Carbon Tax

[136or142]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

A carbon tax is an incentive.

[136or142]

There should be an incentive instead of a tax to encourage renewable energy sources so no.

A carbon tax is an incentive.

A carbon tax is an anti-carbon pigouvian externality correction, which is addessing the problem correctly. Incentives to encourage renewable sources distort the market by picking specific energy source winners, and doesn’t directly address the negative externality.

A carbon tax is a negative incentive.  Cap and trade is both a negative incentive and the trading encourages firms to reduce their emissions further to trade their credits.  However, cap and trade is less transparent and the cap and trade market is possibly more easy to manipulate.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies. 

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies. 

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

Yes and the fact is no I don’t believe it should be taxed or regulated more than it already is .

You would tax probably 90% of the nation with your proposal and hurt the middle class and the fact is no it won’t incentive people to buy Telsas .

What will incentize people to buy electric cars is if you can get the mileage of a Tesla at the same price as a Honda or Toyota and a carbon tax won’t do that

1.Pollution is still not being charged anywhere near to what it costs.  So, in fact, you do want others to foot the bill.

2.Global warming also hurts the middle class (and the poor) far more than anybody else.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

Yes and the fact is no I don’t believe it should be taxed or regulated more than it already is .

You would tax probably 90% of the nation with your proposal and hurt the middle class and the fact is no it won’t incentive people to buy Telsas .

What will incentize people to buy electric cars is if you can get the mileage of a Tesla at the same price as a Honda or Toyota and a carbon tax won’t do that

1.Pollution is still not being charged anywhere near to what it costs.  So, in fact, you do want others to foot the bill.

2.Global warming also hurts the middle class (and the poor) far more than anybody else.

The fact is you haven’t addressed how a carbon tax will incentive people who  buy cars that cost between 15k-25k to buy a Tesla .


So no a carbon tax won’t reduce pollution it will just make the middle class put more in taxes  

False dichotomy.  Why is the only alternative buying a Tesla?

A carbon tax may incentivize some people to drive less, and it may incentivize others to buy more fuel efficient cars.  People who can't afford a Tesla can still afford to buy much more fuel efficient cars than they have been doing.

[136or142]

Yes, punish the polluters not the ordinary people.

The ordinary people are the polluters, if there wasnt demand for those types of products, businesses wouldnt make the products in the first place.

The ordinary people are also those harmed by pollution.  Hence, the idea of a tax on externalities like pollution.

All a carbon tax will do is make driving regular cars higher but it wont make the tesla affordable or improve the millage for the leaf .

Which means people will drive less, so less people will be harmed by pollution.  Raising costs on pollution also provides a greater incentive for alternatives.

No it doenst , people still have to get to work every day and the fact is most people in the nation lives in the Suburbs not Urban areas and you need a car to commute.  Many people have to commute 30-45 miles a day to work(and another 30-45 miles to come back home) .

The fact is raising the costs of say driving a Honda will not incentivizing buying either a Tesla or Leaf because a Tesla is still way more expensive and the mileage on a Leaf is terrible.

The proper solution to promote alternative energy is giving tax credits to alternative energy companies, and let the free market continue to innovate.

Then the carbon tax can offset the tax credits to alternative energy companies.  

The tax credits will pay for themselves in the long run . Just get rid of other tax loopholes like carried interest

The longer it takes to start seriously addressing global warming, the less time there is to deal with it, and the more radical the solutions need to be.  These are the 'cold equations' as science fiction author Tom Godwin termed them.

Innovation is the way to solve it ,

Not taxes and regulations

So, don't do anything to deal with those who are using the atmosphere for free to put their pollution in it and causing others to foot the bill.  I'm curious if you go around falsely claiming that you believe in 'personal responsibility'?

Others to foot the bill , when did I say that .


I believe the best way to deal with climate change is innovation as taxing and regulating will only just hurt the middle class

Do you understand what an externality, like pollution, is?

Yes and the fact is no I don’t believe it should be taxed or regulated more than it already is .

You would tax probably 90% of the nation with your proposal and hurt the middle class and the fact is no it won’t incentive people to buy Telsas .

What will incentize people to buy electric cars is if you can get the mileage of a Tesla at the same price as a Honda or Toyota and a carbon tax won’t do that

1.Pollution is still not being charged anywhere near to what it costs.  So, in fact, you do want others to foot the bill.

2.Global warming also hurts the middle class (and the poor) far more than anybody else.

The fact is you haven’t addressed how a carbon tax will incentive people who  buy cars that cost between 15k-25k to buy a Tesla .


So no a carbon tax won’t reduce pollution it will just make the middle class put more in taxes  

False dichotomy.  Why is the only alternative buying a Tesla?

A carbon tax may incentivize some people to drive less, and it may incentivize others to buy more fuel efficient cars.  People who can't afford a Tesla can still afford to buy much more fuel efficient cars than they have been doing.

Maybe as a third car(Since cheap electric cars have terrible mileage) but no it doesn’t incentize people who live in the suburbs to drive less since they need to drive to get to work and back

1.People don't just drive to get to work and get back. Even if that is the case, there may be more that can be done with carpooling.  If there is enough density (as is increasingly the case) a carbon tax could be used to finance public transit lines.

2.You neglected my point about people buying more fuel efficient vehicles.  For most people, there is no need to buy an SUV or a pickup truck.  (especially if all they're doing is driving to work and driving back home.)