Republicans shifting towards climate change legislation.

[Direckshun]

Thank you god.

Can we get this done in the next two years, please?

Norquist seems to be pushing for it to be part of the Grand Bargain. The last time Obama scored energy legislation it was wrapped up in the stimulus package. Wrapping up more energy legislation in a Grand Bargain would be consistent with that -- never let an opportunity go to waste, amiright?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energ...ledge-20121112

Norquist: Carbon-Tax Swap for Income-Tax Cut Wouldn't Violate No-Tax-Hike Pledge
Coral Davenport
November 12, 2012 | 5:09 p.m.

In a step that may help crack open the partisan impasse on climate change, Grover Norquist, the influential lobbyist who has bound hundreds of Republicans to a pledge never to raise taxes, told National Journal that a proposed “carbon tax swap”—taxing carbon pollution in exchange for cutting the income tax—would not violate his pledge.

Norquist’s assessment matters a lot, and could help pave the way for at least a handful of Republicans to support the policy. Over the past six months, a growing number of conservative voices, including former Republican officials and renowned economists, have amped up pressure on their party to finally address climate change.

One group, the Energy and Enterprise Initiative headed by former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., has been working for months to persuade the GOP to take up a carbon-tax swap as part of a broad tax-reform package next year. The idea is to create a market signal to drive consumers away from fossil fuels by taxing the carbon pollution caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

The problem is that creating a new “energy tax” would be viewed by some as political suicide. And Republicans who have signed Norquist’s pledge would be barred from supporting it.

That’s where the “swap” side of the policy comes in: The new carbon tax would be paired with a cut in the income tax—something Republicans have long sought. The idea essentially would be to cut the tax on income and move it over to carbon pollution—keeping the proposal revenue-neutral.

“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase and didn’t violate the pledge,” Norquist told National Journal.

But Norquist made clear he himself doesn’t like the policy. “It would infuriate taxpayers,” he said. He also opined that politically, it’s beyond a long shot. While supporters might now be talking about how to structure the tax swap in such a way that it could win political support, “It’s a conversation about what color unicorn you’d like,” Norquist said.

“If the Democrats thought it was a good idea and the country wouldn’t hate them for it they would have done it in 2009,” when their party held majorities in both chambers of Congress, he said.

Still, if the tax swap could indeed be structured in such a way that it wouldn’t violate Norquist’s pledge, it could remove at least one political obstacle for some Republicans.

“We hear frequently, constantly from Republican lawmakers who say, we see climate change as a huge problem and we want to talk about ways to do this, but for now they’re afraid to talk about it, because of the political repercussions,” said Rob Sisson, president of the group ConservAmerica, formerly Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Conversation about a carbon tax is increasing in Washington. In September, the Congressional Budget Office released a report concluding that a carbon tax on its own—not paired with a tax cut elsewhere—could reduce the federal deficit by 10 percent to 50 percent.

The day after the presidential election, the global bank HSBC put out a research note identifying a carbon tax as a policy that could emerge in President Obama’s second term.

On Tuesday, the Brookings Institution hosts a daylong conference on the economics of a carbon tax, featuring speakers from CBO, the Treasury Department, and the International Monetary Fund.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by HonestChieffan

Climate change has nothing to do with it. Its all about a new avenue to add taxes. Be honest, no one sees a change in the climate as a result of one countey on the globe deciding to tax carbon. Wake the **** up. Diwreck and his cronies are on a tax mission period

Carbon tax is another one of those conservative ideas like the individual mandate that are now used by Republicans as attack points (the only reason, apparently, is because now Democrats support it). The echo chamber's noise doesn't last too long, does it?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

This is true just as much as the idea that this whole deficit charade is just an excuse for the rich to kick the poor to the curb so they can keep more of their money.

You realize that most below a certain income level aren't paying anything?

For someone who is a math man, I think you should add up that taxing them more is still a drop in the bucket for our problems. Why don't you just take it all away from them, so the govt can run for just a few months then? Would that make you feel better?

Taxes aren't the problem. Revenue is not the problem. Spending is the problem.

We have plenty of aid at federal and state levels for the poor. Times are tough for many more than just the poor. What you need to do is visit a third world country and see what poor really looks like.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

We have plenty of aid at federal and state levels for the poor. Times are tough for many more than just the poor. What you need to do is visit a third world country and see what poor really looks like.

You should go to another first world industrial country and see what their highest tax rates look like.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Two realitites I want to drop on you:

1. The climate has, is and always will be changing.

2. The deficit is caused by spending more money than you have.

#1 we can do some good but little in the overall context

#2 is something we cand have a serious impact on. And yes, it was fabricated for a power grab. It's called politicians buying votes with money they don't have.

I'll drop a reality or two on you:

All evidence indicates that the climate is changing faster than it ever has before. So fast that life forms aren't having time to adapt and evolve. And we are only at the beginning of the process.

Damn, Samuel Langley sure had a lot of foresight to go to all of the trouble to fabricate human-induced climate change back in 1890 so the UN could come in and have power over you in 2012.

Greece has problems but they are miniscule in comparison to those that unchecked climate change are likely to yield. For example, they aren't losing half of their population to starvation. If we are realistic with the magnitude of the problem climate change represents, solutions can be found. We just aren't motivated enough.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Where are the spelling Nazis when someone they agree with spells something wrong?

It's ridiculous.

Must have been a delay in the spell check. I was shocked when the spell check didn't underline it, and moved on. I'm a terrible speller. I make my best guess and hope the computer can figure out what I meant.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Must have been a delay in the spell check. I was shocked when the spell check didn't underline it, and moved on. I'm a terrible speller. I make my best guess and hope the computer can figure out what I meant.

I don't really care. I got you're point.
It's just that there's been a few spelling Nazis from the left recently making a big deal about typos and then piling on as if it's a big deal.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

You realize that most below a certain income level aren't paying anything?

For someone who is a math man, I think you should add up that taxing them more is still a drop in the bucket for our problems. Why don't you just take it all away from them, so the govt can run for just a few months then? Would that make you feel better?

Taxes aren't the problem. Revenue is not the problem. Spending is the problem.

We have plenty of aid at federal and state levels for the poor. Times are tough for many more than just the poor. What you need to do is visit a third world country and see what poor really looks like.

I don't agree with the statement I made at all. It was an illustration of the absurdity of your statement that climate change was fabricated so the UN can control our lives. Both arguments ignore real problems and instead create a boogie man.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I don't agree with the statement I made at all. It was an illustration of the absurdity of your statement that climate change was fabricated so the UN can control our lives. Both arguments ignore real problems and instead create a boogie man.

Well, it may be absurd to you but I know all about the UN and it's green agenda because I've read their documents. It's really an international socialist goal.

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/r...nda21_00.shtml

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

Can I see some projections by scientists/economists estimating how much carbon in the atmosphere this will reduce and if that will save us all from dooooooooooooom?

This just sounds like a silly and stupid plan. Like Romeo Crennel cutting Stanford Routt will result in the Chiefs winning some games. That level of feeble planning.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by cdcox

I don't agree with the statement I made at all. It was an illustration of the absurdity of your statement that climate change was fabricated so the UN can control our lives. Both arguments ignore real problems and instead create a boogie man.

Welcome to the Carbon trading scam, kill the POOR!

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

Can I see some projections by scientists/economists estimating how much carbon in the atmosphere this will reduce and if that will save us all from dooooooooooooom?

This just sounds like a silly and stupid plan. Like Romeo Crennel cutting Stanford Routt will result in the Chiefs winning some games. That level of feeble planning.

The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I don't really care. I got you're point.
It's just that there's been a few spelling Nazis from the left recently making a big deal about typos and then piling on as if it's a big deal.

That's horrible. BTW, it's "your point."

[SNR]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.

I don't doubt that taxation will reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air

What I'm skeptical of is what effect that will have on climate change. The United States, while the largest consumer of energy in the world by FAR, can only do so much if the rest of the world doesn't also get their ****ing shit together.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by SNR

I don't doubt that taxation will reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air

What I'm skeptical of is what effect that will have on climate change. The United States, while the largest consumer of energy in the world by FAR, can only do so much if the rest of the world doesn't also get their ****ing shit together.

Very true.

It's what you call a good first step.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The goal is to ostensibly reduce the amount of carbon we shit into the air.

Almost all acts of taxation repricing have historically been successful in limiting and reducing that which they were aiming for. I don't see why a carbon tax can't accomplish the same thing.

What percent of the total annual carbon emissions is directly attributable to human activity?