Quote:
Originally Posted by buckman
Your way off base Johnny. Who said they shouldn't be limited? They are limited.
A tax and a limit are not even close to the same thing. How about they randomly pick a size fish and then tax you for anything over that limit?
Carbon credits are a scam. The same amount of pollution is going in the air , they are just stealing $$ and coming up with a new form af taxation.
We already have the EPA among others to regulate pollution. If you want to use strong scientific data to further tighten restrictions then have at it. Don't go about it in a BS way like the "carbon credit" scam.
Don't bitch about jobs going over seas and blame the economy on Bush when this is the sort thing that you defend. TIMING IS EVERYTHING
|
So it is because one regulation uses the word limit and the other uses the word tax then?
Taxes put on high-carbon output companies in Europe have shown that companies adjust business practices to lower their emissions. On the other hand, Cap-and-Trade programs are a huge scam. They are too complex and often can be easily exploited.
Not only are these companies contributing to emissions, they also contribute to our dependence on foreign oil. Corporations do not change their ways unless there is some incentive to do so (lowering their tax liability).
I agree "Timing is Everything." And it's about time this country actually takes steps to lower it's oil dependence. You're one who continually states that we're screwing over our children with the policies of today. Fuels consist of almost 1/4th of all US imports. The price of oil has a direct effect on just about every consumer good in this country, not to mention how much people drive, the vacations they go on, etc. If our dependence on oil isn't reduced, then it's our children that are going to be screwed by it. We already got a preview last year as to what can happen - people not being about to by oil to heat their homes, airfare going through the roof, the grocery bill going up 10-20%.
Even though I'm a proponent of drilling in Alaska, it won't solve the long term problem. It's also not financially viable unless oil is above $50/barrel, the price/barrel has to be even higher to warrant offshore drilling.
The point: our dependence on oil needs to be reduced. Also, the emissions put out by this countries biggest polluters needs to be reduced. Those two things combined will have lasting beneficial effects on this country - financially and economically. If taxing heavy polluters is the only way to create an incentive for them to change their ways, so be it.