Effects of burning fossil fuels:

[Tin Man]

Okay, here's a puzzler for you: suppose the Earth was entering a new ice age. Since man has the power to make great changes, what suggestions would you make to prevent an ice age?

That would be easy! Burn fossil fuel! I kill myself...

 

[TornadoRed]

That would be easy! Burn fossil fuel! I kill myself...

But what if we were already burning all we could produce.

 

[troy_heagy]

By whose definition? That's not the conventional definition of "ice age".

People on the street often use the wrong terminology. For example they'll say "The motor in my car is broke" when what they really mean is ENGINE (the correct term used by scientists/engineers).

The glaciation ended ~10,000 years ago, but the Ice Age started 40 million years ago & still continues. The current Ice Age is number 4 in the timespan of the earth.



BTW, life has existed on the earth a long, long time.... dating back 3.5 billion years. Life has predates the first ice age & survived it quite easily. Life also survived ice ages 2, 3, and 4 (present). And of course, life survived the Tropical periods when NO polar ice existed. The dinosaurs lived in such a period, as did the early mammals.

As for man's impact on the environment, I can believe it's possible.
The Giant Ferns of ~400 million years ago pulled the CO2 out of the air & sequestered it in coal/oil. The Ferns impacted the global environment.
Homo sapiens is now reversing that process, by putting the CO2 back in the air.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

As for man's impact on the environment, I can believe it's possible.
The Giant Ferns of ~400 million years ago pulled the CO2 out of the air & sequestered it in coal/oil. The Ferns impacted the global environment.
Homo sapiens is now reversing that process, by putting the CO2 back in the air.

The problem is we are doing it way too fast!

I found the graphic I was looking for that shows the overall balance of carbon exchange. The oceans and land exchange a huge amount with the atmosphere but are in equilibrium. Humans since the industrial revolution have been dumping additional carbon, now about 6.3 Giga-tons per yr, a very small amount compared to the overall flux but very significant compared to the net flux balance. The result of the inevitable shift in equilibrum is that there will be a tiny average temperature increase of 0.1 - 0.2 degrees over several decades. It is not the magnitude of this increase that is an issue, it is the effect on the delicate feedback mechanisms that determine our climate (the long-term average of weather.)

The earth will survive just fine - it's us, the "mold" on the surface that will find it more difficult.

Regarding cosmic rays which are related to sun spot activity - my retired father just so happens to be an expert on this subject and assures me that the 11-year cycle has been found not to be responsible for the current warming trend. My dad is a knighted astrophysicist and directed the relevant Max-Planck Institute in Germany for many years. He occasionally gives lectures on global warming/climate change which has helped me understand the subject much better.

 

[Tin Man]

Where is the CO2 from mammals, including man on this diagram? How much credence is there for the contribution to both over-fishing and destruction to ocean bio-habitat?

TM

 

[fixer]

I agree. Except that I'd say the solutions missing aren't due to a lack of technology, but rather a lack of willing parties in power among countries around the world. We need a global carbon tax.

And this carbon tax would be adminsitered by and enforced by what entity? The money collected would be spent on what and at whose direction? Please don't say the UN.

Although theoretically a global carbon tax might be a solution, it will never come to pass without one world government, and I can't believe US citizens would ever agree to that. No, if global warming is the result of man's activity I suggest we all get used to it as even the most ambitious plans will only slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.

 

[TornadoRed]

And this carbon tax would be adminsitered by and enforced by what entity? The money collected would be spent on what and at whose direction? Please don't say the UN.

Although theoretically a global carbon tax might be a solution, it will never come to pass without one world government, and I can't believe US citizens would ever agree to that.

Not as long as the Second Amendment is still in effect.

 

[Tin Man]

And this carbon tax would be administered by and enforced by what entity? The money collected would be spent on what and at whose direction? Please don't say the UN.

Although theoretically a global carbon tax might be a solution, it will never come to pass without one world government, and I can't believe US citizens would ever agree to that. No, if global warming is the result of man's activity I suggest we all get used to it as even the most ambitious plans will only slow the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2.

A comprehensive carbon tax just in the US with a corresponding decrease in income taxes would work like the VAT in Europe. It would be effective by including imported goods made using fossil fuels. This would avoid the shifting of industry to countries like China that did not comply with such a measure and didn't have the corresponding costs. It might even help even out the playing field in other ways.

No, nobody likes taxes. Find a better solution, go ahead, we're listening.

TM

 

[TornadoRed]

A comprehensive carbon tax just in the US with a corresponding decrease in income taxes would work like the VAT in Europe.

One party wants to increase income taxes, the other is leery of a deal because a future congress could turn around and re-raise the income tax. Then the total tax burden would be higher than ever.

I still like the idea of a comprehensive income tax, with a single rate. I am not ready to support any new tax, even if it is coupled with a lower income tax rate.

 

[Tin Man]

One party wants to increase income taxes, the other is leery of a deal because a future congress could turn around and re-raise the income tax. Then the total tax burden would be higher than ever.

I still like the idea of a comprehensive income tax, with a single rate. I am not ready to support any new tax, even if it is coupled with a lower income tax rate.

The idea is to tax consumption, not productivity. Also, to have imports that avoid the costs of environmental regulations get less favorable treatment.

Yes, there's always a possibility that the politicians would raise the taxes later. But that will happen anyway if we continue on our present political course.

How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving!

TM

 

[nicklockard]

The idea is to tax consumption, not productivity. Also, to have imports that avoid the costs of environmental regulations get less favorable treatment.

Yes, there's always a possibility that the politicians would raise the taxes later. But that will happen anyway if we continue on our present political course.

How can you tell a politician is lying? Their lips are moving!

TM

Well put, and I can not agree with you more. Politicos will find ways to burden us with increased taxes anyhow...I'd rather that taxation profiles didn't lean so heavily toward burdening productive activities. Our current income taxation system is just that...and it has gotten far far out of control (punishes us for working harder...does that make sense?)

Global atmospheric carbon, global climate change, fuel insecurity, and taxation are intimately co-related. You can not have a meaningful, lasting effect on any of the first 3 until you grapple with the fourth. I would like to see a more balanced taxation apparatus on the production>---->consumption continuum. No one LIKES a tax, but it is better to get a handle on them and have some input in how they are applied. The current system is 99% weighted toward productive activities, which hyper stimulates consumption...as if that is some kind of noble goal in and of itself to be pursued regardless of the outcomes (global problems discussed here and elsewhere on this club.) This is very wrong-headed thinking. The thing is...the G-8 nation's taxation strategies are having an outsized global impact by hyper-stimulating consumption. It's time we expanded our views past our own parochial noses and saw the effects we are propagating. It's time for us to get some balance.

I would like to hear more

 

[TornadoRed]

The idea is to tax consumption, not productivity. Also, to have imports that avoid the costs of environmental regulations get less favorable treatment.

We already have road use taxes, so I am not philosophically opposed to a significant increase in these -- staggered out, maybe 10 cents/year for ten years? But there is a huge need for highway expansion and repairs, so I want the revenue to go for highways -- not mass transit, not research in alternative fuels, not earmarks for bridges to nowhere.

Want to reduce waste of transportation fuels? Don't make us sit so long in traffic.

 

[mparker326]

Warmest January on Record

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17175086/

 

[nh mike]

It would be much easier if we did have new technologies, though.

Oh, definitely. I'm not saying new technology wouldn't help - just that people shouldn't go believing that all we needs is for scientists/engineers to develop some new technology, and we'll be magically saved. It's a very comforting belief for people to have, since it shifts all personal responsibility away from themselves though, and places it all on scientists/engineers to solve the world's problems.

Not just in manufacturing bio-fuels, but other imaginative things like oceanographic solutions, space age reflectors, whatever (Scotty, beam me up!)

Sure, but all of those things cost money. The underlying problem is that our generation doesn't want to pay diddly squat to help society as a whole. We call the generation who fought WWI "the greatest generation" because of how willing they were to make personal sacrifices for the common good. I think our generation is the complete opposite (perhaps "the lamest generation"?) - how many people are willing to make the slightest personal sacrifice for the common good? Hell, even if you believe the war we're currently fighting is for the common good, what sacrifices are the average American making to help it? Did we increase taxes to help pay for it? No, we cut taxes, shifting the cost to our children. When it became apparent how closely our oil addiction is tied to funding groups that hate us, and how imperative it is that we get off of foreign oil, did people stop buying Hummers and Escalades just to cruise around town in? No (except when oil prices temporarily went up. As soon as they dropped back down, sales of giant SUVs took off again).

Ask the average American if he thinks we should get off of oil, and he'll say "hell yeah!". Ask him what personal sacrifices he's made, or is willing to make, to see that through - and you'll get a blank stare (or possibly insults, for daring to suggest that he should make any personal sacrifices).

I believe this Kyoto thing has been a bit of an obstruction. Why not let the US and Australia, perhaps the only big free-market economies left, do it their own way? As long as the goals are the same.

Because the free market does not by itself solve problems that affect the common good. The free market is based on people buying what is cheapest - not what is in the best interest of society. If oil is cheaper than clean biofuels, 95% or more of people will buy oil. Period.

And the problem is that it only costs about $5 per barrel or less for most countries (other than the US) to pump oil. And when we pay all of the hidden costs that foreign oil dependence imposes on us out of income taxes, the real cost is hidden from the consumer. Effectively, without government intervention, there's not a snowball's chance in hell of us getting off of foreign oil.

Yes, it certainly seems like it. Put the money to work on new tech!

I'm still in favor of a petroleum "tax" aimed at assessing the hidden costs of oil dependence onto petroleum sales, rather than on income taxes. So, I think the revenue from that should be used to directly reduce income taxes. If we want a general carbon tax though (also), that could go to developing new technologies, or various other things.

 

[Tin Man]

In Kentucky, many who could afford to have cut down their use of fossil fuels. There will soon be the largest bio-diesel plant in the country. There is competition to get the next clean coal-fired plant built here. The public schools have a very strong curriculum on global warming and energy use. There would be a strong resistance to tax increases, though, out of distrust for government, especially on a national level. There are few if any small cars on used lots and lots of SUV's.

As far as increasing taxes to pay for the war, there have been substantial increases in revenues to state and federal coffers as a result of tax cuts and improved economic activity. The only reason to increase taxes would be to pay off more debt, which is a minuscule percentage of the GNP anyway. Politics enters here, along with the usual class envy as well as bad reporting etc.

What a comprehensive carbon tax may do is stem the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas, and stem the trade imbalance which is as much a function of oil imports as it is manufactured goods. But having a floating international currency market should also self-correct trade imbalances. Why it hasn't may have more to do with fiscal/monetary policy and politics than our dependence on foreign oil.

TM

 

[Tin Man]

We already have road use taxes, so I am not philosophically opposed to a significant increase in these -- staggered out, maybe 10 cents/year for ten years? But there is a huge need for highway expansion and repairs, so I want the revenue to go for highways -- not mass transit, not research in alternative fuels, not earmarks for bridges to nowhere.

Want to reduce waste of transportation fuels? Don't make us sit so long in traffic.

I've never heard mention of a major reason people don't use public transportation: the perception of safety risk/crime rate. Many oppose even extending rail lines further into their neighborhoods because of the possibility of having crime brought in with it.

How would the San Diego area benefit from more roads?

I would just put rail lines in along major highways to allow for commuter parking to ease congestion.

TM

 

[mparker326]

But there is a huge need for highway expansion and repairs, so I want the revenue to go for highways -- not mass transit, not research in alternative fuels, not earmarks for bridges to nowhere.

Want to reduce waste of transportation fuels? Don't make us sit so long in traffic.

Highway expansion is usually only a temporary fix. When I lived in Atlanta, as soon as they would get done adding another lane, traffic became even more congested, because developers would add even more houses/strip malls to the area.

 

[TornadoRed]

I've never heard mention of a major reason people don't use public transportation: the perception of safety risk/crime rate. Many oppose even extending rail lines further into their neighborhoods because of the possibility of having crime brought in with it.

That may be true, to some extent. Our trolley system was extended to the SDSU campus a couple years ago, and I've heard some crimes against individuals may have been committed by gangs that traveled there from their home turf by trolley.

How would the San Diego area benefit from more roads?

Every interstate highway in southern California, and most other multilane divided highways, need double the number of current lanes. Since there is no room for new highways, or wider highways, the new lanes would have to be double-decked. I'm sure we could spend $200-300 billion, plus whatever is required in northern California. Road taxes could go up quite sharply, and there still wouldn't be enough revenue for any purpose except road construction.

I would just put rail lines in along major highways to allow for commuter parking to ease congestion.

Maybe. But the commuter would need to have another vehicle at the end of his trip. Maybe a moped or bicycle.

 

[mparker326]

I've never heard mention of a major reason people don't use public transportation: the perception of safety risk/crime rate. Many oppose even extending rail lines further into their neighborhoods because of the possibility of having crime brought in with it.

My main complaint about public transportation is the time factor. It takes longer to commute via public transportation than to drive.

I commuted via train for several years when I lived in Atlanta. The train at least didn't get stuck in traffic. But it would take longer than driving and during peak hours I would have to stand in a crowded train for long periods of time. It was certainly less stressful than sitting in traffic.

I have commuted via bus here in Knoxville. Buses get stuck in traffic just like cars. A bus runs by my house every half hour. Based on their schedule and traffic they could either be 10 minutes early or 20 minutes late.

Another issue can be the cost factor. When I lived in Atlanta, each way costs $2.50. My company offered a subsidized monthly pass for $30 and this was more cost effective, but if you had to pay each time you ride, it would get costly.

Yet another issue, is the people who frequent public transportation. In your car, you don't have: panhandlers, sellers of bootlegged cds, smelly people, etc.

 

[nh mike]

But what if we were already burning all we could produce.

Paint the artctic with black paint.

 

[nh mike]

And this carbon tax would be adminsitered by and enforced by what entity? The money collected would be spent on what and at whose direction? Please don't say the UN.

The petro tax I've proposed here many times would be handled by the IRS. The carbon tax is a more difficult issue that I haven't found a good solution for yet, as far as how to handle it (since it needs to be a global thing). The UN has problems, but we're certainly not helping improve it by backing away from it completely.

A carbon tax could be something for which the details are worked out and agreed upon through the UN (such that every nation has the same policy on it), but is collected and managed within each country individually - to avoid the UN becoming a tax collection agency.

IMO the countries of the UN should also establish international trade policies such that countries with poor human rights and environmental regulations don't get an advantage over countries without those regulations - essentially by having tariffs placed on goods sold from countries without such regulations (not paid to the UN though, paid by the country without those regulations (or a company within the country) to the country with those regulations, when they sell products to that country (or a company within the country)). THe tariff policies could be agreed upon through the UN, but enforced on a country-by-country level, so that again we don't need a "one world government", or pay taxes to the UN.

 

[nh mike]

A comprehensive carbon tax just in the US with a corresponding decrease in income taxes would work like the VAT in Europe. It would be effective by including imported goods made using fossil fuels. This would avoid the shifting of industry to countries like China that did not comply with such a measure and didn't have the corresponding costs. It might even help even out the playing field in other ways.

Yup, that would be a good way of doing it. basically like my "petroleum acquisition assessment", except applied to all fossil fuels, or products made from them.

 

[nh mike]

One party wants to increase income taxes, the other is leery of a deal because a future congress could turn around and re-raise the income tax. Then the total tax burden would be higher than ever.

I still like the idea of a comprehensive income tax, with a single rate. I am not ready to support any new tax, even if it is coupled with a lower income tax rate.

1. The single-rate income tax *only* helps the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or misinformed.

2. This mentality of not wanting a new tax, no matter what, is unfortunately the reality that we have to deal with - most people don't pay attention long enough to understand that they wouldn't be paying more tax overall (on average), they just assume it must mean someone wants to take more of their money.

 

[nh mike]

We already have road use taxes, so I am not philosophically opposed to a significant increase in these -- staggered out, maybe 10 cents/year for ten years?

The problem with a road tax is that it is applied to all fuels equally, so increasing it wouldn't do anything to promote the use of alternatives. The "petroleum acquisition assessment" approach I've proposed would shift the hidden costs of petro dependence, which we currently pay out of income taxes, to a petroleum tax (at the end of the year, the IRS would calculate how much was paid in total in petro taxes, divide by the number of taxpayers, to get the average amount of petro tax paid per person. Every tax payer would then get an income tax credit of that amount. So, if you use the exact average amount of petro, you pay the same in tax. If you use more, you pay more. If you use less, you pay less). This creates an incentive to decrease your petro use - either by buying more efficient vehicles, using alternative fuels, or driving less when not needed. Just increasing the road tax wouldn't do anything to encourage use of alternatives to petroleum, as you'd pay the tax no matter what fuel you use.

Generally I propose implementing a petro tax at a rate of 20 or 25 cents/year, to a max of $1 to $1.50.

But there is a huge need for highway expansion and repairs, so I want the revenue to go for highways -- not mass transit, not research in alternative fuels, not earmarks for bridges to nowhere.

I would be in favor of increasing the road tax as well, to pay for those things - but separate from the petro tax. IMO as long as we're paying those hidden costs of petro dependence out of income taxes, we're subsidizing our dependence, discouraging people from decreasing their petro use (since how much of those hidden costs you pay has nothing to do with how much petro you use).

 

[nh mike]

As far as increasing taxes to pay for the war, there have been substantial increases in revenues to state and federal coffers as a result of tax cuts and improved economic activity.

Sure, decreasing taxes helps the economy, since our economy is consumer driven. The problem is it does it at the expense of increasing debt (since it takes a while for the economy to pick up enough to start offsetting the reduction in tax revenue - it has to, since the only way tax cuts could boost the economy, by default, is by people paying less tax - so there has to be accumulated debt). The problem with that is that it's essentially the governmental equivalent of a person racking up credit card debt buying fancy stuff so he can make everyone think he's doing well, and pushing those costs off to the future. But, for an individual, he'll at least have to pay those debts off in his lifetime. At the government level though, we just keep pushing them off, until eventually the interest will become so large that it will overwhelm our economy.

The only reason to increase taxes would be to pay off more debt, which is a minuscule percentage of the GNP anyway.

Interest alone on our federal debt last year was well over $300 billion. It may be a miniscule percentage of the GNP, but that's not what we should be comparing it to. It's already at more than 10% of our current tax revenue. Just to pay off the interest on the debt. ANd interest rates now are still extremely low (and much of our debt is in flexible rate loans). At our current deficit levels, and the rate interest rates are increasing, it won't be long before just paying off the interest requires 1/4 of our tax revenue. That's not a good way to run a country.

What a comprehensive carbon tax may do is stem the loss of manufacturing jobs overseas, and stem the trade imbalance which is as much a function of oil imports as it is manufactured goods. But having a floating international currency market should also self-correct trade imbalances. Why it hasn't may have more to do with fiscal/monetary policy and politics than our dependence on foreign oil.

I'm all for a carbon tax. I just think we should also have a petro tax to account for the additional hidden costs of our oil dependence, rather than paying them with income taxes. If I make more than my neighbor, but use no petroleum at all (my wife and I together may use a total of 10-15 gallons a year, only as diesel blended into our cars in the winter. Tractor is electric, boiler runs on homebrew), I still pay much more than my neighbor for those hidden costs of our oil dependence, even if he has two SUVs, and spends all evening riding around his yard on an ATV. Part of the reason I advocate a petro tax is purely for fair taxation - it's something that should be a use-tax.

 

[nh mike]

My main complaint about public transportation is the time factor. It takes longer to commute via public transportation than to drive.

In some cases yes, in other cases no.

10 years ago, when I was an engineer, I worked for a while at Stone & Webster in Boston - while living up here in the seacoast of NH. FOr the first few weeks, I drove to work, since that's what I was accustomed to doing. Between the long drive through heavy traffic, driving through the city traffic, trying to find a parking space at one of the lots in the city within walking distance of S&W (which were *expensive*), it took me about 90 minutes each way. So I started parking at a T-station out in the suburbs, and riding the T in. Time? About 90 minutes. Then I discovered I could take a bus from a bus station about 5 minutes from my home, and get dropped off about a 4 minute walk from S&W. Time? About 70 minutes, and I could sleep or read the entire trip. Cost? $50/week - about half or less of what it was costing me between gas, mileage on the car, and parking costs.

But, I realize it doesn't always work out that way. I could take a shuttle into the university I work at now, but then I wouldn't have the freedom to come home exactly when I want, etc..

If I still worked in a city though, I'd definitely want to take public transportation - can save yourself an ulcer.

Yet another issue, is the people who frequent public transportation. In your car, you don't have: panhandlers, sellers of bootlegged cds, smelly people, etc.

You mean in your car you don't get free entertainment!

 

[Tin Man]

nh mike

The carbon tax I propose IS on all fossil fuel related goods/services. It can also be administered by the IRS. We don't need a syndicate of beleaguered nations to have such authority. Remember oil for food? Using the US economic power by adding the tax to goods from countries who do not control their carbon use is a good start.

There are hidden costs to maintaining Europe's defense. They should pay taxes to the US government according to your analysis. How about the hidden costs of maintaining a free economy? Lets collect taxes for that too. Oh, and the Internet, printing up dollars, etc. Lets get all the hidden stuff out. Even tax those that collect government benefits without working for a living and can - Kentucky is full of them!

Lower taxes don't mean they are low at all. They are probably too high. If 10% of our taxes go to service our debt, why does 30-50% or more of our income go to service the government and its social/welfare programs? Where else can you get restraint on unlimited promises and spending than by tightening the purse-strings? Its easy to imagine a 110% tax not alleviating all the problems of the world, let alone the perpetual increases in taxes over the last 100 or so years.

Seek a bit more compromise in your positions. It does you better.

TM

 

[TornadoRed]

1. The single-rate income tax *only* helps the wealthy, at the expense of everyone else. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or misinformed.

A comprehensive single-rate tax would be better for all, I think, because it would end so many deductions. Also, with a single standard deduction it would still be progressive, if that's what you want. The 1986 tax reform act, while it didn't go far enough, was a very good effort; nothing since then deserves to be called "reform".

2. This mentality of not wanting a new tax, no matter what, is unfortunately the reality that we have to deal with - most people don't pay attention long enough to understand that they wouldn't be paying more tax overall (on average), they just assume it must mean someone wants to take more of their money.

Maybe that's because the same folks who want a new tax are usually the same ones who 1) always want to tax more and spend more, and 2) always vote against tax cuts.

 

[TornadoRed]

The problem with a road tax is that it is applied to all fuels equally, so increasing it wouldn't do anything to promote the use of alternatives.... I would be in favor of increasing the road tax as well, to pay for those things - but separate from the petro tax.

The alternatives are already subsidized, so I'm not sure I agree with your objection. Now if plug-in electric cars ever become popular, then we can talk about how to tax them, and the same with fuel cells or hydrogen or whatever. But they will always be a niche, I think, and so will ethanol and biodiesel.

(Until nuclear fusion electricity generation, and then we can switch almost completely away from liquid transportation fuels.)

 

[nicklockard]

TM, I like the idea of a carbon tax too...for the same reasons you mentioned. It is technology neutral, it pushes for *both* alternative fuels that release less atmospheric carbon AND carbon dioxide sequestration...the market will sort out the variables as to what exact balance is economically best if the tax is simple and straightforward.

Also, in your proposal, it will level the playing field, as essentially India and China get a huge free ride based on their export relationship to us....since we are the marketplace to the world, why don't we dictate a sensible tax that is fair to all technologies, neutral toward carbon source, transparent in implementation, and heads us in the right direction! Tell me more!

But! as you alluded to:

Why it hasn't may have more to do with fiscal/monetary policy and politics than our dependence on foreign oil.

We absolutely MUST resist the urge to inflate our way out of debts by manipulating monetary policies, as has been the regular practice in the past...nhmike, the service to the debt might be high now, but it has been higher before, and past administrations have whipped out the old trusty method of monkeying with monetary policies (fed chairman) to just inflate our way out of paying full price on those treasury notes....this has been done many times in a regular cycle since shortly after the civil war.

The only way for a carbon tax to work is to set it up as TM outlines, then to not screw with monetary policy! IOW: keep our damned hands out of the cookie jar! If not, we'd end up screwing ourselves as well as our creditors because that would form a tremendous hegemonic monopoly....and you can be certain our trading partners would react viciously in the economic realms.