Dumbest excuses people have given for NOT installing PV

[golfcart]

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/environment ... 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.

[Oilpan4]

"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.

[WetEV]

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.

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.

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.

[golfcart]

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.

[SageBrush]

my comment was not partisan.

Of course it is. Why mention it at all when the bill would have easily passed without Repuke opposition ?

[golfcart]

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 ... 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.

[WetEV]

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.

[LTLFTcomposite]

My taxes dropped five grand last year. I must be wealthy. That explains why I pinch pennies on just about everything to make ends meet.

[Lothsahn]

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.

[SageBrush]

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."