Log in

View Full Version : US federal Carbon Tax is halfway home ...



Pages : 1 2 3 [4]

threlayer
08-05-2009, 12:32 PM
^^ cheap shot!

You think that's funny?

T Boone Pickens tells a story about an old man occasionally in town; they were inteviewing him while they could."
Reporter: "Guess you've seen a lot of changes in your life."
Old man: "Sure have." "And I been agin' ever' one of 'em."


I think his name was Eric.

eagle2
08-05-2009, 09:25 PM
You are right in that nuclear power is the world's MOST expensive way to boil water AND we still have to deal with the waste. The French encase it in black glass and keep it in water covered storage facilities when they could and should dump it in the muddy bottom of some very stable areas of the Pacific Ocean.


No it isn't. The capital costs are much more expensive, but once the nuclear power plant is built, the fuel costs are much lower than alternatives. Over a short time period, nuclear energy is much more expensive, but over a 50-60 year time period, the costs are competitive.

threlayer
08-06-2009, 06:16 AM
^^ Shorter period than that, especially if the environmentalists can get their confused ducks in order.

It's this way -- environmental and health damage you experience now is a lot more credible and worth doing something about than damage that is not current, but just might be happening hundreds or thousands of years in the future, or not.

Eric Stoner
08-06-2009, 07:23 AM
No it isn't. The capital costs are much more expensive, but once the nuclear power plant is built, the fuel costs are much lower than alternatives. Over a short time period, nuclear energy is much more expensive, but over a 50-60 year time period, the costs are competitive.

Fine and dandy. Cost is just one part of the equation. So long as we do it right and follow the French, as opposed to the "Whoops" ( Washington State), model and build safe, state of the art plants, I'm all in favor of expanding our use of nuclear power.

Eric Stoner
08-06-2009, 07:30 AM
^^ cheap shot!

You think that's funny?

T Boone Pickens tells a story about an old man occasionally in town; they were inteviewing him while they could."
Reporter: "Guess you've seen a lot of changes in your life."
Old man: "Sure have." "And I been agin' ever' one of 'em."


I think his name was Eric.

Unfortunately, I was being serious. Who has controlled the education system in every major U.S. city for decades ? Who has the most symbiotic relationship with the NEA ? Who has opposed charter schools and vouchers ? It hasn't been the Republicans. If it's not deliberate
Dem policy to maintain a solid cadre of ignoramuses, then it's certainly a corollary benefit from what they ARE trying to do i.e. do the bidding of the teachers unions.

If we are going to compete against China, India, Brazil etc in the decades ahead we MUST have an educated workforce. As things stand now we do not and will not and thus will have to import trained engineers and the like.

If we want the electorate to be informed and vote intelligently based on issues ( and not just on who they want to have a beer with ) then we ought to focus on "Is our children learning."

threlayer
08-06-2009, 10:12 AM
^^ I also have a lot of problems with the US educational system, teacher unions, NEA, and DoHEW. I don't think this has all that much to do with the Democrats in general, but a subset, social liberals who have little intuition about where we as a country are headed.

I can't blame the Democrats for most of the country's ills, as do the conservatives. Usually the problem is a little on both sides of the floor, and it has to do with political reluctance to come to a creative solution from somewhat extreme stances.

Eric Stoner
08-06-2009, 10:57 AM
^^ I also have a lot of problems with the US educational system, teacher unions, NEA, and DoHEW. I don't think this has all that much to do with the Democrats in general, but a subset, social liberals who have little intuition about where we as a country are headed.

I can't blame the Democrats for most of the country's ills, as do the conservatives. Usually the problem is a little on both sides of the floor, and it has to do with political reluctance to come to a creative solution from somewhat extreme stances.

Overall, there is plenty of blame to go around but when it comes to education, the Dems deserve the lion's share of blame. The "social liberals" find a comfy home and get a sympathetic ear from the Dems.

threlayer
08-06-2009, 01:22 PM
<threadjack>
That must give the Libertarians the shivers, I mean the social liberals spending public money for all sorts of "educational" schemes that produce little learning but a lot of administration. Realistically, there are so many diversions from teaching that the better teachers find it very difficult to actually teach those who actually want to learn.
</threadjack>

Eric Stoner
08-09-2009, 11:31 AM
<threadjack>
That must give the Libertarians the shivers, I mean the social liberals spending public money for all sorts of "educational" schemes that produce little learning but a lot of administration. Realistically, there are so many diversions from teaching that the better teachers find it very difficult to actually teach those who actually want to learn.
</threadjack>

I agree with you.

eagle2
08-09-2009, 10:20 PM
Unfortunately, I was being serious. Who has controlled the education system in every major U.S. city for decades ? Who has the most symbiotic relationship with the NEA ? Who has opposed charter schools and vouchers ? It hasn't been the Republicans. If it's not deliberate
Dem policy to maintain a solid cadre of ignoramuses, then it's certainly a corollary benefit from what they ARE trying to do i.e. do the bidding of the teachers unions.

If we are going to compete against China, India, Brazil etc in the decades ahead we MUST have an educated workforce. As things stand now we do not and will not and thus will have to import trained engineers and the like.

If we want the electorate to be informed and vote intelligently based on issues ( and not just on who they want to have a beer with ) then we ought to focus on "Is our children learning."

As far as I know, Democrats support charter schools. While our public school system does have a lot of room for improvement, there are many good public schools. The quality varies from one school district to another and one state to another.

Eric Stoner
08-10-2009, 09:53 AM
As far as I know, Democrats support charter schools. While our public school system does have a lot of room for improvement, there are many good public schools. The quality varies from one school district to another and one state to another.

Some Democrats do. Usually when they become mayors and have to deal first hand with the school systems wrecked by the education professionals and teachers unions.

Good public schools are generally located in small and wealthy towns and cities. They can afford to pay for the best teachers and pricipals and do so. In New York, Scarsdale and Oceanside have good public schools. New Jersey has many upper income communities with good schools. In poor and ghetto areas only charter schools like KIP or Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Improvement Zone schools or Marva Collins's private schools can compete on the same plane. Washington D.C. has highly paid teachers and spends more per pupil than any other city and their students perform the worst.

Eric Stoner
08-13-2009, 12:40 PM
According to a U.N. report from 1989, we are already supposed to have drowned. It predicted that the polar ice caps would melt and flood the Earth by the year 2000. Yawn.

In a July 5, 1989 article in the Miami Herald, U.N. scientists predicted a ten year window to reverse man-made climate change or the Earth would suffer irreparable harm including widespread flooding and massive dislocation. The "drop-dead" date THEN was 1999. That was 19 years before Gore gave his big speech in 2008 pushing back the deadline. Probably to protect his investments.

threlayer
08-14-2009, 08:38 AM
...In New York, Scarsdale and Oceanside have good public schools. New Jersey has many upper income communities with good schools. In poor and ghetto areas only charter schools like KIP or Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Improvement Zone schools or Marva Collins's private schools can compete on the same plane....
Does that mean that the five boroughs have different tax rates? If not, bad schools in a high tax region either are the produict of discriminatory School Boards, or good teachers and admins mostly just not wanting to work there. In the latter case it is the region that has to get their act together or some Board inducements. Good luck with that.

Melonie
08-14-2009, 02:26 PM
^^^ yes the NY boroughs do have different tax rates ... because they are actually organized as different counties.

threlayer
08-15-2009, 11:03 PM
Then even within the same school districts, different schools of the same classification get different amounts of support to the extent that the quality of education can be greatly affected, and certainly the outcomes. I suppose it is a type of discrimination, rather than just chance, but the discrimination can be by the school staff or by the school board allocations.

Eric Stoner
08-17-2009, 08:20 AM
^^^ yes the NY boroughs do have different tax rates ... because they are actually organized as different counties.

I'm sorry Melonie but they Do NOT ! All have the same sales tax and property tax rates ; all of which go into the same pots in Albany and the NYC Comptroller's Office.

Eric Stoner
08-17-2009, 08:25 AM
Does that mean that the five boroughs have different tax rates? If not, bad schools in a high tax region either are the produict of discriminatory School Boards, or good teachers and admins mostly just not wanting to work there. In the latter case it is the region that has to get their act together or some Board inducements. Good luck with that.

How can you ignore schools in poor areas that succeed ? KIP works and it's students are overwhelmingly minority and poor. So are Geoffrey Canada's and Marva Collins'. All succeed at a fraction of what is spent per pupil in places like D.C. ; NYC as a whole; L.A. and dozens of other cities.

Lower middle class kids in the Dakotas whose states spend a fraction of what most other states do on education consistently outperform them. How do YOU explain that ?

threlayer
08-17-2009, 09:38 AM
I can only explain it by exraordinary administration and staff. I am not ignoring it at all, just acknowledging that it is rare. I've been talking averages, you'll note. Also I haven't been talking about comparing schoools in one state with those in another. The taxpayers do, or should, still have some input.

What I cannot explain is that schools in poorer areas in the same school district, and the same cost per pupil-year having much poorer performance than average for the district. I've been only speculating about what causes that.

Melonie
08-17-2009, 09:48 AM
Eric, have a look at the de-facto tax differences ...

Eric Stoner
08-17-2009, 11:07 AM
Eric, have a look at the de-facto tax differences ...

http://www.henrygeorgeschool.org/taxquestions.htm

Yes Melonie. All true but effectively irrelevant. Regardless of some strange assessments and glaring inequalities, the fact remains that the City collects and spends property tax revenues.

Eric Stoner
08-17-2009, 11:14 AM
I can only explain it by exraordinary administration and staff. I am not ignoring it at all, just acknowledging that it is rare. I've been talking averages, you'll note. Also I haven't been talking about comparing schoools in one state with those in another. The taxpayers do, or should, still have some input.

What I cannot explain is that schools in poorer areas in the same school district, and the same cost per pupil-year having much poorer performance than average for the district. I've been only speculating about what causes that.

You're half right. There IS extraordinary staff at KIP, Marva Collins' and Geoffrey Canada's schools among other places.

As for schools from poor areas performing worse than schools in better off areas within the same district, the primary difference is PARENTING. Single mothers raising children have less time and less inclination to read to them; to go Parent-Teacher nights; cannot afford to buy them books etc.

The poorer kids in the Dakotas are usually in two-parent homes; watch less T.V.; play fewer video games; are read to and read more themselves.

threlayer
08-18-2009, 02:52 PM
^^ Parenting plus school staff choice preferences.

Of course another, but related, issue is crime-ridden areas associated with poor school perfomance. That would certainly keep any but the most hardened teachers and staff away. Whom I would not want to be taught by.

Melonie
08-23-2009, 07:20 AM
circling back on topic, the following state by state estimates of the financial impact of US carbon cap & trade legislation are available at


for my (former) home state of New York, the projection highlights are as follows ...

http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/images/WM2585-NY_Table1.gif

Eric Stoner
09-02-2009, 07:44 AM
To help pay for all the increased spending of Obama and the Dem. Congress, carbon-emission permits were supposed to be auctioned off. Waxman-Markey provides that they be given away. Waxman- Markey proposes to hold the global CO2 level to a maximum of 450 parts per million by 2050. That is less than the projected level for all countries except the 30 member nations of the OECD i.e. the 30 most developed. That means that the Waxman- Markey goal is IMPOSSIBLE even if the 30 most developed countries in the world disappear.

Waxman- Markey is designed to reduce U.S. emissions 83% below 2005 levels by 2050. That means about 6 billion tons are supposed to drop to about 1 million. About what our total emissions were before W.W.I when our population was less than 100 million and our GDP was about 4% of what it is now . In 2050 we will have well over 400 million people. That means we'd each be permitted to emit or use about 2.5 tons of greenhouse gases per year. Thus we'll be taken back to an economy on the scale of what we had back in 1875. Two of the "greenest" countries in the world, France and Switzerland today produce well over 6 tons per person per year. Both make extensive use of nuclear and hydropower for electricity production.

And some say that Global Warming skeptics need to get serious ? When this is the type of nonsense we are getting from the "believers" in the current Congress ? They are so like devout Christers who expect " The Lord (to) provide". Or better yet, as George Will describes them: "They are unserious people whom nobody is taking seriously." Except for Paul Krugman of course.



* Thanks to Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green at the American Enterprise Institute for the data.