“The government is running a massive deficit as it is, and borrowing – at interest – to pay for current expenses. Social Security and Medicare are going to explode starting about ten years from now.”
-I wouldn’t argue with you on these points.

“And somehow, Congress is going to keeps its mitts off “my” money? For as long as the energy costs are being artificially increased?”
-You are correct in suggesting that selectively taxing companies is a market manipulation. The logic is that manipulating the carbon market is necessary. I never suggest that this is or isn’t the case. My point is that this kind of revenue neutral proposal could really have legs.

“‘Politicall smart’ is another way of saying a lie.”
-Yes, almost always.

“Do you really want to base the policy you favor on a lie?”
-Whatever policy you prefer, you can rest assured that someone is selling it with lies. In any case, I never say that I favor such a proposal. Please read carefully.

In a dream world. “Politicall smart” is another way of saying a lie. Do you really want to base the policy you favor on a lie?

Putting aside the scrambled logic of the first clause, everyone does not agree that less carbon in the atmosphere would not hurt us. If the cost of lessening the amount of carbon in the atmosphere is greater than the benefit produced, then we are hurt. We’ve reached the point where “foreign oil” is the last refuge of scoundrels. It’s been over thirty years since politicians have been buying votes with that bugbear, and in thirty years we have increased our dependence on foreign oil.

And anyone who thinks that ANY tax will be revenue-neutral – I can only shake my head. I understand people who will lie in order to get their political program into effect. I don’t understand people who believe the lies.

Think about this: if parking ticket fines were “revenue-neutral” and the city gave you back the money you paid in fines, would you stop parking illegally? And please – a tax on “emitters” is a tax on consumers, so don’t even go there.

Unbelievable, a response like that coming on a scientific (policy) blog….absolutely unbelievable !

This world is in no way in an environmental crisis, it is in a political crisis and thought processes that disregard initial scientific truth will lead us into what politicians (and their leaders, lobbyists) want.

Taxation depresses creativity and increases control.

We are in a battle of minds and it looks like our spirits are being beaten (to a pulp !).

That is indeed a strange statement. One *can* agree with the “science of climate change” (what there is of it) and still not agree that “less carbon in the atmosphere would not hurt us.”

If the sun drops down to Maunder Minimum values for the next 5-20 decades, it would be good to have a lot of carbon in the atmosphere.

On the other hand, governments can do incredibly stupid things. If there is indeed a modest tax on carbon, coupled with a reduction in income taxes, at least that would be one of the less-stupid things the federal government could do. It would at least be better than cap-and-trade.

What a strange sentence. I don’t “disagree with the science of climate change.” I disagree with SOME of the science of climate change. Also, less carbon MAY WELL hurt us by decreasing plant productivity. We are undoubtedly benefitting, foodwise, by the higher CO2 levels. See CO2 Science.org for hundreds of articles that demonstrate this.

Also, instead of concentrating in the area of disagreement you concentrate on the what everyone agrees upon.

answer: yes, this would get my attention.