A Carbon Tax Should Be Placed On The Baltimore Sun

The Baltimore Sun has posted this “letter” from a reader

Thank you Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. John Delaney for introducing “a resolution that calls for 50 percent of the nation’s energy production to come from renewable sources by 2030” (“Cardin, Delaney seek boost in renewable energy,” March 4). Given the science, we know we need to move at least that quickly in order to advert the worse of climate change.

Many who are against this resolution are rightly concerned about the economic impact of energy regulations on the coal industry. But rather than just say no, as has occurred way too often with partisan resolutions in Congress, I urge those who are concerned about regulations and economic transitions to investigate what economists are saying about a 100 percent revenue-neutral, border-corrected, carbon fee and dividend system. It would lead to fewer regulations since there is a price on carbon placed at the source of fossil fuels extraction, leading us to innovatively think about how to live with less fossil fuel. Since most of our regulations are about the pollutants that come with processing, shipping, piping and burning fossil fuels, with all the resulting pollution to land, water and air, a market signal to get off using fossil fuel would mean there will be less fossil fuel activities to regulate.

In the place of dirty fossil fuels, Americans will find ways to live comfortable lives with alternative energy sources, conservation, and using nature, such as with passive solar heating and cooling. Putting a price on carbon allows us to acknowledge the economic and social consequences that come with burning fossil fuels and use the market to drive our transition to cleaner sources of energy.

First, one must wonder whether letter writer Sabrina S. Fu has given up all use of fossil fuels and only uses alternative energy sources. We know the answer, and it’s surely “no”. Rarely does any member of the Cult of Climastrology practice what they preach. But, since the Baltimore Sun decided to publish this support for a carbon tax, let’s refer back to this post

Now, something interesting occurred to me: all the carbon taxes and such that the Credentialed Media calls for would not apply to the TV, Internet, and paper news business. This always applies to Other People. Yet, think of the vast amounts of energy, resources, and fossil fuels needed for the news sector to do their jobs. The Toronto Star Baltimore Sun needs vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather the news, then deliver their papers. They use vast amounts of paper, which comes from killing trees, to publish their paper. Think of all the energy needed to gather the news, produce the news, then disseminate it, both in dead tree edition and on the Internet. Think of all the resources needed to keep the reporters up and running, as well as the buildings and vehicles. This is all super-bad for climate change.

Hence, I suggest that any news organization that has recommended any sort of carbon tax and/or a cap and trade scheme be subject to

  • a carbon tax of $45 a metric ton of carbon pollution
  • a surcharge of 35 cents per liter/gallon of gasoline purchased by a news organization
  • a road tax of 2 cents per mile traveled for all employees during their work day and on company vehicles
  • a tax of $1 per pound of paper used to make newspapers
  • a requirement that all news organizations upgrade their buildings so that they are 100% LEED compliant
  • all helicopters used to gather news can only use biofuels
  • and none may raise the cost of their services/products

Those are very modest proposals, are they not? Reasonable, right? Surely, those who advocate for carbon taxes and/or cap and trade schemes would be willing to participate, right?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “A Carbon Tax Should Be Placed On The Baltimore Sun”

  1. John says:

    Teach I am always amused by your math
    A liter is just over 1 quart or 1/4 if a gallon
    Now again with demanding that others lead a 109% politically correct life: Teach are you asking others to do something (live 100% politically correct lives) when you yourself don’t live to those same standards?
    It will not be necessaryfor all to live a zero carbon footprint in order for our goals to be met
    Please remember that we are currently doing quite well with our own USA per person carbon footprint as small as 1960
    Thanks partly to YOUR use of CFLs And our per person energy
    And our total energy costs per person being 25% lower than under Reagan thanks to technology and government intervention in the free market

  2. Jeffery says:

    Teach: Do you not understand how a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade tax works? Of course the newspapers would be subject to the impact of a carbon tax. Any and all carbon consumption would be subject to a tax.

    Just say that you wish to mete extra punishment to those who disagree with you.

    How do you figure that climate realists will be able to avoid a carbon tax? By reducing carbon consumption? Duh.

  3. Teach are you asking others to do something (live 100% politically correct lives) when you yourself don’t live to those same standards?

    But, I’m not advocating for a carbon tax/cap and trade system. I am not saying the world is doomed from “carbon pollution.” You nutters are. You want these taxes on Other People, so, surely you don’t have a problem with them being put directly on you, right? Since they are not big deal, right?

    Of course the newspapers would be subject to the impact of a carbon tax. Any and all carbon consumption would be subject to a tax.

    But, these would be indirect taxation as proposed. I’m proposing direct taxation on those who advocate for the taxes.

    It is interesting, though, that you are saying that the schemes on Other Companies would hit the news media. I thought these wouldn’t really affect any but those directly targeted.

    Just say that you wish to mete extra punishment to those who disagree with you.

    First, how is this punishment any different than hitting the energy sector and those you don’t like? You and your ilk want to punish “carbon polluters”. Why is it not OK for me to “punish” those who recommend these tax schemes?

  4. Jl says:

    Why yes, let’s tax carbon and give the money to the government- or even better, the UN to fix a non-existent problem. First, it’ll never happen, and second, no way 50% of energy from renewables by..well, any year. The climate circus continues.

  5. Jeffery says:

    I’m proposing direct taxation on those who advocate for the taxes.

    That’s interesting. You wish to tax free speech.

    Under your scheme, you owe America $50,000 for supporting the Iraq invasion. Pay up.

    I thought these wouldn’t really affect any but those directly targeted.

    Huh? You really don’t understand what you’re typing about, do you?

Bad Behavior has blocked 8779 access attempts in the last 7 days.