If climate change is a scam by governments to tax why is this a better strategy than current forms of tax?

You asking a room full of smokers if there's smoke in the room!!! ~If they want to keep smoking, what do you think they're gonna say??

What surprises me is that you're in the Same room!! ..nose running, eyes watering & you still think you need to ask them if the room's smoky.... really???

Anyone that agrees with No is just nodding their head because they can't get a word out without choking or smokers eyes are just that starry!!!

Why don't you just Decide For Yourself!!! Take look around you~proof is in the pudding!!

Climate change per se is not a con but laying the blame at our door certainly is.

However to your points about taxation etc: here in the Uk the term 'green taxes' is used frequently so maybe there is a giveaway there. It crossed many people's minds as to where the government was going to get extra revenue from and plug the gap left by the attempts to stop people smoking and drinking. Green tax was the obvious answer and as we see these taxes piled upon businesses who may 'pollute' with CO2 as much as they like so long as they pay (so how credible is the argument then?) and upon householders who struggle to pay for their gas and electricity. I am sure there are other examples, but the lovely Al Gore is turning billions with his carbon trading business, so when people accuse the sceptics of believing the lies of Big Oil they should take into account Big Carbon on the other side.

Scientists have done rather well out of this I think. There are never any research grants going to those who tell us that everything's OK really, so as long as you come up with the right answer there's gold in them thar hills.

'Green' companies are making a fortune here, windfarm companies are getting huge subsidies to build their enormous energy-sucking (in manufacture) turbines which I doubt they would be making if they had to make it pay alone. Wind power is, as most sensible people now realise, a waste of money and destroys the precious countryside that you'd think environmentalists would be keen to preserve.

I suppose it has to be pointed out that the term 'green' does have another meaning.

Remember knowledge is power. The basic premise that humans cause "climate change" is wrong. The base climatological data was manipulated. At best we (humans and their automobiles) contribute 1% of the 5% of the carbon dioxide part of the so-called greenhouse gases. The other 95% of the greenhouse gases are from other "natural" sources.

Before this was known, the politicians went off ranting an raving. It reminds me of the "flat-earth people" hundreds of years ago. Get ALL the facts before making a decision.

Have you noticed there has been NO talk of the Kyoto Agreement since "world economy" is way down.

It is a mathematical certainty, no government can "tax" itself into prosperity.

"Climate Change" isn't about making money. It is about redistribuiting it. It is about taking it from heavily regulated businesses and using it fund big government projects. The people pay this tax in the end in higher prices as well as directly paying the tax. Some people are stupid enough to think that the oil companies will pay it. It is about gaining a stranglehold on capitalism. It is about corrupt politicians salivating over demonizing another industry to fool the gullible to tax it. It has always been that. If it weren't for that, AGW would be a cute little argument between opposing scientists rather than desperate politicians and their gullible sycophants and useful idiots.

If the US government did in fact offset tax increases, that would be one thing but they aren't. They are desperately looking for ways to fund their excessive spending. Baccheous pointed out that BC has a revenue neutral tax. I am skeptical of that because it is so easy to play games with the books. It would be an exception to the rule but if they were to do that I wouldn't have a big problem with them. They would however not be a very progressive tax. I tend to think the lower income peopel don't have enough stake in our government funding anyway. I worry when the lower 50 per cent pays almost nothing and votes for the other 50% to pay. It is an unsustainable and dangerous game of theft IMO.

This is actually a good question and highlights one of the problems that I have with the alarmists. If they were simply talking about having a CO2 tax and reducing the income tax by the same amount of revenue generated from a CO2 tax, then I would not have a problem with this approach. Is this, however what they have proposed?

Clearly not. They have proposed that Cap and trade system, whereby they tax the corporations with some psuedo-market driven tax. They do this under the pretense that the taxes will not make their way back to the consumer. Have you known corporations to take new taxes onto themselves because they are just that generous to the consumer? I have not. Further, their assinine idea of C&T can possibly lead to some disasterous results if not well managed. If they limit the amount of CO2 too quickly for the market to adjust, then the cost of gas, coal, and energy in general will skyrocket. If they keep the CO2 amount too high, then the cost will not change at all, but CO2 will also not be reduced. This is all dependent upon the gov't efficiency, something I certainly would not bet the house on. The other things that have been proposed include taxes levied against gasoline. I have yet to hear anyone propose an increase in CO2 taxes with a commiserate decrease in another form of tax.

So you question is actually a misnomer, because they have not been proposing a tax decrease in other areas, only a disguised CO2 tax addition. Now the fact that they do not need to raise taxes and and can handle this "problem" without raising the overall taxes we pay demonstrates their lack of integrity and some serious flaws in their logic. The fact that they do this by making some pretense to the end of the world, should have you concerned about their honesty.

So they are saying that you should pay more taxes that are not necessary to lessen CO2 because the world is going to come to an end if you do not. If this does not cause someone to question, then I should try stating this in their language. Bahhh Bahhhh Bahhh

Thor,

That right those silly people who can't live without heat in the winter and driving to work. How lazy and selfish are they? The ones who really annoy me are those darn semi's. I mean who needs groceries? People can be so selfish.

Hey Dook,

While you are talking about lies, you have failed to even attemtp to answer the question nro take note of the fact that the part of JinZ's answer where he talks of hwo you alrmist want to tax us and that you are trying to create new taxes with no lessening in taxes to balance it out is purely assinine. You also fail to recognize a key component about both his and my answer. That is very simply, that we would not be opposed to a taxing of CO2 if a corresponding tax decrease in otehr areas were given. In other words, it is the incessant need of the warmer politicians to more heavily tax the middle class that bothers us. You could have a solution that we would both accept, but it is your side that seeks out this higher taxation solution. Thus even in the complete absense of evidence that catastrophic AGW is occurring, you could have support from even those who disagree if your politicians were tax-crazed charlatans. Sleep well knowing that it is your side that is unwilling to broker a good solution to the supposed problem you so desperately care about..

Consider there's a specific figure in earnings and a person bringing in less is exempt from paying income tax.

- Somehow it applies regardless of personal overheads - things like rent, mortgage, fuel & utility bills, groceries, and regional price differences in particular. Then this would give rise to benefit claims for any shortfall - instead of just saying e.g. "mpg for vehicles in this area is lower due to hilly terrain, so your tax exempt earnings are £xtra if you're a driver"...

...And so, if there isn't a way to give people the best value for their money by considering their unique circumstances, all but a few will seem to have to work harder and earn comparatively less like it's an uphill struggle in a losing battle - To me this sounds like a cause for overheating in person & machine alike, words like distress & strain spring to mind - while a better system would oust things like tax from alcohol & tobacco so they do not contribute and are not needed in the scheme of things geared towards a world being conscientious and considerate in light of climate concerns - and the sale of them could be capped per person to the medically advised maximum and to try get around it is to create a financial dilemma with a basis in deceit - one that should resolve itself without any intervention.

So if there's a climate change tax, or any such in-road to the cash flow therein, then ultimately people will have to change to live more harmoniously with the environment, or pay the excess to compensate for it & continue enjoying the life they live as a preference.

At least if there's a move to counter climate change caused by mankind, there's a sense of stability in the future from a charted effort to that end, and any success at it will point the way into an otherwise uncertain future if it's indeed a very real problem - Just look at 'less packaging' & 'paperless banking', 'biodegradable materials' & 'energy saving bulbs', etc., or cars with free/discounted road tax, lower or zero harmful emission engines, photovoltaic panels that may eventually feed back in to the grid, and so on...

Obviously there's still tax on those goods/services and as they improve the rate of taxation should reflect the impact they have on the environment - does this give you a general idea of where I'm coming from,

http://x7f.xanga.com/fabd803629c33141670836/o10452...

As if to say, every other creature, wild not farmed, poses almost no ecological threat - although there could be a problem if mankind hadn't commandeered the environment almost the world over, like elephant populations left unchecked may cause considerable damage to the habitat and endanger other species.

Also, there's this,

http://christianhilton.xanga.com/729155476/just-so...

>Al Gore said when the ice caps start to melt from mans pollution the pacific ocean will rise and flood the coast line of California yet he bought a beach house two years ago on the California cost, what a douche

.

Not douchery. The house is a couple of hundred feet above sea level.

On the other hand, In 2007, Gore’s Tennessee home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 20 average American households for a year. He also used a private plane when promoting his film. Private planes are faaaar more 'ungreen' than commercial jets.

*That's* douchery and the main problem with most climate fascists - it's everybody else that has to do something. They're exempt as they are 'spreading the message.' Pure hypocrisy.

The simplest answer (yet still fairly complete) is that all the anti-science nonsense about man-made global warming being a "con" or a "scam" is nothing much more than a pack of arrogant and stupid copy-cat lies (originally funded by oil companies in the '90s and very badly dumbed down since), and the lower end of the copy-cat denier food chain can be found here at Yahoo Answers, Global Warming. For instance, JimZ, on this page, who cannot spell, rarely manages an answer that is not laced with prefab lies, and almost never cites a real science website.

In other words, the premise of the question is correct: there is no particularly good reason to oppose a change in the mix of tax sources towards raising the price of carbon and lowering the relative price of other things (or as a functionally similar measure, a new revenue neutral emissions tax (tax and refund) that leaves everything else unchanged).

Here is what the real TOP scientists say about climate change:

U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:

http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&...

“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”

http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.htm...

“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”

http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=...

“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”

Climate change is a con, Al Gore said when the ice caps start to melt from mans pollution the pacific ocean will rise and flood the coast line of California yet he bought a beach house two years ago on the California cost, what a douche

initially, after analyzing your submit i choose to stand and clap for that concept of OUR government and OUR money. For some reason, we are transforming into right into a approach of " the government will bail us out" rather than "i'm able to do this with a splash sweat and could". heavily, if we had a finished overthrow of the two the abode and the senate and the clinton/bush aristocracy, we would see genuine substitute. It occurred right here in Indiana the place many mayors have been thrown out jointly with the mayor of Indianapolis. The motivating element became into assets taxes. Now, until human beings understand that the government is redistributing wealth via taking OUR money, we are gonna proceed having those blinders on and being led to slaughter. regrettably, the only answer is a "throw the bums out" mentality for the period of the rustic.