Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are correct, as there is no "correct" temperature for the earth. I do know that in 2016 the earth was 1.78F higher than the mid 20th century mean and 16 of the 17 warmest years on record have occured since 2001.
and SCIENCE has show us that nearly EVERY interglacial period (about 24 of them) we have hit a global temp average in the low-mid 70's f.... our global annual average right now is about 58'f....14-17'f LOWER than most interglacial peaks......
I think those taxes should be levied on the fossil fuel companies, not the end user. I also think tax credits should be emphasized for renewable sources. I know that Republicans won't dare try and tax the energy companies that provide them with their campaign cash. Many democrats won't either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilot1
All taxes like these get passed through to the consumer, because corporations are beholden to their stock holder to generate a target Gross Margin, and hopefully increases in stock value, dividends, etc. This is true for any costs like tax, fee, surcharge, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimj
You do realize any taxes levied on a corporation end up being paid by the end user? Or, are you one of those ignorant la-la land dwellers who think corporations/business' actually pay taxes?
We have energy sources available right now that could be put into play right now that would lower such emissions but neither party is pushing them.
Natural Gas anyone? It's plentiful, tech is already done and engines/delivery systems already exist.
these guys are right odanny, when you tax businesses, they ALWAYS pass that tax onto the end user. this is the problem with raising taxes on corporations, they dont pay taxes, the consumer does. this is also the issue with raising taxes on the rich, they will find ways to pass those taxes onto other people, or they will find ways to shelter their money so it cant be taxed.
when reagan lowered taxes in the 80s, the rich opened up their wallets and started using money they had squirreled away and invested that money in their businesses, and hired people and the economy grew. the same thing happened when clinton lowered the capital gains tax, the economy grew.
and when the tech bubble popped, bush lowered income taxes, and the economy grew again, until the housing bubble popped due to inaction by the congress.
You do realize any taxes levied on a corporation end up being paid by the end user? Or, are you one of those ignorant la-la land dwellers who think corporations/business' actually pay taxes?
We have energy sources available right now that could be put into play right now that would lower such emissions but neither party is pushing them.
Natural Gas anyone? It's plentiful, tech is already done and engines/delivery systems already exist.
Isn't your boy constantly carping about overhauling the tax code? Isn't that one of the reasons you voted for him? The end user costs need capped, and in the interest of fairness, so do the carbon taxes. Natural gas is destructive to the environment as well. If we cannot agree on oil companies paying a graduated carbon tax (again one that is capped, along with rate increases) then the development of solar power (which China clearly leads the world in) should be accelerated with tax breaks for companies doing so.
Something tells me your boy ain't gonna be a part of this plan.
"Hence, limiting warming to 1.5 °C is not yet a geophysical impossibility, but is likely to require delivery on strengthened pledges for 2030 followed by challengingly deep and rapid mitigation. Strengthening near-term emissions reductions would hedge against a high climate response or subsequent reduction rates proving economically, technically or politically unfeasible."
Read that again...it clearly states that human action is vital in order to prevent higher levels of warming.
these guys are right odanny, when you tax businesses, they ALWAYS pass that tax onto the end user. this is the problem with raising taxes on corporations, they dont pay taxes, the consumer does. this is also the issue with raising taxes on the rich, they will find ways to pass those taxes onto other people, or they will find ways to shelter their money so it cant be taxed.
You're right, I remember when cigarettes were around $2.00 a pack, now I think they are three times that. California has a "carbon credit" plan in place that should be adopted nationally. For those industries that don't exceed their threshold they can "purchase" carbon credits from those who do not, it rewards responsibility and it benefits companies who have made reducing their footprint part of their business strategy.
Isn't your boy constantly carping about overhauling the tax code? Isn't that one of the reasons you voted for him? The end user costs need capped, and in the interest of fairness, so do the carbon taxes. Natural gas is destructive to the environment as well. If we cannot agree on oil companies paying a graduated carbon tax (again one that is capped, along with rate increases) then the development of solar power (which China clearly leads the world in) should be accelerated with tax breaks for companies doing so.
Something tells me your boy ain't gonna be a part of this plan.
once again you are not thinking clearly when it comes to taxing corporations. does the tax code need to be overhauled? yes, and trump wants to do just that to make it simpler. but adding a carbon tax is not making things simpler now is it?
as for alternative energies, yes, bring them on. i love renewable energy, ethanol is very good in this regard since it can be made for a variety of sources. in fact sugar is one of the best sources for making ethanol, not corn syrup.
and solar energy is promising as well, and if the researchers are to be believed, paint on solar cells are right around the corner. but solar energy has its problems as well as any other energy source. one big problem with solar energy is that if it were a money maker, we would not need to encourage business to invest in solar energy, they would do it to make money. the problem is that there just isnt much money to be made in solar energy. and solar energy on a large scale is not all that efficient.
any one remember studebaker? in its last years it was owned by general electric. they decided in 1966 to kill studebaker, not because it was losing money, but because it wasnt making enough money. solar is the same way, it doesnt make enough money.
Without responding to the rest of your post (why do we have to dumb down everything when Republicans are in charge? Why cant our tax code be amended to include holding those fiscally responsible for their environmental destruction, as well as simplifying the tax code? Don't think for a second any of that is meant to benefit the middle class, but I digress)
I just want to add ethanol is a terrible source of energy. This not only reduces fuel mileage but takes a lot of energy to produce, and only exists as a subsidy to farmers. It's an example of what not to do in regards to alternative fuel sources.
Without responding to the rest of your post (why do we have to dumb down everything when Republicans are in charge? Why cant our tax code be amended to include holding those fiscally responsible for their environmental destruction, as well as simplifying the tax code? Don't think for a second any of that is meant to benefit the middle class, but I digress)
I just want to add ethanol is a terrible source of energy. This not only reduces fuel mileage but takes a lot of energy to produce, and only exists as a subsidy to farmers. It's an example of what not to do in regards to alternative fuel sources.
yes, corn based ethanol does take more energy to produce, which is why i suggested sugar based ethanol instead. ethanol does require a richer fuel mixture to run an engine, though not as rich as methanol, but ethanol is renewable. note how many tons of sugar are made yearly just in this country alone. and you gat far more yield making ethanol from sugar than you do corn.
also note that corn an sugar are not the only sources of ethanol either, look at what vodka, the various whiskeys, and the various wines are made from, and include beers and tequilas as well.
stop looking at one source for ethanol. i have. i studied this issue since the mid 70s, and i can tell you that you can make ethanol fairly cheaply in your own back yard. file some paperwork with the BATF and you can make something like 50 gallons per week of fuel ethanol, and you can run that in your car legally if you step up and pay the state and federal road taxes on the fuel. so unless you are driving cross country all the time, you would be hard pressed to use up 50 gallons of ethanol in a weeks driving. and with modern engine management control units, you can easily add a multi fuel sensor to your vehicle, and run E85 ethanol, which means you have cut the amount of gasoline you need to buy each week to just a few dollars.
like solar power, ethanol on a large scale can be very expensive, but on small scales, they can be very efficient.
It honestly baffles me that people believe climate change is propaganda. How is that easier to believe to the average person than the idea that climate change skepticism is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry? There are powerful corporations that have a vested interest in our skepticism of climate change. Yet the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists and the entire world...THEY'RE the ones spouting propaganda....
Read that again...it clearly states that human action is vital in order to prevent higher levels of warming.
Oddly that didn't seem to make it into the Breitbart article or the OP.
Wonder why?
"We believe the science when it says something we like, but we don't believe when it says something we don't like"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valhallian
It honestly baffles me that people believe climate change is propaganda. How is that easier to believe to the average person than the idea that climate change skepticism is propaganda from the fossil fuel industry? There are powerful corporations that have a vested interest in our skepticism of climate change. Yet the vast, overwhelming majority of scientists and the entire world...THEY'RE the ones spouting propaganda....
This as well.
Not sure if it's intellectual dishonesty or just lack of intellect.
Which set of scientists has more to gain, or lose?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
