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.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cdcox

So why do people bring up this argument?

Why do some scientists disagree with you on GW? One is an atmospheric physicist who teaches meteorology at MIT —Richard Lindzen. Oh yeah, he was invited to give talks to some oil companies. But it was because he already disagreed not because he was paid to parrot big oil. Even he claims that there are "political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism....He has long opposed the conventional consensus on global warming, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction." (wiki)

BTW I do think there is warming but I don't think it's catastrophic. I think it's better for man than cooling. Longer growing seasons, less need for winter fuel.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by cdcox

Total physics fail. Why is Mercury cooler than Venus? Why do the moons of Jupiter have different temperatures?

Q: Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

A: One has an atmosphere, one doesn't

Q: Why do moons of Jupiter have different temps?

A: Composition, atmosphere or lack thereof, location, etc.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Q: Why is Venus hotter than Mercury?

A: One has an atmosphere, one doesn't

Q: Why do moons of Jupiter have different temps?

A: Composition, atmosphere or lack thereof, location, etc.

Which one doesn't have an atmosphere, pete?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Literature

Which one doesn't have an atmosphere, pete?

If you mean Mercury vs. Venus, Mercury does not have an atmosphere.

Considering there are 65+ Jupiter moons, I don't know. The point is to compare Earth to other planets\moons is rather idiotic at it's root.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by petegz28

If you mean Mercury vs. Venus, Mercury does not have an atmosphere.

Considering there are 65+ Jupiter moons, I don't know. The point is to compare Earth to other planets\moons is rather idiotic at it's root.

So Pete do all atmospheres absorb the same amount of heat regardless of composition? That is what the author of the garbage physics is proposing. Do you think all wavelengths of light absorb the same? Do you know anything about physics? Or do you do special physics because you're a Republican?

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Why do some scientists disagree with you on GW? One is an atmospheric physicist who teaches meteorology at MIT —Richard Lindzen. Oh yeah, he was invited to give talks to some oil companies. But it was because he already disagreed not because he was paid to parrot big oil. Even he claims that there are "political pressures on climate scientists to conform to what he has called climate alarmism....He has long opposed the conventional consensus on global warming, pointing out that scientists are just as liable to err when the science appears to point in just one direction." (wiki)

BTW I do think there is warming but I don't think it's catastrophic. I think it's better for man than cooling. Longer growing seasons, less need for winter fuel.

Can we take Richard Lindzen as a starting point? I we call Lindzen's position a northward point of view and the consensus opinion of climate change a southern point of view, can we ignore any thought to the north of Lindzen to be unscientific? Can we agree on that much?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by cdcox

So Pete do all atmospheres absorb the same amount of heat regardless of composition? That is what the author of the garbage physics is proposing. Do you think all wavelengths of light absorb the same? Do you know anything about physics? Or do you do special physics because you're a Republican?

You were the one talking shit about why Venus is hotter than Mercury. I was merely pointing out the reason why. Sorry if that upsets you.

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You were the one talking shit about why Venus is hotter than Mercury. I was merely pointing out the reason why. Sorry if that upsets you.

I thought you were defending the bad physics post. Rereading, I see that you were not. My bad and my apologies.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Tax the richa nd all the world's ills will go away

You can shear a sheep dozens of times but you can only skin it once.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

You can shear a sheep dozens of times but you can only skin it once.

The plain truth of it is what it always has been. The Democrats don't have any ideas and "tax the rich" is a tag line that people will buy into. The sad part is you can tax them into poverty and it would change very little given the spending habits in D.C.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by petegz28

The plain truth of it is what it always has been. The Democrats don't have any ideas and "tax the rich" is a tag line that people will buy into. The sad part is you can tax them into poverty and it would change very little given the spending habits in D.C.

this.

I don't understand how others don't understand that our government spends 1/3rd over what it takes in..meaning you can take everything that everyone has and still not pay the difference for one year in deficit spending alone.

Spending is 100 percent our problem. Just think of all the money we spend in this country just subsidizing the vagina.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco

this.

I don't understand how others don't understand that our government spends 1/3rd over what it takes in..meaning you can take everything that everyone has and still not pay the difference for one year in deficit spending alone.

Spending is 100 percent our problem. Just think of all the money we spend in this country just subsidizing the vagina.

Mine isn't subsidized. Just the ones getting govt paid birth control.

[Garcia Bronco]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Mine isn't subsidized. Just the ones getting govt paid birth control.

It's not just birth control. Birth control is one line item in a long list.

[Direckshun]

C'mon guys. Keep coming to the light.

NBC News:

The federal government is facing significant financial risks related to extreme weather events, and states and cities can no longer depend on it for extra help after such events occur, the Republican chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said Friday.

The warning from Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., came at a press conference about the release of a new report by the Government Accountability Office, which identified “climate change” on its 2013 list of items presenting high risk to the federal government.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

I remember pre 08 election, people on this forum would say....

Why do you believe that Obama will push for carbon legislation? He Clearly won't be able to push anything through

Why do you think Obama will push to ban gun ownership?

Clearly he won't be able to, nothing will change..Just vote for Hopebama!