Just when it appeared as though the United States was going to emerge from under the heavy hand the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), there are some in Washington licking their chops to increase the tax on fossil fuels used by Americans. In recent months the United States has been declared the world’s second largest oil producing nation, just behind Saudi Arabia.
So, enter climate alarmists, right on the heels of Hurricane Sandy and they’re stoking the fires that the earth is heating up and more storms, like Sandy, are in our nation’s forecast. Solution? A carbon tax.
“The purpose of a carbon tax would be to penalize fossil fuel use in hopes of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which have been hypothesized to cause global cooling (1970s), global warming (1980s-1990s), climate change (2000s) and extreme weather (2010s),” according to a commentary in Investor’s Business Daily.
A carbon tax would all but crush any economic recovery in the U.S. It would spawn inflation. What’s the guarantee that such a tax would reduce or eliminate carbon emissions? None.
If all carbon emitting vehicles, heating sources, etc. were eliminated on Jan. 1, 2013 what would be the net effect on the U.S. economy. Not recessionary, not even depressive, but a total collapse.
Without engaging in an argument about the metric tons of carbon dioxide that is emitted into the atmosphere annually in the United States, let’s make a note that the United States is not alone in emitting carbon dioxide. China, India, and most of Asia are emerging into the growing number of users of fossil fuels. To stymey the U.S. economy with a carbon tax without addressing the world-wide impact of CO2, is comparable to blaming the United States for all of the world’s ills without looking at other contributing factors — i.e. the rest of the industrialized world.
Bottom line, we must look for cleaner sources of fuels. However, to eliminate or hamper the use of fossil fuels in the United States without a proven and dependable source of alternative energy is suicidal for our economy and the struggling economies of the world.
Let’s work on a practical solution, not more taxes on top of a heavily taxed, struggling U.S. economy.
Keith Hansen


Comments (15)
Add commentCarbon taxes
I'll agree.Keith, that we do not have "a proven and dependable source of alternative energy. " But our competitors in Europe and Asia pay more for fossil fuels than we do, and it won't hurt us to raise some revenue from a carbon tax.
Hey Rolf!
Germany is still chugging along toward 100% renewable energy. And last I checked, their economy was doing just fine, too.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/how_germany_is_getting_to_100_percen...
Practical Solutions for transportation & other related CO2 ?
Lets see ,since urban areas seem to create traffic gridlock due to heavy population density , therefore large concentration of vehicles that emit lots of CO2 ?
Maybe mass transit ?
More hybrid vehicles ?
Passenger rail service from Duluth & Brainerd to MSP ?
Pretty certain coal will remain most cost effective method to generate power . Better hope technology advances even further to deal with emissions.
Now how do you pay for those things ?
Or is it just easier to ignore the situation and focus on bogus "Tax Cuts " and people who say " there are a bunch of Govt agencies I want to get rid of like Uh Um Ah .....
Too bad we have no International organizations who for years have been trying to get governments attention.
Reminds me of a vacation my family took with another family.
But Moooooom...he's doing it too!
What would be wrong with leading like the adult in the room, rather than running headlong to be the first in line?
Hansen makes a case for having lots of solutions in our energy basket...probably even including using smaller, more efficient cars and trucks when it makes sense. Maybe someone would like to tell me why it is often us evil "Libs" that look for ways to conserve, reuse, even strengthen local communities such that travel wasn't as necessary?
I look for Galt or another BDD conservo to chime in, now, about how it is our birthright, about how the "Greatest Generation" "fought for our freedom" to [be selfish and wasteful].
We can do better. Lets be the leaders of the free world again, showing how to forge ahead, navigating difficult waters, but finding new solutions to old problems. A leader looks at a problem as a challenge, a chance to prove him- or her-self, not as an opportunity to act like a spoilt child.
Coal is out of favor
with the glut of natural gas coming online. Utilities are switching over.
eyolf-- we have split 'leadership'. Tough to deal with all those spoilt children in congress.
I won't chime in like that eyolf.
I'll just wait for you to tell me when you start riding mass transit to your job. I'm sure the track will circle up to fishead's to pick him up and past captron's too. I hope cap and fish have gotten employment where you are though. You couldn't fill a short bus with Deerwood to Brainerd passengers!
Outdated thinking, Fair.
I noticed you took a couple of days off after the election, and I even chastised someone on here, suggesting that we "Lay off" while you licked your wounds. I'm kinda still thinking that way: notice no personal jabs?
In Great Grandpa's day, people lived out in the country because they earned their living there. Over in the Crosby area, small towns sprang up because people working in mines couldn't spend hours walking to work every day.
Travel became cheaper and cheaper, and sometimes, in some places, people travel hours in their cars to get to work. But it won't likely stay cheap; we will have to make choices. I might decide to give up my job in Brd and make a lot less money closer by, in order to not have to drive. Others may choose to live closer to work and either give up the country estate, or use it on weekends.
That might be painful for some, but I don't think it has to be a vengeful, rub-your-nose-in-it thing.
Where I was really going, though, was if people decided that it wasn't worth their time to drive all over to do basic stuff like shopping or finding services, maybe we would see small towns coming back to life. Long ago, I realized, for example, that I will pay a couple bucks more for a gallon of paint at the local hardware store, but I get something for knowing the folks that run the place and I don't have to try to squeeze in a run to Menards or HD or Fleet Farm just to see if they have what I want because nobody I can get on the phone can answer a question.
Some of don't buy into the idea that cars always bring us a better quality of life, especially when they are so expensive and just fool us into making poor choices.
Hey, Chey, German renewable energy fiasco
Germany is spending over $10 billon/year subsidizing solar. They get about 3% of electric power from solar. In the winter it is almost nothing.
Jurgen Grossman, CEO of Germany's largest utility, said recently, "solar energy in Germany is like growing pineapples in Alaska."
Grid connected solar and wind are simply not effective.
BERLIN 11/14 -- It was exactly the kind of news that Chancellor Angela Merkel did not want.
Voerdal, an aluminum company employing more than 400 people, has gone into bankruptcy. It will close unless the state government of North Rhine-Westphalia comes up with a rescue package. This state-of-the art company is in such dire financial straits because of rising energy prices. Voerdal officials say that the company's energy bill went up to 40 percent of total costs, all because of the government's renewable energy policies.
Voerdal is not an isolated case in the energy-intensive sector, which is why Ms. Merkel, who faces re-election next year, is becoming worried. Germany, the poster country for solar energy, is tied with Denmark, the poster country for wind energy, for the highest electric rates in Europe.
Cool Rolf
Always nice to see a good spanking but there ya go again & say that word carbon tax. Thats a no no!!!
I'm sure you're aware rolf
that Germany's 'portfolio' of renewable energy, which now provides the country with 25% of its electricity, includes more than solar. Main renewable electricity sources were, in first half of 2012: Wind energy 36.6%, biomass 22.5%, hydropower 14.7%, photovoltaics (solar) 21.2% and biowaste 3.6%.
that although photovoltaics account for only 1/5th of the renewable portfolio (3% of total electric generation in 2011), solar power installation is increasing rapidly and "in the first half of 2012, about 5.3% of the total electricity demand was covered by solar power. At 25 May 2012, a saturday, solar power reached a new record with feeding 22 GW, as much as 20 nuclear power stations, into the German power grid, which made 50% of the nations midday's electricity demand."
"As the first big industrialized nation, we can achieve such a transformation toward efficient and renewable energies, with all the opportunities that brings for exports, developing new technologies and jobs". German Chancellor Angela Merkel
solar pipe dreams
During the wintry 1Q of 2012, solar produced zilch in Germany. It's a pipe dream, 500 thousand roof top installations don't equal one nuclear plant.
German renewable fiasco
German utility highlights cost of political indulgence:
E.On, one of Germany’s major electric utilities, has briefed shareholders on its dilemma in power production. Much of its power generation is impacted by government policies favouring renewable energy over the most economical options, and by closing down some nuclear capacity as well as taxing the rest. Because any feed from solar or wind plants has priority when it happens to be available, other generating plant is run at sub-economic capacity levels. In particular, through summer gas-fired generation is sidelined during peak hours, making it “barely profitable to operate”. "In most European markets, the gross margin for gas-fired units is approaching zero or is indeed already negative."
E.On’s CEO pointed out that "Paradoxically, this benefits carbon-intensive lignite-fired assets which are more harmful to the earth's climate, whereas flexible, climate-friendlier assets are barely profitable". Despite considerable subsidies, E.On’s renewables made a loss, and produced only 1% of the company’s power. The company’s reduced nuclear fleet gave the most income per unit of generation, making up 21% of power generation and bringing €599 million (34%) of the pre-tax earnings. This figure, however, will be slashed by Germany's extraordinary tax on nuclear fuel that EOn continues to contest in court.
The company summarised its position on the matter: "EOn is implementing the political majority's decision on an earlier phase-out of nuclear energy. At the same time, however, EOn believes that the nuclear phase-out, under current legislation, is irreconcilable with our constitutionally protected right to property and right to operate a business. In any case, such an intervention is unconstitutional unless compensation is granted for the rights so deprived. Consequently we expect appropriate compensation for the billions of euros in stranded assets created by this deprivation."
A day or two later Munich experienced its biggest power failure in two decades, reflecting the precarious situation arising from the country’s abrupt policy U-turn in 2011, causing the loss of about 5 GWe of nuclear capacity in the south, with insufficient transmission capacity to compensate.
All of the country's four nuclear power utilities are pressing claims for compensation and in particular are suing the government over continuing with the nuclear tax introduced in relation to the 8- and 14-year licence extensions agreed in September 2010. Claims for compensation are also on the basis of write-down of plants, cancelled upgrades which were in train following the positive September 2010 policy change, and decommissioning costs brought forward.
WNN 14/11/12.
Cayanne ain't
gonna like this slap!
German nuclear taxes
Germany is taxing utilities on nuclear power because there are profits to tax. Nuclear is cheap to produce so the utilities make money on it. Revenue from the nuclear power taxes is used to prop up wind and solar projects which lose money.