Double Taxation? California Proposes CO2 Taxes In Addition to Guzzler Taxes

I'll add to the chorus here. The author (and I know it's not 009) needs to crawl out from under his rock. Global Warming is real, and humans are partially causing it. We know this because of this funky little crazy thing called SCIENCE. Science is about gathering facts which lead to logical conclusions. Creationism and astrology have no basis in fact, they are based in faith. So comparing them to science, even when trying to be pithy and clever in writing, makes you sound like an idiot. I don't know why I expect more.

A couple points about the article...
There's no inherent problem with the so-called double taxation. When you are talking about large engine polluting vehicle, I'm afraid you just don't get a guaranteed pass on your societal obligations. So business owners who need trucks will be taxed. Boo hoo. They also have probably deducted the cost of their Sport Utility Behemoth thanks to absurd tax laws. Should someone with a gas barbecue or lawnmower be taxed? Well why not, those things (not all of them) can be filthy. And more money is needed for public transportation. Duh. How about using some of these taxes to fund that.

Good point about the other internal combustion engines that are not regulated.

For the record I believe that we create global warning, but there are other ways to limit CO2.

Taxation is not the cure, regulation of the output is the ultimate solution. Basically if it spits out too much crud, then you can't sell it. But give reasonable time lines to get there.

I know the makers say it can't be done, but they also said that in the 1970's about the first wave of regulations. Oddly enough they came up with a solution then (the catalytic converter), and they will come up with some thing now. They have the resources and need the target to shoot for.

"Encouraged by the hysterical ranting of those who claim the small percentage of the CO2 atmospheric load created by human activity"

What crap is this guy talking?

Oh and


FINALLY
California catches up with the rest of the developed world. Pity 49 other states are still running around with sticks and rock weapons.

Was I talking about war? No.
I was making an analogy, saying the US' emissions regs are so out of date and old they are stone age, resulting in a mildly humourous comment.
Why do some Americans get so hung up on WAR and WE'LL BEAT YOU AND EVERYONE BECAUSE WE'RE GOOD AT IT WOO YEAH USA RULES.
War isn't a good thing. And why are you so absolutely sure you'd win?

Tax gas, not CO2 from cars or fuel consumption. However, any taxes collected from motorits should be used for the exclusive benefit of motorists e.g. highway improvement projects. A significantly higher gas tax will reduce consumption and that is GUARANTEED.

"its an unfortunate thing for the innocent people who typically die as a result of war..."

We are moving away from that at least in the long term. The federal government is investing in projects that really signal the removal of the human from the battlefield itself and this replacment is robotics and intelligent aircraft. The Predator aircraft is just the beginning. Not only that, but even the Predator has the capacity to make its own decisions within a certian scope, as it were, without any intervention from a human.

At the present moment they are developing a small about 3 ft aircraft which would act in collision with other aircraft of its kind, the difference is that you would releast thousands of them in a kind of uber swarm tactic, only more efficient because they are in perfect communication with eachother.

The UK.

This article, and the unfortunate rantings of "SoCal" make me ashamed to hail from Southern California. That said, 95% of the greenhouse effect has absolutely nothing to do with C02 output, but rather natural water vapor. Even if we humans were somehow able to curb our carbon dioxide output by half (liberals holding their breath indefinitely would be a good start) it wouldn't make a dimes worth of difference in its effect on the earth's ever changing climate. More and more scientists are concluding that our sun's increased solar activity is having far more to do with the slight warming of our planet (which, by the way, has been steady since 1998) than anything humans have done. Imagine that. Warming cause by that massive nuclear-powered fireball neighbor of ours and not grandma's Buick. As for ideas like "carbon credits" which allow hypocrits like Al Gore and John Edwards to claim they are "carbon neutral" as they travel around the world on private jets and reside in huge mansions, they are nothing more than the modern day equivalent of indulgences paid by the medieval elites to buy their way into heaven regardless of their sins. Think about it... In the spirit of balance and open mindedness, I encourage everyone to watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Youtube as a counter argument to Al Gore's propoganda piece.

For those of you that do not live in California, know that there is nothing, real or fictitious, that the State of California won't try to tax you for.

By the way, Mars is heating up too. I say shut down those rovers NOW and tax the crap out of NASA for putting them there. Have them send a space Prius to replace them or something!

The Great Global Warming Swindle's maker had to make a public apology, for using misleading and out of date data, and for misrepresenting many of the people interviewed. He twisted figures, and in fact is known for basically lying in his documentaries.

...

regardless of whether the warming is NATURAL or man made, our huge consumption and burning of fossil fuels is ADDING to it.

why can't neanderthals SEE this simple fact.

yeah, if all the warming was JUST natural, maybe the polar ice caps would melt in say, 500 years. (just a blink on the geological time scale.)

but WITH OUR HELP, projections are they will melt in 100 years or less.

so yeah, a double tax is FULLY JUSTIFIED. even triple. even QUADRUPLE!!!

if those troglodytes wanna help destroy our coastal cities, make 'em help PAY FOR damages.

My "uneducated right wing ass" Socal? One needs only to read your posts to see who the uneducated person is here. Those last two posts of yours are especially poignant. But that's beside the point. My question to you is which comments of mine make other Californians ashamed that i live here? My comment that 95% of the global greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor? Or that more and more scientist are realizing that increased solar activity is causing warmer temperatures? Which one Socal?
It's sad that any challenge to your pseudo-religious ideas on global warming elicits such a beligerant response. Rather than tolerate "diversity" (something you libs preach about incessantly) of ideas, you wish to banish me from my home state where my family has resided for over 100 years. How tolerant of you. It's so funny how liberals refuse to even debate the issue, as if this imaginary "concensus" is a founding principle of science. At one time there was concensus that the Earth was flat as well. So much for "consensus". My point isn't to completely discount the idea that anthropogenic warming may exist. It very well may. My point is simply to suggest that the jury is still out, and regardless of what libs and scientists gorging themselves on grant money try to ram down our throats, the issue is far from decided. If having an open mind, curiosity and tolerance for the ideas of others is considered a trait of"neanderthals" then so be it. I hope I never evolve to your level of arrogance and ignorance.

strike two.

"Weapons oops"
Brilliant comment "SoCal"! Thanks for contributing such wonderful insights to the forum!

Socal,
Before exiling me from my own state for the heinous crime of holding views different than your own (and I thought we lived in a free democracy), please indulge me in answering the question I posed to you. I'll reiterate (that means I'll say it again), which of my comments in my first post make you ashamed that I am a Californian? My comment that 95% of the global greenhouse effect is the result of water vapor? Or that more and more scientists are realizing that increased solar activity is causing warmer temperatures? Or my assertion that carbon credits are the modern day equivalent of indulgences? Which one Socal?

Since much of this discussion has shifted to the isssue of war, let me say that I am fed up with the political war against motorists and the auto industry.

Amazing. The guy who laments the "decrease in intelligent people in this world" refers to my statement as retarded. Here we go:
1) you can start with N. Scafetta and BJ. West at the Duke University Physics Dept. (hardly a bastion of conservative thinking) whose recent study titled "The phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere Temperature Record" cites solar activity as a leading cause of temperature change. This includes the industrial period you cite.
You should also read MIT professor of Meteorology, Richard Lindzen's article concerning the C02 and it's effect on warming that appeared in Newsweek. Once again, hardly a right-wing rag. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/
2)In your comparison of co2 levels/temperature you are mistaking correlation for causation. My statement, which you yourself acknowledge as factual, makes the point that you can't conveniently discount the sun's effect on climate change in favor of a theory that places increased co2 output as the primary driver of climate change. And as for your assertion that "carbon levels/temperature increases starting at the exact time of the Industrial revolution started, and increasing every year after that" that is simply not true. Do your research.

As for the 95% figure, I should've said "water" not "water vapor". An important distinction, but one I doubt you have the capacity to comprehend anyway.

So, just to clarify, it's your standing that my statements should cause me shame among all Californians and I should leave the state immediately because of two factual statements, one of which you even acknowledge as "obvious"?

Now that's "retarded". If anything, it's liberals such as yourself that should leave the state. It's years of a democratic controlled legislature and liberal policies that have driven this rich state into bankruptcy. It's your leftist way of thinking that accounts for the highest gas prices in the country and is turning parts of it into a third world country with your invitation of millions upon millions of illegal aliens into this state. But according to you, I should leave the state because I choose to keep an open mind and refuse to buy into the hysteria being spouted by Al Gore. Unbelievable.

1995e34, as someone "in the sciences" you should know that carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide are two different molecules. The idea that someone can kill themselves by running their engine in their garage has little to do with the harmful effects vehicle exhaust has on the environment. In the case of the former, the carbon monoxide causes death by displacing oxygen. A depletion or lack of oxygen has nothing to do with global warming, making your comment about using car exhaust to commit suicide completely meaningless to this conversation.
However, your implication that dumping all those gases into the air can't be good is obviously true. No one would argue otherwise. But to believe someone like Al Gore, who would, in turn, have us believe that ocean waves are going to be lapping at the base of the Hollywood sign in ten years and all the cute little polar bears are going to die if we don't drive Priuses and adopt a medieval lifestyle (all except those like him, of course, who can "offset" their extravagant ways through the purchase of carbon credits aka indulgences) is ridiculous.

You're are correct when you suggest it is in the interest of the U.S. to develop alternative energy sources—for environmental as well as geostrategic reasons. Where I take issue is when global warming alarmists resort to hysterics and flat out lies to overstate the cause and threat of anthropogenic global warming in order to scare mindless citizens like "SoCal" into supporting draconian laws and taxes that have little or no consequence on the temperature of the planet, but instead can have harmful effects on our economy—the deeply flawed Kyoto Protocol being a prime example. Real or not (despite what dems say, there IS a debate), anthropogenic global warming is an issue that has been overly politicized and used by leftist activists to cede more power to governments while handcuffing capitalism. Let's try to find a balance that's good for the environment and we as a nation.
As for your characterization of Richard Lindzen as a "joke" I highly doubt your accomplishments "in the sciences" come close. By no means am I a Lindzen cheerleader, or even a fan necessarely, but he does provide a much needed counterweight to the overly dramatic hype machine that, unfortunately, characterizes the media and politics of today.

here is but ONE page of a 30 page thread on GW. for those of you who just mite have gotten bored with the arguments here, go thru all 30 pages.

you can find most of the arguments rehashed, and all the bad ones SHOT DOWN by some smart folks.

http://forums.motortrend.com/70/6307533/the-general-forum/growing-number-of-scientists-reconsidering-global/page25.html