Re: AMD's well may be running dry

On Mar 17, 7:07 pm, Bill Todd <billt...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
dav...@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
But manufacturing is only part of the equation. What about shipping?
What about "clean energy" usage at the retailers, transportation, et
etc. All these costs are still going to go up, and the beneficiaries
are going to be:

Future generations, today's children, even ourselves if we're not
already getting decrepit. The point of the tax (at least as described
by JF) is to reduce burning of fossil fuels by both discouraging
purchase of products whose production and distribution burns significant
amounts of fossil fuel (by making their after-tax prices less
attractive) and encouraging conversion to non-fossil-fuel-intensive
production and distribution mechanisms (because the resulting products'
after-tax prices will be more attractive to consumers). Tweaking the
tax system to further societal goals is nothing new.

Yes, the tax money needs to go somewhere, and to whose benefit is it
really being tweaked? I keep getting answers like "It doesn't matter"
or "give it to the countries producing the most CO2". Which is either
disingenius or downright counter-productive. And tweaking taxes/laws
to achieve societal goals is not only nothing new, but often doesn't
work, either. I'd wager that the true effect of this tax would
benefit those already in the fossil fuel market, at the continued
expense of the consumer.

People like you who obviously don't give a damn about what burdens your
own gluttony and pigheadedness will expose those who come after you to
disgust me. If you don't see yourself that way, perhaps you should take
a closer look at the positions that you're advocating.

I'm glad I disgust you, since I'm appearently asking you some very
uncomfortable questions, like where does all this tax money go. You
are being very short-sighted and only thinking about the very surface
effects. I want to know more details of exactly why this will work,
and be a net benefit in CO2 reduction. Why the name calling, when my
questions are obviously trying to look closer at the position you are
advocating?

You know, it costs a lot more in CO2 emissions (not to mention the
greenhouse gas of cow methane) for us to eat meat products. So I
propose a tax of 20% on all meat (chicken, farmed fish, poultry)
products. This will encourage people to eat more vegtable products,
this being more CO2 friendly and overall better ecologically. If you
disagree with this tax, you must be a pigheaded glutton. Bill: Agree
or Disagree?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... we need to find a way to greatly reduce CO2 emissions without ... What happens to this tax money? ... Let the government add a 10% tax, ... or it's not that alternatice. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: Squeezing the cars out of London
    ... CO2 emissions through fuel duty, so extra tax extracted from them cannot ... Car fuel, petrol and diesel, typically ... That must account for about 15p of the tax. ...
    (uk.rec.cycling)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... tax system to further societal goals is nothing new. ... or "give it to the countries producing the most CO2". ... When price goes up, usage goes down. ... it costs a lot more in CO2 emissions (not to mention the ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... a "fossil fuel added tax" similar to a VAT to help for fair accounting. ... the method of taxing pollution. ... CO2 as a pollutant. ...
    (comp.os.vms)
  • Re: AMDs well may be running dry
    ... And the tax can be used to ... Just taxing fossil fuels does nothing. ... of CO2 emissions, but with all the developing countries and just the ... market effects by creating an artifical price increase. ...
    (comp.os.vms)