promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in EnvironmentGlobal Warming · 4 years ago

Who can save America from these radical climate alarmists?

Update:

“Carbon-centered tax reform would create incentives for energy efficiency and lower-carbon energy. At the same time, revenues generated would allow the mitigation of the economic impact of higher energy prices, on the general economy and on lower-income earners who might be disproportionately affected by such a change.” -Kevin Hasset, American Enterprise Institute, 2007.

-----

Update 2:

“We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities. Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut.”

-Arthur Laffer, Economic Policy Advisory Board under President Ronald Reagan, 2008

----

Update 3:

“A straight-up, revenue-neutral carbon tax clearly is our first-best policy, rewarding an infinite and unpredictable variety of innovations while releasing less carbon” -Holman W Jenkins, Jr., Wall Street Journal columnist, 2014

“The solution can be a fundamentally conservative one that will empower the marketplace to find the most efficient response..putting a price on emissions of carbon dioxide — a carbon tax…

- Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush, June 21, 2014

-----

Update 4:

“We have held the view that a revenue-neutral carbon tax is the best option.”

- Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil CEO, 2015

“The best way to curb carbon emissions is to put a price on carbon. The direct and less bureaucratic way is to tax carbon. When polled, economists overwhelmingly support the idea.” 

-N. Gregory Mankiw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush, and economic adviser to Mitt Romney during 2014 presidential race, 2015

-----

Update 5:

“If governments act to price carbon, this discourages high carbon options and encourages energy efficiency, renewable energy, cleaner cars and new mobility business models and behaviors.” —CEOs of six large European oil firms, letter to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, 2015

“Price carbon to save the planet and to reform the tax structure.But price it.”

---Irwin Stelzer, Hudson Institute and previously American Enterprise Institute, 2015

Update 6:

.

“A carbon tax, starting small and escalating on a legislated schedule, would do the trick. Make it revenue-neutral, returning all net funds to the taxpayers.”

-George P. Schultz, Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, 2015

“Putting a price on carbon pollution is by far the most efficient way to reduce emissions….When I meet business leaders from the very carbon-intensive industries, their openness is striking. They say, ‘let’s do it’.” -Jim Yong Kim, President, World Bank, 2015-16

8 Answers

Relevance
  • James
    Lv 5
    4 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Clearly those are a bunch of leftists, I'm sure JimZ will concur with me on that.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Lv 7
      4 years agoReport

      Of course the absurdity of questioning my credentials should be apparent to anyone. This TAX is something being voted upon and is up for general discussion. My credentials are being a US citizen and that's all that is needed.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Santa Claus

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    Only American can save the America.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Alice
    Lv 7
    4 years ago

    Do you mean the scientists who just noted that this has been the hottest summer recorded in human history on this planet?

    Anyone with half a brain might indeed be a little bit alarmed.

    More: the difference is NOT a thousandth of a degree. The difference this year is likely to be just over 1 degree Celsius above the pre-Industrial Age average. You might think this is a tiny amount, but even that much warming creates much greater weather extreme: more snow, worse storms and the collapse of ecosystems.

    More: I would like to add that proposed tax-based incentives to mitigate the human contribution to global climate change are completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not this is a scientifically provable reality. You might dislike the proposals for any reason you like, but they remain on the table because money does talk. There is little better incentive for those who otherwise simply don't care.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    This is reaganomics at its finest. The problem is that I NEVER supported reaganomics. The liberals are putting their little spin on it, but their spin does not ameliorate the problem inherent in these type of taxes.

    This tax is a regressive tax. It hits the lower and middle class disproportionately. The liberals are trying to make the tax not so hard on the poor by giving them money back. This means that nearly the entirety of this tax is directed at the middle class.

    This has been the problem with supply-side economics from the get-go. It enriches the rich, but creates even a larger gap between the rich and the rest. We have had this play out with the increased disparity between the rich and the rest, just recently. Obama had instituted the largest form of trickle-down economic policy seen in history with the fed pumping trillions into the biggest banks to eventually filter down to the rest of us.

    Note the effect. Not enough trickled down. The recovery from the recession was exceedingly slow as the stock market made massive gains and the middle class made no gains at all.

    Policies need to be geared towards the MIDDLE CLASS. This is not rocket science here. The middle class are the ones making new innovations. They are the ones making new jobs. JOBS that the poor need to move out from being poor.

    The carbon tax is particularly dangerous. That is not to say it will be run horribly, just that it is EXTREMELY dangerous. The carbon tax plans give an unelected body the ability to determine the level of taxation at a whim.

    Now it is one thing to vote for a tax that will lead to say a 10% increase in your electricity bills generated from fossil fuels so that non-fossil fuel sources can compete. It is a WHOLE other thing to say to me to trust this unelected body to determine what the level of taxation is. Maybe they start at 5% so we let down our guard and work their way up to 40%. I DON'T TRUST THEM. PERIOD!!!

    And its not just that I don't trust them. NO ONE SHOULD. If history has shown us anything, it is that you need to watch people in a position of power like hawks. This is one of the principles the Constitution was founded upon. It may be up for debate for some, but not for me.

    You want to talk about other methods, as much of a skeptic as I am, I do think we should reduce our CO2 emissions and am up for the discussion. You want to talk this regressive tax where you tax and unspecified amount determined by an unelected body, I will always vote against anyone who supports such stupidity.

    As far as the quotes you mention, SURPRISE SURPRISE, ... you got a bunch of rich people to support taxing the middle class far more than the rich.

    Tell you what. I will support this tax fully ONLY AFTER they get rid of all of the loopholes that the rich enjoy. Capital gains tax being far less, make it as much. And that absurdly low estate tax. Tax estates at 40%, but make it so you only pay taxes on estates beyond a million dollars.

    Right now the rich hide their money in estates that are taxed at an extremely low amounts. This allows the uber-rich to be taxed at a far lower rate than the rest of us. And we wonder why the disparity grows.

    In fact, if you want REAL fairness, you get rid of all the tax books, all the loopholes, all everything and make a flat tax of 25% after a living wage amount determined by number of dependents.

    So if you make $100 K in a two-kid family and the living wage for your family is $60 K, then you pay 25% on $40 K, which amounts to 10%.

    This is based upon morality. The government should NOT be taking the food off of people's plates, hence the living wage. Otherwise the government should be treating everyone equally, hence the flat tax and lack of loopholes.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    outlaw the denier movement

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • S
    Lv 7
    4 years ago

    Mother nature does NOT negotiate.

    • ...Show all comments
    • S
      Lv 7
      4 years agoReport

      the alarmists are the deniers who cannot see past their wallets. history is full of failed civilizations who could not adapt to environmental changes- maybe that's catastrophic enough for you, maybe not. The point is, the laws of physics will not be negotiated

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.