Some blog followers might be interested in a discussion list post “Re: James Hansen’s ‘Too Little, Too Late? Oops?’ ” [Hake (2014)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************
ABSTRACT: Climate scientist James Hansen (2014) http://bit.ly/omiMY3, in his report “Too Little, Too Late? Oops??” at http://bit.ly/1m15lmz wrote (paraphrasing):
“Many queries received: is Obama's climate effort ‘too little, too late?’ Closely related query: are we at an ‘oops’ moment, a realization that we have pushed the climate system too far, so consequences such as ice sheet disintegration and large sea level rise are now out of our control? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The answer re ‘too little?’ is obvious from the fact that governments, ours included, are allowing and encouraging industry to go after every fossil fuel that can be found. Rather than dwelling on that fact, let's consider the action needed to avoid ‘too late’.
Citizens Climate Lobby http://citizensclimatelobby.org/ just released a study ‘The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax.’ A 3-page summary by Danny Richter is at http://bit.ly/1ypEENy.
According to their comprehensive analysis of the impacts of a carbon fee-and-dividend (CF&D) in the United States, with 100% revenue distribution of the money to the public in equal shares as direct payments: the fee would start at $10/ton of CO2 and increase $10/ton each year; 100% of the revenue is returned to households, equal amounts to all legal residents. This approach spurs the economy, increasing the number of jobs by 2.1 million in 10 years. Emissions decrease 33% in 10 years, 52% in 20 years.
Contrary to the wails of fossil-fuel-industry kingpins, the fossil fuel CF&D stimulates the economy, modernizes infrastructure and saves 13,000 lives per year via improved air quality. GDP increases, with fee-and-dividend causing a cumulative GDP increase of $1.375 trillion.
Why do these results differ from previous studies concluding that a carbon tax would be costly? The main reason is that other studies do not have 100% recycling of funds to the public; instead part of the money is taken as a tax, to increase the size of government.”
**************************************
To access the complete 37 kB post please click on http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University; LINKS TO: Academia http://bit.ly/a8ixxm; Articles http://bit.ly/a6M5y0; Blog http://bit.ly/9yGsXh; Facebook http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm; GooglePlus http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE; Google Scholar http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3; Linked In http://linkd.in/14uycpW; Research Gate http://bit.ly/1fJiSwB; Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs http://bit.ly/9nGd3M; Twitter http://bit.ly/juvd52.
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 20 June 2014.]
Hake, R.R. 2014. “Re: James Hansen’s ‘Too Little, Too Late? Oops?’ ” Post of 20 Jun 2014 09:08:40 -0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. Online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/1w3Arx1. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to several discussion lists.
Showing posts with label Carbon Tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Carbon Tax. Show all posts
Friday, June 20, 2014
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Would a Carbon Tax Alone Save Life on Planet Earth? Probably Not: Overpopulation Must Also Be Addressed
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Would a Carbon Tax Alone Save Life on Planet Earth? Probably Not: Overpopulation Must Also Be Addressed” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
********************************************
ABSTRACT (CAPS in quotes are mine): As I pointed out in a post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” [Hake (2013a)] at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn, Hansen & Romm (2013) at http://bit.ly/12djtSf wrote:
“We must have a simple, honest, across-the-board carbon fee COLLECTED FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES AT THE SMALL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC MINES AND PORTS OF ENTRY. All of that money should be distributed to the public -100 percent of it - with equal amounts going to all legal residents.”
Art Hobson (2013a) in an OpEd “Our planet passes a climate benchmark” at http://bit.ly/19tBwGD made a similar point but did not indicate, as did Hansen & Romm, that the carbon fee should be “collected from the fossil fuel companies at the small number of domestic mines and ports of entry.”
Al Bartlett (2013a) responded at http://bit.ly/10loNjf to Hobson's OpEd thusly:
“Here I want to comment on the FIRST OF TWO OMISSIONS in your otherwise excellent and comprehensive presentation. . . . . The ‘stop emissions’ is right on but unrealistic. As long as there are humans on earth, emissions of CO2 will continue at some level. It seems to me to be more realistic to say that: ‘We must embark on a long-term program of continually reducing the annual number of tons per year of greenhouse gases that are released world-wide into the Earth's atmosphere.’ . . . . [To do this] we have to STOP GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH AND THEN REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION TO SOME "SUSTAINABLE" LEVEL. And in a later post Bartlett (2013b) at http://bit.ly/11Og32G stated: “You did state that the solution is to put a tax on carbon. . . . . . The next question that needs to be addressed is: Given the real world in which we live, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT ON ANY USEFUL TIME SCALE WE CAN ACHIEVE THE GOAL . . . .. OF STOPPING CARBON EMISSIONS BY MEANS OF . . . . . . .PUTTING A TAX ON CARBON?”
Bartlett (2013c) discussed the SECOND OMISSION in a post “Exporting U.S. Fossil Fuels” at http://bit.ly/14sPuBM, stating: “Art and most of the environmentalists who strongly advocate the reduction of U.S. carbon emissions omit one important point. The U.S. exports a significant fraction of the coal that it mines. Thus U.S. coal is burned in other countries where it makes about the same contribution to global warming as it would have if it had been burned in the U.S.”
Hobson (2013a) may have “missed a point,” but Hansen & Romm (2013) did not!
As indicated above they, unlike Hobson, specified that “the carbon fee should be collected from the fossil fuel companies AT THE SMALL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC MINES and ports of entry.” Thus Hansen & Romm's carbon tax would discourage coal mining in the U.S. regardless of whether or not U.S. coal is shipped out of the U.S.
Hobson, in a response at http://bit.ly/124gGEU appeared to be unaware of Hansen & Romm (2013) and failed to make the above argument. But Hobson agreed with Bartlett that THE OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE IMPOSITION OF A CARBON TAX. I also agree with Bartlett - see e.g. “L.A. Times Population Report: Beyond 7 Billion - Fighting the Last War?” [Hake (2012)] online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/TeOpJj.
********************************************
To access the complete 27 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/1aRLIqF .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
“If any fraction, large or small, of the observed global warming
Can be attributed to the actions of humans,
Then this is positive proof that the human population,
Living as we do,
Has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth.”
- Al Bartlett (2013a)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 27 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Would a Carbon Tax Alone Save Life on Planet Earth? Probably Not: Overpopulation Must Also Be Addressed.” Online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/1aRLIqF. Post of 27 Jun 2013 14:55:33-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
********************************************
ABSTRACT (CAPS in quotes are mine): As I pointed out in a post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” [Hake (2013a)] at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn, Hansen & Romm (2013) at http://bit.ly/12djtSf wrote:
“We must have a simple, honest, across-the-board carbon fee COLLECTED FROM THE FOSSIL FUEL COMPANIES AT THE SMALL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC MINES AND PORTS OF ENTRY. All of that money should be distributed to the public -100 percent of it - with equal amounts going to all legal residents.”
Art Hobson (2013a) in an OpEd “Our planet passes a climate benchmark” at http://bit.ly/19tBwGD made a similar point but did not indicate, as did Hansen & Romm, that the carbon fee should be “collected from the fossil fuel companies at the small number of domestic mines and ports of entry.”
Al Bartlett (2013a) responded at http://bit.ly/10loNjf to Hobson's OpEd thusly:
“Here I want to comment on the FIRST OF TWO OMISSIONS in your otherwise excellent and comprehensive presentation. . . . . The ‘stop emissions’ is right on but unrealistic. As long as there are humans on earth, emissions of CO2 will continue at some level. It seems to me to be more realistic to say that: ‘We must embark on a long-term program of continually reducing the annual number of tons per year of greenhouse gases that are released world-wide into the Earth's atmosphere.’ . . . . [To do this] we have to STOP GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH AND THEN REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE GLOBAL POPULATION TO SOME "SUSTAINABLE" LEVEL. And in a later post Bartlett (2013b) at http://bit.ly/11Og32G stated: “You did state that the solution is to put a tax on carbon. . . . . . The next question that needs to be addressed is: Given the real world in which we live, WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY THAT ON ANY USEFUL TIME SCALE WE CAN ACHIEVE THE GOAL . . . .. OF STOPPING CARBON EMISSIONS BY MEANS OF . . . . . . .PUTTING A TAX ON CARBON?”
Bartlett (2013c) discussed the SECOND OMISSION in a post “Exporting U.S. Fossil Fuels” at http://bit.ly/14sPuBM, stating: “Art and most of the environmentalists who strongly advocate the reduction of U.S. carbon emissions omit one important point. The U.S. exports a significant fraction of the coal that it mines. Thus U.S. coal is burned in other countries where it makes about the same contribution to global warming as it would have if it had been burned in the U.S.”
Hobson (2013a) may have “missed a point,” but Hansen & Romm (2013) did not!
As indicated above they, unlike Hobson, specified that “the carbon fee should be collected from the fossil fuel companies AT THE SMALL NUMBER OF DOMESTIC MINES and ports of entry.” Thus Hansen & Romm's carbon tax would discourage coal mining in the U.S. regardless of whether or not U.S. coal is shipped out of the U.S.
Hobson, in a response at http://bit.ly/124gGEU appeared to be unaware of Hansen & Romm (2013) and failed to make the above argument. But Hobson agreed with Bartlett that THE OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE IMPOSITION OF A CARBON TAX. I also agree with Bartlett - see e.g. “L.A. Times Population Report: Beyond 7 Billion - Fighting the Last War?” [Hake (2012)] online on the OPEN! AERA-L archives at http://bit.ly/TeOpJj.
********************************************
To access the complete 27 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/1aRLIqF .
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
“If any fraction, large or small, of the observed global warming
Can be attributed to the actions of humans,
Then this is positive proof that the human population,
Living as we do,
Has exceeded the carrying capacity of the Earth.”
- Al Bartlett (2013a)
REFERENCES [URLs shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 27 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Would a Carbon Tax Alone Save Life on Planet Earth? Probably Not: Overpopulation Must Also Be Addressed.” Online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/1aRLIqF. Post of 27 Jun 2013 14:55:33-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
Assessment of Climate Change: A Challenge for the University
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Assessment of Climate Change: A Challenge for the University” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************
ABSTRACT: ASSESS subscribers (a) Larry King at http://bit.ly/195skV6 & http://bit.ly/11aNwHy, and (b) Mike Fulford at http://bit.ly/17IgiTZ questioned the relevancy to assessment in higher education of my posts “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” at http://yhoo.it/100EVIY and “Why Democrats in Congress Fail To Support Climate Change Legislation #3” at http://yhoo.it/100EVIY.
Irrelevant to assessment in higher education? King and Fulford may have missed my post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn. If there’s no life on Planet Earth then there's neither Higher Education nor Assessment on Planet Earth.
Karl Pister, Emeritus Chancellor of UC - Santa Cruz, wrote at http://bit.ly/11ymbuk: “. . . we need to encourage innovative ways of looking at problems, moving away from the increasing specialization of academia to develop new interdisciplinary fields that can address complex real-world problems from new perspectives.”
Surely the assessment of the alleged threat to life on Planet Earth by anthropogenic global warming is A Challenge To The University rather than the Irrelevancy seen by King and Fulford.
*******************************************
To access the complete 8 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/11KwHD9.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
- Worthy of - but misattributed http://bit.ly/13hZKMD to - Plato (427-347 BC)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 12 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Assessment of Climate Change: A Challenge for the University,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/11KwHD9. Post of 13 Jun 2013 10:47:32-0700to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
**************************************
ABSTRACT: ASSESS subscribers (a) Larry King at http://bit.ly/195skV6 & http://bit.ly/11aNwHy, and (b) Mike Fulford at http://bit.ly/17IgiTZ questioned the relevancy to assessment in higher education of my posts “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” at http://yhoo.it/100EVIY and “Why Democrats in Congress Fail To Support Climate Change Legislation #3” at http://yhoo.it/100EVIY.
Irrelevant to assessment in higher education? King and Fulford may have missed my post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn. If there’s no life on Planet Earth then there's neither Higher Education nor Assessment on Planet Earth.
Karl Pister, Emeritus Chancellor of UC - Santa Cruz, wrote at http://bit.ly/11ymbuk: “. . . we need to encourage innovative ways of looking at problems, moving away from the increasing specialization of academia to develop new interdisciplinary fields that can address complex real-world problems from new perspectives.”
Surely the assessment of the alleged threat to life on Planet Earth by anthropogenic global warming is A Challenge To The University rather than the Irrelevancy seen by King and Fulford.
*******************************************
To access the complete 8 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/11KwHD9.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
LinkedIn: http://linkd.in/14uycpW
"Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber."
- Worthy of - but misattributed http://bit.ly/13hZKMD to - Plato (427-347 BC)
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 12 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Assessment of Climate Change: A Challenge for the University,” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/11KwHD9. Post of 13 Jun 2013 10:47:32-0700to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************
ABSTRACT: Orlo Stitt (2013) of the Physoc list has called attention to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s speech “Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” at http://1.usa.gov/13mbZsV. Therein Whitehouse says:
(1) “How wise is it for the Republican Party to wed itself to the deniers and proclaim that climate change is a hoax?”
(2) “I’m willing to do a carbon pollution fee that sets the market in balance, and returns every single dollar to the American people. No new agencies. No new taxes. No bigger government. Every dollar back. Just a balanced market, with the costs included in the price, which will make better energy choices, increase jobs, and prevent pollution."
In my opinion, regarding:
“1”: Whitehouse is correct in asserting that the Republican Party has “wed itself to the [climate change] deniers.” At http://bit.ly/11p423a are the quotes of 23 Senators (all Republicans, 50% of the 46 Republicans in the Senate) and 81 Congressmen (all Republicans, 35% of the 234 Republicans in the House) who deny the deleterious effects of anthropomorphic climate change. Their uninformed statements indicate their appalling science illiteracy and that of the voters who elected them.
Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are almost as unenlightened as Republicans - see “Few Democrats In Congress Support Capps Climate Legislation” (IT, 2013) at http://bit.ly/13NDgn3 - hence Hansen's (2013) proposal at http://huff.to/13gcjcR for a new “American Party.”
“2”: Whitehouse is in the economically sagacious company of: (a) conservatives George Schultz and Gary Becker (2013) in “Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax” at http://bit.ly/11ZoaOr; and (b) James Hansen (2013) in “The Courage to Fight Climate Change” [Hansen & Romm (2013)] at http://bit.ly/12djtSf.
**************************************
To access the complete 46 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/100EVIY.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”
-Worthy of - but misattributed http://bit.ly/13hZKMD to - Plato (427-347 BC)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 09 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/100EVIY. Post of 8 Jun 2013 19:40:10-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
**************************************
ABSTRACT: Orlo Stitt (2013) of the Physoc list has called attention to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s speech “Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” at http://1.usa.gov/13mbZsV. Therein Whitehouse says:
(1) “How wise is it for the Republican Party to wed itself to the deniers and proclaim that climate change is a hoax?”
(2) “I’m willing to do a carbon pollution fee that sets the market in balance, and returns every single dollar to the American people. No new agencies. No new taxes. No bigger government. Every dollar back. Just a balanced market, with the costs included in the price, which will make better energy choices, increase jobs, and prevent pollution."
In my opinion, regarding:
“1”: Whitehouse is correct in asserting that the Republican Party has “wed itself to the [climate change] deniers.” At http://bit.ly/11p423a are the quotes of 23 Senators (all Republicans, 50% of the 46 Republicans in the Senate) and 81 Congressmen (all Republicans, 35% of the 234 Republicans in the House) who deny the deleterious effects of anthropomorphic climate change. Their uninformed statements indicate their appalling science illiteracy and that of the voters who elected them.
Unfortunately, Democrats in Congress are almost as unenlightened as Republicans - see “Few Democrats In Congress Support Capps Climate Legislation” (IT, 2013) at http://bit.ly/13NDgn3 - hence Hansen's (2013) proposal at http://huff.to/13gcjcR for a new “American Party.”
“2”: Whitehouse is in the economically sagacious company of: (a) conservatives George Schultz and Gary Becker (2013) in “Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax” at http://bit.ly/11ZoaOr; and (b) James Hansen (2013) in “The Courage to Fight Climate Change” [Hansen & Romm (2013)] at http://bit.ly/12djtSf.
**************************************
To access the complete 46 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/100EVIY.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
“Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.”
-Worthy of - but misattributed http://bit.ly/13hZKMD to - Plato (427-347 BC)
REFERENCES [URL’s shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 09 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “Senator Sheldon Whitehouse - Time to Wake Up: GOP Opposition to Climate Science” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/100EVIY. Post of 8 Jun 2013 19:40:10-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Carbon Tax: Merely a Ploy for Wealth Redistribution?
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “The Carbon Tax: Merely a Ploy for Wealth Redistribution?” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my discussion-list post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” [Hake (2013)] at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn, David Marx at http://bit.ly/14fAjhl wrote: “Now, we finally get to the real purpose of carbon caps and taxes . . . . . . . IT'S ALL ABOUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. . . . .” [My CAPS.]
James Hansen, in his article “The American Party” at http://huff.to/13gcjcR had this to say about “wealth/income redistribution” (paraphrasing): “Yes, the Carbon Tax is progressive: some ambitious low-income people who pay special attention to their carbon footprint will be able to save money for other purposes, wealthy people will pay more in added costs than they receive in the dividend. However, the added cost to them is small compared with change of income tax rates -- and lower income tax rates would be much more likely when the economy improves as the system moves toward honest pricing of fossil fuels. . . . . . . . . After I spoke to a group of conservative politicians, one of them said ‘THAT’S INCOME REDISTRIBUTION!’ ” [My CAPS.]
But not all conservatives are so disposed - see e.g., the WSJ piece “Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax” at http://bit.ly/11ZoaOr, by George Shultz http://bit.ly/ZOTqiJ and Gary Becker http://bit.ly/ZtDT5I, both senior fellows at the conservative Hoover Institution http://bit.ly/SPGxwb.
**************************************
To access the complete 9 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/13FUcvQ.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 05 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Carbon Tax: Merely a Ploy for Wealth Redistribution?” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/13FUcvQ. Post of 05 Jun 2013 11:23:12-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
**************************************
ABSTRACT: In response to my discussion-list post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” [Hake (2013)] at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn, David Marx at http://bit.ly/14fAjhl wrote: “Now, we finally get to the real purpose of carbon caps and taxes . . . . . . . IT'S ALL ABOUT WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION. . . . .” [My CAPS.]
James Hansen, in his article “The American Party” at http://huff.to/13gcjcR had this to say about “wealth/income redistribution” (paraphrasing): “Yes, the Carbon Tax is progressive: some ambitious low-income people who pay special attention to their carbon footprint will be able to save money for other purposes, wealthy people will pay more in added costs than they receive in the dividend. However, the added cost to them is small compared with change of income tax rates -- and lower income tax rates would be much more likely when the economy improves as the system moves toward honest pricing of fossil fuels. . . . . . . . . After I spoke to a group of conservative politicians, one of them said ‘THAT’S INCOME REDISTRIBUTION!’ ” [My CAPS.]
But not all conservatives are so disposed - see e.g., the WSJ piece “Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax” at http://bit.ly/11ZoaOr, by George Shultz http://bit.ly/ZOTqiJ and Gary Becker http://bit.ly/ZtDT5I, both senior fellows at the conservative Hoover Institution http://bit.ly/SPGxwb.
**************************************
To access the complete 9 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/13FUcvQ.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
REFERENCES [URL shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 05 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. “The Carbon Tax: Merely a Ploy for Wealth Redistribution?” online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/13FUcvQ. Post of 05 Jun 2013 11:23:12-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being transmitted to various discussion lists.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?
Some blog followers might be interested in a recent post “Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?” [Hake (2013)]. The abstract reads:
**************************************
ABSTRACT: James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in "The Courage to Fight Climate Change" at http://bit.ly/12djtSf wrote: “We must have a simple, honest, across-the-board carbon fee collected from the fossil fuel companies at the small number of domestic mines and ports of entry. All of that money should be distributed to the public-100 percent of it - with equal amounts going to all legal residents.”
A Google http://www.google.com/ search for “Carbon Tax” turned up 4,210,000 hits at http://bit.ly/153PQQV on 03 June 10:30-0700, including the Wikipedi entries on “Carbon Tax” at http://bit.ly/118dUBp and on “Emissions Control” at http://bit.ly/15tshjV. In my opinion: (a) The more important hits are listed in the over twenty references in the REFERENCE list in the complete post at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn, and (b) the most important hits are these six:
(1) “The Courage to Fight Climate Change” [Hansen & Romm (2013)] at http://bit.ly/12djtSf,
(2) “The People vs. Cap-and-Trade” [Hansen (2010b)] at http://bit.ly/17OhN3w,
(3) “The American Party” [Hansen (2013)] at http://huff.to/13gcjcR,
(4) “Herman Daly on Carbon Fees and Tax Shifting” [Gravitas (2011)] at http://bit.ly/1aTHNH3,
(5) “Sanders, Boxer Propose Climate Change Bills” [Sanders (2013a)] at http://1.usa.gov/12oSeUT,
(6) “Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment” [CBO (2013)] at http://1.usa.gov/13y4MF6.
**************************************
To access the complete 32 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. "Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?" online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn. Post of 03 Jun 2013 12:34:27-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
**************************************
ABSTRACT: James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in "The Courage to Fight Climate Change" at http://bit.ly/12djtSf wrote: “We must have a simple, honest, across-the-board carbon fee collected from the fossil fuel companies at the small number of domestic mines and ports of entry. All of that money should be distributed to the public-100 percent of it - with equal amounts going to all legal residents.”
A Google http://www.google.com/ search for “Carbon Tax” turned up 4,210,000 hits at http://bit.ly/153PQQV on 03 June 10:30-0700, including the Wikipedi entries on “Carbon Tax” at http://bit.ly/118dUBp and on “Emissions Control” at http://bit.ly/15tshjV. In my opinion: (a) The more important hits are listed in the over twenty references in the REFERENCE list in the complete post at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn, and (b) the most important hits are these six:
(1) “The Courage to Fight Climate Change” [Hansen & Romm (2013)] at http://bit.ly/12djtSf,
(2) “The People vs. Cap-and-Trade” [Hansen (2010b)] at http://bit.ly/17OhN3w,
(3) “The American Party” [Hansen (2013)] at http://huff.to/13gcjcR,
(4) “Herman Daly on Carbon Fees and Tax Shifting” [Gravitas (2011)] at http://bit.ly/1aTHNH3,
(5) “Sanders, Boxer Propose Climate Change Bills” [Sanders (2013a)] at http://1.usa.gov/12oSeUT,
(6) “Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment” [CBO (2013)] at http://1.usa.gov/13y4MF6.
**************************************
To access the complete 32 kB post please click on http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn.
Richard Hake, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Indiana University
Links to Articles: http://bit.ly/a6M5y0
Links to Socratic Dialogue Inducing (SDI) Labs: http://bit.ly/9nGd3M
Academia: http://bit.ly/a8ixxm
Blog: http://bit.ly/9yGsXh
GooglePlus: http://bit.ly/KwZ6mE
Google Scholar: http://bit.ly/Wz2FP3
Twitter: http://bit.ly/juvd52
Facebook: http://on.fb.me/XI7EKm
REFERENCES [URL's shortened by http://bit.ly/ and accessed on 03 June 2013.]
Hake, R.R. 2013. "Would a Carbon Tax Save Life on Planet Earth?" online on the OPEN! Net-Gold archives at http://yhoo.it/16ECfUn. Post of 03 Jun 2013 12:34:27-0700 to AERA-L and Net-Gold. The abstract and link to the complete post are being distributed to various discussion lists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
