<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
	<title><![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for The political chances of carbon taxes]]></title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.grist.org/rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Grist Comment Feed</description>
	<language>en</language>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #1 by GreyFlcn</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/who-you-callin-a-carbon-tax-buddy/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 05:42:57 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/who-you-callin-a-carbon-tax-buddy/1</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>On perception</strong></p><p>One of the real flaws it seems with cap-and-trade though is that lack of certainty with offsets.</p><p>
The other issue is allowances allow for a huge corruption of the system.</p><p>
Improper allowance or Improper offsets can both cause the system to fail.</p><p>
_</p><p>
That why I would argue for Full Auction of Tradeable/Bankable Permits with No Offsets.</p><p>
And as for the necessary pork to get it to pass. &nbsp;Pull that out of the slush fund created by the auction revenues.</p><p>
_</p><p>
The crucial part being that this is gives the public a system that even with corruption will continue to work.</p><p>
Since the slushfund isn't what's important. &nbsp;It's fixing the carbon externality price which matters.</p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>On perception</strong></p><p>One of the real flaws it seems with cap-and-trade though is that lack of certainty with offsets.</p><p>
The other issue is allowances allow for a huge corruption of the system.</p><p>
Improper allowance or Improper offsets can both cause the system to fail.</p><p>
_</p><p>
That why I would argue for Full Auction of Tradeable/Bankable Permits with No Offsets.</p><p>
And as for the necessary pork to get it to pass. &nbsp;Pull that out of the slush fund created by the auction revenues.</p><p>
_</p><p>
The crucial part being that this is gives the public a system that even with corruption will continue to work.</p><p>
Since the slushfund isn't what's important. &nbsp;It's fixing the carbon externality price which matters.</p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
		<item>
            <title>Comment #2 by F James Handley</title>
			<link>http://www.grist.org/article/who-you-callin-a-carbon-tax-buddy/</link>
			<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:37:51 -0700</pubDate>
			<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.grist.org/article/who-you-callin-a-carbon-tax-buddy/2</guid>
			<description><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>When's a tax not a tax?  When it's revenue-neutral<p>Calling cap-and-trade a tax IS truthful, even if motives of the truth-tellers aren't pure. <p>
Lieberman-Warner was fairly described as the biggest tax ever proposed, handing out trillions in free permits and subsidies to political and technological favorites. (Way too early to handicap the technology race. &nbsp;Corn-based ethanol anyone?) &nbsp;<p>
A REVENUE-NEUTRAL carbon tax (or cap) on fossil fuel producers, returning revenue to individuals &nbsp;as a dividend are vastly different than taxes that raise money and dole it out. &nbsp;As Eric de Place suggests, they deserve a different name than "TAX"; unlike the usual taxes, they're not a drag on the economy, aren't regressive and aren't corporate welfare, standard objections to taxes. &nbsp;<p>
Should we call it a carbon disposal fee with dividend? &nbsp;Few object to fees for garbage collection or sewage. &nbsp;A carbon tax would make our energy bills more like most water bills -- pay for bringing it to us and for disposal. <p>
Humans are pumping out twice the CO2 that Earth can recycle. &nbsp;Economists say, "price it or lose it." &nbsp;Right now, prices say "FREE UNLIMITED DUMPING HERE." &nbsp;And we're doing it. &nbsp; <p>
Check out <a href="http://www.carbontax.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.carbontax.org for more information and news about revenue-neutral carbon taxes. &nbsp;</a></p></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[
				<p><strong>When's a tax not a tax?  When it's revenue-neutral<p>Calling cap-and-trade a tax IS truthful, even if motives of the truth-tellers aren't pure. <p>
Lieberman-Warner was fairly described as the biggest tax ever proposed, handing out trillions in free permits and subsidies to political and technological favorites. (Way too early to handicap the technology race. &nbsp;Corn-based ethanol anyone?) &nbsp;<p>
A REVENUE-NEUTRAL carbon tax (or cap) on fossil fuel producers, returning revenue to individuals &nbsp;as a dividend are vastly different than taxes that raise money and dole it out. &nbsp;As Eric de Place suggests, they deserve a different name than "TAX"; unlike the usual taxes, they're not a drag on the economy, aren't regressive and aren't corporate welfare, standard objections to taxes. &nbsp;<p>
Should we call it a carbon disposal fee with dividend? &nbsp;Few object to fees for garbage collection or sewage. &nbsp;A carbon tax would make our energy bills more like most water bills -- pay for bringing it to us and for disposal. <p>
Humans are pumping out twice the CO2 that Earth can recycle. &nbsp;Economists say, "price it or lose it." &nbsp;Right now, prices say "FREE UNLIMITED DUMPING HERE." &nbsp;And we're doing it. &nbsp; <p>
Check out <a href="http://www.carbontax.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.carbontax.org for more information and news about revenue-neutral carbon taxes. &nbsp;</a></p></p></p></p></p></p></strong></p>
			]]></content:encoded>
		</item>
    
 </channel>
</rss>