So, they finally admit what Global Warming is really about...MONEY.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602127_pf.html

Plan Uses Taxes to Fight Climate Change
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
The Associated Press
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; 7:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- Dealing with global warming will be painful, says one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress. To back up his claim he is proposing a recipe many people won't like _ a 50-cent gasoline tax, a carbon tax and scaling back tax breaks for some home owners.

"I'm trying to have everybody understand that this is going to cost and that it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like," Rep. John Dingell, who is marking his 52nd year in Congress, said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press.

Dingell will offer a "discussion draft" outlining his tax proposals on Thursday, the same day that President Bush holds a two-day conference to discuss voluntary efforts to combat climate change.

But Dingell, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that will craft climate legislation, is making it clear that he believes tackling global warming will require a lot more if it is to be taken seriously.

"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

Dingell said he's not sure what the final climate package will include when the House takes it up for a vote. The taxes measures he's proposing, in fact, will be taken up by another House committee. And the Senate is considering a market-based system that would set an economy-wide ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that would be allowed to be released.

Dingell says he hasn't rule out such a so-called "cap-and-trade" system, either, but that at least for now he wants to float what he believes is a better idea. He will propose for discussion:

_A 50-cent-a-gallon tax on gasoline and jet fuel, phased in over five years, on top of existing taxes.

_A tax on carbon, at $50 a ton, released from burning coal, petroleum or natural gas.

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

In the interview Wednesday, Dingell acknowledged he's tackling some of the most sacred of political cows. He's not sure if they will end up in the climate legislation, but he wants to open them for discussion.

"All my friends tell me you can't do this, it's going to be political poison," said Dingell, 81, who has served longer in the House than any of his colleagues and heads one of the chamber's most powerful committees.

Widely known for protecting the automakers who are so prominent in his state, the Michigan Democrat first raised the tax ideas this summer. Some people immediately suggested he was offering proposals he knows won't pass to sidestep other issues such as automobile fuel economy increases.

Dingell rejects such criticism and said he wants to trigger "an intelligent discussion of the whole question."

Many economists have long maintained that a carbon tax is a more-efficient, less-bureaucratic way to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide than a cap-and-trade system, which could be difficult to administer.

A carbon tax would impact everything from the cost of electricity to winter heating and add to the cost of gasoline and other motor fuels. But economists say a cap on carbon also would raise these costs as burning fossil fuels becomes more expensive.

Such tax proposals have gained little traction.

Rep. Pete Starke, D-Calif., has been trying unsuccessfully to get a carbon tax for 16 years. In the early 1990s the House passed a modest "BTU" tax on the heat content of fuels, only to have it die in the Senate. Dingell acknowledged that there are still people who blame the Democrats' loss of Congress in 1994 on the ill-fated tax.

The federal 18.4-cent gasoline tax also has been a subject of discussion, but not about increasing it. As gasoline prices soared above $3 a gallon last year a chorus of lawmakers called for suspending the tax.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

hmmm some interesting points to it  not all bad as incredible as it is for me to say that.the mortgage deal for huge houses needs exploring

[Manedwolf]

So you want to punish people for being successful and having a big house because they can afford it?

How...socialist.

As to the thing in general, of course that's the Dem solution to everything. RAISE TAXES!

[CAnnoneer]

"The free man creates, the parasyte asks 'Where is my share?' " Andrew Ryan, Bioshock

Sprawl, congestion, and extra polution come from hunger for cheap labor, its illegal satiation - uncontrolled illegal immigration, and artificially stimulated population growth (stay home and make babies on welfare). The statist answer is always "more taxes". Observe the cry this and last year against oil companies making too much on gasoline prices. What was the conclusion/suggestion? "Let's tax gasoline to share the profits with the public."  And it is not limited to Dems either; RINO Alan Specter was at the forefront there too.

Frankly, the more freaking commie sozie statists are grabbing for more power on this messed up planet, the more Rapture and Free Luna become attractive if fantastic alternatives. 

[auschip]

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

So, how would this change global warming? 

[Jamisjockey]

So you want to punish people for being successful and having a big house because they can afford it?

How...socialist.

As to the thing in general, of course that's the Dem dirty rotten socialist solution to everything. RAISE TAXES!

Fixed for you.

[Jamisjockey]

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

So, how would this change global warming? 

It won't, being as GW is the result of climate change and likely not of mankind.

[HankB]

Any time I read about Democrats anyone proposing more taxes, I want to reply with something that would probably draw the ire of moderators even in THIS forum.

This is why the Democrats have earned the nickname "The Evil Party."

[Manedwolf]

My general sentiment is that I'll gladly pay taxes for my share of things like roads I travel on, the nation's defense, emergency services, and infrastructure like power and water systems.

But otherwise,

Leave.

Me.

Alone.



Which is probably why I can't stand Dems in general.

[wooderson]

You'd be paying a tax on the portion of resources used by your McMansion. This is not a radical concept. If you water your lawn more than I do - you pay more.

The title is just absurd. Yes, climate scientists around the world, including within the Bush Admin, have been warning us about climate change... because they wanted the US and only the US to raise taxes. GENIUS.

Climate change is going to place a serious burden on our infrastructure. Get used to it, fellas.

[Manedwolf]

You'd be paying a tax on the portion of resources used by your McMansion. This is not a radical concept. If you water your lawn more than I do - you pay more.

How about cutting the payments to people who contribute nothing before punishing the people who keep the economy going? Radical concept, there!

Climate change is going to place a serious burden on our infrastructure. Get used to it, fellas.

That's assuming you believe there's such a thing in the first place, or whether it's just the best tax-and-scam scheme yet. Wanna buy some carbon offset credits? Maybe from The Prophet ALGORE when he stops in your town in his private jet that burns more fuel in a trip than dozens of cars use in a year?

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Of course there's climate change, there always has been, there always will be.  It's called frickin' nature!  This pussy handwringing fear and greedy bastard give us money to stop the GLOBAL WARMING OMG! crap has to stop.  Every time I turn on the TV I get angry.  I really need get away for a week or so to decompress.

[wooderson]

How about cutting the payments to people who contribute nothing before punishing the people who keep the economy going? Radical concept, there!

Is it punishment to charge people for their water or electricity use?

it's just the best tax-and-scam scheme yet.

[Manedwolf]

Nice picture of you! 

And sorry, the global warming people are the conspiracy theorists and nutcases. Look up the "global cooling" scare in the 1970's!

Newsweek, 1975:

There are ominous signs that the Earths weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas  parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia  where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree  a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

The new myth, same as the old myth.

[RadioFreeSeaLab]

Of course it's not punishment.  I PAY for my water and electricity already.  The more I use, the more I pay.  I shouldn't be taxed more on top of that.

[wooderson]

Right, dasmi, you're not paying more for water and electricity. But it's the same concept. A McMansion uses resources less efficiently than an apartment complex or a trio of condos.

Look up the "global cooling" scare in the 1970's!

Good god, you'd think people would tire of trotting out this one. The scientific community raised no fears about 'global cooling.' If your entire scientific worldview came from Newsweek, you might have been worried. Climate scientists - the people studying global warming today - were not.

[CAnnoneer]

Right, dasmi, you're not paying more for water and electricity. But it's the same concept. A McMansion uses resources less efficiently than an apartment complex or a trio of condos.

From whose perspective?? How do you define "efficient"?

There are tons of people in this society whose job only exists because there are tons of people. In a sense, "social fat". They justify each other's existence. If you just think for a minute you can come up with doublets, triplets, etc. of professions which form a closed or an almost closed circle, or isolated linear subspace. If we are so concerned about "efficiency", why not just eliminate the whole lot of them??

We don't, because there is an ethical imperative. By the same token, would the statists kindly have an ethical imperative not to rob the citizen at gov's gunpoint?

Good god, you'd think people would tire of trotting out this one. The scientific community raised no fears about 'global cooling.' If your entire scientific worldview came from Newsweek, you might have been worried. Climate scientists - the people studying global warming today - were not.

Scientists like the Goracle? Which school did he get his PhD in a technical discipline from? *

Just because there is ice melting and desertification does not mean it is primarily induced by human activity. So, let's stop talking about GW and be precise by talking about HIGW (human-induced global warming). There is a big difference between the two, although the statists and econuts conveniently sweep it under the carpet and want to make you believe there is scientific consensus on HIGW.


* Wikipedia:
In 1965, Gore enrolled at Harvard College, the only university to which he applied. His roommate (in Dunster House) was actor Tommy Lee Jones. He scored in the lower fifth of the class for two years in a row[11] and, after finding himself bored with his classes in his declared English major, Gore switched majors and found a passion for government and graduated with honors from Harvard in June 1969 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. [10] After returning from the military he took religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entered the university's law school. He left Vanderbilt without a degree when he left to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District in 1976.

[wooderson]

From whose perspective?? How do you define "efficient"?

Jiminy Cricket. You try to offer some perspective on an issue and you get this...

I don't really care about the plan either way and haven't looked at it critically - the world is basically FUBAR and I'm just hoping it holds out for the next 50 years. Once I'm dead, we can have a nuclear holocaust for all it matters to me.

But I am interested in honesty of discussion and the way language is used. It's not helpful to anyone to start bleating about the Damn Dirty Liberals PUNISHING THE MIDDLE_CLASS PPLZ. If you don't want to think critically about why your opponents (or your allies) believe the things they do, then you have no place in the public debate.

Scientists like the Goracle?

Hard to tell the strawmen from the scarecrows these days.

[tyme]

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

So, how would this change global warming?

Taxes on "environmentally unfriendly" products may give higher-cost greener alternatives a chance to be competitive in the marketplace.

Of course, if they were really serious about global warming, they'd also use the tax proceeds to fund green energy research.

And if they were really serious about global warming, they'd end the de-facto U.S. moratorium on commercial nuclear power plant construction, and focus their attention on breeder and/or pebble-bed reactors.

"This is going to cause pain," he said, adding that he wants to make certain "the pain is shared in a way that is fair, proper, acceptable and accomplishes the basic purpose" of reducing greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

I'm confused.  How did the subject change from addressing concern about global warming to sharing pain in a fair way?


Wooderson... "The Earth is FUBAR" is not a realistic viewpoint.  I'll agree that we MAY be PARTIALLY causing global warming (to what extent, it's not clear).  I'll agree that we're messing with the Ocean's food chain, and deforesting rainforest.  I'll agree that we're depleting easily-accessible fossil fuels, and mining some elements, at a rate that's not sustainable over hundreds of years at current equivalent price levels for those resources.  None of those things is a catastrophe, at least not in an obvious way.

[brimic]

_Phaseout of the interest tax deduction on home mortgages for homes over 3,000 square feet. Owners would keep most of the deduction for homes at the lower end of the scale, but it would be eliminated entirely for homes of 4,200 feet or more.

He estimates that would affect 10 percent of homeowners. He says "it's only fair" to tax those who buy large suburban houses and create urban sprawl. Historic and farm houses would be exempted.

Some of the revenue would be used to reduce payroll taxes, but most would go elsewhere including for highway construction, mass transit, paying for Social Security and health programs and to help the poor pay energy bills.

Awesome! Steal from the rich and give to the slugs in society. I just love class envy and the people who peddle it

[CAnnoneer]

You try to offer some perspective on an issue and you get this...

Why don't you just answer the questions? They are fair.

It's not helpful to anyone to start bleating about the Damn Dirty Liberals PUNISHING THE MIDDLE_CLASS PPLZ. If you don't want to think critically about why your opponents (or your allies) believe the things they do, then you have no place in the public debate.

Then offer your perspective and defend it, instead of throwing in the towel in more ways than one.

Scientists like the Goracle?

Hard to tell the strawmen from the scarecrows these days.

You walked into that one yourself. There may be some agreement on GW, but certainly not on HIGW. If you try to throw authorities on us, be sure to actually have them. The Goracle has no scientific credibility whatsoever. He has no relevant degrees either.

[wooderson]

Why don't you just answer the questions? They are fair.

Because 'the questions' had nothing to do with what I said.

Though if you really need to have 'efficiency' explained to you - well, go check your car's gas mileage. That's a measure of efficiency.

Then offer your perspective and defend it,

My 'perspective' is that casting aspersions (arguably ad hominem aspersions) on the plan and its backers, without attempting to understand where its proponents are coming from is both dishonest and ignorant.

You walked into that one yourself.

No, I didn't. I referred to contemporary climate science and those studying it.

You immediately referred to Al Gore - who I never mentioned, and who does not, in fact, play a role in the scientific study of climate change. He made a movie (that I haven't seen). He's a political figure, not a scientist.

We can either call your reference a strawman - equating scientists and climate science with Gore. Or it's a red herring - attempting to re-direct the conversation away from climate science and scientists by referring to a popular figure.

Your choice, bucko.

[wooderson]

Wooderson... "The Earth is FUBAR" is not a realistic viewpoint.

Oh, I don't mean climate change (entirely, though that will play a role).

[LadySmith]

"...it's going to have a measure of pain that you're not going to like"
"This is going to cause pain" - Rep. John Dingell

What's with certain politicians wanting to hurt us, and what makes them think it will be tolerated?
The body politic best take heed, when a dog gets irritated enough it's gonna scratch...hard.

[Manedwolf]

People who think that the planet is messed up now really ought to read some Dickens, as to what the air was like in the height of the Industrial Revolution. When in major cities, you couldn't even go outside without being covered with coalsoot. Even well into the 20th century, ships and trains put out vast clouds of coalsmoke as they traveled, let alone what was coming out of factory stacks.

And you know what? We survived, and so did the planet, despite dire predictions then.