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.
SageBrush said:
Lothsahn said:
The interesting part is most Americans do, as long as everyone else has to as well.
That must be why Trumpers favor a carbon tax.

Oh wait .. never mind.

The need to inject the word Trump into every single discussion is tiresome. Take a break from Colbert and Maddow for a couple days, it'll do wonders for your mental health. :D

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'd gladly support a carbon tax that used the revenue to directly fund carbon reducing practices and technology but I've yet to see any such proposal gain traction. My choices right now seem to be using the revenue for "social justice" (whatever that is specifically I haven't been able to determine) or denial of the problem completely...
 
golfcart said:
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.

The fact that it was a large net tax cut of $225 million per year probably had more to do with it. Schools were already short funding.

It was sold as being revenue neutral, but cut more in other taxes than it would have collected, and then gave even more away as a rebate. In spite of this, it carried the liberal precincts, and lost very badly in the conservative precincts.

https://yeson732.org/732-election-results-summary/

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20161108/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-732-concerns-taxes_ByCounty.html

I'm aware that attempts have been and are being made to rewrite history. Don't be fooled. The vote distribution speaks for truth. King Country is majority Democratic. I732 carried King County. Spokane County is majority Republican. I732 lost there with 32% of the vote.
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
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.

The fact that it was a large net tax cut of $225 million per year probably had more to do with it. Schools were already short funding.

It was sold as being revenue neutral, but cut more in other taxes than it would have collected, and then gave even more away as a rebate. In spite of this, it carried the liberal precincts, and lost very badly in the conservative precincts.

https://yeson732.org/732-election-results-summary/

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20161108/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-732-concerns-taxes_ByCounty.html

I'm aware that attempts have been and are being made to rewrite history. Don't be fooled. The vote distribution speaks for truth. King Country is majority Democratic. I732 carried King County. Spokane County is majority Republican. I732 lost there with 32% of the vote.

I didn't say anything partisan I said that various "Justice" groups refused to get behind it. Nothing you said refutes that. Did the following groups support the measure?

Sierra Club
Washington Environmental Council
Union of Concerned Scientists
Climate Solutions
350Seattle.org
NAACP
Latino Community Fund

If they did not, why did they say that they didn't? Do those reasons align reasonably well with what I said? If so then what is your disagreement?

My overall point is not too start a partisan battle, just to show that people can be generally supportive of things but the details often prove difficult to agree on.
 
golfcart said:
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
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.

The fact that it was a large net tax cut of $225 million per year probably had more to do with it. Schools were already short funding.

It was sold as being revenue neutral, but cut more in other taxes than it would have collected, and then gave even more away as a rebate. In spite of this, it carried the liberal precincts, and lost very badly in the conservative precincts.

https://yeson732.org/732-election-results-summary/

http://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20161108/State-Measures-Initiative-Measure-No-732-concerns-taxes_ByCounty.html

I'm aware that attempts have been and are being made to rewrite history. Don't be fooled. The vote distribution speaks for truth. King Country is majority Democratic. I732 carried King County. Spokane County is majority Republican. I732 lost there with 32% of the vote.

I didn't say anything partisan I said that various "Justice" groups refused to get behind it. Nothing you said refutes that. Did the following groups support the measure?
Sierra Club

You should ask why? This is the compelling argument, but not the whole Sierra Club statement.

There remains justifiable concern about I-732's revenue projections. While I-732 was intended to be revenue neutral, the State Department of Revenue predicts I-732 will result in about $200 million of lost revenue per year in its first four years.
Washington Environmental Council

Again, why?

Despite the initiative’s intent to be revenue neutral, the state Office of Financial Management has analyzed the policy and found that enacting it would create a $797 million hole over the next three biennia in the already insufficient state budget. That’s over $130 million every year, at a time when the state is struggling to pay for vital services and public education. This budget hole would increase burdens on vulnerable populations, and reduce dollars for enforcing existing environmental laws, not to mention preventing needed investments in transitioning to clean energy.
Union of Concerned Scientists

Took no position.

Under these circumstances, we decided that this is a debate that should be settled by Washingtonians.
Climate Solutions

Number one reason to oppose was revenue negative.

1. It is revenue negative: Rather than being revenue neutral as intended, I-732 would create nearly a $1 billion hole in the state budget over the next four years. This deficit threatens to pit funding for climate against public education, social services, and other vital government services. The passage of I-732 could lead to reduced public services, deepening the challenges for vulnerable people
350Seattle.org

I can't find the full pre-election statement. They did endorse it, then reverse after the budget shortfall and other issues became apparent.

NAACP
Latino Community Fund


Sorry, but I'm not very aware of either of these organizations policies or positions on climate change. A short DuckDuckGo session didn't help.

golfcart said:
If they did not, why did they say that they didn't? Do those reasons align reasonably well with what I said? If so then what is your disagreement?
The budget shortfall. You called it "revenue neutral". It wasn't revenue neutral. Sure, you can find other reasons. But that was the most persuasive for many of the people I talked to.

The parts of the state that voted against I-732 are not heavily influenced by any of these organizations. The reasons why Republicans voted against this are:

1) It is a tax.
2) It paid rebates to low income people and they didn't earn them.
3) Global warming is a Chinese plot. Or something similar.
4) It isn't revenue neutral, so might cause the state to pass an income tax to get out of the fiscal crisis made worse by I732.

The last point almost makes sense.

And remember that this passed in the Democratic areas. And failed badly in Republican areas.

Disclosure: I voted for, donated money to, and campaigned for I732.
 
golfcart said:
I didn't say anything partisan

Actually you did. You blamed the defeat on "justice" groups.

Remember that the Democratic areas and voters supported this and the Republican areas and voters didn't.

Don't blame Nixon on Massachusetts.
 
WetEV said:
golfcart said:
I didn't say anything partisan

Actually you did. You blamed the defeat on "justice" groups.

Remember that the Democratic areas and voters supported this and the Republican areas and voters didn't.

Don't blame Nixon on Massachusetts.

That's not partisan and I didn't blame the defeat on "Justice" groups... I made the assertion to show that advocacy groups who most would think are supportive of such a measure were not supportive because they disagreed with how the revenue would be used.
 
So you agree that none of those groups supported the bill... I'm glad we're on the same page.

WetEV said:
You should ask why? This is the compelling argument, but not the whole Sierra Club statement.

Your point is taken but you are cherry picking the parts that you paste in. There Sierra club also said:

Communities of color and low-income people are almost always the ones most impacted by pollution and climate change, and as a result they need to be at the front and center of discussions for how to address the problem and mitigate the impacts of both climate change and environmental policy. That wasn't the approach taken by I-732. As a result, the initiative fails to affirmatively address any of the stated needs of those communities: more investment in green jobs, energy efficiency, transit, housing, and renewable energy infrastructure.

I also read that people quit the Sierra club over their refusal to endorse the plan.

You're honestly blowing this whole thing way out of proportion off of what was a simple statement about the difficulty of finding consensus.

Was I a little snarky with my example?? Sure I was... After reading a bunch of Sage's posts sometimes I want to act like a douchebag too. But my point remains that there are very few plans that aim to solve the problem by just addressing the problem... at the end of the day that bill would have worked to reduce carbon emissions yet many groups who strongly support that goal did not support the bill. Some of that opposition, as you have pointed out, was over concerns that the bill would produce a budget shortfall... But much of the opposition was also because people instead wanted a bill that would let them use the revenue for initiatives not directly related to the reduction of carbon emissions.
 
golfcart said:
I want to act like a douchebag .
You say you support paying for pollution.
Whom did you vote for in recent state and national elections ?

Care to point to polls that show that Trumpers favor a carbon tax ?
I pulled this from a NYT article
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll recently asked people if they believed climate change is “serious” and requires “immediate action.” Only around 15 percent of Republicans said yes compared with 71 percent of Democrats.
So if 85% of generic Repukes are morons, what is your guess for Trumpers ?
 
SageBrush said:
Care to point to polls that show that Trumpers favor a carbon tax ?

There u go with the Trump nonsense again... like a broken record. I didn't vote for him so quit trying to use him to dismiss things I say...

What I did actually say was:

Lothsahn is right in so far as polling (for what it's worth) confirms broad support a "revenue neutral" carbon tax

It's not hard to find information to support that assertion. There's a nice poll done by Yale that backs up exactly what I said. I'll even pull out the relevant sentences but feel free to read the whole thing.

https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/politics-global-warming-november-2016/7/

Two in three registered voters (66%) support requiring fossil fuel companies to pay a carbon tax and using the money to reduce other taxes (such as income tax) by an equal amount – a plan often referred to as a “revenue neutral carbon tax.”
 
golfcart said:
It's not hard to find information to support that assertion. There's a nice poll done by Yale that backs up exactly what I said. I'll even pull out the relevant sentences but feel free to read the whole thing.

The details matter here, as WetEV tried to point out to you. There is overwhelming support for addressing AGW in the progressive camp, strong support among Democrats, middling support among 'independents,' piss-poor support among Republicans of all flavors, and I'll leave it to you to guess where Trumpers stand. Every vote for a Repuke politician ends up being support for AGW denial because the strong majority of that party are in AGW denial.

It is not by chance that Trump says that AGW is a hoax and that he supports coal subsidy. He KNOWS his base. From the Yale study:

uc
 
SageBrush said:
It is not by chance that Trump says that AGW is a hoax and that he supports coal subsidy. He KNOWS his base.

For the last F'n time, my comment was not partisan. Make that point to someone else it's got nothing to do with what I said.

As a counterpoint to your assertion, in the spirit of addressing what someone actually said, there is evidence to the contrary from recent polling.

Another recent Yale survey found that overall, 78% of registered American voters support taxing and/or regulating carbon pollution, including 67% of Republicans and 60% of conservative Republicans.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-a-tax-on-carbon-pollution-but-how-to-get-one

Of course polling is not perfect and people have to make choices when there are competing interests involved... but it points a less bleak picture than you do.
 
"The AP found Americans don’t want to pay very much to fight climate change. A $1 per month fee was favored by 57 percent of those surveyed. However, if the monthly charge increased to $10 a month, just 28 percent would be supportive, while 68 opposed".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna962001

I could do $1 per month.
But since I already drive a leaf, heat my home mostly with scrap wood destined for the land fill during the winter and just dropped about $2,000 on 7.3kw of used poly solar panels, racking, holddowns, nuts, bolts, superstrut, I'll pass.
 
golfcart said:
Your point is taken but you are cherry picking the parts that you paste in.
Yes, I'm focusing on what I saw as a campaigner for this initiative as the compelling argument against. Hard to answer.

golfcart said:
You're honestly blowing this whole thing way out of proportion off of what was a simple statement about the difficulty of finding consensus.
I am? Spinning a false history isn't helpful in finding consensus. Sure, there were other reasons for some people. Ignoring the conflict between the revenue neutral claim and the fact that I-732 was not revenue neutral is a whale in the room. A blue whale.

golfcart said:
But much of the opposition was also because people instead wanted a bill that would let them use the revenue for initiatives not directly related to the reduction of carbon emissions.

Take the timber out of your eye.

Most of the opposition was from Republicans, many of whom were against any tax of any type, or against rebates to offset some of the regressive nature of the tax, or didn't want any measure to address something "that didn't exist". The most thoughtful Republican opposition acknowledged the fiscal impact, and rightfully was worried about the impact.
 
WetEV said:
Take the timber out of your eye.

Most of the opposition was from Republicans, many of whom were against any tax of any type, or against rebates to offset some of the regressive nature of the tax, or didn't want any measure to address something "that didn't exist". The most thoughtful Republican opposition acknowledged the fiscal impact, and rightfully was worried about the impact.

Maybe, despite my best efforts, I have still not communicated to you that I am not taking a partisan stance on this. Of course there was more opposition from Republicans, nobody is surprised by that certainly not me.

I don't, for the purposes of this discussion, care why the bill didn't pass I was illustrating how hard it is to get people to agree on specifics even when there is general agreement on a topic.

Why you keep pointing out that it was more strongly supported in Democratic areas in beyond me... it has absolutely nothing to do with my initial comment or my subsequent posts.

I really don't know what else to say about it at this point.
 
I brought it up as an illustration of how difficult it is to reach actual consensus even within groups of people that support the overall goal. That is all.

Vox has a good write up of the controversy surrounding the bill between groups of Democrats/Progressives. Vox is also supportive of reducing carbon emissions and firmly on the left of the political spectrum so y'all have no reason to doubt their reporting as partisan.

https://www.vox.com/2016/10/18/13012394/i-732-carbon-tax-washington

I'm not wasting any more of my weekend on an internet argument. Feel free to misrepresent me for the rest of this thread as you see fit.
 
golfcart said:
WetEV said:
Take the timber out of your eye.

Maybe, despite my best efforts, I have still not communicated to you that I am not taking a partisan stance on this. Of course there was more opposition from Republicans, nobody is surprised by that certainly not me.

Why you keep pointing out that it was more strongly supported in Democratic areas in beyond me... it has absolutely nothing to do with my initial comment or my subsequent posts.

I really don't know what else to say about it at this point. If you disagree that there was in fighting between groups that support reducing carbon emissions because of how to spend the revenue then you are welcome to that opinion but I have read much to the contrary from news sources that represent many sides of the political spectrum.
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.

But the Left, the Democratic voters voted for it. Pointing out the flecks of disagreements on the Democratic side is totally ignoring the timber of steady refusal of the Republicans to consider this issue at all.

From the Vox article:

Tellingly, there were no examples of US climate bipartisanship for Bauman to draw on.
And the Vox article is disagreeing with you

When Bauman told Mankiw that liberals are the primary hindrance to climate action, he was simply wrong. The key obstacle to climate policy in the US is the Republican Party, whose climate science denial and lockstep opposition to climate action are unique among major political parties in the developed world. Theories of political change must begin with that unpleasant reality and address what to do about it.
 
Sage,

Can you please stop with the name calling? Saying that AGW support us super low by Republicans and Trump is helpful. Name calling (Trumper, Moron, Repuke) is not.

On the topic of global warming, we need to develop allies wherever they stand. Name calling won't help, and it's that partisan rhetoric on both sides that's really hurting us as a nation.

We need to address AGW, quickly and significantly. I am happy to work with anyone to educate people about and address GW, whether they be a Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Independent, Communist, or Nazi. If we could all reach across the aisle, I think you'd find we'd all be better off.

As golfcart said, the fact remains that people (at least in polls), support efforts to fix global warming, as long as everyone else has to too. That's a good starting point for a discussion with them about revenue neutral carbon taxes and subsidies. I bet you could get a significant minority of Republicans to buy into a carbon tax if it came with an income tax cut.
 
Lothsahn said:
I bet you could get a significant minority of Republicans to buy into a carbon tax if it came with an income tax cut.
An income tax cut is a non-starter, and you have succumbed to their playbook. The fundamental problem of carbon is externalized costs. It is not possible for society to pay itself now to stop hocking its future. The logic in a carbon tax is two-fold: one, to rationalize the market; and two, to have funds to mitigate future damage. There is no money left over for income tax cuts or any other personal benefit.

I don't know what a 'significant minority' is but this is the group you think can be brought around. They are saying in effect " give me money to stop being a douchebag."

uc
 
Back
Top