• ObjectiveZenith said on Apr 24, 2007....

  More tax would not be an incentive.
   
  In terms of global warming, there is no *real* role-model to follow.
   
  Consider this: In the U.S. Nasa spends billions on the creation of rockets and satellites, their development, creation, upkeep, troubleshooting and then spends billions more on fuel to get them into space. The amount of green-house gasses created from just one rocket,from parts manufacturing to blast off, is (no pun intended) astronomical. And all of this, to no serious avail, other than to satiate a few individuals curiousity. Honestly, what positive bearing can this have for Man, if they are helping to destroy our beautiful planet.
   
  If Nasa was to stop building rockets, and put it's money and it's genious into projects that reduced or even retaliated against global warming, would that not be more beneficial than a tax? A tax that would see it's way into the pockets of aging men, who have money and greed aplenty.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 24, 2007....

  I advocate higher fuel and energy taxes as well.
  
  I don't know how much effect that humans have on global warming or even whether we can stop it, but reducing pollution and reliance on fossil fuels is always a plus. A higher tax that reflects the true cost of using certain kinds of energy should be a net positive for society as a whole as it encourages individuals and companies to use less and create less waste.
  

• tbs230 said on Apr 24, 2007....

  Dang, I wanted to be the first to respond so I wouldn't have to actually say anything useful...but now I can't do that...*sigh*...
  
  Global warming.........global warming.......it's a very bad thing and we are actually getting 1997 whether right now, so if we do anything, we won't really see the effects for about 10 years...
  
  Oh, and since I take public transportation (automatic carpooling)...I'm all for any tax you want...although I so think that my bus/train fares will increase dramatically...whatever, as long as I can still ride the damn buses when I'm 50 I won't complain...too much.
  
  (Does this qualify as being useful?)
  

• Dunedin said on Apr 24, 2007....

  Zenith: A prohibitive tax is the surest way to compel the dozens of millions of Americans who drive to be more frugal on the road.
  
  I think space shuttles use H-fuel to carry satellites to space. The product is water. It's one clean alternative to fossil fuels. Anyway, it's nothing compared to the amount of CO2 produced by American cars each day.
  
  A bigger problem is industry around the world, but they are more difficult to control than Johnny Cardriver because they are the national breadwinners and jobmakers.
  
  
  TS: Thank you.
  
  
  tbs: No, but thanks for commenting.
  

• tbs230 said on Apr 24, 2007....

  lol, oh...sorry
  
  Did you know that China produces the most to the problems we have now, and although they are making great efforts to reduce these effects China is a growing market that won't slow down for a while.
  
  My question is do you think it's feasible that we can even slow down global warming?
  

• Dunedin said on Apr 24, 2007....

  China's a huge problem, but we can't do anything about them. And India's a growing problem. And Africa and other Third World regions will become bigger problems if they can climb out of poverty. But we can't affect any of them.
  
  So can we slow global warming? you ask. Good question.
  
  I don't know. We can set a good example for the world.
  
  
  

• curmudgeon said on Apr 24, 2007....

  OK, first off a prohibitive gas tax will increase not just the cost of private driving, but the cost of everything from the food we eat to the products we buy to the services we use like mail and package delivery. This is patently unfair to the poorest among us, who will be hardest hit in every aspect of their lives.
   
  Secondly, you people know absolutely nothing about rocketry. The Space Shuttle has several power systems. During launch, the Solid Rocket Boosters are powered not by hydrogen, but  Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant.
  The SSME, or Space Shuttle Main Engine, is powered with liquid hydrogen which is stored in the External Tank. On orbit, the Shuttle's electrical systems are indeed powered with regenerative fuel cells, the byproduct being water. The RCS and OMS are powered, I believe, by hydrazine.
   
  One space shuttle launch costs the better part of a billion dollars these days. But satellite launches - not just by NASA but by the military, communications companies, earth imaging companies and others cost somewhere in the tens to hundreds of millions, depending on payload weight.
   
  Last I heard, NASA's budget was in the neighborhood of 16 billion dollars - that's roughly what New York City spends on it's public school system. NASA's entire budget - and all of the knowledge, technological development and engineering capability that it buys - would be swallowed up by just one corruption-infested, democrat-clogged, union-choked department of one city in the country.
   
  Big deal.
   
  And space launches are NOT just for the benefit of a few. We depend on satellites to forecast weather, get driving directions, make millions upon millions of business transactions every day, communicate with our loved ones, entertain ourselves, study the Universe, and yes, monitor the health of our planet. Much of the hard data we've gotten about climate change comes from satellites. Were it not for space-based observation, all we'd have is conjecture based on ice core samples taken from one spot on Earth.
   
  I won't say that rocket launches don't have any impact on Earth's atmosphere, but whatever impact they have is certainly worth an ajdustment in our lifestyles somewhere else.

• TinSoldier said on Apr 24, 2007....

  "You people" meaning ObjectiveZenith, of course. No one else has echoed his/her comment I believe.

• ObjectiveZenith said on Apr 25, 2007....

  curmudgeon -  forgive my lack of knowledge on rocket science. It's not exactly my area of expertise. However, as i mentioned in my post, it's not just the proppelling/ running of these machines to blame( they warrant no blame by your post) but also the manufacturing. It is possible I am wrong. Nasa uses electricity to power their computers on earth correct? Where does all that electricity come from? I don't mean to be taking hits at nasa - i just taught i should use a globaly recognisable 'figure' as an example.
   
  Directions can be taken from maps. Weather systems and communication do have a positive impact on our lives, but I believe entertainment and the 'study of the universe' can be seen as not as important as saving the planet. Don't you agree? The universe will still be there.
   
  "Last I heard, NASA's budget was in the neighborhood of 16 billion dollars - that's roughly what New York City spends on it's public school system. NASA's entire budget - and all of the knowledge, technological development and engineering capability that it buys - would be swallowed up by just one corruption-infested, democrat-clogged, union-choked department of one city in the country."
   
  I for one would fee much better if those mere 16 billion dollars were put to a more globaly beneficial use.  
   
  Priority should be given to this impotant matter.
   
  I don't advocate higher taxes because it usualy ends up hitting the average joe soaps -you and I. While we all must 'do our part', I don't think we should all suffer unnessecarily. Money and resources can be diverted from areas which can be deemed less of a priority.
   
  In relation to the tax, an agreement was set up so countries would use less co2 emissions, and countries could buy carbon credits if they went over a certain amount. If they can just throw money at it, why bother making a change?
   
   
   

• Dunedin said on Apr 25, 2007....

  @curmudgeon: OK, first off a prohibitive gas tax will increase not just the cost of private driving, but the cost of everything from the food we eat to the products we buy to the services we use like mail and package delivery.
  
  Not if businesses were exempt from the tax. Or if they got tax refunds for gas. The point of the tax would be to eliminate frivolous driving and encourage carpooling. It would accomplish that.
  
  This is patently unfair to the poorest among us, who will be hardest hit in every aspect of their lives.
  
  Nah.
  
  Maybe a gas tax isn't the best idea, but it's better than nothing.
  
  How would you address the problem?
  
  And thanks for the info on NASA.
  
  
  
  @Zenith: There are a lot of wasteful government programs you could single out. NASA's not one of them. NASA is good. And in terms of global warming, NASA's a drop in the ocean.
  
  While we all must 'do our part', I don't think we should all suffer unnessecarily.
  
  We don't do our part. That's why a tax is good. The pain stimulus compels us to do our part. For many people, the wallet is the most sensitive part of the body.
  
  
  

• TinSoldier said on Apr 25, 2007....

  Yes, raising the cost of everything may hurt some people but there are also many programs to help those same people.
  
  If it gets us as Americans to consume less overall that may be a good thing...
  

• curmudgeon said on Apr 26, 2007....

  The question is - will it do what it's supposed to? Stiff luxury taxes don't keep people from buying heinosuly expensive baubles.
   
  I see - let's propose a brand new tax and then implement a whole host of exemptions from it. Let's complicate the tax code even further and place the burden on businesses big and small. And then let's increase the cost of government by raising the number of people dependent on government programs because of this idiotic tax!
   
  And with all of these exemptions from the cost of consuming gas will be a proportional reduction in the effectiveness of the tax.
   
  How many of you folks carpool? If you take public transportation, congratulations - you live in an area where public transportation is both viable, available and subsidized by the hundreds of millions of taxpayers who won't ever get to use the system you use because they live elsewhere. Because more people paying into a system than actually use it is really the only way public transportation - or any government program - is viable.
   
  As to addressing the problem: People who claim to give a crap about global warming, and according to the media that's most of us in the country, ought to put their efforts and money where their mouths are. Set an example for us. Show us how it's done and encourage others to do the same.
   
  If you want to consume less, go ahead - consume less. No one is stopping you. If you want to drive less, then do so. If you want to start a carpool, do it. If you want to reduce the overall consumption of gasoline, team up with your neighbor when you do groceries. Reduce the frequency of shuttling your kids hither and tither. Take weekends away from using all energy-consuming appliances. Encourage your social organizations and associations to at least be mindful of their consumption.
   
  Why do we have to wait around for some new tax or some new regulation to MAKE us do that which we already believe is important?
   
  Because it's all about the other guy, isn't it? It's that SUV-driving bastard stomping it in the left lane who ought to suffer for our political predilections.  He's the cause of all the problems, not me. Why, there ought to be a law.
   
   

• Dunedin said on Apr 26, 2007....

  The first half of your comment is a curmudgeonly rant that says nothing.
  
  The second half has been addressed above in my response to Zenith. You're saying the same thing he did—everyone should do his part.
  
  But we don't. How are we going to motivate Americans to action? You don't like the idea of a tax, so propose a better motivation if you can. Otherwise, your ranting adds nothing to the discussion. 

• Antimatter said on Apr 27, 2007....

  Here’s a better idea. Instead of levying another tax in a misguided attempt to manipulate an open market, let’s create new policies that favor those who are environmentally responsible. They don’t necessarily need to be financial either.

  Out where I live, most of the carpool lanes on the freeway consist of a single lane, and it’s usually just as congested as the rest of the freeway. Maybe it’s time to move those double yellow lines over to the right one or two lanes.

• D6fer said on Apr 27, 2007....

  Well said Curm....more tax will simply make more things unaccessable to more people (raise the poverty level) The rich will always be able to afford anything they wish. And being the business owners of the world, they will simply pass it down to the rest of us consumers. It's kind of like gambling....you can't beat the house.
  All of you that are buying into this B.S. are going to make Al Gore a very, very rich and powerful man. You buy his carbon credits....you'll sleep so much better at night....so will he...on a bed stuffed with money!

• Dunedin said on Apr 27, 2007....

  Antimatter:
  let’s create new policies that favor those who are environmentally responsible.
  
  That's an interesting idea. Do you have other examples besides carpooling? 

• curmudgeon said on Apr 27, 2007....

  Mohammed - How do you motivate people? Live it and preach it. Set an example for your family, friends and co-workers. Make it your lifestyle and spread the word. Show them in real numbers how decreasing consumption will save them money in the long run. Invest 50% of your 401k or IRA in renewable energy technology and get others to do the same. Employ a whole host of strategies to get the word out, and keep sending the message that reducing consumption is beneficial on both an individual and on a societal scale.
   
  The things listed above are just a tiny bit of what we average Americans can do right now, without government involvement, interference or intrusion.
   
  Or we can spend years getting both political parties just to agree to debate a tax, then spend some more years haggling over who should be taxed, to what degree, and when it will be implemented.
   
  If global warming is really such a pressing issue, who has time to wait around for government(s) to act?

• Dunedin said on Apr 27, 2007....

  Curmudgeon:
  
  In theory I agree with you about setting an example. However, my own life experiences demonstrate the ineffectiveness of such a technique. My parents and their friends and acquaintances are Boomers, and they are all intractably enmeshed in uneconomical lifestyles. For years I have tried to set good examples for them to no avail. I could be wrong, but I don't think this phenomenon is peculiar to my hometown.
  
  Maybe what you're proposing would work better in a more politically liberal area. I don't know.
  
  Legislation doesn't always take years. When gov wants to it can act quickly. The problem is, as with the Boomers, gov doesn't want to act.
  
  I like Antimatter's suggestion, which is the opposite of a tax. Reward the frugal rather than punish the profligate. 

• Dunedin said on Apr 27, 2007....

  Everyone: I'm beginning a new post on the disappearance of the middle class. It ties in with this post. 

• Sandman said on May 03, 2007....

  Dunedin : There is no such thing as man caused

  global warming . It's all bull .  The earth has warmed

  and cooled for a couple billion years and man can do

  nothing about it . Global warming is just another way

  for the cool aid drinking leftist ppl to control u more.

  The worlds polar ice has been melting since last ice

  age .  Do u want to go back to most of USA and all

  of Canada being under up to a mile or more of ice ?

  Have u ever tried to see the actual studies that all

  the left wing nut jobs like Al Gore quote . You can't .

  Alot of scientists say man made global warming is

  bull . Even the BBC had a special on it that got NO

   coverage in USA , not even on public radio , cause

  it called into doubt the idea that man is causing it .

  Ask yourself this --- The same ppl who can't predict

  the weather for 3 days with any better then a 50%

  chance of being right --- these ppl are programing

  computers to get the results they want . Small 

  changes in the numbers makes huge difference

  in their predictions . It's all a bunch of crap ! ( to use 

  my friends favorite word )   Oh , we have plenty of oil

  in this country . Off both coasts , in the gulf and of

  course Alaska . Most places we are not allowed to 

  drill cause of lunatic left wing ppl .  Don't forget

  our sometimes friendly neighbors to the north also

  have alot more oil then is being used . Between the

  2 countries we have plenty of oil for more then a

  100 years even considering growth !  But were not 

  allowed to drill for it . What bull .            Sand 

Comment on "Global Wanking"

Currently tagged	global warming tax hot Oil world resources carpooling Liberal claptrap (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously