Why not have a carbon tax if that will be helpful?

We have over 21 million government employees (city, state, and federal) and we also have over 64 million people who are dependent on our Governments. That's over 1/3rd of our total working force. We have been running trillion dollar deficits lately. People do not have an incentive to give our Government any more monies. I would hope that people get the message of becoming a bit more conservative (I think that is what is happening anyway) on how they spend their energy. It seems that we have been running around with credit cards and thinking things will get paid eventually. This has to stop and we should demand it from our government also.

BTW - The Government makes more money off of oil than oil companies. I think that is already a carbon tax.

If man-made global warming was taken seriously by its supporters they would advocate genuine solutions such as adding small amounts of iron to the oceans to cause the microscopic plants to multiply and absorb the carbon dioxide back into the biosphere whence it originally came.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil%E2%80%A6

A solution both practical and inexpensive.

Failing that, they would advocate replacing the base load electrical power generation with mass produced nuclear power plants as one of the quickest, cheapest and most effective means of reducing carbon emissions.

If its supporters don't take it seriously, why should anyone else?

Why bother with a carbon tax when the solution is so cheap?

I must add, using revenue to solve existing funding problems buys few votes and is unlikely to happen, sad to say.

I'd almost favor an additional exise tax on gasoline more to go directly to pay for the military costs of keeping oil supply lines open. Then maybe we'd get a truer picture of what foreign oil really costs, there would be an additional incentive to conserve by driving less and using more fuel efficient modes of transportation, more linkage to the needs of our military veterans, and maybe in time the lower cost of gasoline due to supply and demand would offset the tax.

The exise tax could be set up on a sliding scale along with oil industry subsidies to stablize the price of gasoline at a managable level so we don't have as many ups and downs. When the exise tax is lowered due to the pump price limits, the subsidies are cut by an amount to offset the loss in exise tax revenue. The oil company's margins are stablized and they also contribute to the military costs required to keep them operating.

Just a thought I'm throwing out there. I don't like new taxes any more than the next guy, but we KNOW the benefits our military provides, that a lot of the costs are to maintain oil supplies and that we need to use less by any number of means. A carbon tax, on the other hand, is a little too nebulous for me.

Because it will never help anything but make a few people rich! The thought of any tax for this unproven farce is sickening. That's all this hype is about is money and not the enviroment.

So you think the money will just go to helpful feel good stuff and lower other taxes, You need a lot of education.

When Casinos came to Missouri they lied and told the voters that the tax money would go to the schools. Here 10 years later, some of it is finally going to schools and nobody knows where all the tax money went the last 10 years. Government is such a joke and you want to just give them more money for nothing!

NO CARBON LIE TAX!!!!

A tax slows the multiplier effect of cash flow, ie it reduces the money in an economy. There has to be a good cause for a tax.

A revenue-neutral carbon tax can reduce global warming with minimal effect on an overall economy.

A carbon tax, well designed, can reduce global warming. But a tax just to increase government revenue will actually reduce government revenue.

The increased taxation would probably result in energy prices going up. Many people don't like spending money on the environment.

If it can be reliably demonstrated to work to correct a PROVEN problem then sure I would likely agree to that and MUCH MORE.

However AGW is NOT PROVEN. While we can and do debate about what the evidence appears to support, it is NOT PROVEN. Thus givne the probable negative impacts of a carbon tax I will not nor will I ever support it.

Production is the primary source for the creation of wealth in the word. A carbon tax is a tax (in every possible sense of the word) on production. when you limit production you limit the creation of wealth which be default drives increase in poverty and aids in lowering the standard of living for common people.

Of course who really cares about the common people? Let them eat CAKE! lol down comes the blade...

Because a carbon tax would cost politicians votes.

well for one pretty much the energy making business it privatized meaning is not public . so corporations would pretty much pay their way out or even bribe or something like that nevertheless i belive this policy may be already in the political agenda . but one ting must be understood and that is it could take years in order for this to become law

the more taxes the better and the higher the better, personally I think we should give all our money to the government, they seem to spend wisely