“Johnny Honda is onto something. Perhaps we should turn it into a “pledge.” “I pledge to keep my carbon footprint smaller than Al Gore’s.”

I hereby volunteer to keep my carbon footprint below that of Sting and Bono.
Obviously we are setting ourselves tough targets but someone needs to take a lead. :)

Tonyb

I think what cap n’ trade (or “tax n’ crap”, whatever) might do is expand welfare to a global scale whereby the people of the 3rd world will become totally dependent receiving money to NOT use their own energy resources, (by them selling us their “carbon credits”), so that rich elitists can then take control of those resources. That will prevent 3rd world countries from having any hope of ever becoming rich thus sentencing them to huge populations, poverty and disease forever. Add in the bio-fuel mandate and you can add starvation to the list.

Are you listening in Nigeria? Why wait, start printing up those carbon credits right now! (and to show respect for Sheryl, print them on toilet paper).

You are probably right, but therein lies the dilema. If energy is taxed to make it too expensive, and the revenue from this tax is then given back to those who would be unable to purchase it, then suddenly they will be able to purchase it, thus defeating the whole purpose of the exercise. Emissions will never decrease under this scenario.

When I said that cap and trade marginalises the poor, I was referring to the idealized or pure concept of cap and trade. I understand that the current bill is loaded with just such contingencies that you refer to. Therefore it won’t work.

How big a house does one need?

About 20 sq ft per person. Room enough for a bed a chair and a very small cook stove.

–

And if they feed you at the communal tables down the corridor, your cell (er, house) for you and youe entire family only needs to be 6 ft wide x 8 ft long …

Actually – yes I do.

We have the example of Zimbabwe to show what can be done if we really get serious.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archives/2009/07/meeting_the_tar.html

About 20 sq ft per person. Room enough for a bed a chair and a very small cook stove.

I like it!

It’s high time that Gore and his Hollywood Hypocrites got called on it. May the shovel-ready material hit the fan.

Vincent,

You said “It should be clear from this description that the poor will be able to purchase less goods and services because the energy that underpins their creation will be artificially made scarce. ”

Well, this is true. However, you’re missing the other part of this and that is that part of those massive energy revenues will be most likely redistributed back to low-income people within developed nations. You don’t seriously believe that governments are going to make it harder for low-income people by making things more expensive for them, do you?

George

“………………………. Nor has anybody ever found direct evidence that ‘carbon’ is causing any climate changes, so the whole thing is just a load of crap anyway.”

Hence, my earlier comment about my septic tank capacity. :)

Yeah. The aim of the Club of Rome lurking in the background (Tony B Liar is a member) is to institute world government. There will be no co2 tax havens to emigrate to. In the big scheme, it’s felt that we’re better off having all the dirty industry and the concomitant pollution, health and social welfare issues around it hived off to the near and far east. This will leave the west to thrive on hi tech services and research and development. Ho Ho.

The truth is, the populations of the west are going to get shafted, and the jet setters will go to live somewhere warm and tropical when the going gets cold.

I’m saving hard for a bit of land within 9 degrees of the equator, in a culturally rich, religiously tolerant country with no oil reserves to worry about defending. I like walking anyway.

But I don’t believe in class warfare or in punishing success. Nor has anybody ever found direct evidence that ‘carbon’ is causing any climate changes, so the whole thing is just a load of crap anyway.

Lettuce begin by taxing 90% of Hollywood’s money.
Then continue by taking all of New York’s money earned – say, just picking an arbitrary source – by speculating in stocks.
Then we could tax 50% of any money given by the federal government to any receiptant of a non-defense federal W-2, starting with a 75% surcharge on Congress and the White House.

You win the virtual Grammy! (Yank music award)

Aww Geeee, thank you!
I’d just like to say I couldn’t have achieved this without my tireless hardworking support staff, and my BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT!

More than she’ll ever save in emissions control I’ll bet.

Don’t forget about the IOC, International Olympic Committee. Not only do they hold these carbon intensive games every 4 years but they spend the preceding year running carbon intensive qualifications.

Don’t forget about FIFA. Constantly holding international events of 22 players running constantly for 90 minutes exhaling all that polluting CO2. Not to mention all the elites that attend the events to scream and sing at the top of their CO2 exhaling lungs.

Then there’s the NCAA, MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, CFL, MLS, IRL, NASCAR and the Ringling Brothers & Barnum and Bailey Circus!!!!

The point I was trying to make is not that socialism worked, it obviously did not. Dennis Healey famously bragged that he would tax the rich until the pips squeaked, and promptly raised the higher band of income tax to 80%, with another 18% surcharge for unearned income (aka interest). Unsurprisingly, this drove those wealthy enough to afford it to emigrate.

No, I was trying to highlight how a government that purports to represent the working classes has passed legislation to penalise their consumption, and that in the wider, global sense, the proposed cap and trade legislation marginalises the poor and benefits the rich. Therefore it is the antithesis of socialism.

An unstated hypothesis is that people like Gore are like the plutocrats and barons of old who lorded it over the poor. In the middle ages there were usury laws. In the po mo age we will have carbon credits. Perhaps one would have more success with ones senators if these simple truths were pointed out.

A few generations ago, the UK labour party was a party that unashamedly promoted socialism.

Under these socialists (Labour), personal income tax on the very rich went up to 75%, and even over 90% of income (1950-1963).

Of course, the rich, being sensible folk, and able to afford it, moved away from the UK. And took their money with them.

Which brings up the subject of “leakage”. If government legislation makes it more expensive to do business, then the object of that legislation will “leak” to jurisdictions where conditions are less onerous (see example above).

What you will find with a carbon tax based on wealth, is the rich moving to poorer regions, to avoid the tax. ( I am assuming that a countries emissions cuts will be dictated by the per capita amount of wealth in the country).

So, you heard it here first. Buy land in North Korea. Prices are sure to sky rocket.

Did I hear you say that eventually all countries will be equally wealthy? Lets forget for a moment that even in communist regimes, there were internal regions that were poorer than the group. Instead, think of a CO2 Switzerland, where there are no CO2 reporting laws. And that’s where the rich will be.

Socialism attempts to redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, usually by taxation or nationalisation. But wealth is not simply measured in currency, it is measured in goods and services that can be purchased. It should be clear from this description that the poor will be able to purchase less goods and services because the energy that underpins their creation will be artificially made scarce. The wealthy don’t care because they can afford to purchase carbon certificates.

There is yet a further benefit for the wealthy. The extra cost of purchasing these certificates may seem on the surface to be a penalty, a cost they have to incur to consume. But this ignores the fact that this cost actually buys something else. It buys the exclusion of the poor from rivalrous goods. By rivalrous I mean something like a vacation resort in which, beyond a certain number, individuals become crowds that compete with each other for limited services, like airports, beach space, restaurant etc. A system that imposes energy rationing by pricing will push the poor into marginal facilities, while the rich will be able to enjoy their new found exclusivity. The poor will be marginalised for the benefit of the rich. This is not socialism, it is the complete opposite.

A few generations ago, the UK labour party was a party that unashamedly promoted socialism. Their vision then was more and bigger factories, bigger and better wages for the working class, and more and better vacation opportunities. Their vision was one of optimism towards ever greater consumption by the working classes. By stark contrast, the UK is ruled by a twisted mutation of that former party, now calling itself New Labour. The vision of this party is the exact opposite now. After waiting half a century for the ability to enjoy affordable travel to any country in the world, a New Labour government is now telling the working classes this must stop. A Labour government! This is a government that is unashamedly promoting less consumption for the poor, and the rich can do what they want as long as they buy their carbon certificates from the government.

This is the government of the UK, but it will soon be the government of the US.

This is not socialism. The closest history can offer is the plutocracies of ancient rome, or the feudal barons of the middle ages.

Workers of the world unite!

BTW, I am not a socialist.