And here we have John departing from reality again.  A carbon tax is not
revenue neutral you do not even know what that term means.  There is no
tax burden on renewables, if anything they are subsidized.  All renewable
energy contracts are mandated by the states PUC.

Revnue neutral means that the amount of revenue raised via the tax is not
going to change.  That is you have two or more tax schemes and each one
has to raise a given amount of revenue, R.  If you set the tax rates so
that all the schemes raise the same amount of money they are deemed to be
revenue neutral.  Introducing a new tax is not going to be revenue
neutral.

Also John, if you had read my earlier posts you would have seen the
comment by me that current renewable technologies are currently not cost
effective.  If the only manner you can get cost effectiveness is by
raising the price then you will be adversly affecting low income
consumers.  I don't see the controversy here.  Price increases negatively
impact those with less income to a larger extent than those with more
income.

Steve





--- John Foster <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Steve writes:
> >In the LA area there are about 500,000 customers that qualify for
> >discounts due to low income.  You want their bills to double too, and
> just
> >say, "Oh well, try switching to renewables."  Of course renewables wont
> >decrease their bill by much.
>
> This is the type of goofy response that I would expect from someone who
> is
> against renewable energy as a metaphysical reality. A person who cannot
> accept a scientific fact is a person who believes in a metaphysical
> reality
> which in turn has been manipulated to distort the facts.....that is,
> Con. Ed
> cannot do any wrong.....it is 'immaculate'...the bearer of truth itself.
> It
> hates renewables because it is can make a lot more money with finite
> energy
> sources like gas, oil and coal or nuclear....
>
> Now that the cost of natural gas, and oil has doubled and quintupled
> over
> the last year, respectively, Steve is calling persons who advocate a
> carbon
> tax 'immoral'. The function of all carbon taxes instituted so far is to
> provide funds for development of renewable energies, as well as to
> provide
> revenue neutral forms of incentives for consumers to expend less money
> on
> non-renewable energy which pollutes. Carbon taxes are meant to alter
> consumption habits by instituting a shadow price or pigouvian tax
> against
> industries which pollute because the general market cannot discount the
> future costs of polluting industries which rely on finite natural gas,
> oil
> and coal.....
>
> The carbon taxes on the whole are revenue neutral, that is, they merely
> shift the taxation burden from renewable energies, energy efficient
> technologies, to energy and technologies which are polluting and
> non-renewable.
>
> Steve manipulates reality by engaging in a contradictory form of
> negative
> dialectic, and doing so he finds his position undermined by the
> contradictions.
>
> Yes he says, high energy costs will hurt the consumer, most notably the
> poor. Yet the only salvation for high energy costs on the horizon is
> renewable energy, and energy efficiencies, which he insists are more
> costly
> than coal, natural gas and oil.....In BC we have about 99% renewable
> electrical capacity in the form of Hydro, which is very cheap [about $65
> per
> 1000 kwh]....In Denmark the cost of generating wind electricity is less
> than
> the cost of electricity in California, which again blows Steves feeble
> and
> woobly arguement.
>
>
> At 09:44 AM 12/8/00 -0800, Steve wrote:
> >--- Michael Meuser <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >> We could hurry this transition along a bit by adding a stiff
> >> surcharge to oil based products and use this money to develop the
> >> technologies and market for alternatives.  The market would work
> >
> >Now lets return to the real world.  In San Diego this last summer
> >customers were paying the prices charged in the California Power
> Exchange
> >for electricity.  The price was approximately $0.12 per kWh (and this
> does
> >not count the charges for transmission and distribution services, and
> >other pass through charges mandated by the states PUC--these would
> amount
> >to about another $0.06 to $0.07 cents).  The outcry from San Diego was
> >deafening.  Customers will not stand for these kinds of prices.
> >
> >
> >> its wonders.  Well, maybe not.  For decades oil companies,
> >> automakers et al have resisted any sort of taxation of their
> >> products saying that the consumer would not stand for it and the it
> >> would be a hardship for the consumer.  Of course the oil
> >
> >When a customers electric bill doubles, triples, and in some cases
> >quadruples you bet it is a hardship.  Imagine you have a $75 bill one
> >month and then surprise you get a bill for $180 the next.
> >
> >In the LA area there are about 500,000 customers that qualify for
> >discounts due to low income.  You want their bills to double too, and
> just
> >say, "Oh well, try switching to renewables."  Of course renewables wont
> >decrease their bill by much.
> >
> >
> >> companies themselves have no problem imposing this hardship as
> >> long as the subsidy ends up in their pockets and, guess what,
> >
> >What subsidy?
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >=====
> >"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe
> in
> a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
> >--Jamey Lee West
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
> >http://shopping.yahoo.com/
> >


=====
"In a nutshell, he [Steve] is 100% unadulterated evil. I do not believe in a 'Satan', but this man is as close to 'the real McCoy' as they come."
--Jamey Lee West

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Shopping - Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/