(Some of) The Cost of Carbon Emissions

[SageBrush]

A test with 3 people is a better argument, but how many people can come up with that on their own ?

The Greeks did, thousands of years ago.

One Greek did.

[powersurge]

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

My basic opposition is the idea to use current money and resources for a long term cause when our country has so many more present day challenges.

[WetEV]

I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Opinions, yes. Actions are something different.

My basic opposition is the idea to use current money and resources for a long term cause when our country has so many more present day challenges.

That's why you don't save for retirement, eh?

[LeafTaxi]

You make a good point (that people don't believe that the funds will be used responsibly). I prefer the "carbon fee & dividend" scheme, where every dollar extra that gets collected at the pump gets refunded to citizens or state residents. I'm also biased because I know I'm cheap, but the world is full of spendthrifts, so I will personally come-out ahead .

Taxes on gasoline were supposed to be used to fund road repairs. How did that work out?

It worked-out miserably, but not due to "politicians redirecting the money": rather, nobody could ever increase the gas tax (because politics), even as cars consumed less gas per mile, and the amount of money collected per gallon got smaller due to inflation, and the price of road repairs increased much faster than inflation. It got to the point where the gas tax is not even half of the money spent on roads & bridges by my state (MN).

In my state, gas tax generated $0.9 bn in 2018 but the Trunk + County + Municipal highways and bridges it funds used-up $2.95 bn.

In my state, you _could_ accurately complain that 3% of the gas tax money goes to non-road/bridge things like ATV trails and tax collection, but for every dollar of gas tax "siphoned off" to pay for these non-road uses, there are $58 which were collected other ways (e.g. sales tax), but got "siphoned IN" and lumped-together with the gas tax to pay for the roads and bridges.

Maybe other states fund more things with gas tax, but you'd need a crazy high gas tax to actually collect more money than is spent on roads & bridges. If MN ($0.286/gal) collected the same per gallon as CA ($0.5522/gal), MN would still come up short when it's time to pay for roads, if it wasn't also taking money from other places.

https://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/hwyfin.pdf

[GRA]

Here's an article explaining why CA has the highest gas prices in the country and where a lot of it goes, partly because we've internalized some of the externalities, and also because our roads have been neglected far too long, and are in crappy shape: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/phi ... psid=bC1QN

Note that here, at least, the public has been willing to tax itself to improve transport infrastructure, because everyone has experienced the problems. IIRR the environmental components of the tax (cap and trade, LCFS, gas station cleanup) were done by the legislature, but generally with public support. Of course, our fuel taxes are still far less than is the case in Europe.

[SageBrush]

My basic opposition is the idea to use current money and resources for a long term cause when our country has so many more present day challenges.

Ahh ... so your extra $10 a month not spent on clean energy is directed to what national challenge specifically ?

More importantly (to me anyway) is a basic flaw in your reasoning:
You are dumping your pollution and the costs of your pollution on other people and future generations. Why do you think you have that right ?

[Oilpan4]

Gallup says that only 4% of Americans see "enviroment/pollution/climate change" as the most important problem as of June 2019.
Just 4% and the way the data is totaled they are likely rounding up.

[powersurge]

I don't know if anyone has considered that all media is run by governmental reports that are geared towards unmentioned end goals.

All of this global warming news has been circulated in order for us to agree to new laws that are "good for the environment".

We, as a country, love to say "yes" to all of our idealistic goals such as "humanitarian crisis", "no children in cages", "self-driving cars" etc.

Has anyone been following the CURRENT underhanded governmental push for cities to pass unadvertised "Sustainable Cities" laws? This is the result of future "city planning" to build "green" cities which will include no cars, with government controlled mass transit. Some of those sustainability laws will be Where people are allowed to live, and what "nature areas" will not be open to people. They disguise their intentions with nice sounding terms... I mean.... No one will say no to a law for "self-sustainable cities".... Right?

Also, they will push a new economy with all of the "green technology" like wind, solar, and high tech building technology. Do you have any idea how much money is to be made with these deals to replace all of the infrastructure of out country?

At this rate, we will all be happily saying "Yes" to restricting our lives and living in "green" sardine-can tenements in 50-75 years. Would anyone like to be living in cities like the dystopian science fiction movies? Check out the cities in movies like Demolition Man, Blade Runner, Judge Dredd, and The Fifth Element. That is what the government wants to do in the name of "saving the planet".

Yes, I know, you will probably think that I am a nut, and wear a tin foil hat against alien control rays.... However, when there is an overwhelming governmental "goal", I like to think what will happen decades from now... Just consider my points..

[LeftieBiker]

Not necessarily a "nut," but you do seem to think that enviros have much more power than they do, while not noticing the truly vast power of the energy industry, the money it makes from mindsets like yours, or the near-unanimity of the world's climate scientists in believing that the world's human population is on the verge of ending the planetary ecosystem as we know it.

[Oilpan4]

This is true. The NM renewable energy act was written by out of states activists and appears to benefit a 3rd party more than NM citizens.