Washington Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 14, 2008

Click here to view bill details.

this is just another way to increase taxes in the state of Washington. We are already taxed to death and probably after death. Give us a break. Can't you think of other ways, like cutting your per diem or office expenses or maybe not taking a raise for awhile. Our legislators never try to cut expenses in their area, only something affecting the people or adding a new tax.

Ms Chase needs to find another hobby besides making mischief in the Legislature. Apparently, she's trying to save the Planet on the backs of Washington taxpayers.

Yeah, lets raise the gas tax an additional 10 cents a gallon progressively until it is an additional dollar a gallon by 2017. I'm sure the legislature will be a wise steward of the billions of dollars raised by the carbon tax. I'm sure that it will be used wisely in congestion relief, after all, all those vehicles idling in traffic are responsible for the global warming on earth and mars.

Base a tax on incomplete and inaccurate science to get people out of their cars and save mother earth. Oh boy, this is a good one. Hold onto your pants folks, 'cause this bill will tax all petroleum products. The cost of everything will go up. Folks like Bill Gates and people like him will be will be the only ones able to live here. This bill creates another level of government that we can count on controlling our lives through taxes and regulations. Where will the billions this bill create really end up? When your talking about giving money to this goverment its just like giving porn to a pervert.

Base a tax on incomplete and inaccurate science to get people out of their cars and save mother earth. Oh boy, this is a good one. Hold onto your pants folks, 'cause this bill will tax all petroleum products. The cost of everything will go up. Folks like Bill Gates and people like him will be will be the only ones able to live here. This bill creates another level of government that we can count on controlling our lives through taxes and regulations. Where will the billions this bill create really end up? When your talking about giving money to this goverment its just like giving porn to a pervert.

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Minority Page Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007. Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking." Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” (LINK) In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has "co-opted" the green movement. (LINK) This blockbuster Senate report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and weblinks to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and websites in 2007. This new “consensus busters” report is poised to redefine the debate. Many of the scientists featured in this report consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explains how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated. “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media,” Paldor wrote. [Note: See also July 2007 Senate report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK ] Scientists from Around the World Dissent This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.” (LINK) Paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson noted that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the UN IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false. “I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority.” This new committee report, a first of its kind, comes after the UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri implied that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world. (LINK) Former Vice President Gore has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat Earth society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.” (LINK) & (LINK) The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; oceanography; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; University of Columbia; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped “consensus” that the debate is “settled.” A May 2007 Senate report detailed scientists who had recently converted from believers in man-made global warming to skepticism. [See May 15, 2007 report: Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics: Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research – (LINK) ] The report counters the claims made by the promoters of man-made global warming fears that the number of skeptical scientists is dwindling. Examples of “consensus” claims made by promoters of man-made climate fears: Former Vice President Al Gore (November 5, 2007): “There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat.” (LINK) Gore also compared global warming skeptics to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006 - LINK) CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): The scientific debate is over.” “We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on February 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.” (LINK) On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.” (LINK) Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC view on the number of skeptical scientists as quoted on Feb. 20, 2003: “About 300 years ago, a Flat Earth Society was founded by those who did not believe the world was round. That society still exists; it probably has about a dozen members.” (LINK) Agence France-Press (AFP Press) article (December 4, 2007): The article noted that a prominent skeptic “finds himself increasingly alone in his claim that climate change poses no imminent threat to the planet.” Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (November 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc., etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there -- but that's not the case. (LINK) The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears. (LINK) UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the UN’s scientific “consensus." (LINK) ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on August 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming. (LINK) # # Brief highlights of the report featuring over 400 international scientists: Israel: Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards. “First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!” Russia: Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled “The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth.” “Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases’ double man would not perceive the temperature impact,” Sorochtin wrote. Spain: Anton Uriarte, a professor of Physical Geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain and author of a book on the paleoclimate, rejected man-made climate fears in 2007. “There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried,” Uriate wrote. Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes, “I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit,” Tennekes wrote. “I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." Brazil: Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo – Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil declared himself a skeptic. “The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming,” Hackbart wrote on May 30, 2007. France: Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon, is a climate skeptic. Leroux wrote a 2005 book titled Global Warming – Myth or Reality? - The Erring Ways of Climatology. “Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!” Norway: Geologist/Geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo and formerly an expert reviewer with the UN IPCC: “It is a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.” Finland: Dr. Boris Winterhalter, retired Senior Marine Researcher of the Geological Survey of Finland and former professor of marine geology at University of Helsinki, criticized the media for what he considered its alarming climate coverage. “The effect of solar winds on cosmic radiation has just recently been established and, furthermore, there seems to be a good correlation between cloudiness and variations in the intensity of cosmic radiation. Here we have a mechanism which is a far better explanation to variations in global climate than the attempts by IPCC to blame it all on anthropogenic input of greenhouse gases. “ Germany: Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany, criticized the UN IPCC summary. “I consider the part of the IPCC report, which I can really judge as an expert, i.e. the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, wrong,” Mangini noted in an April 5, 2007 article. He added: “The earth will not die.” Canada: IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Project who has over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers, reports, book reviews and a book on Ocean Wave Analysis and Modeling: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.” Czech Republic: Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid,” Kukla told Gelf Magazine on April 24, 2007. India: One of India's leading geologists, B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. “We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial-interglacial cycles.” USA: Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and one of the climatologists who gathered at Woods Hole to review the National Climate Program Plan in July, 1979: “Al Gore brought me back to the battle and prompted me to do renewed research in the field of climatology. And because of all the misinformation that Gore and his army have been spreading about climate change I have decided that ‘real’ climatologists should try to help the public understand the nature of the problem.” Italy: Internationally renowned scientist Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists and a retired Professor of Advanced Physics at the University of Bologna in Italy, who has published over 800 scientific papers: “Significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming." New Zealand: IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990 and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001: “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain't so.” South Africa: Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation who holds degrees in nuclear physics and mathematics: “The global-warming mania continues with more and more hype and less and less thinking. With religious zeal, people look for issues or events to blame on global warming.” Poland: Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw: ““We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels.” Australia: Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia: "There is new work emerging even in the last few weeks that shows we can have a very close correlation between the temperatures of the Earth and supernova and solar radiation.” Britain: Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant: “To date, no convincing evidence for AGW (anthropogenic global warming) has been discovered. And recent global climate behavior is not consistent with AGW model predictions.” China: Chinese Scientists Say C02 Impact on Warming May Be ‘Excessively Exaggerated’ – Scientists Lin Zhen-Shan’s and Sun Xian’s 2007 study published in the peer-reviewed journal Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics: "Although the CO2 greenhouse effect on global climate change is unsuspicious, it could have been excessively exaggerated." Their study asserted that "it is high time to reconsider the trend of global climate change.” Denmark: Space physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre, a member of the space research advisory committee of the Swedish National Space Board, a member of a NASA working group, and a member of the European Space Agency who has authored or co-authored around 100 peer-reviewed papers and chairs the Institute of Space Physics: “The sun is the source of the energy that causes the motion of the atmosphere and thereby controls weather and climate. Any change in the energy from the sun received at the Earth’s surface will therefore affect climate.” Belgium: Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute’s Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming: "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. “Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it.” Sweden: Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, critiqued the Associated Press for hyping promoting climate fears in 2007. “Another of these hysterical views of our climate. Newspapers should think about the damage they are doing to many persons, particularly young kids, by spreading the exaggerated views of a human impact on climate.” USA: Dr. David Wojick is a UN IPCC expert reviewer, who earned his PhD in Philosophy of Science and co-founded the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie-Mellon University: “In point of fact, the hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The GHG (greenhouse gas) hypothesis does not do this.” Wojick added: “The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates.” # # # Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary The over 400 skeptical scientists featured in this new report outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists who participated in the 2007 UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers. The notion of “hundreds” or “thousands” of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking “consensus” LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK) The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific “consensus” in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the UN to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050. But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged “thousands” of scientists. (See AP article: - LINK ) UN IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri urged the world at the December 2007 UN climate conference in Bali, Indonesia to "Please listen to the voice of science.” The science has continued to grow loud and clear in 2007. In addition to the growing number of scientists expressing skepticism, an abundance of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast considerable doubt about man-made global warming fears. A November 3, 2007 peer-reviewed study found that “solar changes significantly alter climate.” (LINK) A December 2007 peer-reviewed study recalculated and halved the global average surface temperature trend between 1980 – 2002. (LINK) Another new study found the Medieval Warm Period “0.3C warmer than 20th century” (LINK) A peer-reviewed study by a team of scientists found that "warming is naturally caused and shows no human influence." (LINK) – Another November 2007 peer-reviewed study in the journal Physical Geography found “Long-term climate change is driven by solar insolation changes.” (LINK ) These recent studies were in addition to the abundance of peer-reviewed studies earlier in 2007. - See "New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears" (LINK ) With this new report of profiling 400 skeptical scientists, the world can finally hear the voices of the “silent majority” of scientists. LINKS TO COMPLETE U.S. SENATE REPORT: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 Complete Report: (LINK) (Released December 20, 2007)

He who controls energy controls the population and that is exactly what this bill is about. There is no oversight built in, no controls over its power and authority. It has the ability to tax (and does so exceptionally well) but no specific safegards on its spending. This bill will singlehandely raise inflation in Washington. The gas companies will not absorb this tax, it will be passed on to the consumer who will pay more for every single item sold in Washington. This is nothing more than a power grab based on shakey science and fear mongering.

How about if all these concerned legislators just telecommute/teleconference from their local offices? They would save fuel (smaller carbon footprint) and we wouldn't need to heat and maintain so many buildings in Olympia. This would also save money on per diem and mileage payments. By working from "home", they would also be more available to their constituents.

Is the only thing that I see this legislature doing is growing Government and taxing the H out of us. Enough is Enough! This tax would add $1.70 to every gallon of gas. $1.00 directly and $.70 passed on. Add that to the $.50 the Dems in Wash DC want to add, you will double the price of fuel, heating, all good transported into this state. You will loose Diesel sales revenues from truckers, as they will all fuel up before and after they hit this state. The Airlines will be back in trouble for the taxpayer to bail out. Are you and Geoff trying to intentionally kill the economy in this state?

Are you crazy? Where do you think the monies come from? It comes from taxpayers that have to scrape up enough to keep our heads above your silly ideas like this Carbon Tax porposal. No wonder Tim Eyeman is so popular amoingst the tax payers of this state. You should be ashamed of yourself..

I completely agree with the previous 10 commenters. This is insane taxation based on a Chicken Little reaction. The libs complain about the "little guy". Well, this will certainly hurt taxpayers at all economic levels. Get a clue.

Despite all the whining, this bill is a step in the right direction. The fuel you're using is imposing costs on the environment and on other people. Just because people haven't acknowledged that cost in the past, doesn't mean you should be liable for it in the future.

*shouldn't

Like an Ostrich, your head is deeply buried in the sand. You don't want to hear it, I understand. The news is depressing to you, I see. You think you've come up with an exhaustive list of people who you think support your belief that human-induced climate change is a farce. OK. I certainly won't convince you here. But when you have to tell your kids about the polar bears that once lived, or of the Olympic Mountains that once were capped in snow, or any number of other examples, my friend it will be too late. Again, I won't change your mind; ignorance and stubbornness are difficult to break down.

Like an Ostrich, your head is deeply buried in the sand. You don't want to hear it, I understand. The news is depressing to you, I see. You think you've come up with an exhaustive list of people who you think support your belief that human-induced climate change is a farce. OK. I certainly won't convince you here. But when you have to tell your kids about the polar bears that once lived, or of the Olympic Mountains that once were capped in snow, or any number of other examples, my friend it will be too late. Again, I won't change your mind; ignorance and stubbornness are difficult to break down.

I suppose it's not too bad if you're made of the green stuff (money and/or dope). Is everyone going to get a 50% raise to pay for fuel, food, toilet paper, water, home heating, and pretty much every othing item purchased in this state?

Look Ostrich...The Sky Is Falling...The Sky Is Falling...!!! You idiot! Why use FACTS when you can just MAKE SHIT UP!

There is no such thing as Global Warming. All scientific evidence points to the contrary. As does common sense. Something clearly lacking in our legislature. If there really was Global "Warming" why are we having so many record breaking cold spells all over the planet. This is a sneaky ploy to increase government coffers. Just like the new tax on employee hours and the destination sales tax. You will drive business out of this state!! Then where will you get your revenue!

Come on, are they trying to drive people out of the State? Why not go after the auto makers and not the taxpayers. Why are people alowing theis to go in so long in this State? Vote these people out.

Every time we breath we product Co2. If we can't get a rational democratic government, then we need a repulbican one that understands people live real lives. Watch out for next years carbon tax on breathing..say 1 cent per breath.

going "green"- it's the new religion for the religionless.

"go after" the auto makers for what exactly?!For making the cars that we want to drive?

you are obviously one of the many morons that will blindly fall in line with this whole "global warming/green house gassing/ carbon foot printing" religion that is all the rage now a days!Get a life!But I guess it's a pretty cheap way to feel morally superior to your fellow man!

Dude!If I want to read a novel ,I'll go to the library!

I know your well intentioned liberal heart is bleeding for the polar bears, but....... it is the myth called "global warming" that is actually causing so much anxiety, please do not do that to your children or mine!

ok. tax carbon. hah! problem solved! ok, ok... it does nothing to encourage people to reduce their co2 production, but hey! we'll have more money for special interests, and after all, isn't that what we all really wanted in the end? just keep moving, citizen, nothing to see here... now, if CO2 were REALLY the issue here, instead of taxing people for using carbon based fuels (like ethanol, and biodiesel), there would be incentives to reduce the CO2 production per ton of fuel. carbon ain't bad. i eat carbon based compounds every day, you should try some. Theoretically, CO2 is bad, although the science behind this conclusion is pretty sketchy. but we're pretty happy with carbon by itself, and oxygen, too. if tomorrow, someone came out with a car that ran on biodiesel and the by-product was water and graphite, this bill would tax the fuel anyway. we are paying $.31/ gallon in gas tax. if you run a propane fueled vehicle, you get nailed for the taxes you avoided by not paying those gas taxes at the pump. the state takes 6.5% of everything, with county and local sales taxes grabbing even more, up to 3%. look at your paystubs, i don't need to tell you how much the feds take. and with all this money, we can't solve this "global warming crisis". but fortunately, this new tax should fix it up right. am i really supposed to believe this?

Will you please explain how more taxes will improve the environment, does the ozone layer accept cash. All this new tax will do is fund more moronic research projects. While the rising cost of petroleum products is already crippling the country, the last thing we need to do allow our government to do is tax it further. Everyone, please go to grassfire.org & sign the petition & send faxes to congress to let our leaders know how you feel about this issue

I have heard through the grape vine that al gore drives a suv and owns a oil company.any truth to this?if so it seems ridiculous that these people are always in the media talking smack about the sky is falling oops I mean the climate is changing.i've also heard that there are scientist that have debunked the idea of global warming.its a hoax to rob the poor of more cash.I'm not on board.

What some one else does should have no effect on your own ethics... Al Gore may or may not walk the walk. It does not matter. Even if he uses hyperbole in his message it does not matter. All politicians exagerate one way or the other. Try Bush with the gitmo treatment. Does not change the fact that there may be some truth to the success of "modified interogation" or whatever. We just do not know the facts on that debate. However... www.ipcc.ch There is a majority consensus about climate change in the scientific community. Harvard has signed onto emmission reductions because they see an imminent threat. Even if global warming is not a "fact" it is statistically a strong possibility. The planet is not something to just mess with on ifs and maybes. If there is chance, just a chance, we are screwing our children out of a decent habitat, we should change our ways.

It is the greatest scam and con game ever played by any government to regulate all commerce and hoodwink the people into higher taxes, more restrictive laws, and ultimately, slavery. Google "31,000 Scientists warming" If you think I'm just one of those right wing sticks in the mud, go ahead, bury your head in the sand and follow the rest of the lemmings over the cliff. Again, I say...just type "31,000 scientists warming" into your google search engine and you will quickly see why I and others who can see past Al Gore and all his bulls**t simply refuse to play dead and let the government enslave us and our economy. Help fight Organized Crime...Do not re-elect incumbant politicians.

What Al Gore does doesn't matter. All you ned to do is open your eyes and see how large the world population is. How much resouces, food, energy, etc it takes to sustain this population and factor in all the garbage and toxic waste the entire world produces and tries to either bury in the ground where it gets into the water table, toxic fumes in the air we breath, and in the ocean kiloing the sea life or poosioning what we eat. Does it make sense to dump waste in your living room> That's what we all do everyday.

I thought we were talking about Global Warming. I guess you are doing what your kind does best. Bait and Switch. Try sticking to the topic. Even when your arguments are full of holes.

Anonymous:

Is the only thing that I see this legislature doing is growing Government and taxing the H out of us. Enough is Enough! This tax would add $1.70 to every gallon of gas. $1.00 directly and $.70 passed on. Add that to the $.50 the Dems in Wash DC want to add, you will double the price of fuel, heating, all good transported into this state. You will loose Diesel sales revenues from truckers, as they will all fuel up before and after they hit this state. The Airlines will be back in trouble for the taxpayer to bail out. Are you and Geoff trying to intentionally kill the economy in this state?

Truckers file quarterly IFTA tax returns which report the gallons purchased and miles driven in each state. The shortages and overages are redistrubuted. So for example if you bought all your fuel in WY which has a 14 cent per gallon tax but drove in the highest two taxed states - WA and NY then you'd owe a bundle of money on your IFTA return because not enough tax was collected at the pumps in WY. What really stinks is that there are tax surcharges - that is tax not charged at the pump but you have to pay on your IFTA tax return. IN is notable with a 16 cent/gal surcharge.

The real response by trucking companies would be to add to the freight rates the new and higher fuel tax. Just as is done for tolls in the eastern US. If you can't negotiate a higher rate due to the tolls and taxes, you probably don't take freight to or from those states. Our company will no longer haul to NJ since they have a $3000/year tax on each vehicle if you are incorporated. That applies if you are making a single stop for pickup or delivery in a year. The solution is to change from a corporation to an LLC if you want to haul to or from NJ. But  the tolls on I-95 are so high that it is not affordable to operate there anyhow. same for NY. One way tolls from NJ to say Hicksville in NY are $63 for a truck to crossing the GW bridge then the Throgsneck to get on I-495 on Long Island. consider that when you want something shipped to or from there.

This carbon tax idea based on the fear of anthropomorhic GHG's is a religion, not based on science.

 

 

At least we're trying to do something about pollution. Small steps are still steps, these taxes have the role to diminish the level of pollution resulting from the extraction and the usage of these natural resources. The bill will most certainly have an impact on the Natural gas investments.