"Other developed countries", which ones imposed a carbon tax and enjoyed booming economy growth?
Ping.
Stupid ideas. Carbon dioxide and Nitrous Oxides are valuable commodities, if you recognize and use them as such. Pumping them underground is a stupid waste.
Algae based biodiesel can be downright simple, and with the addition of CO2 and NOx gases, the algae grows much, much faster. Some types of algae are 50% vegetable oil by weight.
Squeeze out the oil, mix it with ethanol and lye, as a catalyst, then filter it, add 1% petroleum diesel as a preservative, and bingo you have biodiesel. The leftover algae makes good animal fodder.
You can use gray (non-potable) waste water, even before the first drop of biodiesel is produced it is profitable, because it is expensive as hell to dispose of CO2 and NOx otherwise. There are a vast number of diesel engines on the road right now, from motorcycles to cars and trucks to trains, and even ships. Minor modification and they work fine with it.
South of the Mason-Dixon, continual production is probably good for 10 months out of the year.
Add it all up: waste disposal, minimal infrastructure, small resource demand, existing engines and diesel pumps, and it probably even beats gasoline as being efficient.
Problem solved.
Raise the price of energy and you raise the price of everything.
Energy is how you multiply human effort. It is the basic building block of wealth. Jacking the cost of it puts your thumb directly on a country’s carotid artery. Freedom, rule of law, and abundant energy are fundamental for building prosperity.
surely higher gas taxes are a good idea.
///
i noticed several weird articles from Forbes this past week.
but this, by far, is the most insane!
-
1) Global warming is a hoax.
2) higher taxes are bad for everyone, except politicians.
-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2937374/posts?page=9#9
-
http://thedogatemydata.blogspot.com/2009/12/raw-v-adjusted-ghcn-data.html
All central planners must be utterly destroyed (metaphorically speaking, not calling for violence)
If reducing fuel consumption is the goal, that's easy enough to accomplish, keep people too poor to drive.
But the goal of a tax is to bring in money and if a carbon tax really worked it would have to keep increasing just to maintain the same level of income.
Why this great enthusiasm for taking the few pennies I have left at the end of the month?
And to get to the heart of the matter, it has NOT been shown that man is heating up Earth’s environment or that man is capable of changing the weather by altering farming and production methods.
the hot air from academia, politically biased science, phony crony capitalist tax schemes, and the entire Left wing of politics are more responsible than ANYTHING else for “global warming”
just reduce the “carbon footprint” of everything they do, day in and day out, of their entire existence, and peace and tranquility will reign again, including in the weather
no efficient economy needs any of them
It seems most Freeper responses to the global warming question are predicated on the idea that man-made climate change isn’t a real threat.
What if it was? What do we do?
It seems in that case, the conservative and prudent approach would be of three things:
1. Carbon taxes, with taxes reduced elsewhere.
2. Government-sponsored research into low-carbon energy generation, preferably through awards for private breakthroughs.
3. Doing pro-growth policies so the people of the future are wealthy enough to deal with whatever troubles climate change will cost.
#3 is a good idea anyway. #2 can have some great bang for the buck. #1 can’t be ruled out, though.
That is not this country any more.
The largest producers of NOX?
Major Airports.
Want to shut them down?
Naah, let us blame the electric generators so that ratepayers can pay the hidden tax.
All this is about, in the end, is to establish a tax on breathing.
Those that can’t pay the breathing tax... are to be “indentured” (made slaves of) those who can and will pay it “for them”