Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by tempterrain

0
0

And it’s never occurred to you all that socialists would, reluctantly, accept that a carbon tax is necessary to help reduce CO2 emissions even though their favoured tax might be a tax on wealth or an increased tax on high income groups?


Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by climatereason

0
0

GaryM

Beth has actually awarded you more points than is legally permitted, so reluctantly must be disqualified. But in so doing I am pleased to award you the maximum legal amount of 5 points.

tonyb

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Beth Cooper

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Peter Lang

0
0

Well. …. Now Beth is in sever trouble.

What is the appropriate punishment?

Is it in bushels of wheat, or perhaps carbon (in the cubic crystal form, of course, and measured in carats)?

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Peter Lang

0
0

Tempterrain,

You rally are a halfwit. You didn’t even read the links which are to the word authority on the subject.

That’s why I rarely read anything you say, let alone respond.

Comment on Week in review 3/16/12 by weight loss how

0
0

This is like visiting your doctor and being prescribed medicine based upon ‘it works for me so let’s give it a go’. Naturally, if money is not a constraint you can choose getting yourself an individual trainer to help you in your seek to drop all that extra fat but don’t you think training and training all by yourself is boring.
To supply the demand, fitness trainers should consider taking-up
a human physiology online course, an important requirement for
aspiring exercise physiologists.

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Beth Cooper

0
0

Peter, Jest don’t throw me inter the briar patch
Serf.

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by climatereason

0
0

timg56

So a retired person at home most of the day using energy to keep warm and on a fixed income will pay the greatest amount of taxes, whilst those earning an income in an office using communal energy will pay the least. Is that how it will work?
tonyb


Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by climatereason

0
0

Willard

It is an unpleasant tax with lots of (presumably) un-thought of, but life changing, consequences.
tonyb

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Peter Lang

0
0

timg56,

I can’t believe you are arguing to increase the cost of energy. Energy is one of the two (or three) fundamental inputs to everything we have. (the two fundamental inputs are energy and human ingenuity).

Cheap energy is the most basic ingredient to improving human wellbeing. We should do nothing that increases the cost of energy. We should do all we can to reduce the cost of energy.

[I do accept we should internalise external costs to the amount it is net beneficial to do so; but we have no agreement as to whether CO2 emissions are a net benefit or cost, and certainly no way of quantifying the exterrnality.]

If we want to cut global GHG emissions the is an economically rational way to do it. Carbon pricing is not required and will not succeed (see my comments near the top of this thread)

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Faustino

0
0

Peter @12.17: in the context of the US economy, replacing a plethora of anti-emissions schemes with an across the board carbon tax could reduce distortions; and Dolan advocated using the CT revenue to get rid of other distortionary taxes. It would not necessarily be optimal policy, but it could well be an improvement.

And I’m long retired, I hope that my views have merit but I’m not an authority on tax!

Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part II: Climate models by climatereason

0
0

Mosh said in a sweeping statement ;

‘the skeptical null hypothesis is this
“Its all happened before”
They will never admit to any evidence that contradicts this null’

—– —
The sceptical null hypothesis is that the historical record shows it has all happened before so show us the evidence that it is unprecedented. Models (paleo reconstructions)are not evidence, specially when they miss out the granularity of our climate.
tonyb

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Faustino

0
0

Joshua @ 10.47: in terms of “good faith discussion,” I obviously know more about Australia than the US. In terms of taking all taxes and government benefits into account, I think that recent figures here shown that more than half of the population were net beneficiaries. The Gillard government adopted many “class warfare” policies which handicapped those who create the bulk of wealth and fund those transfers. This approach is not sustainable: it leads to reduced economic growth, less capacity to fund government programs and transfers, and a divided society.

Re schools, whatever the returns on money invested, a high proportion of parents (? > 30 %) pay for non-government secondary education because they rate it more highly than state education. The latter has had lots of extra money poured into it in the last six years, but all indicators are that standards are falling; money is not the issue, and that “investment” has had no obvious return.

(Two of my kids went to top private schools, the ones we thought were best for them, on the basis of scholarships. The third got a part-scholarship, but we decided to send her to the best state school (where she gained competitive entry), partly because of financial constraints, more because we thought that she would do better in that school.

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Faustino

0
0

willard @ 11.52, it’s not either-or. I grew up in a poor father-less family, and know what it’s like to be cold and hungry. I’ve also had severe accident trauma and long periods of ill-health, and years when I did unpaid voluntary work and lived frugally. I’m not writing from a “fat-cat” position or bias, nor arguing against safety nets.

My experience of life suggests that self-reliance is a great contributor to well-being, many policies – however well-intentioned – act to increase dependence and diminish self-reliance: they often promote an entitlement mentality. Funding such policies through deficits is doubly harmful.

Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Peter Lang

0
0

Faustino,

I understand the argument and what is being advocated. But I suspect, for many reasons, it is theoretical and impracticable. The tax would be implemented. But the benefits would not be realised. And the tax will be subject to political manipulation forever, just as they are everywhere. The EU carbon trading scheme is in total turmoil as is the Australian carbonb tax and ETS. It will always be so. It would inevitably be manipulated to meet the political needs of the time. For example, the Irish Prime Minister admitted a while ago he was raising their carbon tax to help pay off their GFC debts.

As you know, but non-Aussie readers would not, when the Howard-Costello (conservative) government implemented the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in Australia they reduced income tax rates and removed a plethora of inefficient taxes. They also agreed with the states that they would be given all the GST revenue and they agreed to remove a plethora of their inefficient taxes. However, the states reneged on most of what they’d undertaken to do. And, importantly, the GST is a good, efficient tax for many reasons. A carbon tax most certainly is not.

As you often comment on Climate Etc., theory is great, but often cannot be implemented in practice.

Carbon pricing is fundamentally bad policy in my opinion. We should do everything we can to reduce the cost of energy, not artificially raise it. If they need to fix the tax system, then focus on fixing it, not on papering over the cracks by adding another complication, another distorting tax.


Comment on Why conservatives should love a carbon tax by Peter Lang

Comment on How should we interpret an ensemble of models? Part II: Climate models by JamesG

0
0

Invalid assumptions using inadequate models mean poor results. The real problem is that these models, with their assumption-led conclusions are being used for policy as if their output was actually meaningful and independent. In fact climate scientists have gravely misled policymakers as to the adequacy of these projections. The models are not fit for policy. And without the models there is no alarm. We revert to a fairly steady and probably natural rise in temperature of 0.5K per 100 years. big deal!

Comment on Climate Risk by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

In one of the wisest things he’s ever written here on this blog, Chief Hydro said:

“…wealth creates resilience…”

——-
I couldn’t agree more. But the the wisdom is in knowing what true wealth is.

Comment on Climate Risk by R. Gates aka Skeptical Warmist

0
0

So essentially Gary, you’re just good at ranting and ad Homs, but haven’t any real thoughts, eh? Very well then, do carry on…

Comment on Climate Risk by Chief Hydrologist

0
0

Backhanded compliment notwithstanding – wealth is measured in dollars, gold, pigs or equivalent local currency, property, various credits, etc. I did mention health and education but this comes under healthy and wise – in the healthy, wealthy and wise trinity.

Usually you spell it out in one syllable for gatesy.

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images