Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
jstoesz
Participant[quote]Investment in wind and solar will result in ton of high end engineering, manufacturing and installation jobs. Sure, some of it will go to China, but European companies that invested early in wind, made a ton of money EXPORTING to China. If we make investment now, you will have cheap clean energy by 2020. If not, it will always be 10 years away.[/quote]
We have had solar for 40+ years, and scientist have always said it will reach parity with oil in 10 years. Have we underfunded out investment in solar, or is it just not here yet? Things that are truly economically viable even in 10 years are subsidized by private investors. The government is only required when a scientists claim of adequacy is clearly a fantasy to those with capital. The government is the sucker.
[quote]AB32 reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We import around 12.2M bbl/day. If there is a correct mix of electric cars and high efficiency vehicles in US, complete switch from heating oil to natural gas, the imports can be completely eliminated. That would result in ability to reduce our defense budget by probably around $400B/year. Do you think $400B tax cut would be good for the economy?
Now, AB32 doesn’t do all of that, but it nudges us in the right direction.[/quote]“There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?” And I mean this in all mocking. If our goal is to reduce our dependence on foreign oil (which I am for), let us tax the crap out of it, and open up our own reserves. This backdoor way of getting there is ripe with unintended consequences, which ends up shipping our GHG’s to china (with our jobs).
[quote]As cheap supplies dwindle and third world demand grows, prices of oil will go higher and higher. If nothing else, AB32 is an insurance policy that when oil goes to $200, you will be able to buy a relatively inexpensive electric or high MPG car. California electric car initiative got canceled, but I can guarantee you that a lot of people are very happy they can purchase a Prius.
And before you can say free market can fix all of that, just look how long car manufacturers are taking to introduce efficient vehicles on their own. [/quote]Instant and severe scarcity does not happen organically. It happens over time, and as fuel gets more expensive, other means of reducing oil consumption will happen organically. Free markets can fix it…notice the prius requires a tax refund and a special carpool lane sticker. Prior to all of this bullshit subsidy, we had the CR-X (better gas mileage than the prius with a standard gas engine) which happened organically from the high gas years of the 70’s.
[quote]Same deal with electricity generation. When the new Enron decides to screw with us, you just put solar panels on your house. In Germany, which has well developed installer market, you can put up solar panels, installation and transformer included, at about $4/W. With San Diego insolation, that translates to about 12c/kWh, without any government subsidies.[/quote]
You can put solar panels on your house now. And even with the government subsidy, they have at least a 20 year buyback period. Was this comment supposed to be in the fantasy land where solar panels are cheaper than nuclear or coal power? How does AB32 get us less dependent on PG&E and more to a decentralized grid (which I am also for BTW).
[quote]And finally, climate change. Lets say 98% of scientists are wrong, and that there is only 30% chance of any negative effects. Do you know what the cost would be of having most of eastern California turn into desert? Or what the cost to industry would be if water prices went up 1000%?[/quote]
What if I said there is a .01% chance that if you get in your car tomorrow you could DIE!!! Would you drive to work tomorrow? This is no argument. If you want to deal with the merits of scientific argument fine, but to dismiss dessent with scare tactics is pointless.
Also of note, no where in your response did I see an argument for AB32 resulting in more employment in California. All that was stated falls into the category of future ethereal benefits.
Participant[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]
Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.
Participant[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]
Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.
Participant[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]
Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.
Participant[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]
Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.
Participant[quote]How is the tax code a tool of control? How would a flat tax change that? Please be specific. These sound like a series of buzz words that have no relevancy nor accuracy.[/quote]
Tax breaks, incentives, higher and lower tax rates. They are all intended to incentivise the populous towards politically favored decisions (or punish people for making money in an politically unfavorable way). The flat tax gives the politicians one lever. Shall we raise taxes today Or shall we lower them? No more of the, should we increase the child tax credit, or the homeowners tax credit,or the capital gains tax, or the estate tax, or the income tax for couple making over/under 250k a year (unadjusted or adjusted for inflation)…one lever.
ParticipantThe cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)
“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarHow much was the economic stimulus(s) again…
Lets put things in perspective.
ParticipantThe cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)
“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarHow much was the economic stimulus(s) again…
Lets put things in perspective.
ParticipantThe cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)
“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarHow much was the economic stimulus(s) again…
Lets put things in perspective.
ParticipantThe cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)
“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarHow much was the economic stimulus(s) again…
Lets put things in perspective.
ParticipantThe cost of Iraq (significantly more than estimated)
“As of February 2010, around $704 billion has been spent based on estimates of current expenditure rates[1], which range from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimate of $2 billion per week to $12 billion a month, an estimate by economist Joseph Stiglitz.”
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_WarHow much was the economic stimulus(s) again…
Lets put things in perspective.
ParticipantCAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.
CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.
Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.
ParticipantCAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.
CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.
Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.
ParticipantCAR, I was only concerning my argument with the economic benefits of AB32. Now there are arguments to be made for other benefits, but I find these arguments limp at best.
CO2 (what we exhale) has no direct effect on health, quality of life, or anything else. There is a tenuous link between anthropomorphically produced GHG’s and global warming, but that discussion is for another day.
Now pollution does have an effect on those things and if you believe we should reduce pollution. Let us do it directly, by regulating or taxing pollution.
-
AuthorPosts