Whilst Taxes have their place, to direct certain activities, it is unlikely to be sufficient on its own to achieve the required outcomes, in both Cliamte &/or Energy.

I would suggest a mixture of Carrot (Less TAX), Stick (More Tax) and prescribed or set levels of Emmissions & usage (lower), would be needed!

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2010 at 11:01am:



You can kill anything with 100% tax. The question is - is it a good idea?

Energy is a neccessity, not a luxury. To barge in like a Green and aim to reduce energy consumption because it is carbon based energy is just the usual Green stupidity.
If you want to switch, come up with an alternative. Reducing energy use via taxation is a comissar's solution.

freediver wrote on Jul 18^th, 2010 at 12:00pm:



No, it is about energy. That's why nobody is doing anything much about GHG emissions only.

Well, if there are so many alternatives, why are we still using oil and coal? Because we want to max out on emissions as long as poss?

Quote:


Quote:


I am comming to the conclusion that Soren may well be correct!

No matter what YOU may think FD, it is NOT all about GHG Emissions and that is NOT what everyone is doing!

In fact, the whole Climate Change issue was downgraded at Copenhagen and is currently struggling, particularly on the international stage with some of the leading players, such as China, India & the USA.

And, above all, the REAL ISSUE is NOT a Carbon Trading scheme, THE CORE ISSUE is Energy Availability & Price, in the context of the Global Economy and how that may affect the future Climate Change of the Planet! And rooted firmly in the road, is a little thing, called Population Growth!

I am not religious, but for gods sake, get with it, this is not about you personal "economics class", what is at stake is the future of our species and we need to get the "BALANCE RIGHT"!!!

Even though you are a member or supported of the Greens, FD, I am still surprised a little that you think the best way of making people use  less of something - carbon-based energy - is by making it more expensive.

I think another way is better and certainly must be taken into consideration, even if you area Green, and that is making other energy sources even cheaper than carbon-based energy.

To insist that this is akin to wanting world peace IS, however, predictable Green nonsense.

Soren:

Quote:


It has nothing to do with the greens. Most economists think the same. There is even a statement of economic consensus on the issue. From an economic perspective, it is the best way. Of course, if you don;t care what harm you do to our economy, there are plenty of other options.

Quote:


This would involve massive subsidies to the energy sector and would be harmful to our economy. It would make enourmous waste inevitable.

On what grounds do you think it is better? Do you just like the idea of the government giving you something for 'nothing'?

Quote:


Not sure why you keep linking this to the Greens, or why you think trivialising world peace is a 'green' response.

PN:

Quote:


I did not claim there are silver bullets. What I claim is that carbon taxes are the best solution.

Quote:


It is not just me. It is the vast majority of economists. And it is that simple PN. Not sure why you keep trying to make it more complicated.

Quote:


And this is based on ... nothing? An uneducated guess? A gut feeling? The road to poverty is paved with gut feelings.

I agreed with you partially in the sense thatthe taxes should be used to lower other arbitrary taxes, but not if you mean subsidies or tax breaks targetted at the energy sector. Is that what you mean?

Quote:


Quote:


1) Well, at this point, the vast majority of Economists, did not predict any GFC, let alone one which is 2nd only (so far) to the Great Depression, so I will stay with my views of what is happening, why & when! And, NO, it is not simple!

2) Because it is, complicated!

Btw, my apologies, it seems I also put the last three posts onto the Future/s thread, in error!

Must have been the 2nd RED?