Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Carbon tax - Solution or political agenda?

Carbon emissions is such a large and multifaceted issue that simplifying it into a single soundbite like auto emissions or solar power or nuclear really doesn't do the issue justice... Large issues remain with our growth as a species and our want and need for energy to maintain and grow on this planet...

When you look into the possibilities there is certainly hope but also great concern. If we as an apex species in this planet do not come together to solve this issue this isn't going away but getting much worse... I personally don't believe that carbon credits have any intrinsic value whatsoever.. They are just lipstick on a very large and growing pig... We have to fundamentally change how any why we use energy to stem the tide.of this issue.. Political answers aside..
 
Look at statistics like thus 85-90 of all energy in a gallon of gas isn't used in an internal combustion engine.. 50% of all power generated on the grid doesn't get to the end users.. Pulling oil out of the ground and refining it has a net energy loss greater than ethanol or biodiesel.. Cold fusion thorium reactors have great possibility but little to no investment backing.. Fuel cells offer huge potential for vehicle energy if development moves ahead.. Biodiesel from algae could be an almost unlimited supply of carbon neutral vehicle fuel... The possibilities we are on the cusp of are almost limitless however are we willingly going to meet this issue head on... Government isn't going to fix this it will be private for profit entrepreneurs who have the best chance governments just need to get out of their way and maybe give rewards to those who can meet defined measureable goals...
 
Bill Gates is funding nuclear. Maybe he can get the other powerful, agenda setting, taste making, billionaire tech misanthropes on board.

China and India are investing heavily in nuclear because they are tired of all the pollution. How ironic will it be in 30 years when China has clean, cheap nuclear while the west is still dicking around with solar, wind, and (mostly) gas/coal.
 
The tech is there to throw our lot into renewable energy throughout the world but there's just too much money to be made doing things the way we're doing them
 
I agree with "I personally think a carbon tax is purely political" Since the beginning, climate has changed. A tax, is a transfer of wealth, from those that earn a living, to government. If enough people believe a problem exists, your government will pose a solution, taxes, and the climate will continue to do what it always has, be unpredictable and continue to change.
 
I usually recoil at the thought of using a tax to change behavior. Burning fossil fuels for energy and transportation is not the same thing as smoking. I think ideas like this backfire in environmentalists face's and turn common folk away from the idea of moving to renewable energy. Making it more expensive for me to live my lifestyle is not going to bring me to your side of the table. I'm all for renewable energy but it needs to be able to stand on it's own and compete with traditional energy sources on the open market.
 
I like to think that we can all agree that the climate is changing and humans are having an impact (I would say a significant one) on the rate at which it is warming. This has an effect on land and wildlife, which we can already see. As hunters we often cite Pittman Robertson as proof to how we strive to take care of our land and wildlife. While the scope of carbon reduction is a far larger issue, I would think that we would be more receptive to a tax that would help hinder the warming that is negatively effecting the same thing we chose to tax ourselves for decades earlier.
 
I have a general flinch reflex when a question begins with "we all know...….. etc..." The climate may be changing, that's what it does. The amount of influence or degree we humans can control this change is certainly an unknown.
To simply answer the OP question, NO. A carbon tax is not going to have any measurable effect on climate change. I have lived in a high tax state my entire life and have been taxed on a multitude of purchases and services. I do not believe the tax dollars generated are used wisely by the administration nor is the tax enough to make a meaningful change in the consumption or activity being taxed. Please, Please, Please good people of Hunt Talk do not let your state be like California. Take a look at California gas tax, vehicle registration, smog test for example.

I drive a no frills, 5 year old 1/2 ton pick up. One year registration is $475, every two years a smog test is around $60 and a gallon of gas is almost $4.00. This is just my personal vehicle, talk to a trucker about what is happening to diesels in the state.
 
Last edited:
BucksnDucks said:
I have a general flinch reflex when a question begins with "we all know...….. etc..." The climate may be changing, that's what it does. The amount of influence or degree we humans can control this change is certainly an unknown.
To simply answer the OP question, NO. A carbon tax is not going to have any measurable effect on climate change. I have lived in a high tax state my entire life and have been taxed on a multitude of purchases and services. I do not believe the tax dollars generated are used wisely by the administration nor is the tax enough to make a meaningful change in the consumption or activity being taxed. Please, Please, Please good people of Hunt Talk do not let your state be like California. Take a look at California gas tax, vehicle registration, smog test for example.
Click to expand...

^^^^Spot-on.
 
I'd argue that it is part of the solution, it is part of the "stick" on the carrot and stick equation.

Sometimes the market will innovate on it's own, other times companies will be complacent, focus on the bottom line and pay out shareholders. We see this with the repatriation of foreign earned income. Many companies invest in growth, most buy back their own stock and pay dividends.

There needs a mix of products/policies/incentives on both the carrot and stick side. Tax credits can work, like the R&D Tax Credit and the ITC, but only if a company is in a taxable position. I could get way off into the weeds here, but part of the tremendous growth in solar that happened earlier this decade was because of the ITC credit. Banks needed to reduce their tax burden so financed many third party ownership solar transactions for solar leasing. Homeowners get solar and a lower tax bill, banks get and ITC, solar companies move product. All hanging overhead on these transactions was California's Renewable Energy Mandates (the stick).

Gomer pointed out the folly in many of these clean energy mandates....the only consider a couple of options. Steyer is the left's Koch brothers, same formula, they don't GAF about you, they just keep playing hungry hungry hippo with money and power. Building comprehensive plans, that achieve the "marketed" desired goal. If we want to reduce emissions, then let's have an all of the above strategy for projects that do just that. Let's not create plans that are going to best benefit one of these oligarchs.

The DOEs Loan Guarantee Program did a good job of on the carrot side with an all of the above approach. Certainly there were a lot of renewable components, but also there were manufacturing, nuclear and storage projects that the program invested in.
 
ChrisC said:
I would think that we would be more receptive to a tax that would help hinder the warming that is negatively effecting the same thing we chose to tax ourselves for decades earlier.
Click to expand...

I think the argument revolves around the bolded word. Would it?
I can point specifically to tangible pieces of ground and specific access projects and individual elk that have been put in specific people’s freezers and provided x amount of protein as a direct result of PR/DJ

Convince me. Give me the formula of tax revenues correlation to mean global temperature.
That’s where I’m skeptical. If x amount of carbon tax will benefit us y amount to make hunting z much better isn’t x^2 or x^4 even more superior?
 
Aussie_hunter_JD said:
The tech is there to throw our lot into renewable energy throughout the world but there's just too much money to be made doing things the way we're doing them
Click to expand...

That's probably the biggest hindrance to doing something. There's too much money to by made by not.
 
ChrisC said:
I would think that we would be more receptive to a tax that would help hinder the warming that is negatively effecting the same thing we chose to tax ourselves for decades earlier.
Click to expand...

But many of us who oppose a carbon tax believe it would do NOTHING to reduce global carbon foot print given the ease of moving production to a manufacturing setting that uses far dirtier energy sources. Many might surprise you and support a framework that actually would have a meaningful effect in the real world.
 
neffa3 said:
That's probably the biggest hindrance to doing something. There's too much money to by made by not.
Click to expand...

There is way more money to be made with actual solutions that work. All the money was in whale oil, buggy whips and land-line telephones, until it wasn't. Real solutions will be adopted, failed solutions will be forced upon us by politicians and special interests.
 
VikingsGuy said:
All the money was in whale oil, buggy whips and land-line telephones, until it wasn't.
Click to expand...
Historic estimates of Greenland Bowhead whales is ~36,000. Current est. is 200. We sucked every last drop of money out of that. I foresee us doing that with fossil fuels as well.
 
neffa3 said:
Historic estimates of Greenland Bowhead whales is ~36,000. Current est. is 200. We sucked every last drop of money out of that. I foresee us doing that with fossil fuels as well.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but did we run out of leather for buggy whips or old dial telephones?

In any event, I do expect us to continue to extract and refine petroleum regardless of whether or not we burn it in proverbial "planes, train and automobiles". A friend of mine (a chemical engineer) recently shared an interesting perspective, "petroleum is such a valuable feedstock to so many non-emitting products, we really should stop burning it - burning it is a car is such a waste".
 
VikingsGuy said:
Fair enough, but did we run out of leather for buggy whips or old dial telephones?

In any event, I do expect us to continue to extract and refine petroleum regardless of whether or not we burn it in proverbial "planes, train and automobiles". A friend of mine (a chemical engineer) recently shared an interesting perspective, "petroleum is such a valuable feedstock to so many non-emitting products, we really should stop burning it - burning it is a car is such a waste".
Click to expand...

No but we found ways of making things cheaper and more profitable. The closer we get to exhausting the resource the more money there is to be made. Thats why the average aussie quarterly electricity bill is now up to around $400-500.
 
I would argue that solar isn't a very environmentally sound energy source either. Those panels are plum full of toxic heavy metals such as cadmium, chromium, lead that are released over the lifetime and eventual disposal of the panels. They definitely don't last forever. As the panels break down, say in a landfill after disposal, the heavy metals are released into the leachate. Leachate has to removed from the landfill for treatment and ultimately disposal back into a receiving surface water. These heavy metals are a real concern for wastewater treatment facilities. The can accumulate in the biosolids produced by the plant, which then will exceed the concentrations required under federal 503 regs for sludge disposal, so that a "green" resource such as treated biosolids from the treatment plant can't be used as fertilizer for agriculture. I'm sure many components used in wind towers have similar problems.

Granted, alternative energy sources may slow buildup of greenhouse gases, but they aren't inherently free of their own problems. Not to mention the increased mining activity associated with the increased demand forlead, cadmium, chromium, etc., that could be associated with a higher demand for solar products. Heck, cell phones are already causing a lot of issues with that themselves. No technology we have is going to have zero environmental impact.
 
This is a very good, informative discussion. I can say I’ve learned a fair bit from it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
The debate's over: Globe is warming
Replies
7
Views
1K
ELKCHSR
E
JoseCuervo
Dubya always seems to be Fibbing
Replies
5
Views
1K
Hangar18
Hangar18
B
The case against Bush by Ron Reagan
Replies
12
Views
2K
BuzzH
B
Leupold BX-4 Rangefinding Binoculars

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,041
Messages
1,944,759
Members
34,985
Latest member
tinhunter

Share this page

Back
Top