Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (68023)	7/8/2009 12:56:46 AM
From: Neeka	5 Recommendations Respond to of 224759

We should tax everyone who believes co2 is a horrible danger and leave the rest of us alone to die in peace.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (68023)	7/8/2009 1:08:11 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

how would you tax the carbon emissions that you produce with every breath you take? Would healthier thinner people be taxed less because they exhale less CO2 than unhealthy heavier people? Do we tax the CO2 emissions that our dogs and cats make? Cows? Horses? How do we meter the CO2 that we humans (and animals) emit? Since China and India and other underdeveloped countries are exempt from this taxation, all of the new green jobs that are being created will move offshore. Those wind turbines require lots of steel work that generates a lot of carbon emissions. Why wouldn't those wind turbine manufacturers go offshore for production? but more importantly, why would we tax a molecular compound that is necessary for life to exist on the planet? If we tax CO2, why not tax O2? Excessive O2 in the atmosphere is potentially much more damaging than CO2. In the early days of the planet, the O2 levels had to drop significantly before life could evolve. The O2 levels were far to reactive for organic compounds to grow (think about how living cells react to H2O2 (hydrogen peroxide). The problem with your proposed taxation and/or cap & trade is the assumption that CO2 is bad, rather than a compound that is an absolute necessity for life to exist.

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (68023)	7/8/2009 1:09:22 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

I noticed that you didn't address this at all: Try to imagine a world without CO2.....it would be a lifeless planet. No animals exhaling CO2 as part of the respiration process, no plants absorbing CO2 as part of theirs. Talk about an inconvenient truth, eh?

To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (68023)	7/8/2009 1:42:23 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 224759

Cap n Trade has worked in the past. Acid rain and other pollutants have been curtailed tremendously through Cap n Trade. It provides a "market based" solution rather than absolute "dictums" from government. The U.S has to be FIRST to perfect alternative energy solutions if we are going to maintain any semblance of a manufacturing base. Cap n Trade would be a very good incentive to accomplish that. A "consumer based" economy is great as long as we have high paid consumers with high paying jobs but more and more of those jobs are going to India and China. If you asked the rest of the world what the U.S. was best at in 1970 they would have said, "Steel, cars, electronics, pharmaceuticals, entertainment, furniture, textiles, agriculture, etc., etc., etc. We were at the TOP of the list on EVERYTHING. Today were down to pharmaceuticals, agriculture, entertainment and electronics (high tech). NONE of which provide a lot of good paying jobs. We need to start PRODUCING stuff again....other than pizzas and lattes.