Half of Americans willing to pay zero additional dollars for EPA carbon regs

horair.com ^ | 10/24/2014 | Jazz Shaw

[rktman]

We’ve had plenty of time for the discussion of the EPA’s new green energy initiatives and carbon restrictions to sink in to the American collective consciousness. (Even if it does get shoved out of the news on a daily basis.) It’s also been made clear that these regulations are going to affect the available energy pool on the grid and exert upward pressure on retail prices for fuel, heating and electricity. The greater goal, we are told, is to reduce the nation’s overall carbon footprint and, presumably, improve the climate change situation.

So how generous is the public feeling about pitching in toward this effort? According to a new poll… not so much.

[rktman]

Maybe this is where ms. epa head cheese found the "overwhelming majority" number using common core math calculations. The really sad thing is that even though 50% want to contribute zero dollars, that leaves 50% that may want to support this load of horse manure.

[MrB]

They’re willing to pay zero

because there wasn’t a negative number as an option.

[combat_boots]

Greens Licking Their Lips Over Carbon Tax Revenues

By Institute for Energy Research October 22, 2014

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/66955

[Milton Miteybad]

It would be easier to justify this sort of expenditure if it came with a money-back guarantee. If Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Adjustment (CA-CA) doesn't stop and reverse itself and its effects, all tax revenue collected for that purpose will be rebated to the taxpayers.

Funny thing, though...I never hear anyone in government making such an offer. I wonder why...

[combat_boots]

If a carbon tax is ‘deemed,’ how much will this add to the price of a gallon of gas? A KW of electricity? A license plate?

[MrB]

Well, since the goal is to force commoners like you and I to stop driving completely,

the answer to your question is “as much as it takes”.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Simple solution, just make the carbon tax voluntary. I’ll bet they don’t raise $1000 a year.

[Alex Murphy]

So how generous is the public feeling about pitching in toward this effort? According to a new poll… not so much.

According to the headline, half of Americans are willing to pay additional dollars for EPA carbon regs, however.

[Ben Ficklin]

At the federal level, the House would have to originate the tax and the senate would also be involved, plus the prez.

But, back in 2008, congress debated cap and tax versus cap and trade. Cap and trade won out. However, they were not able to implement cap and trade in 2009.

All that applied only to stationary sources. Mobile sources(tailpipes) are regulated by rising CAFE standards. As the CAFE standards rise, each auto will use less gasoline and emit less CO2. There is a cost to that in that the price of autos and gasoline will rise to meet the higher café standards. For example: next year the Tier 3 gasoline with lower sulfur content and higher cost will be required.

Since Congress didn't enact cap and trade, EPA is, or will be, regulating CO2 emissions from stationary sources the same way they regulate any other pollutant. Which means that the emitter will have to utilize the Best Available Control Technology(BACT), which costs money.

So how much does higher café standards or BACT costs the consumer, that depends on who you ask. Tier 3 gasoline, according to EPA, will cost 2-3 cents more per gallon but the refiners say it will cost 50 cents per gallon more.

[subterfuge]

No, the 50% of people that are not on record as opposing “fixing” global warming are too stupid to realize the fix will be at the expense of their freedom. They don’t realize that big government will be extracting the funds needed for the fake fix will come from their wallets.

And they certainly don’t realize the fix is another big government scam that won’t do anything except make them poorer.

[servantboy777]

I’d rather NO money at all be allocated to this unconstitutional executive behemoth called the EPA.

Regulatory tyranny against capitalism.

[combat_boots]

Thanks.

The FT EPA budget:
The Obama administration proposed a bit smaller budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, taking most of the reduction from programs to help states pay for clean-water projects including drinking water and sewage treatment.

Overall, the agency’s budget for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, would be $7.9 billion, about $309 million less than enacted for the current fiscal year. For years, the administration has been under pressure from Republicans and some centrist Democrats to shrink the EPA, which they view as an overly aggressive regulator. Last summer, House Republicans pushed unsuccessfully for a 34% cut in funding to about $5.5 billion.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/03/04/2015-budget-trimming-epa-funding/

[Buckeye McFrog]

Fortunately for Obama they don’t have to pay. He can just reach into their wallets and take it.

[rktman]

You meant “our” wallets right?

[Organic Panic]

One of the most abundant elements in the universe is going to be taxed? What a deal.

Who will collect the tax? What will the revenues be used for? (he asks rhetorically)