Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Lothsahn said:
Let's not lie. Unless it's voluntary, it's a tax.
That sounds like a reasonable working definition but then anything you do not get for free is one big tax, right ? The money you were paid to work is you taxing the poor slob that wanted your labor ? In any case I responded to Oil-y saying that 'most' people in the USA refuse to pay a $10 a month tax to "fix global warming." Then follow-up posts attempted to paint a tax as a waste of money.

My point is that the 'fix' does not REQUIRE taxation, although that can be one venue.

People can opt in to clean energy programs via their utilities
They can vote for clean energy regulation
They can self - produce clean energy
They can conserve
They can improve the efficiency of the devices they use

In short, attempting to equate AGW solutions with taxation is a straw-man ready made for those looking for excuses to avoid personal responsibility.
 
Oilpan4 said:
SageBrush said:
Oilpan4 said:
Okay let's say, you convinced me.
Now convince the other 68% of voters to open their wallets and pay up too. Or even just get the undecided people to pay up.
You can only be responsible for yourself.

That is why you presumably vote. Your choice is stark: you can choose an AGW denying idiot who thinks coal is clean, or a politician who recognizes AGW as a national emergency
That is why you choose whether to burn coal and wood in your home.
That is why you choose whether to tell your utility if you want clean energy.

Your vote may fail, but without it you definitely fail.

So more name calling, personal attacks and insults is all you have?.
Are you referring to my call for personal responsibility ?
 
SageBrush said:
Lothsahn said:
Let's not lie. Unless it's voluntary, it's a tax.
That sounds like a reasonable working definition but then anything you do not get for free is one big tax, right ? The money you were paid to work is you taxing the poor slob that wanted your labor ?

I didn't think I had to say "by the government", but I guess I did. Your example is not from the government nor likely compulsory.

SageBrush said:
People can opt in to clean energy programs via their utilities
They can vote for clean energy regulation
They can self - produce clean energy
They can conserve
They can improve the efficiency of the devices they use

In short, attempting to equate AGW solutions with taxation is a straw-man ready made for those looking for excuses to avoid personal responsibility.

They can and I encourage them to do so, but history shows that this is not having a big enough effect quickly enough. If we don't mandate change, it's going to get very very ugly. Therefore, more than personal decisions is necessary if we want an AGW solution.

This is why I recommend a carbon tax. A properly sized tax will account for the externalities from pollution. A tax is a more effective and less economically damaging solution than bans or other drastic measures. The market will simply adjust to polluting less, which is what we all want.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
I find the idea of a carbon tax totally disingenuous. It's like an indulgence in the Catholic Church. So what you're doing is destroying the planet but as long as you pay me some money it's okay. The inevitable result will be the wealthier people just pay the tax and enjoy their limousines, megayachts and private jets and the folks further down the economic spectrum get shafted. Then the gnashing of teeth will be over that inequity in life, and we'll have another leftist politician offering a solution for that. OMG school teachers can't afford to put gas in their tanks. Women and children hardest hit. Let me guess, carbon tax subsidies to offset the disproportionate burden.


Consider the alternative. PT replay.
 
Lothsahn said:
I didn't think I had to say "by the government", but I guess I did. Your example is not from the government nor likely compulsory.
Is your local power utility part of the government ?
If they are regulated to use clean power is that taaaaxxxx ?

The biggest problems from my POV of carbon tax schemes are twofold:
One, the taxation may be diverted;
Two, revenue neutrality ignores the basic problem that pollution is currently an externality -- meaning CURRENTLY NOT PAID.

Which is not to say that I would not support a carbon tax -- I would, in order to give people a reason to think about doing things differently. My first choice however is a market trading scheme with teeth and annual carbon limits that reach zero in 10 years. I think it can be a lot more efficient and with less waste and corruption.
 
Lothsahn said:
They can and I encourage them to do so, but history shows that this is not having a big enough effect quickly enough. If we don't mandate change, it's going to get very very ugly. Therefore, more than personal decisions is necessary if we want an AGW solution.

No doubt, but I object to the circular logic Oil-y represents:

He refuses to take voluntary personal responsibility. When that forces regulatory action or taxation to achieve an AGW solution he cries wolf.
 
LTLFTcomposite said:
WetEV said:
Consider the alternative. PT replay.
What's that, the yellow vest thing? I agree that can't be good for business.
Business as usual is horrible for business. Business relies on societies not ravaged by pollution and climate change.
 
If the economics aren't there all you're going to do is move the problem around. There's always someplace third-worldier than whatever place you're currently exploiting. Look what happened when they tried to tighten up ship breaking in India, the business just moved to Bangladesh.

https://youtu.be/WOmtFN1bfZ8

Bringing it back more directly on topic, to effect real change you need technological solutions that "win" on economics. Relying on individual decision making is a bad bet for the topic at hand (solar panels) because what you are actually asking people to do is transition away from a service model, which is the bigger change and the exact opposite of current trends.
 
WetEV said:
LTLFTcomposite said:
WetEV said:
Consider the alternative. PT replay.
What's that, the yellow vest thing? I agree that can't be good for business.

The Great Dying. ELE. Result of a large geologic release of CO2.

I'd rather face yellow vests.
Meh, 8 billion people headed to 11 on this rock orbiting a star the only thing certain is that it can't and won't continue. Something's going to get us, who knows if the CO2 will be first.
Meanwhile go ahead try telling people to turn off their air conditioners and let me know how that works out.
 
WetEV said:
You are taking a partisan stance even if you don't realize it. Or perhaps you are taking a stance and don't realize the partisan spin on it.

Sure, there was disagreement about this measure in Democratic organizations, as the side effects of the I-732 were very Republican. Net increasing taxes on the middle class. Tax cuts for business and wealthy. Total net cut in taxes, making problems with school funding worse.

Actually, I am not. You are just so fixated on making the point that the bill failed for partisan reasons that you can't acknowledge the point I actually made. The point I actually made was not about the bill passing or failing but instead about specific "justice" groups, that strongly supported the goal of reducing carbon emissions, not supporting a bill that would work to reduce carbon emissions because they didn't like the way it used the revenue. My personal suspicion is that you see it is a partisan attack because it is critical of groups on the Democrat side of the aisle when you feel like the other side of the aisle was far worse. But my comment was about the difficulty of building consensus across groups that generally agree, it had nothing to do with the passing or failing of the bill.

I fully acknowledged, even though my point does not require me to, that Republican opposition to the bill was much higher than Democrat opposition. I also acknowledged, in subsequent posts, that concerns about the actual "revenue neutral" status of the bill were widespread and played a role in some groups opposing it. None of that negates my point however.

Here is my direct original quote.

golfcart said:
Lothsahn is right in so far as polling (for what it's worth) confirms broad support a "revenue neutral" carbon tax ... but things have a way of getting testy when it comes time to split up the pot of money generated. That is one of the main roadblocks to new taxes in general, taxpayers often feel like the taxes never end up getting used to directly address the problems that justify the tax in the first place. We've seen the bait and switch used too many times.

IIRC it was the various "Justice" groups that refused to get behind the carbon tax in Washington State a few years back because it was revenue neutral, "business friendly", and didn't "redistribute" the money where they thought it should.

I have since provided evidence to support that assertion on multiple occasions by linking to the Yale poll and statements from groups like the Sierra Club and other groups citing social/racial/environmental "justice" concerns about the bill. You have consistently cherry picked portions of multiple articles to make different points, claiming that they disagree with me, while ignoring the portions of the same articles that support the point I made. I demonstrate that again... the following quote comes directly from the Vox (an article that you said disagrees with me).

Vox Article said:
The alliance argument against revenue neutrality is simply that a price on carbon alone won’t guarantee that clean energy flourishes, that at-risk communities are protected from the effects of climate change, or that workers are sheltered from the economic upheaval of a clean-energy transition.

As Johnson puts it, "just because a transition is going to happen, it doesn't mean justice will follow." To secure justice, you need investment.

The first priority for investment would be "worker, impacted community, and vulnerable industry support." In practice, that means funding the working families tax rebate, worker transition programs, and assistance to energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) industries.

The revenue remaining would be divided between clean energy (70 percent), clean water (20 percent), and healthy forests (10 percent). Within that pool, 25 percent of investments must benefit impacted communities and 10 percent must go directly into those communities. (This is very similar to current California policy.)

Equity, to the alliance, means acknowledging that low-income communities don’t just need tax relief; they need resilient infrastructure, access to jobs, and training in the clean energy economy. Union workers don’t just need tax relief; they need transition assistance, retraining, and protection for the industries in which many of their members work.

If it is to have any sustained political power, "the climate movement is going to be an environmental justice movement," Kelley says. "It just is. Other folks can buy their way out of it long enough."

It seems pretty cut and dry that I have supported my original assertion in multiple posts. You may not like me focusing on that particular point and prefer that I focus on the "revenue neutrality" concerns or the lack of Republican support... but you cannot say that my point is unsupported or outside of the realm of reasonable positions. If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.
 
golfcart said:
If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.
I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"
 
golfcart said:
WetEV said:
You are taking a partisan stance even if you don't realize it. Or perhaps you are taking a stance and don't realize the partisan spin on it.

Sure, there was disagreement about this measure in Democratic organizations, as the side effects of the I-732 were very Republican. Net increasing taxes on the middle class. Tax cuts for business and wealthy. Total net cut in taxes, making problems with school funding worse.

Actually, I am not. You are just so fixated on making the point that the bill failed for partisan reasons that you can't acknowledge the point I actually made.

No, I want you to not spin this.

The most important reason why this I-732 failed was the near total Republican opposition. And this bill was aimed at Republican goals, other than climate change. Why are you fixated on why some Democratic organizations not supporting it and also not opposing it?

The second most important reason why I-732 failed was the lack of revenue neutrality. With this and near total Republican opposition, I-732 was doomed.

I get annoyed at the other Washington's fixation on spin. Making your point is repeating spin, especially as you didn't mention larger factors.


golfcart said:
Here is my direct original quote.

Lothsahn is right in so far as polling (for what it's worth) confirms broad support a "revenue neutral" carbon tax ... but things have a way of getting testy when it comes time to split up the pot of money generated. That is one of the main roadblocks to new taxes in general, taxpayers often feel like the taxes never end up getting used to directly address the problems that justify the tax in the first place. We've seen the bait and switch used too many times.

IIRC it was the various "Justice" groups that refused to get behind the carbon tax in Washington State a few years back because it was revenue neutral, "business friendly", and didn't "redistribute" the money where they thought it should.

Notice again what you emphasized, and what you didn't mention, and what you misnamed.

Missed the Elephant of near zero Republican support. Totally missed it.

I-732 was NOT revenue neutral. It was NOT revenue neutral. You are factually incorrect. Exactly backwards.

A tax cut to the wealthy might be "business friendly", but shouldn't we call it a tax cut for the wealthy? Wouldn't that be more honest?

Not supporting isn't the same as opposing.

In spite of all of this, a large majority of progressive voters voted for I-732. Many holding their noses, I'm sure. In spite of all of this, many progressive organizations did not oppose it. If it had been revenue neutral, it might have passed, but if it looked likely the oil companies would have unleashed a torrent of money, as they did for I-1631. If even a third of Republican voters had supported it, it might of passed.


golfcart said:
You have consistently cherry picked portions of multiple articles to make different points, claiming that they disagree with me, while ignoring the portions of the same articles that support the point I made.

It isn't "cherry picking" to point out that you are factually wrong. I-732 was not revenue neutral.

It isn't "cherry picking" to point out that you totally missed the largest point, the near total Republican rejection of a bill aimed at Republican goals, such as tax cuts for the wealthy and defunding the government, other than the military and police.


golfcart said:
If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.

I-1631 was designed to meet progressive goals and was revenue positive by design. I-1631 got support from all of the progressive organizations, and got 3% better at the ballot box. How to divide that 3% increase between progressive goals and lack of fiscal disaster isn't clear, but yes, you do have a valid point. Tiny, and out of context, but valid.

Your point would be larger in France, with a carbon tax to fund a tax cut for the wealthy started the "yellow vest movement". But France has rather different politics.

As long as you don't ignore the elephant, I don't disagree. With near zero Republican support, any carbon tax in the USA is doomed. Not just in Washington, but the rest of the country. Republicans generally don't seem to care about the details. Democrats might, to some extent.
 
SageBrush said:
golfcart said:
If you would like to acknowledge my point, but also make the point that other factors were more important in the bill not passing then I agree with you 100%... but that does not make my point invalid. I try to have these discussions in good faith, I would hope that you do the same.
I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"

That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.
 
golfcart said:
SageBrush said:
I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"

That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.
I know, you were only talking about the ant. WetEV and I are reminding you of the elephant.
 
SageBrush said:
golfcart said:
SageBrush said:
I am reminded of a favorite cartoon:

An ant and an elephant are hurrying down a path. The ant looks behind them and exclaims "WOW. Look at all that dust we are causing !"

That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.
I know, you were only talking about the ant. WetEV and I are reminding you of the elephant.

I think the elephant has been well acknowledged by all parties but thanks for the reminder. I will stick to the approved list of talking points in the future... :roll:
 
golfcart said:
SageBrush said:
golfcart said:
That'd be great if I was talking about the dust (why the bill failed) but I wasn't... Nice try though it certainly seems witty at first glance.
I know, you were only talking about the ant. WetEV and I are reminding you of the elephant.

I think the elephant has been well acknowledged by all parties but thanks for the reminder. I will stick to the approved list of talking points in the future... :roll:

If by 'approved' you mean pertinent and relevant to the context then YES. E.g., I could mention out of the blue that the progressive vote was fragmented but that would be useless spin. The pertinent information would be the ~ 90% majority.

Likewise, I could say that it is false to call the Repuke electorate AGW denialists. That is correct since ~ 15% of that group realize that climate change is anthropogenic. However, the tone, politicians and laws reflect the denialism of the supermajority 85% of that group so my original statement is just spin.
 
Back
Top