The world has never seen such freezing heat

[notyoueither]

You're the rocket moron who cannot explain how the idea is a good one in simple English.

One questions how much you actually know about the topic.

How much more plainly can I state the issue? I do not believe a carbon tax can be recovered by producers in local or global markets. It will thus place them at a disadvantage in local and global trade. Considering that most of the world pays zero carbon tax this should not require brain surgery for you to grasp.

Are you completely retarded socially, or do you care to actually discuss the issue?

[Naked Gents Rut]

No, America stands to benefit from free-riding off the research and sacrifice of others.

It's about ****ing time we get to free-ride on something.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That's all very nice, but it doesn't work that way, doofus. There is no way in hell that carbon taxes will work like a sales tax. You continually express this delusion.

...

That's exactly how it would work.

[Naked Gents Rut]

All taxes work that way.

[notyoueither]

Bull****.

[notyoueither]

A sales tax is external. It is charged from A to B, and in the way KH envisions it, is included in the invoice or sales slip.

He is wrong about that, btw. He is drawing on Canada for the example. It is an option in Canada to sell products without showing the tax. A business must choose which it will be. Tax in pricing or plus tax. Minor point as it mainly applies to retail and most choose plus tax, but anyway...

Assume KH is correct. GST is entirely open and accountable for. It is, by and large, commercially. Every invoice I receive shows GST paid on it. Every invoice I issue shows GST collected.

It is a very simple matter to reduce the GST I collected by the GST I paid and remit the difference, or in the case of an exporter submit the GST paid for a full refund.

GST is there on all invoices and sales slips. It is easy to collect, pay, and receive refunds or remit for.

How do you know how much carbon tax is included in your fuel? One oil producer might be a dinosaur, spewing gas like old faithful while another might be supplied by nuclear power and using carbon sequestration. They both (and 34 others) shipped oil to a refinery. The gas station your delivery truck came from fueled up at which station? How much of the fuel costs you have paid for transportation are carbon taxed and how much not? If you say you can't say, you agree with governments who have ruled out carbon taxes as distortions in manufacturing and transportation industries.

In short, not all taxes work like a sales tax.

Idiots who want to maintain they do are free to show their homework.

[notyoueither]

Taxis are an instance of tax in pricing.

You pay the fare on the meter. They have to reverse out the GST from their revenues and remit it less GST paid for things like gasoline and automobile purchase and maintenence.

Meanwhile, the corner grocery store will show GST on mojos purchased. You need to buy a few before the 5% has effect, but they will show the 0.01 cent on the purchase of 10 mojos for 0.20 cents.

[notyoueither]

But how will the gorcery store pass on tax paid for electricity and gas paid for?

They will not, directly. They will raise base prices a small amount to offest the increased costs.

I will be able to claim back the cost of the mojos in sales tax, assuming I sell them on, but the hidden cost of 0.01 cents for ten mojos is unrecoverable. It is a higher cost of input for my mojo export business.

I now go broke as the evil Indians are still selling mojos at 10 for 0.20 cents.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

Plus I don't buy the premise that he can predict 20 to 30 years from now as accurate as 2 weeks. The whole "global-warming the sky is falling" community has totally different predictions than the "this is a normal fluctuation" community. I've heard prediction ranging from "Ice Age/return of Glaciers" to "the entire earth turns into Venus"

Even if you could know which of those schools of thought is right, you have no way of predicting what mankind will do to change the model. We could over react to a global warming myth. We could have a nuclear war. We could not react at all to the realities of global warming. We could do something we can't even think of right now.

Nor do you have any idea what unforseen natural events could happen between now and 2040. What if sun activity changes? What if a currently untracked asteroid collides with the earth? What if a super volcano erupts? What if a blackhole appears out of nowhere. What if the Mayan calendar is correct and the world ends in 2012 .

Sorry, but I feel a lot more comfortable in our ability to predict next week's weather than the average weather 32 years from now.

Originally posted by Ramo

No one's trying to predict the weather 32 years from now. They're trying to predict the average of the weather over large length and time scales (aka the "climate").

I realize by "climate" you making a general projection. And by weather you are making a specific projection. You don't have to treat people condescendingly because you think you know more than them.

But if you read my post above, the projections about the climate 32 years from now vary more than the projections about the weather 2 weeks from now. Furthermore, I pointed out that there are many factors that could impact a projection 32 years in the future that are extremely unlikely to impact a forecast 2 weeks from now.

So if you want to disagree with my opinion that's fine. But please don't restate the obvious and not answer my points.

[Kuciwalker]

.

[Unimatrix11]

Originally posted by notyoueither

How do you know how much carbon tax is included in your fuel?

It says on the fueling coloumn.

But seriously, there is eco-accounting. There is emmission trade.

[rah]

Chill. Discuss the arguements, not the poster.

[Naked Gents Rut]

A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions.
savanna fire

A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published.

As a result of global warming, soils are expected to release more carbon dioxide, the major greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, which, in turn, creates more warming. Climate models try to incorporate these increases of carbon dioxide from soils as the planet warms, but results vary greatly when realistic estimates of black carbon in soils are included in the predictions, the study found.

Soils include many forms of carbon, including organic carbon from leaf litter and vegetation and black carbon from the burning of organic matter. It takes a few years for organic carbon to decompose, as microbes eat it and convert it to carbon dioxide. But black carbon can take 1,000-2,000 years, on average, to convert to carbon dioxide.

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon's long shelf life into account.

The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact.

"We know from measurements that climate change today is worse than people have predicted," said Lehmann. "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

The study quantified the amount of black carbon in 452 Australian soils across two savannas. Black carbon content varied widely, between zero and more than 80 percent, in soils across Australia.

"It's a mistake to look at soil as one blob of carbon," said Lehmann. "Rather, it has different chemical components with different characteristics. In this way, soil will interact differently to warming based on what's in it."

http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov08/SoilBlackCarbon.kr.html

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by notyoueither
But how will the gorcery store pass on tax paid for electricity and gas paid for?

They will not, directly. They will raise base prices a small amount to offest the increased costs.

I will be able to claim back the cost of the mojos in sales tax, assuming I sell them on, but the hidden cost of 0.01 cents for ten mojos is unrecoverable. It is a higher cost of input for my mojo export business.

I now go broke as the evil Indians are still selling mojos at 10 for 0.20 cents.

Wow! Mojo's are still around! And they're still only 0.5 cents each! Talk about an inflation buster!

[CrONoS]

@NYE

Since I'm french speaking, I'm maybe retarded... but I don't understand what you are trying to say...

Are you saying that the carbon tax will be paid by the producer, by the consumers?

Edit:

What is your proposition? That tax will distort trade? Will not distort trade? Tax will be paid by consumer/producer? Tax will not be effective to reduce CO2?