Reason Writers Around Town: Ron Bailey on Carbon Controls

At Chief Executive magazine, Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey reveals how environmental groups and rent-seeking companies have formed a classic Baptist and Bootleggers coalition to push for carbon control laws.

Read all about it here.

Comments

[troll]

i didn't read the article

[Naga Sadow]

To bad, troll. I was a good article.

[KD]

If you're gonna be a troll, couldn't you say something trollish rather than just saying you didn't read the article. It's hard to get worked up about that.

[J sub D]

He's a n00b troll. We should send him to Juanita for instruction.

[J sub D]

I wise man once explained to me, businesses don't pay taxes. Businesses collect taxes. Argue all you wish about what policy should be enacted regarding AGW, but realize this.You are going to pay for it.

[fyodor]

Is the Climate Security Act really such a foregone conclusion? Is there no chance for a simpler carbon tax plan? I used to advocate a carbon tax with a corresponding reduction in other taxes, though, heh, I guess with the government kinda needing some extra bucks now, the corresponding reduction part is less likely than ever....

[KD]

J sub D | October 6, 2008, 3:50pm | #
I wise man once explained to me, businesses don't pay taxes. Businesses collect taxes. Argue all you wish about what policy should be enacted regarding AGW, but realize this.You are going to pay for it.

Yup.

[Pdrama]

Guess we can all invest in innovative emission-reduction companies. All in the good conscious of losing $ first due to inflation and taxes. Yay. Get your AAA beta, whatever that means.

[troll again]

I read the article now.

[Jacob Wilson]

Let's spell it together Chief Executive....Ronald Bailey

[Francisco Torres]

Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey reveals how environmental groups and rent-seeking companies have formed a classic Baptist and Bootleggers coalition to push for carbon control laws.

Which tells me once again that all this AGW nonsense is part of a religion-based effort to bring people towards some sort of redention, before the eyes of... what, Gaia?

[Francisco Torres]

Carbon rationing will hike the price of fossil fuel energy, which will push companies and consumers to conserve energy and seek energy supplies that do not emit greenhouse gases.

Let me tell you what it will do:

a) It WILL hike the price of fossil fuel energy.
b) It will hike the price of goods. ALL goods.
c) It will impoverish people when their adjusted-for-inflation purchasing power has diminished the same rate as those hikes.
d) Politicians (and state worshipers) will blame the free market.
f) It will NOT stem Global Warming - it will simply make people eat less.

Missed anything?

[Francisco Torres]

Carbon rationing hits the poorest Americans hardest. An April 25, 2008, CBO issue summary found that a 15 percent cut in carbon dioxide emissions would be highly regressive.

That should not bother a single environmentalist, who is not going to be poor him or herself. Anyway, poor people should lead from the front in "our" fight against Global Warming (a.k.a. "Climate Change") by having less babies and more abortions... and by dying sooner.

(Who said eugenics was dead? It's called "Environmentalism" now...)

[burnt bridges]

Gentle readers, carbon dioxide is plant food, it ain't a freakin' pollutant.

[Chad]

Wow, this is the most political peice I have seen Ron write in a while. I am very disappointed.

You know what Ron? It is not "rent seeking" when you are lobbying to have your competitors' subsidies lifted. If a cap-and-trade is instituted, and clean Dupont starts whipping dirty Dow Chemical, GREAT! That's exactly what we should desire.

And btw, almost all credible plans for a carbon tax or cap-and-trade involve refunding some or all of the money in the form of an energy rebate, payroll tax reduction, etc - with the express purpose of preventing the regressive nature of the tax you complained about. I know you know this. Why did you leave it out?

Textbook Econ 201: Polluters should pay.

Any conservative or libertarian who objects to this principle doesn't even understand their own ideology.

[hates chad]

nice trolling, chad.

[Colonel_Angus]

Chad:

Because as we have seen lately, fucking around with tax laws as economic manipulation is really a fantastic way to promote good business decisions. Dipshit.

[Chad]

I once was a man from Nantucket...

[The first Chad]

Colonel_Angus | October 6, 2008, 8:59pm | #

Chad:

Because as we have seen lately, fucking around with tax laws as economic manipulation is really a fantastic way to promote good business decisions. Dipshit.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The current financial mess has little if anything to do with any recent "manipulation" of tax laws, though I would agree that the mortgage deduction and the lack of taxes on capital gains with respect to your primary residence contributed. Of course, these are not recent.

If you don't want to use tax laws to control polluters, what method would you choose? Regulations? Extraordinately inefficient. Lawsuits? OK, now I have to bring a lawsuit against everyone on earth, and they have to do the same to me and everyone else. What's 6.5 billion lawsuits squared over two? Heaven for lawyers, hell for us. Or would you just rather settle it with guns? If just one molecule of your CO2 flies on my property, and I can consider you a thief and shoot you on sight? Or should we just ignore the problem, and choke on our own fumes?

Brilliant!

[Chad]

Obviously free market fundmentalism is not the answer. I propose a one time human sacrifice of 3 billion people. This is the sort of good that only government has the power to deliver on and I'd like to finally see leadership or some solid bi-partisian cooperation on this.

[Chad]

I am assuming that you all know that if co2 reaches 500 ppm then we'd all be nearing suffocation levels? so the kill off is already coming, I just propose it be done in a more humane and orderly fashion.

[Trotsky]

I wonder what was the tag price for turning libertarians into enviros ? Really, I'd like to know...

[Sam-Hec]

"I wonder what was the tag price for turning libertarians into enviros ? Really, I'd like to know..."

well the tag price of going to Libertarian-Environmentalist (or Environmental-Libertarian, taker yer pick) is zero. Just end subsidies & tax breaks (and other market protections) and include externalities (reasonably level-regulatory-playing-field).

[Sam-Hec]

"At Chief Executive magazine, Science Correspondent Ronald Bailey reveals how environmental groups and rent-seeking companies have formed a classic Baptist and Bootleggers coalition to push for carbon control laws. "

Interstingly, the Prohibition would not have been possible without Standard Oil's help...who was seeking a means of killing Corn Ethanol.

[Trotsky]

Enviros are lying. Libertarians are expected to not tell lies...

[Sam-Hec]

This sentence is a lie! Am I libertarian or enviro?

p.s. Trotsky, your Master Narrative belies you.

[Trotsky]

Self-reference is a cheap trick.

[Sam-Hec]

Not showing support for your claim is a cheap trick.