Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The differance between you and Trakar is that he is a conservative, and you are a 'Conservative'. The former gave us an Interstate Highway System, cleaner air, and our most of our National Parks. The latter has given us 'birther' conspiracies, and economic theories that do more than just border on lunacy.
When is the last time Stanford ever quoted a republican in a positive way? Stanford is no friend of republicans and I'd bet the two Marks who wrote the article are not conservatives. The first word in the post title tells you everything about the direction of the post. It doesn't say "noted economist" or "former Reagan appointee. It says ....REPUBLICAN... The grain of truth that the two Marks were forced to admit in the 2nd or 3rd paragraph is that republican party doesn't support or condone Schultz's long standing crazy opinions about global warming but that doesn't stop the two Marks from trying to make the point that Schultz used to work for Republican presidents.
You have a very strange concept of "liberal."
George P. Shultz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hoover Institution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you're understandings are that fringe, I daresay your considerations of such things are largely irrelevent.
Difference between you and me, I don't need wiki to tell me what a liberal is.
True, you don't seem to rely upon facts or reality when deciding what you choose to believe.
Well, I have many in my family who consider themselves conservatives, and admire exactly those people and claim their conservatism on the basis of the works of those men. The conservative ideology they claim is that of conserving the best of this nation for all the citizens of this nation.
Difference between you and me, I don't need wiki to tell me what a liberal is.
True, you don't seem to rely upon facts or reality when deciding what you choose to believe.
You wouldn't know a fact if alex trebek spelled it out for you. If you support obama you most diffidently don't know what facts are.
Clinton pushed it and it went nowhere.
Clinton's 1993 btu tax wasn't properly designed nor would it have been effective at achieving it's purpose. The largest flaw was that it not even partially revenue neutral. Shultz's concept of a carbon tax includes the understanding that you have to combine such taxes with refunds and benefits that remove most if not all of the impact from such taxes upon the individuals who would be most impacted by them.
Yes that was the BTU tax. Thanks for clarifying.
From your description, it sounds like utilities and other carbon emitters would not be allowed to pass the tax on to consumers. Bad idea.
Clinton's 1993 btu tax wasn't properly designed nor would it have been effective at achieving it's purpose. The largest flaw was that it not even partially revenue neutral. Shultz's concept of a carbon tax includes the understanding that you have to combine such taxes with refunds and benefits that remove most if not all of the impact from such taxes upon the individuals who would be most impacted by them.
Yes that was the BTU tax. Thanks for clarifying.
From your description, it sounds like utilities and other carbon emitters would not be allowed to pass the tax on to consumers. Bad idea.
I'm not sure how you get that from my statement, please explain.
Yes that was the BTU tax. Thanks for clarifying.
From your description, it sounds like utilities and other carbon emitters would not be allowed to pass the tax on to consumers. Bad idea.
I'm not sure how you get that from my statement, please explain.
Who are the individuals that would be most impacted by the carbon tax?
Yes that was the BTU tax. Thanks for clarifying.
From your description, it sounds like utilities and other carbon emitters would not be allowed to pass the tax on to consumers. Bad idea.
I'm not sure how you get that from my statement, please explain.
Who are the individuals that would be most impacted by the carbon tax?
Stanford's George Shultz on energy: It's personal
-George Shultz leads a group preparing to propose a federal tax on carbon to slash U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and oil consumption, a seemingly unlikely policy from a Republican Party statesman.
George Shultz was an economist in the Eisenhower administration, as well as secretary of the Treasury and Labor, and director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Nixon administration. Under President Ronald Reagan, he was secretary of state for almost seven years. Despite the reluctance of his fellow Republicans to embrace action on global warming, Shultz is confident that when the time is right conservatives will support a carbon tax, for a number of reasons...
...I've been worried about our energy problem for a long time. President Eisenhower said that if we imported more than 20 percent of the oil we use, we were asking for trouble with national security. By 1973, I'm secretary of the Treasury and we have the Arab oil embargo. They seek to deny us oil in order to change our policies. I thought then, you know, President Eisenhower knew something.
...If you speak out about something, you've got to walk the talk, you've got to do it yourself. The biggest consumer of oil is the automobile, so I've been interested in driving a car that is more efficient. My solar panels have long since paid for themselves by the savings in electricity costs. I have my electric car running on electricity from the sun, which costs me nothing and there is plenty of it here. So, I'm driving on sunshine. Take that, Ahmadinejad!
...We have to have a system where all forms of energy bear their full costs. For some, their costs are the costs of producing the energy, but many other forms of energy produce side effects, like pollution, that are a cost of society. The producers don't bear that cost, society does. There has to be a way to level the playing field and cause those forms of energy to bear their true costs. That means putting a price on carbon.
...Historically, Republicans have often protected the environment. President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency. We dealt with the ozone layer under President Reagan and with acid rain under the first President Bush, both with bipartisan support. People making careers out of disagreeing with each other is a very recent phenomenon.
There are three major issues raised in the energy area. One is national security. We know that we don't want to be vulnerable to sources of supply that are uncertain or to send billions of dollars to regimes that are not our friends. Then there's the economy. Every spike in the price of oil has put our economy in a recession. We want to have more diverse energy resources so our economy won't be so vulnerable to the oil market.
Then there's the environment, which has many aspects. One of these is the air you breath, which Tom Steyer and I emphasized in the "No on 23" campaign. Another is that the globe is warming, which is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. The arctic is melting. If you could bring together the constituencies concerned with national security, the economy and the environment – both local and global – that would be a potent coalition...
Much more at the Stanford News site, I encourage everyone, regardless of your political persuasions or ideological preferences to read this man's considerations and opinions: Stanford's George Shultz on energy: It's personal
.Al Gore could become world's first carbon billionaire
Al Gore, the former US vice president, could become the world's first carbon billionaire after investing heavily in green energy companies.
Last year Mr Gore's venture capital firm loaned a small California firm $75m to develop energy-saving technology.
The company, Silver Spring Networks, produces hardware and software to make the electricity grid more efficient.
The deal appeared to pay off in a big way last week, when the Energy Department announced $3.4 billion in smart grid grants, the New York Times reports. Of the total, more than $560 million went to utilities with which Silver Spring has contracts
Can you guys walk me through how AGW is causing a 30% drop in ocean pH and turning the oceans acidic?
Ergo my comment. Unless a tax of any kind is allowed to be considered a cost of doing business and subsequently passed on to the consumer, it will only penalize business and will lead to the demise of many of them. And where's the benefit of exempting or crediting these business if it would only counter the intended effects of such a tax?
Can you guys walk me through how AGW is causing a 30% drop in ocean pH and turning the oceans acidic?
I'm not sure how you get that from my statement, please explain.
Who are the individuals that would be most impacted by the carbon tax?
For the most part, this is the lowest income section of our society, where any increases in costs of living can be issues of survival. When we step up above this there should be some offset but I don't think I'd go so far as to say that everyone would require compensatory cash offsets. I would think that funding contributions to social programs, might well be included as substantive net revenue neutral aspects of such system. I'm sure that we can find some complimentary offsets for small businesses, as well as carbon tax credits and breaks for major corporations who are willing to invest in carbon bonds or energy efficiency and alternative energy improvements, technologies and R&D.
Of course, the transition away from previously sequestered carbon emitting resources and technologies, as well as compensating for the public social costs of not applying true cost accounting to the subsidized profits earned by the exploitation of these resources and technologies over the last century and a half of market distortion, are the primary goals of the carbon tax in the first place.
