If you had any doubts that Californians are serious about de-warming the planet, San Francisco regulators are determined to remove your lack of faith. The New York Times reports that "Air quality regulators in the San Francisco Bay Area appear set to begin charging hundreds of businesses in the region for their emissions of heat-trapping gases." Ready, set, appear set! The Old Gray Lady reports that the proposed tax on greenhouse gas "pollution" is a pittance– just 4.4 cents per ton of carbon dioxide emitted– and will hit some businesses (e.g. Big Oil) harder than others. "Regulators indicated that the fee could raise $1.1 million annually. Refineries, power plants and cement plants would pay nearly 90 percent of total fees. The largest gas stations might be charged $1 a year; the Safeway bakery that supplies bread to all stores in the Bay Area would pay $85 a year. The biggest emitter of the gases, the Shell oil refinery in Martinez, would have to pay $195,355, based on 2005 emissions of 4.4 million metric tons." To paraphrase Horton, a tax is a tax no matter how small. And while it would be difficult [politically] to hit-up local residents for CO2 emissions at the user end of the equation (say, a thousandth of a penny per box of organic Raisin Bran), I wouldn't it put it past these guys.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
At least they’re not focusing exclusively on automotive emissions. If you buy into global warming (and I know plenty here don’t; I do) then a comprehensive plan to curb emissions is necessary. Cutting emissions on cars alone won’t do it. CO2 is CO2, no matter where it come from.
wannabewannabe
I totally agree. Cars do get hammered for CO2 emissions, but now we have to start looking at other sources (I’m waiting to see how power companies deal with their share of CO2).
The airline industry has their role to play, haulage companies have their role to play, even the shop down the street has their role to play.
Fact is, global warming is an issue and we ALL need to deal with it. That’s why I ALWAYS deal with companies who are actively reducing their carbon emissions (i.e The Co-op, Sainsbury’s, Toyota etc)
As an emitter of greenhouse gases (I am an animal) I have to wonder if it might not be a good idea to just go ahead and tax living things also. Take a yearly census of all the people, pets and livestock in the region and tax them accordingly.
I am sure this will happen eventually, and I don’t think it’s all that bad an idea, especially if it keeps people from whining about cattle herds emitting greenhouse gases and such.
Insert standard libertarian anti-tax disclaimer here. Go carbon sequestration technology!
Global warming is not an issue that we need to deal with. The REAL fact is that global warming is a global issue and until it’s dealt with in that respect, then we as Americans are paying for everyone else, as usual. I’ve seen first hand the amount of American companies that have moved their operations and jobs off shore. They don’t have to deal with the taxes and the regulatory burdens that we face in the USA but neither does anyone else over there. I don’t have a problem with a tax if it is used to remediate the problem that it is intended for but that doesn’t happen very often.
If we are going to take a serious approach to solving global warming, then the next time that you are shopping and you pick up an item to purchase, first take a look and see where it was made. If it isn’t made here then put it back on the shelf regardless of the brand name. We all live on the same globe!
Katie,
Toyota emissions went up 70% during the ’90s (wish I could remember where i saw that–just yesterday), All the trucks they introduced.
Better a CO2 tax (actually great!!! in my opinion) than red light cameras or “speed” cameras.
David Holzman,
Toyota’s emissions went up 70% during the 90’s:
Yes, but they’re bringing them down now. One of their core values is to have zero emissions. Also, that happened in the 90’s, not now.
As for the speed cameras, I never advocated that they were good, so why bring it up?
So what do you think the politicians will do with the tax money? Will they apply it to greenhouse reduction programs or simply spend it in the usual way?
wannabewannabe,
CO2 is CO2, no matter where it come[s] from.
Yes, it is. It is still CO2 if it comes from tail-pipes, bakeries, coal plants, limestone erosion and decomposition, volcanic eruptions, forest fires, or the myriad of processes that transfer the gas to and from the world’s largest carbon reservoir, the ocean.
To be completely fair, San Francisco should also tax God (or whatever deity they see Constitutionally fit) for the CO2 his operations release in the area.
Garllo,
the real fact is that most of the world’s governments are trying–however ineffectively as yet–to deal with global heating. Even the Chinese are trying, hard, because if the glacier in the Himalayas melt, the major rivers in China will go dry in the summers, wreaking havoc with Chinese agriculture. If every country waits for every other country to reach some ideal level of dealing with global heating, we’ll all cook.
PS, that’s the IDEA…better a CO2 tax than a worse alternative!!!
Boy, people are SO predictable.
@ Garllo:
While I agree with the U.S.’s insistence for China, India, and other fast-developing countries to do something about pollution levels and global warming, The U.S. is also using it as an excuse to do nothing about it, unlike, oh, most of Europe, Japan, Canada, and many others.
Thankfully, many actions are undertaken at the state/city level, and I applaud them.
That’s right, people, that Oreo cookie you are eating not only contains an unhealthy list of ingredients – the CO2 which is put out in it manufacture is causing the polar bears to drown!!! Oh, the SHAME!!! Next thing you know they will be taxing you at home for baking and cooking. And no, this is not unreasonable to assume, since “they” are looking at a Global Carbon Tax.
When will people wake up to the fact that CO2 is a natural gas, and is NOT a CAUSE of warming (as Al Gore has repeatedly stated)…increased CO2 is a RESULT of increased temperatures!
Take a look at this video and you’ll learn the truth:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3928695593212006635&q=global+warming+swindle&total=375&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4&hl=en
Do you even KNOW how many POLLUTANTS are pumped into the air we breathe? Lead, Mercury, Arsenic, God knows what else…NOx, etc. And yet, this lie which is one of the largest scams of all time is being perpetrated on a global scale.
I’m all for clean air..let’s clean up the POLLUTANTS!
There have been times in Earth’s history where the CO2 levels have been TRIPLE what they are now.
But, here’s the idea: Scare the population with such things at a “never ending war on terror”, global catastrophic climate change, our “inability” to control illegal immigration, the total widespread collapse of the US Dollar (Greenspan himself was over in the Mid East a couple weeks ago urging them to DUMP the US Dollar and to transact in Euros!!), implement a Global Carbon TAX which hinders your ability as a private citizen to make ends meet (implemented by an unelected body..the United Nations)…and guess what?
You will submit when they come along and say “Hey, we have a solution!!! Let’s create a North American Union! A SuperState …why, the EU is a living, breathing example of a superstate, yet people in the U.S. are in complete darkness when told the same thing is in store for us here at home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
Recall, the EU started it’s life as the EEC (European Economic Community). Well, folks, we already have NAFTA. Who can be against Free TRADE??? Hmmm, why that’s UnAmerican. Little do people realize that the argument for free trade is a fox in sheep’s clothing designed to hide their real purpose..the expansion of Government …your worst hellish nightmare come true.
Don’t believe a word I say…do your own research. Better yet, look to the EU as a living breathing example of what’s in store! An EU President (unelected), an EU Parliament, an EU Constitution, and EU judicial system, EU taxation…etc, etc. etc. All this and MORE…for “FREE TRADE”!!!
When you see how the deck is “stacked” against you, you WILL wake up..if only too late.
http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/08/15/cfr-stacks-the-deck-with-both-democrat-and-republican-presidential-candidates
What does this have to do with automobiles? Replace the word “automobile” with “freedom” and you’ll see.
Again, don’t believe a word I say…do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
It doesn’t matter what they do. This sort of stuff is only done so liberals can feel good. China is now the worlds largest greenhouse gas emmitter and hugely increasing their emissions. India , etc. are also greatly increasing their emissions. The world overall has greatly increased emissions and yet the Earth is cooling slightly. Maybe the cold weather that was the last winter is a result of the decreased level of energy received from the Sun?
Oh god.
The air tax.
If you can’t pay for the CO2 you emit, you get the chair.
Laugh all you want, but this is where we’re heading :)
What complete stupidity, but entertaining if one doesn’t live there.
BTW – China overtakes US as world’s biggest CO2 emitter
“China has overtaken the United States as the world’s biggest producer of carbon dioxide, the chief greenhouse gas, figures released today show.”
Maybe they should tax Al Gore’s house.
Oops – link to the above quotes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews
@ Kwanzaa:
Just because I think we should stop emitting as much CO2 as we do doesn’t mean I think we should ignore pollution. I just believe each generation should try to leave the planet better than it found it. CO2 is a natural gas, but it is also a by-product of modern life. Sure, there are lots of other things in the air, some of which are even worse than CO2 as greenhouse gases. The point is to try to reduce those emissions over which we have some control, which is why we don’t tax you for breathing. As long as we’re going to seek reductions in emissions from some sources, we should do so from all controllable sources.
@ N85523:
Thanks for catching my typo. Stupid fingers not translating what my brain tells them…
While it’s an excellent idea to protect our environment, I can’t help but feel that the current push to limit CO2 emissions isn’t as much about the environment as it is about pushing some other agenda.
Basics: when hydrocarbons (food or fuel) are oxidized (burned or metabolized), CO2 is released. This is an unalterable fact, and the amount of CO2 released is directly related to the amount of food/fuel burned/metabolized.
To reduce CO2 emissions from cars – you must reduce the amount of fuel burned. There’s no magic filter you can put on the tailpipe. And before pointing at electric (or other alternate energy) vehicles, consider how that electricity or other alternate was produced. You’ll find there’s a CO2 source at the producing end; nothing is really gained.
What’s a little scary about the rush to legislate and regulate CO2 is that every living thing on this planet is carbon based. There’s a natural cycle that “recycles” carbon – look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
So in the interest of saving the environment – consider what the possible results could be. The carbon cycle is self-regulating and will ignore any human scale attempts to alter it. If we develop technology that can overcome the natural regulation and modify CO2 levels directly it could very well cause an environmental catastrophe of biblical proportions.
The plants you eat – the plants that produce the oxygen you breathe – need CO2 to live and grow. Let’s try to understand how the system works before making unwise changes for a change…
Reduce pollution? Great idea! There’s lots of stuff in the air that doesn’t belong there; reducing that would be good for everyone and everything. But CO2 isn’t pollution; it’s a natural part of our atmosphere.
Whuffo,
That is one of the most concise and well-spoken addresses I have seen on this issue. I only wish some folks in Congress could see things so clearly.
Hurray for the carbon cycle. It makes our planet unique among all others.
So it’s gotten to the point where we can no longer tell apart pollutants and non-pollutants?
Perhaps we should all stop breathing, then.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for reducing pollution, as a quality-of-life issue if nothing else, but this whole global warming cult has gotten completely out of hand. Companies see it as a way of making piles of money selling “green” products (whether they really are green or not). Governments see it as a way to exert more control over their citizens, and/or extort more tax dollars out of them to “fix the problem.” Statists love this idea, as they do any idea that takes choice out of the public’s hands. There are also billions in research grants and government subsidies up for grabs, so the word of “researchers” is not exactly unbiased, either.
Developing nations see this as a bargaining chip straight from God Himself, as they can’t “fix the problem” unless all of the rich nations cough up. Ditto the straight-from-God sentiment for environmentalists, “social justice” types (who burn me for other reasons, too), car-haters, SUV-haters, people for urban living (density is better), people against urban living (density is worse). Global climate change – can’t call it warming anymore, just in case it doesn’t warm – has become the golden hammer for anyone with an ax to grind (how’s that for a mixed metaphor?), as it can be alleged to cause anything you like, and who can say for sure that it doesn’t?
It’s a sad thing indeed to see that rational and scientific thought has died at such a young age, when humankind is just beginning to scratch the surface of what we can do. Equally sad is that many otherwise intelligent people can be so taken in by the obvious power play by everybody involved in promoting this hoax. (Katie, of all people, I thought you would know better). You want to fix the pollution problem? Fine, but make sure the pollutants you are cleaning up are, in fact, pollutants. CO2 is a natural part of our environment, and the planet has developed a truly amazing mechanism for dealing with exactly that. “Plants”, they’re called.
Can we get credits for planting trees in our backyard?
Oh wait, some of us chose to live in the city so they have no trees to get credit for.
So much for that proposal. Bummer.
Thank you Kwanzaa and Whuffo for a couple of great posts — I agree.
This CO2 Global Warming hype has to go down as one of the biggest scams ever drummed up by the international socialists to tax and regulate us.
Regulators indicated that the fee could raise $1.1 million annually.
This is always a dead giveaway that the tax is not about influencing CO2 levels at all. It’s an incremental ploy to stick a small needle in an economic realm so it’s barely noticed, and if there’s not too much screaming, gradually grow that needle into a big friggin’ pipe. When they cite revenue as consequence, rather than reduction of whatever they’re trying to reduce, you know regulators are starting to think budget.
And the Bay Area gets to keep its street cred as the home of empty gestures. Funny….they didn’t mention where this new revenue stream is going.
Carbon tax; nutty. Does that mean we’ll be paying people to emit carbon if a predicted multi-century cooling trend materializes by 2030? I can see it now: you’ll be socially rewarded for a clean car (i.e. low emissions of *real* pollutants) if it gets 5 mpg. Are San Fran (don’t call it ‘Frisco) bakeries going to now install electric ovens and avoid the tax on carbon release in Utah? Are we going to discourage yet another refinery operating in California so when it goes offline our gasoline prices escalate faster?
Here’s a better idea:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080303163804.htm
Yeah, I love the lack of optimism that infects anthropogenic climate change believers. Shazaam, now we have the prospect of lining powerplant smokestacks with hyperbranched aluminosilica for low-cost, reusable absorption of smokestack CO2 before it reaches the atmosphere. Nah….couldn’t possibly work. Let’s just throw a tax at this problem, make people poorer and assume we’re not smart enough to mitigate the problem — if there is one.
A US national private transportation fleet average fuel economy equivalent to 100% Prius market share would remove less than 2% of the IPCC’s 2050 carbon reduction objective, relative to 2005 emissions.
Really, let’s just stop this nonsense. The politics are now infantile. Fixed-location power generation is the big lever for quick progress. If you’re really sold on climate change being your fault and mine, get cracking on carbon sequestering, large scale solar farming (no, Sierra Club, you can’t block deployment of 10,000 square miles of solar arrays in the desert), mass subsidy of residential and commercial rooftop solar. Just keep all our coal handy in case that cooling trend pans out.
Phil
Idiots.
Silly policy like that reminds me of why I moved to Nevada.
Once they start hiking the tax (its only a question of time) it won’t be too hard for some of the effected industries to migrate to over the Sierra. 90% of the population of CA is one freight-day away from Reno.
Imagine if Americans stopped talking so much… huge CO2 reduction. A breathing tax would be great, maybe our government issued RFID chips could monitor breathing and send a bill when we over emit.
We have upset the “natural carbon cycle” by taking trillions of tons of carbon sequestered millions of years ago and releasing it into the atmosphere in a few hundred years.
We have cut down vast forests, whose main job in nature is to maintain the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere that allowed animal life to evolve (yes, evolve) to its present state.
We should attempt to undo what we’ve done, and we should start soon.
But, the lame-o politization and left/right crap will delay any real action.
I weep for everybody’s grandchildren, as our desire for material wealth could be destroying our only home. (oooh, sounds so ‘socialist’!)
Could be?
How about this…the demand for certain things, including forested products…leads to an INCREASE in supply!!!
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030502075957.htm
Wow, absolutely amazing…Supply and Demand still holds true today as it ever did.
Same goes for any other natural resource…minerals, oil, etc. Yes, that’s right…the more demand for oil, the more OIL!! If it can be extracted for a profit…it will.
Go weep for your own grandchildren. Better yet, perhaps you may be better off not having them. Those grandchildren grow up wanting automobiles, homes, Nikes, beef, air travel, etc.
That’s right…if anyone wants to “do good”…stop having children. Once your genetic code has reached the end of the line, we will be much better off.
And no, that’s not meant to be a “flame”, it’s the truth. Following some people’s argument, we cannot or should not live in a civilized manner, so let’s not have people to demand such civilization.
Yes, my last post was a bit of a “bait”. I’m consistently amazed at the vehemence of average citizens on both sides of the issue, while the ‘powers that be’ in control of our lives are perfectly happy to spur this debate; they’ll decide when to allow the truth to be revealed.