Skip to main content

View Diary: Putting a Price on Carbon -- Polluting must No Longer be Free (36 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You need to set a price on emissions, not on (4+ / 0-)

    carbon. Carbon is in just about everything you use.

    That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

    by enhydra lutris on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 01:59:24 PM PDT

    •  "Carbon" (4+ / 0-)

      is just "short-hand" jargon

      for Carbon Dioxide, or CO2

      It makes sentence structure, and dialoging, easier.

      But yes you are correct, the new laws need to regulate

      "CO2 emissions" --

      and not "literally" Carbon.

      I trust our legislators, are at least that smart --
      But I could be mistaken on that, I guess.

      (trusting our legislators, lol)

      The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

      by jamess on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 02:13:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  as in the common usage (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RunawayRose, trashablanca

        We need to reduce our "Carbon Footprints".


        Such usage, does not literally imply,
        our shoes are made of charcoal.

        The actual semantic meaning of "Carbon Footprint" is usually implied, by the context, and related references.

        The press is impotent when it abandons itself to falsehood. --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Seymour, 1807

        by jamess on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 02:37:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  However, that is not how the bill works (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess
          It taxes at source, but the difference in emissions from one user to another can varry significantly, and this points to one other potential problem with the bill.

          BTW, it allows credits for carbon sequestering, which I find very questionable. The only really safe form of sequestering will be extraction and reused, something some researchers are working on, but that remains to be proven comercially viable and scalable to the massive amount that would be needed to continue using fossil fuels (eg, coal gassification & sequestering).

          "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

          by koNko on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 06:22:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Sadly, I have seen our politicians push for (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess

        "tax it as it comes out of the ground or off the ship", clearly talking about carbon, not emissions.

        That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt -

        by enhydra lutris on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 05:33:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  However, there is a valid point here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess
        The question is if taxation will be applied to petrolium products used as petrochemicals raher than fuel.

        I will go back to read the bill again to try to settle this point, but in my comment down-thread I also refer to fuel/chemicals, and in the production of thse chemicals there are also CO2 emissions, including the use of natural gas, which is a basic feedstock of many chemicals (including producion of O2).

        Plastics are a huge consumer of petrol, except, of course, bioplastics.

        "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

        by koNko on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 06:15:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  emissions (4+ / 0-)

      agreed - jamess also - but there is a grey area ... CO2 emissions as such are not a new feature, they are a part of the biological cycle (also of humanity´s part in it) since long before the industrial revolution. Rice Paddies, if I recall correctly, are very large greenhouse gas emitters. They were so always. Meat production is a large CO2 emitter. How would a carbon price deal with that part of the emissions that is entirely intrinsic to the biological cycle, but nonetheless damaging due to the vastly enhanced scale of modern operations? it is not all as clear cut as fossil fuel use. (which is clear cut indeed).

      Ici s´arrète la loi.

      by marsanges on Thu Jun 24, 2010 at 02:30:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Biological emissions (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jamess
        Are never considered in CO2 emissions scenarios and were never a problem before the industrial revolution. The accumulation of atmospheric carbon started in the mid 19th Century with the industrial revolution due to the expontential increase in the buring of coal for industrial use.

        All decaying plants/animal emmit CO2, methane, etc., however, most plants convert more CO2 in their lifetime then they emmit when composting, so the balance is positive.

        "Life immitates art, but takes license." - ko

        by koNko on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 06:29:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site