I'm not running out of arguments. You keep the same drum beat of asking for more taxes but are vague and or apologetic about the costs. All R & D spending will be limited and we've already gone over this. I'm sure some companies see "tremendous opportunities", except it's a shame that other opportunities have to be heavily taxed because without the tax apparently those opportunites aren't so good.
I've been very clear about the scale of the problem and the costs. Making the transition to a new energy system will not be cheap, but it is crucial. The far-reaching costs of climate change will also not be cheap.
Energy R&D is crucial (even if a little inefficient) but it is very, very underfunded at the moment -- it will be even more underfunded if the House has its way in the US.
As for taxes, I think we've discussed this enough already and can see our divergence of opinion: 1) these 'other opportunities' are currently heavily subsidized, let's start by eliminating this situation (and you agree on this); 2) the concept of a carbon price (or tax if you prefer) is to reflect the true cost of CO2 emissions, which is and will be borne by the public (and you disagree on this). These "taxes" are not technology specific, but emission specific. Alternative energy sources that emit CO2 would be "taxed", just like coal-based emissions would be taxed.
It doesn't make any sense? That's why it is not used in real life. It's "no cost" but we need to increase taxes (AKA "costs") to help feeble solutions (solar/wind) that don't even compete with nuclear power. Once a breakthrough occurs in R & D I can assure you that profit seekers will be seeking it out.
I'll come back to the "it's not used in real life" in another post (that was the point of the Rupert Murdoch article).
I agree that market uptake will drive change. We simply disagree on how, and especially for what reason, this should happen.
How is it nothing to allow options to compete against each other? How is it nothing to support R & D on new technologies? How about tax credits for research and development. It doesn't have to go live on a large scale with the general public as a guinea pig.
I was responding to our differences of opinion on the science which is kind of important since basing a premise on what people like me find a false science has an effect on how drastic carbon taxes would be applied.
And this is the crux of our disagreement. If you "believed" that GHG emissions had an adverse impact on the environment and the economy, you would be taking a different stance. A tax on tobacco is fine, we know the adverse effects. A tax on SO2 emissions is fine, we know the adverse effects. A tax on CO2? Well if you don't believe there are any adverse effects, you won't agree with it, and you won't be inclined to see that our current energy markets are anything but a level playing field.
If you believe in man-made global warming then Canada should be a perfect place to live.
Haha.
If people can save money while reducing emissions because their industry can do that, then great! I'm sure other industries can't be carbon neutral and produce at the same level without fossil fuels.
BTW there aren't too many posters on my side so I'm answering lots of people at once.
The left tends to that have that effect on us. We look at them as envious people that want to stamp their feet on us like in 1984 and make us miserable and defeated. It tends to irritate us.
