Jeff Foxworthy

Al Gore's best friends are Bill and Hillary Clinton.......enough said!

And they both fly private jets to their speeches about climate change :D

That man has met everyone under the sun! When you have that much money and you have companies and play the stock market, one little change in the tax code could mean tens of millions of dollars in or out the door! That's why you know people in power! Follow the money! :)

"Follow the money" is great advice for understanding most politics. And most all crime.

Harry Truman (I'll paraphrase it) You don't get rich being in politics, if you do, you're a crook!" Lol. :)

Sounds like somebody knew politics

:)

bahahahaha! good one!

Thanks! :)

How convenient.

You've been scrooged.

Then don't pay your taxes. Use the money you save to emigrate to a country with no taxes.

The carbon tax is a bullshit tax, just like carbon credits are bullshit.

There are alternatives. We've used hydro electric for generations. Desert areas are great for solar panels, while most other places could easily utilize wind generators.

The next twenty years will be important to our country and its energy needs. Power companies are fighting the trend of renewable energy, but it's coming. The coal burning plants will either make way for the trend, or embrace it and profit not only bottom line cash, but public relations.

I think it's more of a reality than not. In California, we pay higher gas prices than almost every state in the country (with the possible exception of Hawaii) because of imposed carbon taxes to protect the environment. It adds 11 cents to each gallon.

Well if it destroys California's economy and Canada's economy then the idea might be put to rest.

Gas prices have an inelastic demand, as traffic hasn't decreased ever since. It doesn't hurt the economy in the short term, but it benefits the seller more than the consumer, affecting long term economic growth, as consumers will go away.

Yeah that is just about what I thought would happen.

Yes, the taxes in CA are higher than the rest of the country, but there's more to it than that. In most states the fuel manufactures have to make 4 'formulations' based on the seasons; so they have to re-tool their plants every 3 months. Here in CA, there are 14 required formulations, forcing the plants to re-tool every 3.5weeks... this drives the price of gas up even further.

@BGenie: That's an interesting fact!

My Dad's a Geologist who does class-D cleanup (gas and oil spills) paid for by the Superfund. He can explain it a lot better than I can. Even so, it's pretty absurd.

It's very important that gas is always REALLY CHEAP so y'all can burn as much as possible, because oil and gas are so good for our air and water! More oil and gas burning always now forever! So good! Breath in!

And what is the alternative? Electric and hybrid cars ... which are NOT zero emissions as their marketing departments love to tout and brain-dead liberals like to believe. All they do is transfer the pollution output from your rich neighborhood to someone’s who is poorer – NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) in action. The power does not come from the power-fairy, it comes from a dirty coal burning power plant that relies on strip mined coal for energy.

Central Power Plants Generate Electricity more efficiently than cars burn Fossil Fuels. My father drives a Tesla Model S and his research in Hydrogen Fuel Cells is something Elon Musk disagrees with.

I think you need to do a little more research, because the batteries are not efficient at storing the power generated by the coal plant. The batteries in a Prius are designed to last about 5 years at about 80% efficiency. Which means that 20% of that burnt coal is lost. Also, the cost of replacing the batteries in an electric car after 5 years is about the same as the 'value' of the car, making it worthless and disposable. How much pollution went into making that car? And how about the pollution from disposing of the now-worthless batteries themselves? Meanwhile my Nissan has been on the road for 20 years (last October) and is running well-within 'smog' standards.

Exactly how much coal is burned to power a Prius for a day? How many people drive a Prius?

Amazing how the companies that would pay the highest carbon taxes fight the conversion to renewable energy.

I live less than an hour from the worlds second-largest wind-turbine farm. I've had multiple conversations with people involved in the project. At any given time, 45% of the turbines are not working. There's several fires each year, they kill birds, the blades fatigue and shatter, and a multitude of other problems. The turbines are finicky about the speed of the wind, too slow and it won't turn, too fast and it'll destroy the turbine, so even if the turbine is in working order, they may not be able to activate it, due to whatever mother nature is throwing at it. Not to mention, even maintaining an optimum workload from the entire farm, they still are not able to supply enough power for the demand. The Budweiser plant alone requires 2 turbines, and solar panels, and they still have power outages. The technology needs to catch up with the demand before alternative power sources can become practical. Imposing taxes, making demands for better tech, and 'punishing' companies for not 'complying' in unrealistic time-frames is simply blackmail. These companies know that if they build a better mousetrap, they will make a shit-ton of money on it. They aren't holding back because they have learned to profit from the old tech, because they know they will profit from the new tech as well.

They're working on advancing the technology. Two articles I read concerned recent innovations in wind generators. In Spain, they've developed upright blades that vibrate with the least amount of wind, eliminating the trek up the tower to the control room, and needing less wind to operate.

The second one consists of a personal, or home, version developed in India. It generates about 5kilowatts a day and currently runs about $800. It uses a double star blade design that increases the RPM of the generator. Blades have a span of approximately 6 feet while the generator is about the size of a man. The tower it sits on would need only to clear a roof top, and once it goes into mass production, the price will drop. It was developed to provide families without electrical service power. It would be great in areas of Appalachia where it's not profitable to run electrical lines to the homes.

Technology is not standing still. Germany utilizes 100% renewable energy with current technology and produces enough power that it sells the surplus to neighboring countries. I'm considering the small, India generators for when I move into a house to supplement purchased power. Besides saving on the electric bill, it will help when the power outages hit. The last time we had one was good weather, but a squirral got fried in the transformer. Took a day and a half to replace.

Not true. Germany burns coal. Look it up.

Thank you. I did. You are correct. (See, if I'm wrong, I admit it :) )

Tell me if I'm interpreting the articles correctly.

1: while they dragged their feet, the German government fast tracked the closure of all nuclear plants after the Fukushima disaster. There are no nuclear energy plants operating in Germany today.

2: Renewables have not replaced the two types of coal burning plants, however, the use of lignite, or brown coal or soft coal, has declined. This is highly important, as brown coal is the worst type to burn for our environment. That, however, is still being phased out first.

3: Based on the articles focusing on wind and solar as the renewables, nothing I've seen mentions Germany's hydro electric generation. They do have such facilities, but the are ignored in any discussion.

One item caught my attention, but it was just a "throw off line" that I'll have to research further, and that is the development of a "carbon catcher" in the UK. It hasn't been perfected, but on the right track.

I gladly retract my statement that Germany is using 100% renewables.

I still do not understand the fight against renewables by power companies, aside from laziness and greed.

One other point I will make. I look at the entire picture, or try to. When you see pictures of coal burning plants spewing smoke into the atmosphere, look at the color of the "smoke". I grew up in a steel town. Smoke is grey, brown, of black. Steam, on the other hand, is white. I won't say there aren't harmful chemicals in it, but I will say there is a difference in steam over smoke.

You are missing the point. You cannot force technology to mature faster than it is, by slapping a time frame and $ penalty on it... in fact, taking funding away from researchers hinders the growth of green energy. Carbon taxes are a scam for politicians to line their pockets; especially since the money isn't going INto funding technology; it's being removed from it.

Actually, you can force existing technology. We're you around in the 60s when they did just that? I was.

Putting a carbon tax on high polluting industries won't work. Of they need to do the business here, they'll just raise their prices, pay the taxes, and continue on their merry way. Not only that, but they'll use their current funds to prevent competition in that field. Look at Nevada's laws that removed the incentive to go solar for its residents. Those that have already invested a lot into solar panels will never see their ROI because the power companies don't want the competition.

We have the technology now to turn the country to 100% renewable energy. Wind, solar, and hydro. Coal burning, natural gas, and nuclear will not be necessary 10 years down the road, but the "buggy whip makers" still think the automobile is a passing fad.

@Swiggy. Looks like we are both right. Catch 22's suck.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that one of the by-products of burning coal is Mercury which is dumped into our water-ways, poisoning the fish (you know, our FOOD). It's why the Department of Fish and Wildlife publish their tests and warn the public not to eat certain fish and limit consumption of other fish.

*breathe