11 Responses

1. *** Cutting or entirely eliminating subsidies to or special tax breaks for oil and coal producers and fossil-fuel power plants…..

   socialism picks winners and losers based on non-market conditions… which is exactly every suggestion you’ve made up there — making it all socialist.

   If we turn off our own lights or insulate because we want to… That’s not. If we get breaks or rewards from the government for doing so, that’s socialism.

   Tell you what… let’s cut ALL subsidies for ALL energy(and all tax breaks and all penalties)… that would be entirely non-socialist.

   ….lately, heavily subsidized solar and windpower companies have been going bankrupt…. that’s what most of those who know socialism have come to expect from socialism.

   Edit..

   There IS a major outcry about corn & ethanol subsidies.

   Edit…

   I’d LOVE to be surprised by a completely level playing field… what do you say we try it?

2. I get that it sounds funny to you but that is just because you are ignorant of the facts ( I hope)
   Communism/socialism is a very serious threat! They murder people on a wholesale level. They haven’t gone anywhere. They were not “defeated” as you have been learned. They have rewritten our
   history books and schooled the public to think that they are just ok. You are considered a traitor to Communism if you don’t lie and use other deceptive means to bring about a one world socialist order.
   The U.N. Clearly spells it out. They tell you their plans. But you just shrug your shoulders or attack
   people that point out that they are really doing what they say.
   Obama and them know about converting cars to natural gas.

   They know They could fix roads and bridges, or build new nuclear power plants.
   Drive less, turn off your lights? They just raise the prices.
   They are trying to wast as much money as they can. And Carbon credits and trading schemes are part of it.

   No, I’m not joking.

3. Replacing some portion of the national income tax with a carbon tax, or any other roughly revenue-neutral carbon tax
   Offering tax breaks to alternative energy producers
   There’s two for a start.

4. It is really a serious problem in this country that those who push Marxism often don’t even understand it and even deny being socialist. Let’s focus on your comment on oil subsidies. Do you know what are you talking about, or have you just heard it from leftist blogs maybe from the same sources where you got your information on AGW

   This article explains so called oil subsidies better than I could.
   http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html

   I realize that facts never seem to be a hindrance to the left. They simply ignore them and move on. I figure if you can learn one thing, maybe it is something to build on or maybe not.

   Note: Peter is absolutely right.

   Note: Note: I agree with that. I wouldn’t even call money spent to help Brazil a subsidy. I would call that insanity. Can you imagine Brazil sending some of its hard earned money to help us? I remember hearing about helping Brazil. Obama, or to be fair, all govenrment, is simply reckless with spending.

5. government actions: Enlarging government is practically the definition of socialism.

   Cutting or entirely eliminating subsidies to or special tax breaks for oil and coal producers and fossil-fuel power plants: That is more typical of leftist who try to use government to force behavior that they approve of and punish those that don’t pay enough kickbacks.

   Replacing some portion of the national income tax with a carbon tax, or any other roughly revenue-neutral carbon tax: If you believe that, I have some bottom land in Florida to sell you. Dems never reduce taxes.

   Offering tax breaks to alternative energy producers:Once again that gives the political class power to shape behavior of the peons.

   Converting vehicles the government owns to use alternative power sources: That is fine if it isn’t just wasting resources. If you are buying electric vehicles, then it would be stupid. Liquid gas for buses also helps the air. Wasting resources is one reason that bureaucracies are inherently inefficient. Others are bogus agendas, buying influence and incompetence that is typical of government workers. The wasted resources are the increased expense of adding specialized equipment for government vehicles. If it was so good, it would be used by the private sector.

   Instituting energy-saving measures in government buildings, such as insulation, turning off lights and computers, and installing low-energy lighting: You just don’t seem to get that socialism in the real world is about controlling behavior. All those things are common sense. The sheep need to be controlled because there is nobody running their company that cares about wasting money. They want to spend all their money so get more next year.

   Expediting permits for biofuel, nuclear, and other non-fossil-fuel power plants
   Allowing permits for plants intended to turn “spent” nuclear fuel into lower-power energy generation:
   Typical leftists controlling behavior by requiring kickbacks and giving special treatment to those who play the game or those who are under their complete control.

   personal actions:
   Drive less: That will happen when leftists increase the price of everything by limiting access to energy.

   Turn off appliances when not in use: Most people have common sense and don’t need some clown telling them to turn of their lights. What is amazing is that leftists think we need a government program to tell people to turn of their lights and many want to punish those that don’t based on some asinine fantasy of doomsday warming.

   Insulate your home where appropriate: And who gets to determine when it is appropriate, government? A leftist will see no problem in forcing people to add expensive insulation from government sanctioned companies that are eco-friendly of course.

   Support your local economy by buying locally produced goods, or at least ones made in this country (that is, Buy American–substitute your country where appropriate): It is obviously better to be efficient. The best way to do that is get rid of government regulation and all liberals in office.

   It is not the common sense things that people do that are leftist. It is the implementation that you get from government run bureaucrats that is is leftist.

6. “”socialism picks winners and losers based on non-market conditions…””

   Then why isn’t there a major outcry against corn subsidies? The production of corn is done at a net loss, it is only with government subsidies that it can be (marginally) profitable.

   In reality, freedom and liberties are the “sacred cow”, words that illicit that Pavlovian response from a certain segment of the population of the United States.

   Sadly these two words have become sorely misunderstood on their pathway to meaning only low taxes and limited government intrusion. I personally don’t like paying taxes that much and I don’t want the retards in DC telling me how to live my life. However, that is far removed from the potential benefits a centralized government offers it’s citizens which is even farther removed from socialism.

7. Many of these “Dorks” don’t know what socialism, communism, free market, capitalism are. They just spew crap from Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and the rest of the GOP “think tanks” that long for Joesph McCarty.

   Obviously, none are socialist.

   Peter,

   A part of the equation to have an absolutely free market you ignore is externalizes. It is absolutely impossible to impose all the costs associated with externalizes on a business. Society will always pay for some of it. This means that the prices of some of the worst polluting industries is too low. Part of the costs is picked up by society, not business. The effect is they socialize costs (pass the costs of a product or service on to the taxpayer) and privatize profit. If you want a truly level playing field, you must incorporate those cost into the price of product of service to reach the true market value.

8. The chime

   >Cutting or entirely eliminating subsidies to or special tax breaks for oil and coal producers and fossil-fuel power plants< Should be based on the profit margin,subsidized R&D could eliminate competition. Its also possible to have a individual patent financed with tax payers money. >Replacing some portion of the national income tax with a carbon tax, or any other roughly revenue-neutral carbon tax< I don't see the reason for either. Avoid secondary expenditures with a fair tax, otherwise get use to a growing government. >Offering tax breaks to alternative energy producersConverting vehicles the government owns to use alternative power sourcesInstituting energy-saving measures in government buildings, such as insulation, turning off lights and computers, and installing low-energy lighting< Ditto >Expediting permits for biofuel, nuclear, and other non-fossil-fuel power plantsAllowing permits for plants intended to turn “spent” nuclear fuel into lower-power energy generation< would help with the storage problem. II. > Drive less< Most people do if a feasible alternative is available. >Turn off appliances when not in useInsulate your home where appropriate< Minimal code standards already exists. >Support your local economy by buying locally produced goods, or at least ones made in this country (that is, Buy American–substitute your country where appropriate)< I already grow most of my own produce with an occasional trip to the farmers market or a canned item. III. Those that impose personal opinions as the only way of life, that are creating the problems. A. I like beef B. I drive what I can afford and its intent, it may very well contribute less in annual emissions then someone who owns a green machine. Misconstrued standards, but I understand the gist. C. Home insulation: Again misconstrued standards: Lets say my square footage 2x larger then yours, but my electric/energy cost is half. You have all the latest green innovations, yet I don't. Yours would be considered energy efficient based solely upon products not comparable energy use, design, landscaping or regaining any improvement cost. At times practicality and affordability has to be a consideration. Again I understand the gist but not poorly defined standards.

9. Jim Z’s referenced link is definitely one worth reading.

10. Given that I have suggested some of the cost savings methods of nuclear power, obviously I do not think that this is by nature communist/socialist. I ahve also suggested that you lower income taxes by the amount you want to raise carbon taxes, so I do not think this is socialist either. As for having the govt use cars that are more costly, I probably would not support this, but I would certainly support the govt choosing say e-cars if they could show that the lifetime cost is lower.

    Now you have mentioned alot of solutions that I would mostly be in favor of. These solutions, however are not the CO2 tax or cap and trade solutions primarily placed as the end-all-be all of AGW solutions. The sad fact that most of your warmer compatriots are unwilling to admit is that the taxing solutions will only get us part of the way there anyways. So what is required? More taxes? A one world gov’t type of regulation on all countries? These are the socialist plans that have many screaming.

    How ’bout instead hitting the source, coal? Dropping the subsidies on coal giving leases and more govt land for nuclear plant development, etc. etc. Find smart ways of doing this. And yes the free market approach of dropping subsidies would be a great start.

    The biggest problem that the Dems seem too dense to get is the economics of the whole thing. When taxes are lowered in the US, more revenue is generated. This indicates that we are taxed at too high of a rate. Simple math suggests that if you tax $1 trilllion at 50%, you will not get as much as $1.2 trillion at 42%. Less taxes mean more money flow from both within the country and outside. Simply put the politicians are too stupid to realize that increasing taxes will not fix the deficit. Yet they have mistakenly aimed there bills at both AGW and taxation to reduce the deficit.

    I would love to see the dems put up a bill like what you are suggesting. I would love to see the repubs actually kill a bill that increases nuclear power use. It isn’t going to happen. So my question is why the warmers have been suggesting socialist solutions instead of your much more reasonable, much more easily attainable solutions, and frankly much more effective solutions?

11. A bit like asking for a non Religious solution for the problem of going to Hell.

    Sure we could all lead better lives….but the whole Hell thing was more or less created to empower the church & encourage better ‘social’ behavior through fear.

    That’s what AGW is. It’s the invention of a Thermal Apocalypse to empower Socialism & encourage conservation through fear.

    Once you accept the notion of Hell, the battle is lost – there is no non Religious solution.
    Once you buy into AGW – there really isn’t any ‘solution’ other than Big Government stepping in and telling people how to lead their lives.