|
| Let's
see
if
I
under
|
|
 |
|
 |
Let's see if I understand this. There is a need to fund recrseah into new energy production methods. So we're going to put a tax on carbon (if global warming doesn't matter, then why tax carbon? Never mind). But the tax is going to be revenue neutral (in other words, we'll give it all back to you). If the whole point is to raise money for energy recrseah, why are you rebating it as soon as you collect it? But you're not giving it all back, because you need it for recrseah. ??? If you need money to fund energy recrseah, why not just raise the income tax? That's a rhetorical question. You tax carbon (just a little) now, so that you can ratchet up the increase later. Right? But I though this had nothing to do with global warming? For someone so insistent on balancing the books when it comes to energy production and de-carbonization, your carbon tax logic leaves a lot to be desired. Just sayin.'
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(VISITOR) AUTHOR'S NAME
Cristhian
MESSAGE TIMESTAMP
19 december 2014, 04:50:52
AUTHOR'S IP LOGGED
190.79.139.237
|
|
|
|
