Are our governments leading up to a carbon tax on our pets, now?

This is a rant not a question.

It is both. I partly agree with you.

great discussional question phillis, my concience is at ease! got 5 hens lol

Ah, ah, ah…..not so fast, buddy! Thank you for your support, but they’ve figured out a way to place a future carbon tax on cow flatulence. Farm animals will be taxed, too. All farmers won’t be able to afford them. Guess who backs loans on farms? Aunt Fannie Mae.

I don’t have kids, I have dogs instead.

I think we should put the Vales to sleep, that would compensate for my dogs.

Rant on, I’ll rant with you. You have to look at the total picture of the family footprint before anyones starts taxing.

nooooo! guess whats for dinner!

@rooeytoo – That’s my point, exactly. If you have no idea where you’re going to end up, you’d better stop the car. People WILL take advantage of your ignorance. None of us have heard anything at all regarding where this is going.

The basic question should be, what all is going to be taxed? This umbrella of carbon tax has been so unbelievably vague that even Quakers are not exempt. How can we support something if we have no idea where it’s going or what the intentions are?

If they can get Fido and cow farts taxed and make it sound awesome, we’re in deep shit. It is so much later than we think.

I read that story twice, and failed to see any mention of taxes. Perhaps the OP was just a shade hysterical?

There’s no mention of government action, plans or taxes in the article.

Flagged. Nice flaming.

@westy81585 Flagged also…......

@tinyfaery apparently the mods thought it was a question! huh?

Shrug.

ehh, you read it and I stand by it.

If they do it then I will box-up some Cat poo and send it as my payment- Cat Pee if the payment is late!

@Phil – HA! The USPS will charge you carbon tax on mail! You;ve developed a whole new category! THey should reward you with part of the profits :)

@westy81585 – yawn

Our atmosphere is a common good for all 6.8 billion people and all animals. Overusing it cannot be free.

Should the sewage system be for free? How about everybody just dumps everything into the creeks, rivers and oceans?

@westy81585 Phillis a very good member of Fluther and your comment was off base…still stand by that!

@mattbrowne – I KNOW damn well you’re smarter than having to stoop to rattling off extremes to make a point. I expect that kind of play from the less intelligent. I NEVER said we should do that, or even continue that hideous practice. But the last time I checked, gas stations still allow customers to pump air in their tires for free. There’s a reason there is no charge for AIR.

If they want to charge for breathing, am I allowed to complain then? Am I NOT allowed to ask why, and have expectations of a reasonable answer that DOESN’T force me to pay thousands of extra tax dollars every year for the things I MUST have? I’m perfectly happy with letting trees recycle cow burps and farts. I breathe it in the air they recycle, my carbon dioxide based exhalations allows them to breathe in. Like you said…...there’s room enough for every living thing.

Why not take a more pragmatic approach? Let’s levy hefty fines against those caught littering and give tax BREAKS to people who turn them in. Litter police can’t be everywhere at once. I don’t know about you, but I’d happily narc somebody out in a second for pulling that crap.

Let’s reward businesses when they offer to take back the things they make from customers for recycling, similar to what oil/tire changing places do now. Let’s NOT vote for the cap and trade agreements UNTIL we’ve tried cheaper alternatives to an already taxed to death population. Let’s DO continue making long-lasting light bulbs, but let’s NOT fill them with freaking mercury that never gets absorbed into the water tables and soils! That is completely counter-productive, yet it was OK’d by the damned EPA? WHY NOT ASK WHY they chose to okay that, because I can’t think of one good reason that it works any better. It looks to me like the scales are still balanced with equal bad on both sides.

I’m not ignoring the logistics of my suggestions. But the governments logistics are looking like nightmares right now, too.

—Oops! Correction (as usual). Mercury never gets recycled. It DOES leech into the water table and soil and cannot be contained.

Let’s levy hefty fines against those caught littering

Carbon taxes are essentially a fee for littering. Chasing down offenders one by one is tremendously expensive and time-consuming.

That’s like replacing cash registers at the grocery store with the honor system, and letting the police figure out who didn’t pay enough.

I’ll concede to the first part. Nice catch! I could have done better wording to convey the thought.
On the second point, rewarding citizens with tax breaks for turning in litterers is not an honor system. It’s using peer pressure and fear against those who disrupt the environment.

Whoa! What is this “thank yourself” link? Has that been there the whole time, and I’m just now noticing??

I was not thinking of tax breaks for turning in litterers.

I meant we have processes we know will emit a known amount of carbon.
Rather than let that go, and prosecute offenders, it would be easier and cheaper to set an up-front fee/tax for emissions.

Cap and trade does that. If a company really wants/needs to exceed the limits, they can buy credits. Conversely, companies have an incentive to drastically reduce emissions, even making money at it if they get way below the limits.

Okay! I get what you’re saying now. However, cap and trade agreements have been set up so that that carbon emissions can be “traded” between corporations. Corporation A emits more than expected, so trades with Corporation B, who, as it happens, emitted less than expected that year. Exactly how does that press taking total responsibility into the hands of decision makers at each and every corporation?

Furthermore, and this is an actual question instead of a point I’m making, why should WE, the tax payers, pay for the pollution WE didn’t create?

One last sincere question is this (and I’m not a scientist, so layperson’s answer, please). Why do so many scientists agree that the eruption of one supervolcano emits more carbon dioxide than all of mankind? Not that that makes it OKAY for us to litter. I still think we need to be responsible for our actions.

@phillis – In terms of energy consumption it’s possible to lead a smarter life without losing the achievements of modern civilization. Western Europe can show the US how this is done.

To me it doesn’t matter how the US limits carbon emissions. It could be taxes. It could be something else. But US citizens have no right to change the atmosphere on a global level causing tremendous damage for everyone else too. Obama and others realize this.

The science behind the problem of climate change is very complex.

A major supervolcano eruption will cause abrupt climate change. But not because of the tremendous amounts of carbon dioxide it spits into the atmosphere. Other chemicals and also lots of larger particles create a volcanic winter i.e. global cooling lasting for centuries.

Hey, phillis. The New Zealand Government introduced a “fart tax” on farm animals a couple of years ago. This is 100% true. The farmers make such a stink (yes, I know it’s a terrible pun) that the tax was eventually ended. Here’s a link for you:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2005/may/05/environment.society

@mattbrowne I agree! The US DOES have a responsibility to share this ball nicely with everybody else. It isn’t nice to muscle lesser countries out just because we’re more powerful. I have NEVER liked that about the US, and have spoken out against it numerous times. But Americans are getting the shaft, too.

Maybe I didn’t make my point clearly. Between taxes and medical insurance, we’re beyond being able to pay more taxes But we also know that whatever those “something else’s” turn out to be, guess who will have to pay for those? Either way, we’re screwed.

I think it is of the utmost importance that our government disclose exactly where they are wanting to go with this, how they intend to get there, and what the cut-off is for items eligible to be taxed, but that isn’t happening. It’s coming in little bitty increments by way of passing laws that the general public has NO IDEA what is included, or how it applies to them. To me, that spells S-N-E-A-K-Y.

Since when is it reasonable to pass laws that radically change everyone’s lives, without thier voting on them, or even being told what these laws include? I guarantee you that these laws would NOT pass public inspection if we were told the whole truth.

Instead, they do things like stiffen housing rules by creating laws that allow them to actually take people’s homes. Look up 2009 International Property Maintenance Code. Pay special attention to how little it takes for the government to come and seize your home. Basically, they charge thousands of dollars a day for homes not in compliance. If you can’t pay, they take your home. Texas, Georgia, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, and a whole host of other states already have this implemented. This is worse that NAIS, ecology easements, and Imminent Domain, combined. Forgive me for smelling a big, fat rat.

The way it’s going so far, it looks like bankers, those who are already ridiculously wealthy, and financiers are going to reap all the benefits, while the rest of us pay for tehir vacations down the Riviera. We get exactly zip…....except for higher taxes. I’d like to be able to breathe and have children without being charged a carbon tax on them. I have a lot of links on both of those if you’d like to see them.

Thank you for the chance to have a two-way conversation.

@phillis – Well, George W. Bush raised the taxes for the grandchildren of his voters. The accumulating debt will have to be paid back eventually.

I belong to the few people who openly say ‘Paying taxes is a good thing’. Every year when I look at my personal financials and the large amount of taxes I feel good. I’m not kidding. I contribute to the greater good and I feel proud. My country gave me so much when I was young. Good infrastructure, good doctors, good schools. Now is the time to give something back to my country.

I don’t need a yacht to feel good. Accumulating too many yachts only makes people miserable. Poor guy who only got three of them. He ended up getting an ulcer in his stomach, because every night before he fell asleep he was angry that this other guy got four yachts. Even worse, one of those yachts was twice as big. And the other guy was using more effective tax shelters. Outrageous!

If carbon taxes are the way to go forward, we should embrace it. We should think of taxes as a good thing. And if people want to avoid carbon taxes they should invest in green technologies. And feel good about it!

HA! I loved that line about being jealous over the 4th yacht. What a way to get an ulcer! :D

It doesn’t upset me that you feel proud, so please don’t expect some sort of personal attack. It’s a refreshing mindset, in a way. I’m not against supporting my country in the form of taxes. What is bothering me is that this carbon tax thing is a bottomless pit. At this rate, even the Amish are able to be taxed for using wood burning fireplaces. There is literally nothing that cannot be assessed this tax.

Wouldn’t it make sense if there was a cap on what households had to pay for cap and trade? Or how about a cap on per therm charges from deregulated gas companies? How about penalizing companies for gouging cunsumers? I have yet to see hardly any examples of that. Don’t you ever wonder why?

Or how about not forcing each household to pay annually for carbon emissions from companies? Instead, make the company pay thier own way, and only charge consumers a carbon tax on the things they buy from those companies, rather than an annual tax on behalf of these companies? That way, each company will really feel the PINCH from dumping carbon into the atmosphere, and will work harder than ever to reduce them, because it hits THIER bottom line. Why the hell should we pay THIER sanitation bills? I have to pay for mine.

This is all stacked against the consumer, with the companies getting the lion’s share of tax breaks and perks. We’re paying thier bills, in essence, being penalized for carbons we didn’t emit. What motivates a company unless you hit them in their wallet? I mean, this is common knowledge. Who is lobbying for the little guys? Corporations have plenty of money to have someone represent thier best interests. Meanwhile, we’re getting the leftover crumbs from off the table. Boiled down to basics, this is a brilliant example of lawmakers NOT working “for the people”. I just don’t understand why there isn’t a more equitable solution being sought, and I think we’re killing ourselves by not asking that question in unison.

When you burn wood you re-emit the carbon dioxide the tree took out of the atmosphere very recently. Taxes don’t make sense for this. When we burn coal and oil in just 100 years we re-emit carbon dioxide that what taken out of the atmosphere over a period of millions of years. There you got the mismatch. This leads to overuse of the atmosphere. As a result of our luxurious lifestyles. The carbon footprint of the Amish is extremely small.

Using the Amish was an example to illustrate the “bottomless pit” of carbon taxes. I want to reiterate that I fully support, and take part in, responsible stewardship of the planet. This is the latest article I’ve read on the subject. Thank you for affording me a peek into your thoughts on supporting the US, in this case, through carbon taxes. It is obvious that you care a great deal about these subjects, which can only serve as a positive toward what is, so far, an undisclosed end.
http://www.climategate.com/german-physicists-trash-global-warming-theory

I welcome your approach. You are a very reasonable debater. Yes, we all need to take part in responsible stewardship of the planet. We share this common goal which is very good.

About your article. First of all, man-made climate change is not a theory, it’s a hypothesis. General relativity or evolution are theories, i.e. there is plenty of empirical data to confirm them and none to refute them. A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be put forward as a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot be satisfactorily explained with the available scientific theories. See

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Looking at the title of your article

German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory”

there are three observations I’d like to mention

1) Bad use of terminology (theory vs. hypothesis)
2) Strong and polemic language (the word ‘trash’ for example)
3) Physics is a huge field and the physicists mentioned are not leading climatologists

The cheap polemics continues in the article: bogus, cornered proponent, flustered debater etc. The whole website is titled

“Anthropogenic Global Warming, history’s biggest scam”

which has nothing to do with serious science and is just cheap polemics as well. We should not waste our valuable time with this.

There are reputable climatologists who have honest doubts about man-made climate change. But right now they are small minority. We should listen to them and read research papers when they publish them. This is good stuff and there wouldn’t be any words like biggest scam, bogus or cornered proponents in them. But the vast majority of the good stuff comes from concerned experts. What does this mean?

To me it means the following:

1) There is no 100% correct prediction about the climate in 2050 – climate is too complex
2) Human greenhouse gas emissions most likely contribute to global warming
3) It’s quite possible that natural cycles contribute as well
4) A few warm winters or cool summers are no proof against the continuing overall trend
5) The vast majority of reputable climatologists think that the potential harm is enormous
6) Humanity would be very stupid not to apply the precautionary principle
7) The growing middle class in Asia will significantly affect supply and demand equation for fossil fuels
8) To create welfare for all world citizens we simply have no other choice than to invest in green technology
9) The unfortunate climate change denial movement is most active in the US. This is bad news for the US, but good news for the rest of the world because innovation will happen elsewhere and the US will eventually have to import new green technology products. A nation of consumers instead of producers. Unless reason prevails. And there’s hope. Above all, there’s Barack Obama’s audacity of hope.

You have an excellent point regarding the incendiary wording that was obviously intentionally chosen for this article. It appears that whoever developed this article was more intersted in attacking the credibility of others, than presenting a balanced explanation. I don’t have much respect for that. It makes me wonder what else was intentionally included or left out. I owe you a thank you for that.

I also like it that you acknowleged that climate change is too complex to have developed a final decision so soon (I do think that we should act now, as opposed to later, when it is possibly too late). It was a damn good effort to show the entire picture, which I appreciate.

Obama can hope all he wants, and so can everyone else Hope is a good thing! But I don’t think Obama is hoping for the same things as the rest of America (my apologies to any readers who in countries outside the US. I’m not intentionally is not to alienating you). It isn’t his hope that keeps nagging at me. It’s the way these policies are being enacted and carried out, and how much is being left unsaid, that sets off the alarm (for example, I DID try to understand the wording of the healthcare bill as it was updated. I perused through a couple of hundred pages, and discovered that I either need to be an attorney or an economics professor to understand it. I am unclear as to how I can be any more responsible for keeping up with these things than that, since this was an excercize in futility).

The taxes proposed to promote a healthier planet are what is so scary. I come from a decidedly lower middle class income bracket. At one point, about 12 years ago, the most responsible thing you could do was pay off your credit card debt and close those accounts, keeping only one card with a low limit. Now, that responsible decision has played against me. I’m not kidding when I say that I cannot afford more taxes. I’m not being unpatriotic, or trying to skirt around carrying my load to support our country. I really CAN’T afford anything more. Technically, the last 3 years we easily qualify for TANF and medicaid, yet have made very intensive effort to avoid sucking off the government. As a result, I spent time standing in line at a local church food bank, because we didn’t have enough money for food after paying some of our bills. Our credit worthiness is non-existent.

Due to the distribution of wealth in this country, millions upon millions of families are just like ours. How can you reasonably assess new taxes on a majority who cannot pay them? I don’t see across the board taxes as a viable alternative.

@phillis – What I meant is that Obama realizes that green technology is an important sector with the potential to create many new jobs in the US. It would be a shame if the most innovative country in the world misses this opportunity.

I fear it already has. The Warming deniers are cut from the same cloth as the anti-environmentalists, and they have managed to induce a lot of second-rate science. Once science is politicized, you are really down the drain. If you doubt that, take a look at the case of Lysenko in the former Soviet Union.

I see now. Thanks, @mattbrowne.