<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Beyond carbon policy: A national feed-in tariff ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-22T01:34:34-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes to carbon tax with payroll tax offset.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-88085]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Straightforward and equitable. Relatively simple to apply. Can qualify as a &quot;virtuous cycle:&quot; Pricing costly fossil fuels more realistically and using the proceeds to help replace fossil fuel consumption with energy conservation and renewables.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-88085]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[laffsonmee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:57:20 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Biomass = zero energy]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-88097]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thank you, lamwhomiam. All so-called biomass is not appropriate for energy production. It can be more efficiently and directly purposed. Agricultural &quot;waste&quot; can be composted or tilled in right on the farm. Using so-called marginal land for growing switchgrass or whatever for conversion to energy can only have negative results and additional external costs. &quot;Marginal land&quot; is a misnomer. It's only marginal in the eye of the beholder. It has an ecological role and value that would be lost in trying to convert it to biomass crops.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-88097]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[laffsonmee]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2012 20:43:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[RE: Return]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-85834]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And the major cost differences are TAXES, not feedstock costs.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-85834]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[GregGold]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 05 Dec 2012 10:18:12 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The reality of German electricity]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84382]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Is that it costs a lot more than in the US. And they burn about the same amount of coal as we do, per capita. Sure, they drive tiny cars, and they drive less. What's that have to do with electricity? Their grid isn't very clean at all, they burn a lot of coal. They have some eleborate statistics that disguise this because they brag about how much energy they produce on a sunny day. The proof is in the pudding - they're burning that coal, come rain or come shine. All their FIT did was reward the solar panel producers. Nelder wants us to do the same here. Wonder why? Check out his book - &quot;profit from renewables&quot;. Why this snake oil salesman gets a soap box is beyond me. Actually it isn't - as Nelder doesn't get published much beyond this very narrow medium.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84382]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 22 Nov 2012 19:59:52 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ah! cosserat soldiering on into the sunset...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84113]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The &quot;There's no such thing as anthropogenic climate change!&quot; bandwagon continues to butt up against the reality that many of the things climate scientists have said will happen are happening and will continue to happen into the future.  Your head's going to get mighty sore butting up against the wall of real scientific results.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84113]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:56:52 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Pity]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84124]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You know adornoe I'm starting to feel pity for you.  You obviously have little knowledge of what science is and how it works.  Because of that you will continue to be frustrated by the real information that science gives us when it doesn't fit you preconceived notions about the way things should be.  I begin to wonder if your belief that climate scientists have an agenda that predefines the desired outcome and disregards science is projection because it's apparent you have an agenda that disregards science.Regarding climate change many of the things climate scientists have said are going to happen are actually happening and in many cases faster than they said they would.  There is no indication that they won't continue to happen in the future.Any scientific model is a simplification of reality.  It's impossible to include every single detail in any model that is non-trivial.  However in most cases and in climate science specifically there are a few things that cause the major part of the effects and the rest of the details cause mere tweaks that have little effect on the final result.  It's not necessary to include every variable or even a majority of them to capture 99% of the effects in a model.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84124]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[riverat1]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 17:45:18 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Why can't we get the same quality and cost vehicle in the US of A...?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84084]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[you say 'think import tax and trade protectionism and taxes' actually it is the lack of this as well as our government (US, State, and local) giving incentives for foreign automakers to make cars here, the lack of unions driving up prices in the foreign car makers shops here, the US government not taxing foreign made parts, and assemblies on an equitable basis, the lack of retirees to support in the foreign auto plants that are located here, the relaxation of emissions standards for foreign cars made in the US for many years. I could go on, but I hope you get the picture.The US auto industry could not compete on equal footing during the time this was going on (mainly the 70s and 80s) and is still at a disadvantage today. this is the reason they had to cut corners in the past and got a deserved reputation for making crap. they are doing much better today, but still have several disadvantages, the two biggest are the unions and the retirees they must support.by the way the same basic thing happened to the US steel industry.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84084]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Cabo Wabo Addict]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:23:56 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Return from Germany]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84081]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I've just returned from the CompaMed show in Dusseldorf Germany and wanted to share a few observations.German cars are much smaller and fuel efficient with Gas at 1.7-1.68 Euro per LITER.  Do the math... 1.68 x 3.85 = $6.47 Euro per Gallon times 1.4 USD per Euro = $9.06 US per Gallon.  I paid $3.12 US a gallon before I left.  I did see an electric car on the street too!  Why can't we get the same quality and cost vehicle in the US of A at a discount?  (Ummm... think import tax and trade protectionism and taxes).  Government Motors anybody?Check out the rate of your most recent electric bill and find the stated rate in cents per kilowatt hour.  If you pull out all the taxes and customer funded subsidies you'll see you can match up what's advertised by the utility with what it actually costs after all the taxes and what-nots are added in.  Next, DO the math...divide the dollar amount you must pay the Utility by the KW hours you used.  A wee bit higher eh!?  And Germany is a failure at FIT?  The older I get the more I understand why monetary theory is so keenly avoided in the US Education system.Rock On Chris!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84081]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Marcus Of Arrington]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:53:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[german coal consumption]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84045]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[it is coal consumption that counts, and in germany, coal consumption is going up, despite it's FiT]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-84045]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[James.McMurtry]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 19 Nov 2012 10:54:37 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Taxation without representation. Uh did you miss the Tuesday before last??]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83916]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We had a couple of elections here in the USA on November 6th. People voted. We had winners and lossers. If your canidates lost, you should work harder to get your canidates elected next time.But don't say that you don't have representation.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83916]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mfinca]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2012 14:02:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Natural Gas]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83915]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Coal has recently dropped from producing 50% of our electricity to 40% due to displacement by, currently cheap, natural gas.The maximum efficiency for new natural gas plants runs about 60%.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83915]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[mfinca]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sat, 17 Nov 2012 11:02:29 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[FiT ... failed dismally in Germany]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83900]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The 1973 Arab oil embargo sparked a huge roll out of nuclear power. France added 100 terawatt hours of energy/yr of nuclear electricity by 1981 with a population of just 50 million people. She added another 200 million TWh/yr in the next decade. Germany's FiT has produced 18 TWh/yr of solar in a decade in a country of 80 million and about 40 TWh/yr of wind. And the cost of that 18 TWh/yr? About 100 billion Euros due over the next 20 years in FiT. How big a failure does a policy need to be before people wake up? All a FiT is is a massive redistribution of wealth to those who least need it ... those who can afford the high up front cost of solar panels.  The 70s showed exactly what is required and that it is quite doable ... a massive nuclear build.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83900]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[GeoffRussell]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 23:56:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[One more positive from your post that you didn't cover...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83836]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[is that, when the government spends less, the economy grows, and more people get hired, thereby decreasing the unemployment rate.  Also, a flat tax would mean that, everyone would have to pay something, even if it's just a few dollars.  That would make the people creating taxing policy to be a lot more careful with their tax bills, nobody would be asking to raise taxes on anyone, which would, again, lead to less fear in the economy, and companies and individuals would be free to invest with no fear of having their investments and any resulting wealth getting confiscated &quot;for the good of the people&quot;.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83836]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:58:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Baloney!]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83846]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;The environmental movement is not science, it is in response to science.&quot;The environmentalists latched on to a set of &quot;research&quot; which they could use to advance their agenda, and it didn't matter that the &quot;science&quot; was very flawed, since the agenda mattered a lot more than real science.What is happening to climate now, is the same exact changes that happened millions of times during the planet's existence, and no science is going to be exact, in one direction or the other, and no amount of human intervention is going to change the &quot;habits&quot; of nature with it's climate changing mechanisms.  There is no science, much less the environmental wacko's favorite &quot;science&quot;, that can ever be conducted to make any kind of provable and sound predictions.  And, it's a lot worse with climate change, since, climate change and weather, are a consequence of millions of variables, which are virtually impossible to put into any climate models or that can be accounted for adequately, in any research. I don't deny climate change, but  i will deny the junk science that has pre-defined goal of proving &quot;man made&quot; global warming, no matter what tactics they need to use to do so.GIGO!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83846]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adornoe]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:45:58 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So you want to punish the average citizen with a higher cost of living?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83841]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You want to drive the population of the US into poverty.  Nice guy.  What do you give out for Christmas?  Recycled cards you stole out of your neighbors mailboxes last year?The reality is Presidents Obamas cap and trade scheme, much like you propose, was so costly to the middle class and poor in the US that even members of his own party left him hanging without support.  And keep dreaming if you think any carbon tax would be offset by a decrease in the income tax as you said in your post above.Low end CBO estimates were the Obama plan would increase the cost of living for the average American family by $1,200 per year, PER PERSON.  Some CBO estimates put it as high as $1,500 per year per person.Do the math.   A $3,600 a year increase covering food, heat, and gas to get to work would have crushed the average American family of 3.That is why democrats ran from that bill.  Obama could not come close to passing it even when he had majorities in both houses and did not need 1 republican vote to get the bill passed.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83841]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Hates Idiots]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 13:37:48 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[left wing post?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83825]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[it is obvious this is a biased viewpoint because of the statement &quot;Right-wing groups are already mustering their opposition to it.&quot;so it's really nice to see the left haven't changed their agenda one bit... if they can't raise taxes by calling it a 'Carbon Tax', they'll try not calling it a tax and try to raise taxes anyway. oh, and even if they can't raise taxes, they'll continue to spend us all into poverty.by the way, while I'm on a rant, raising taxes on anything does eventually 'trickle down' to the lowest earners, who end up paying more for their goods and services. FiT is a classic example... this is from the horses mouth: 'In order to pay for the FiTs, an assessment would be levied on all consumers utility bills'.who do you think pays a higher percentage of their yearly earning on utilities? if a person making $12K a year pays $100/month for their utilities that's 10%. if a person making $12M a year paid 10%, they would have to spend $100K/month. poor people get hurt more than middle income and they all get hurt more than rich folk. some of the things I'd like to see on the federal level1. a fair tax on everything: a flat tax. Everyone from the poorest to the richest pays the same rate on all income regardless of the source2. eliminate all the other taxes3. government stepping back from interfering, controlling, and 'investing' in private business unless it must for the common good (regulating nuclear power and regulating airlines are good examples). most everything else should be left to the states.4. a law that requires all congressional members up for re-election on the next election day, to retire from congress if a balanced budget is not created.the above and more that I won't get into here will lead to meaningful downsizing of the federal government and a decrease in deficit spending.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83825]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Cabo Wabo Addict]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:14:05 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Right]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83800]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Did you not see the figure? All this alarm for a rise in world temperature of 0.4degC per CENTURY. Not per decade. Not per year. PER CENTURY!All the rest is hysteria and alarmism. Nothing untoward is happening to ocean temperatures. Storms in the late 20th century have been less frequent and less violent than in the last 100 years. Sea levels are not rising alarmingly. Carbon is NOT A POLLUTANT and there is no evidence whatsoever that it is causing any measurable warming over and above natural climate variations.Get real...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83800]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[cosserat@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:47:13 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[not with a proper carbon tax]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83814]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[A carbon tax that offsets the payroll tax increases tax on carbon while decreases tax on labor by an equal amount. This is the way to go, and increases in some prices are offset by decreases in other prices.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83814]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brouse_invest@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:09:03 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Carbon tax better]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83813]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I agree, a carbon tax offset by payroll tax reduction is a better approach. That lets the economic system then determine winners and losers. But we need the carbon tax so polluters pay to use the atmosphere as a dumping ground.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83813]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brouse_invest@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:07:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[not right vs left]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83798]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[i agree. FIT vs carbon tax is a technical issue and not right vs left. Carbon tax is a better approach, in my opinion.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-12503-83798]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Brouse_invest@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2012 11:05:36 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

