Author
Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy
(Read 525994 times)

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2464 on:** May 11, 2020, 07:56:06 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 11, 2020, 03:46:50 PM

I don't believe the numbers from China and India. I do believe the numbers from the US and its allies.

Fortunately, we are pretty much able to calculate how much fossil fuels have been burned to result in the yearly increases in CO2 we observe. And, for once, China's numbers are at least close to accurate.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2465 on:** May 11, 2020, 08:00:29 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 03:44:56 PM

I don't deal with what we CAN do, I worry about what is mostly likely to happen in the real world, as opposed to the Make Believe World.

I look at trends, versus Great Promises a decade ago. I look at what is feasible and practicable versus what has been happening for decades. I'm not impressed when somebody reduces their output by 1-2% a year when the models say it has to be 8-10%.

I try and find hard numbers, how much will this cost, and find nothing but airy fairy rosey burfle. I see the public not liking nuclear and wanting to shut that down. That not only takes an option off the table, it digs a hole in what needs to be done, as Germany if discovering.

Mostly I see political BS and PR. and I think it's clear we're going to run this experiment and find out what happens. The notion that the world is really going to cut CO2 emissions fast enough is simply not something I believe, at all.

This is what I was responding to. Hard numbers. Sorry for the confusion.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2466 on:** May 11, 2020, 08:01:52 PM »

Quote from: 847badgerfan on May 11, 2020, 03:55:54 PM

This is the problem. I'd have to know more (be educated) on how accurate measurements can be taken in China, without China being involved in them.

"We" really should look at nuclear power again. Stop the coal and stop the fracking. Wind and solar have too many limitations from what I seen, and yes, I've done work in both industries so I've had the discussions. They are mostly not cost-effective in many locations. They have to make perfect sense to the developer in order to be pursued. When the subsidies went away in 2011 or so in Illinois, they mostly all pulled out/abandoned their projects. Cost me a lot of work, actually.

Yes we should.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2467 on:** May 11, 2020, 08:07:55 PM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 11, 2020, 04:45:34 PM

China for many years was opening a new coal fired generating plant every WEEK. Yes, their numbers were going through the roof.

They COULD be nearing a point where they level off. Yay.

they leveled off 2 or 3 years ago and are now going down.

Big Beef Tacosupreme · « **Reply #2468 on:** May 11, 2020, 08:11:37 PM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on May 11, 2020, 06:43:41 PM

What did someone say earlier today, the US is emitting 4.9 gigatons of CO2? A quick googling suggests that in 2018, the payroll tax was 35% of our federal tax receipts of $3.3T, so the payroll tax would $1.16T.

Somewhere around $235 per ton.

Another quick googling suggests that the average car emits 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year, so the cost of fueling a 2-car household would go up probably a little over $2K/year...

Payroll taxes fund social security and medicare, though.

So, realistically, we'd have to eliminate those programs if we eliminate the payroll tax...

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2469 on:** May 12, 2020, 07:58:38 AM »

The idea was that a carbon tax could replace FICA. I asked what the carbon tax would need to be.

Your idea of hard data and mine obviously are very different. I understand that natural disasters would be more expensive if climate change kicks in hard. That wasn't my point at all, obviously.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2470 on:** May 12, 2020, 07:59:42 AM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on May 11, 2020, 07:53:10 PM

Eh sorry, I thought you were asking about the monetary cost of climate change.

If you thought that, you can't possibly be reading what I am posting, which explains a few things.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2471 on:** May 12, 2020, 08:02:31 AM »

Quote from: bwarbiany on May 11, 2020, 06:43:41 PM

What did someone say earlier today, the US is emitting 4.9 gigatons of CO2? A quick googling suggests that in 2018, the payroll tax was 35% of our federal tax receipts of $3.3T, so the payroll tax would $1.16T.

Somewhere around $235 per ton.

Another quick googling suggests that the average car emits 4.6 metric tons of CO2 per year, so the cost of fueling a 2-car household would go up probably a little over $2K/year...

A $40 per ton carbon dioxide tax would increase the price of gasoline by about $0.40 a gallon, increase the price of natural gas by about 80% and increase the price of coal by about 200% (based on today's spot prices)

So, we'd be looking at an additional gasoline tax of over $2 per gallon. I don't think that would be explainable for folks.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2472 on:** May 12, 2020, 09:04:37 AM »

Quote from: Big Beef Tacosupreme on May 11, 2020, 08:11:37 PM

Payroll taxes fund social security and medicare, though.

So, realistically, we'd have to eliminate those programs if we eliminate the payroll tax...

Money is money. The recipients don't care whether it comes from a payroll tax or a carbon tax.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2473 on:** May 12, 2020, 09:08:30 AM »

Quote from: Cincydawg on May 12, 2020, 08:02:31 AM

A $40 per ton carbon dioxide tax would increase the price of gasoline by about $0.40 a gallon, increase the price of natural gas by about 80% and increase the price of coal by about 200% (based on today's spot prices)

So, we'd be looking at an additional gasoline tax of over $2 per gallon. I don't think that would be explainable for folks.

Yeah, that'd be rough for a lot of folks. Of course they wouldn't be losing 7.65% of their income to a payroll tax, so the money could come from somewhere.

Heck, you could sweeten it a little with a one-time law that employers needed to raise their employees' salary by 7.65% to factor in that they are no longer paying the employer's half of the payroll tax.

Or if you wanted to keep the cost down, you could eliminate only the employee portion of the tax, and be revenue neutral on that side, while keeping the employer portion of the tax. That would eliminate roughly half the cost, so the tax would be only a little over a dollar a gallon.

Either way, I thought the goal was eliminating carbon. I'd bet that most consumers would look REAL hard at a Prius or a Tesla if gas jumped by $2/gallon.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2474 on:** May 12, 2020, 09:08:54 AM »

So, think about a carbon tax in lieu of the payroll tax. An individual earning say $130 K a year who doesn't drive (much) would make out like a bandit.

An individual who is a contractor who drive an F250 to work would get nailed. Let's say he earns $60 K a year, he doesn't max his FICA tax, but he buys a lot of gasoline.

Wealthy folks who can afford a Tesla and high efficiency HVAC gear would be delighted. Retired folks like me, not so much as I don't have earned income. Other wealthy folks with no earned income also pay zero FICA today.

The tax burden would be very unevenly spread.

The working poor in general aren't going to be able to afford some highly efficient measures to insulate and get new windows and they often need to drive to work.

betarhoalphadelta · « **Reply #2475 on:** May 12, 2020, 09:26:30 AM »

Well, that's a feature and a bug.

The tax burden would be spread primarily to those who use the most carbon, which is the group that we're trying to stop from using so much carbon.

I'll bet that my proposal would result in a bigger change to America's CO2 output than anything else coming out of Washington.

That said, I'd never really priced what it would cost consumers if you replaced the ENTIRE payroll tax. And it was higher than I expected. The burden would be pretty steep.

Cincydawg · « **Reply #2476 on:** May 12, 2020, 09:29:55 AM »

And it would hit the working poor very hard.

The coastal elites would love it.

FearlessF · « **Reply #2477 on:** May 12, 2020, 10:39:08 AM »

I might give up my V8

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.

Topic: Weather, Climate, Environment, and Energy

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Big Beef Tacosupreme

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

betarhoalphadelta

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

Cincydawg

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment

FearlessF

Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment