but raise it slowly.

And DF's point in this post is that whether you put enact a $5/gallon tax today or over 5 years, it's still not going to stop global warming.

Genghis - The only truly

HSG — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 03:31:00 +0000

In reply to "Cap and trade" is the "Earth Hour" of Climate Policy

Genghis - The only truly effective and efficient way to address the global heating catastrophe is to tax the consumption of all carbon based fuels at a very high level and then to keep raising the tax. I discussed this in a post at this site some time ago, http://dagblog.com/business/bail-or-not-bail-301, that excited a lively discussion with nobody agreeing with me. It is interesting that since that post, a number of commentators, including the Washington Post editorial page, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302024.html, and Thomas Friedman, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/opinion/12friedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion, have agreed that a consumption tax on carbon should at least be considered as one of the few options available to help us preserve what biodiversity we have left.

I can think about this topic

Jock Maccrea — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:49:33 +0000

In reply to "Cap and trade" is the "Earth Hour" of Climate Policy

I can think about this topic till the horses come home and only come up with the same answer. Too late and it serves us right.

Amen.

acanuck — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 20:20:22 +0000

In reply to I should note that it is

Amen.

I should note that it is

DF — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:50:00 +0000

In reply to It's somewhat reassuring that

I should note that it is nice, even promising, to once again have a President that does not look upon science as a bunch of annoying contradictions of the Bible.