What the hell..how can you tax climate? A Carbon tax?? It's a freakin natural gas!! I cannot stand people, especially those affiliated with the Left in this country as I am, who say that "carbon dioxide is bad." NO it's not bad..it's a natural gas that helps plants grow!! We should instead be focusing on other environmental issues such as forest degradation and polluting water and air. Tax the freakin corporations who see pollution as an "externality" a.k.a "someone else's problem." I WILL NOT PAY A TAX FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. A tax on carbon dioxide... whoever heard of such a thing? Taxing a gas everyone breathes out give me a break! Recycle carbon dioxide, don't tax us!! Come on you progessives, you're much smarter than that! This won't create a good image of the left in this country!

I already pay higher energy costs and utility companies have applied for rate increases for the next three years while alternative energy does not increase proportionally We are paying stranded costs for old nuclear plants and deregulation has turned a multi-billion dollar state surplus into a multi-billion dollar deficit.

Tax the energy companies that continue to may record profits or regulate how rate increases are applied to conservation.

More corporate bullcrap!
MAKE big business pay for the rape and pilage of the Mother Ship!

Oh Duh!

Sheesh!

Indeed, it's normal for everyone to represent his own class interests. I'd expect the millionaires and billionaires, and their schills (deliberate or no) to resist a tighter progressive income tax. Are you opposed to a far more progressive curve in the income tax model? Closing loopholes for corporations and the wealthy?

I'd also expect the former middle-class and working-poor to represent their class interests, to resist any attempt to tax themselves further -- and instead demand that the wealthy pay their fair share.

Is standing up for your own class interests out of fashion for the middle/working-class today? Only the rich are allowed to do that?

I don't know what to make of carbon offsets. At first glance, it seems like a bribe -- the wealthy may pollute if they pay their tax (and presumably pass the cost onto the consumer). I think I'm more in favor of simply tightening the emissions standards and sending violators to jail.

PJD: I live about 20 miles north of Minneapolis. Check out this web site: http://www.nhc.org/chp/p2p/. I see that the median priced home in Lexington was $149K. In Minneapolis it's $242K.

Don't be chilled about my negative commentary on statist solutions. National military boondoggles, Iraq, S&L bailout, proposed health care plans (handout to Big Pharm), the corrupted history of mass transit here in Minneapolis/St. Paul (check out Kid Cann: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kid_Cann), etc. speaks volumes about corruption. We have valid reasons to distrust statist approaches as the sole solution -- particularly when the state has shown itself not trustworthy on many other issues.

I would argue for a socialized solution if we had a government (like Scandinavia) we could trust, one that genuinely represented the will of the people -- and wasn't merely a fascistic pass-through to funnel public dollars to the best-connected vendor. It never ends. Republican Pawlenty (Minnesota Governor), for instance, awarded the 35W bridge rebuild to an out of state contractor (one insult) which actually bid higher than one of the in-state contractors (second insult). They just can't friggin' get it right. Until we have honesty in government, or begin to socialize aspects of manufacturing (I'm not principally opposed to this), government is primarily a vendor-management function, to funnel public dollars to private interests. If this is the American way, we'd better start electing quasi-honest people.

The bottom line is that the majority of power, wealth, resources, real estate, production capacity, policies which cause the vast majority of products in Target, Best Buy, Walmart, etc. to be shipped thousands of miles across the Pacific, policies that resist more fuel efficient cars, policies which resist reigning in usury and speculation, etc. -- the bottom line is that the powerful and wealthy caused this mess, and they ought to pay for it.

PJD ~ I too am highly skeptical of theoretical graphs of reverse-projected data derived from fragmentary evidence, especially when it is used to prove/disprove highly subjective and politically sensitive issues. The politics of this issue are fairly clear, the facts are much less so.

My bottom line is that if we make political decisions based on such specious concepts, we will undoubtedly will make the wrong choices.

Mr. Bramscher,

Where do you live?

Somehow, on a relatively moderate income, in Blacksburg, Virginia, Lexington Kentucky, and Pittsburgh Pennsyvlania, I've always been able to find a home close to work or on a transit line to work - and walkable to essential shopping. It just depends where your priorities lie.

I fine your characrterizaton of public transit as "statist" to be chilling. Are public highways, water, sewer or schools "statist" too. Maybe we need more "statism" like Europe has.

If we are going to reduce our GHG emissions 80%, it is going to require a lot more than just buying a frigging Prius. OK?

And, you CONTINUE to fail to address the point that a carbon tax would be offset by income tax changes, so it would not have to impose an additional tax burden on anyone.

pdf,

Yes we might make the wrong choices, but if we are wrong in one direction, all we did is move to a post-carbon energy future a little faster than we had to. I

f we err in the other direction, we cause unprecedented human suffering and posible self-extinction. Which side should we err?

That's right -- a tax on anyone except the wealthy is just a means of offloading their losses or expense on the remant middle-class and working poor. Indeed, it's another excuse to move closer to a regressive tax system.

Why the hell wasn't this poll asked to CEO's, major shareholders, the 10% who own the 90% of the wealth, the means of production, real estate, control resources, etc.? Why wasn't this question presented to the wealthiest: Would you be willing to forego some profits if it meant helping the climate?

If not, and we presume the answer is no, then that's why the question was asked of the middle-class and poor.

On prisonplanet.com, someone reported that the G8 met in Calgary and suggested a $1.00 increase in the price of gas would be accepted by the sheeple if that dollar went toward "helping" the environment. People need to be frightenend into it and hence Al Gore's climate disaster/campaign movie.Don't be so gullible! Do what you can, but if you trust your government, you're on the wrong planet!

PJD,

There isn't much of a middle-class left, certainly not among the X/Y-Gen -- many of whom have net worths less than zero.

I'm already been hit in my god cursed pocketbook. Can't afford to live close to work because the home prices are out of sight. Can't afford to buy a hybrid because I'm trying to feed my kids, pay a mortgage, etc. If I have to pay double for gas it's not going to make it any easier to save up for a new hybrid or move into an inflated-price home closer to my workplace -- is it?

As for public transit, urban and statist solutions certainly have their time and place -- but they are not a panacea. I've got inlaws who live in rural areas, on farms, etc.

If Congress had the balls to force the Big Three a decade ago to build more affordable and fuel efficient cars, they'd probably not be slipping to the Japanese today. They dug their own graves.

No, the tax-the-poor solution is just another ill-concieved DLC solution, another way to get the working-class to vote against its own interests. Astoundingly, it's coming from the so-called "left". My local Air America affiliate has been begging for a gas tax (flat and regressive) to help pay for the 35W bridge collapse and other infrastructure in Minnesosta. I wrote them that we should consider reallocations and a steeper progressive income tax instead -- to ask the wealthy to pay their fair share. Of course, they never answered the e-mail on or off air.

God forbid we tax those who are most ripe for taxing, who've accumulated most of the wealth, created ruinous policy, have the ability to make fuel efficient autos, etc.

This is a schill meme, trying to work its way like a brain virus into the "left". Yes, we need to consume less. Yes, we might consider taxing. But no, we don't try to tax the middle/working-class to oblivion: we instead tax the rich.

pdf,

I wouldn't have a clue what the lower left graph is trying to depict (the extinction causing paleocene-eocene heating event is missing from it) - and it has a wacky change in the time scale from millions of years in the past, to decades in the future projection - such scale changes are aways a sign that teh data is being presented in a deceptive way.

The other graphs depict relatively recent geologic history, and don't depict anything like the warming expected by the (probably-too-low) high-end IPCC predictions - up to +6C. So, actually these graphs demonstrate that the even the expected warming is unprecedented in magnitude and rapidity, compared to the past few 100K years.

but looking further back, on the scale of 100's of millions of years, The earth has experienced dramatic mass extinctions in the past that were related to extreme warming events, but none that are related to extreme cooling events - in fact, cooling events seem to coorelate to increases of biodiversity.

One of these, the great Permian extinction, resulted in a near wipe-out of all life on earth - 99% of all marine life, and 90% percent of land life inclding most plants and mass die off of even most insects. The consensus is building that this event was the result of runaway greenhouse effect, the triggering being a raise in atmosphereic CO2 - folllowed by massive methane "burps" from warmed sea floor sediments or permafrost zones. In the Permian, it was probably intense volcanic activity that provided the initial CO2 increases, and similar increases in CO2 are entirely possible from human activity. So, there is a very real possibility of human activity triggering such a similar catastrophic event. And, with homo Sapiens having become a rather unadaptable species, they will be the first to go. These dire scenarios are still going to require a few hundred to a thousand years to start, but will be unstoppable once they start. And since the death of these future generations will be caused by what we are doing right now, we cant wash our hands of it.

But, even human activity is part of "nature" like a big volcano or asteroid, so you could argue that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is just a "natural" event. But few people acceppt such nihilistic viewpoints.

PJD ~

Speaking climatically, can you give me a period in Earth's history where the average temperature remained static?

Here's some graphs to consider:

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~kagan/phy367/P367_articles/GreenHouseEffect/temperatures.html

What point on these graphs are temperatures "normal"?

At what temperature would you want us to set our Earthly thermostat?

How would you propose we negate the solar and extra-solar influance?

Just asking questions, not picking a fight.....

All of your arguments regarding misallocation of govt. resources are totally besides the point!

The US middle class ARE the problem - they are the ones driving single-occupant SUV's driven 40 miles to work and the most incidental errands every day, refusing to use public transit, or relocate where they could use public transit, they are teh ones who air condition their homes to 65F in summer and then heat them to 75F in winter. They are the ones buying electricity-guzzling big-screen plasma TV's, etc..etc...

They will only change their behavior when they are hit in the pocketbook.

Of course, we could also impose some kind of rationing scheme - think that will work better?

Like I wrote, a high carbon tax can be easily be offset by tax reductions elsewhere so it's net effect will be neutral. Did you hear me the first time? Please THINK! Turn off those tax-o-phobic Reagan-Bush-planted worms turning in your heads!

Jmacneil ~

Your statement that our weather is becoming more violent at an unprecedented rate does not stand up to scrutiny. Please forward facts to support this, but as a Central Florida resident, I can tell you with absolute certainty that some years have violent weather (2004) and some years (every year since) have mild weather. I haven't seen more than a gentle breeze in two years! Of course, the wild histrionics generated by Gore's baseless theatric hyperbole drove MY annual homeowners insurance from $800/yr to $4,000/yr with no damage whatsoever within 500 miles the last two years ~ but I'm not BITTER about it or anything!

If someone who can actually explain to what Earth's normal temperature is supposed to be, I'd appreciate it. But if you're quite ready to tax society into global recession over this concept, you'd better be able to back up your plans with some factual evidence.

My factual evidence for NOT doing so is simple. Earth's temperature has ALWAYS varied. A dynamic planetary system will ALWAYS produce temperature variations, as evidenced by what's happening on all solar planets around us. They are all experiencing a temperature shift upwards, as we are at this point in time. Wait a while, and you'll see a downtrend.

But in the meantime, mere facts and science should not get in the way of social scientists and wealth-redistribution types who want to generate a faux-crisis to enact whatever means possible to take from those who have and give to those who have not. It's been going on for so long that we're numb to it.

The military industrial complex and nuclear power facilities, both major polluters must be shut down.

That will free up hundreds of billions.

Also, the major oil companies don't pay enough taxes. They also need to be charged for the oil that they take out of our ground.

The strange thing is, many ways of saving energy save money!

The average landlord would rather die than put weatherstripping on the door. Tenants don't think about such things when they move in. Often they're happy to have any place at all.

Wind is cheaper! Rich beachfront owners fight wind tooth and nail. Funny how they don't think lighthouses are blights on the shoreline. Oh, and a month of wind power can easily be stored up with pumped hydro.

The really criminal part is that the lone inventors' hands are badly handcuffed. You have no idea what they could do, and quickly.

PJD,

A tax may be useful under some circumstances. As a progressive, I suggest a progressive income tax.

Tax those most who have the most power to control/transform/ship resources.

I suggest doing away with virtually all flat/regressive/sales taxes which disproportionately hit the poor. Instead, close corporate loopholes and enact a highly progressive income tax. Don't even start it until the median income. i.e. those under the median pay zip.

I agree -- a tax may force a hand. But we have intense waste of tax dollars, subsidy of nuclear power, no real interest in D.C. with regard to alternative energy, etc. because the wealthy are in charge -- and the middle-class and working-class are paying for it. If it was the wealthy's own money going down the drain, they'd be better stewards.

A new flat/use/regressive tax on the middle-class and poor is just another way for the wealthy to offload some expensive onto those least able to pay for it.

Indeed -- think about it. The bulk of the new wealth generated in this country the past few decades has gone to the Boomers and the wealthy. Tax them.

You have to admit, it is pretty funny that the corporate governments can make such a big lie and have most people believe it. And getting that dork ex-vice-president to make a scary movie about "climate change" and then awarding him the Nobel Peace Prize was hilarious.

The problem with their big hypothesis is that the physics wouldn't support it for a second. You could fit all of the worst polluting companies in the world in Britain and still have plenty of room left over to erect an ice-cream stand, so how is it that the pollution from them is supposed to trap enough heat to warm up the whole planet? All of the pollution in the world, although terrible, is local and though some can travel on the wind it can't make a complete blanket on the planet and such a covering would be required to keep the average temperature increasing according to their "climate change" model.

Yet, as anyone who has been paying attention to the weather can see, the average temperature of the atmosphere is rising and that is making our weather more violent at an unprecedented rate, at least according to our knowledge of history. The problem, as any scientist will attest, is that more moisture is entering the atmosphere and that extra volume of energy changing state is the culprit. The reason for that, though, is because more energy is entering the atmosphere and heating up the water. And the reason for more energy entering into our planet's atmosphere is because the atmosphere has less ability to reflect photons than what it once had. This is due to a lower density of oxygen.

So why would the corporate governments make up this huge lie about climate change due to carbon gases when they know that the real reason for our rising temperature is the deficit of oxygen? Perhaps because the damage they did to the atmosphere is catastrophic and getting worse faster than they will admit.

The solution to our atmosphere's problem, of course, is to quit using more oxygen than is being put into the atmosphere by the planet's biomass. And in that the solution is similar to what most people would recommend for curing "climate change".

Ah, the old American answer of just throw more money at it.

Ah my, the longer I live the less hope I have and the more I believe that mankind was the worst thing to happen to this planet.

I have some very bad news, it's too late. We've screwed the pooch. If we stopped polluting the planet today and became totally environmentally friendly we've already polluted this planet to the point that not only our species will be wiped-out in our time a good deal of all living things will perish.

So I have a better use for the money we would give to those that got us into this mess to begin with. Go have some fun. Take you're family to the Grand Canyon, Europe, go camping and enjoy what's left of Nature before we're gone. And make peace with whatever deity you believe in because we'll all be meeting them soon.

Higher-bills paid for global-warming is already-rife (the very-expensive GWoT is that 'higher-bill').
So far, this GWoT has been very-successful...jacking-up the actual-worth of oil-per-barrel from about 3.-and-change to over 95. And, the 'chaos of war/unrest' has-and-will keep a lot of oil 'in the ground', where the developing-world in Central/South America, Asia, Africa, Mid-East/Asia can't (even if 'affordable' to them) burn a whole-lot of it...as the Western-World continues-to.
Your future-tax-dollars at work, protecting the Global-climate...what more could you ask?

And, dear Americans, might you be barking up the wrong tree about this tax stuff.

US taxes are low compared to most of the industrial world.

But, here in Pitsburgh, we can't even get a few-percent tax on drinks served in bars to save our public transit system.

Might the problem be instead be it be that your capitalist boss isn't paying you enough?

Everyone here is way off base. Please put your typical american selfish impulses away and THINK.

People and businesses will ONLY change their wasteful fossil fuel consumption habits when it becomes cost-prohibitive to do so. I't called the law of supply and demand (or more specifically - price elasticity).

The only thing that will accomplish this in a fair way is a stiff tax on the carbon content of fuels. It can be offset by reductions in taxes elsewhere, notably income taxes, for those with lower incomes.

Ok?

Hey, why don't we just declare global warming and those most responsible for it to be our mortal enemies? We could then divert the spending of our treasure for fighting "Isalmist extremists" to fighting the enemy that is truly going to do this planet in.
When the world's major capitalist corporations can find a way to make major profits from going to war against global warming, we'll be on that band wagon in a New York second. Only then will all the 'brave' American sheep play THAT skin flute.

This article, and more importantly, the responses to it, are a very telling and instructive to us of us that sit back and look at the androgenic global warming with a jaundiced eye.

Sure, global climate changes. Look over history, it has ALWAYS changed, and ALWAYS will. At no point has Earth's climate maintained a static condition. I really don't understand why anyone would think that average planetary temperatures should or could suddenly even out and stop fluctuating. Hasn't done it in billions of years, why start now?

Now we are being massaged into thinking that taxation should be imposed on our supposed impact on that process? I'm sorry, but that logic is so flawed that I can't even begin to describe it.

If somebody can explain to me how my tax dollars should be raised (not lowered, of course) in response to a fluctuating global temperature structure that has consistantly fluctuated since the formation of the planet ~ then I'd be happy to fork over even more money to a uncaring federal government with ceaseless greed. Until then, no thank you.

Higher taxes? To what point and purpose?

How about *tax incentives* to private individuals who wean themselves off the petrol teat? (I stress individuals because I know corporations do not answer to anyone these days, and have little incentive to build a better world.)

Here in Canada (and perhaps the US) a company named Bullfrog sells energy at higher than market prices, based on its own commitment to put into the grid as much green energy (from renewable resources) as its buyers take out. As the idea is catching on its rates are dropping, and this is driving demand for renewable resources without increasing taxation. So
green energy does not necessarily imply higher taxes.

http://www.bullfrogpower.com/

the people in charge dont care about solar wind etc.... other forms of power you cant sell the wind or the sun thats is why we are doomed if we did switch to the other forms it would put on every house bad for business they would say behind cloesd doors they dont want to change

The most useful thing we can do is to support, both financially and through advocacy, progressive candidates with sound environmental policies. Clinton (despite Gore's urgings) wasn't great on the environment, but he looks like a tree-hugger next to W.

Cat, I didn't have kittens; that's the best I can offer. I'm ethically opposed to suicide, but you can kill if you'll promise to eat all the meat. If population isn't sustainable, cannibalism or other natural population reducers arise.

Those are some funny posts! Us meat-eaters have been consuming flesh since before you plant eaters knew of where to find potatoes. And this planet can certainly handle the population density that currently resides here, and then some. If you want to get to the root of the real problem then you have to look at who is controlling your energy and why it is that the government and corporations have been extensively using solar power for more than a half century in situations where they can do so without it affecting their monopoly over the witless "consumers".

There are three, and only three, areas in which the government can effectively take direct control over a population, other than using bayonets, and those are energy, food and water. The corporate governments currently control the energy and food and are actively working on controlling the water. The most efficient way of utilizing solar energy is if the roof of every house is the solar collector so that each house is the complete provider of it's own energy, but such a concept is anathema to the energy companies because that would take them out of the market or reduce them to an insignificant size and it would reduce by one-third the influence and power of the evil governments to control their populations.

As for the deterioration of the environment, if anyone believes that hairspray or chlorofluorocarbons from air-conditioners are what caused the hole in the ozone layer and are directly responsible for the excessive heating of the planet, then you better wake up. The hole in the ozone was directly caused by the tens of thousands of thermonuclear explosions in the atmosphere which burn up phenomenal amounts of oxygen. And the problems with the intensity and frequency of earthquakes was directly caused by the similar type of nuclear explosions underground. This planet is a living thing and if you abuse it you must be aware that it's physical condition is going to deteriorate.

Ron's comment above almost makes a point I was thinking of so let me take it one step further. Ron said:

Letting your lawn die is a trivial contribution compared to becoming a vegetarian.

**************

If all one does is let their lawn die I totally agree. If you change it into a vegtable/fruit garden though it changes everything. For me the epiphany came when I looked at my lawn and asked: Since I am neither cattle, sheep, or goat why am I growing grass?

I don't care how little the yield, it is more edible than a grass lawn. We once understood this as a nation and the whole country planted "victory gardens" during WWII.

A certified master gardener I talked to about this agreed and said that a lawn is square foot per square foot the most expensive and polluting kind of crop to maintain.

One more point--go to your local organic food store and lok for open polinated perenials whioch allow you to save seeds and keep growing the different varieties of foods you plant without having to reinvest in new seed every year.

Polls are notorious for getting exactly the answers they want. They ask only the questions they want answered, their way. Of course where and who you poll has a good deal to do with the responses also. So much for the polls.
This lemming mentality that is expected of us is also fascinating. "Oh well, of course if so many people said that they would pay more, well I guess that's a good thing and I will too" Not!

Not if you don't have the money. Not if you can figure something else out to take care of yourself and your family. Time for some of us to start thinking about alternative living on an individual and local level....like walking distance!
Money is worthless when your baby dies in a car seat from gas fumes in a grid lock. Yes, happened 20 years ago. Sorry, Mother Earth can't relate to money. What is this psychosis about this stuff. That it will buy anything. Money is god? It preforms miracles? So far money has spawned greed. Accelerated life to the point where it isn't fun anymore. Turned most of us into slaves. Fouled our air, water, soil, delivered us into perpetual debt and keep all wars fueled. Behind every obscene act in history you will find lust for money as the main character.
If all the money that we have shoved into the evil of power, had been used to grow a human society of beings. We would not be speaking of culling our own spices.
As for the population. Getting rid of some of us. Well lets see? Will the author of that concept be willing to get the ball rolling by doing away with themselves? One less mouth to feed and more air and water for the rest of us to pollute and waste. As further proof of this persons commitment to their words possibly they would offer their remains as food! You may taste like chicken with the right sause :)

phuck more taxes. we already take the bus as much as possible, keep the heat off a lot, and do everything to cut down energy consumption. i am not willing to pay more taxes. let the corporations start shouldering the burden. how much more is the middle class supposed to take?

The most effective way to combat global warming and all the other told and untold problems we humans are encountering, is to drastically reduce our population. Almost all other current problems proceed from overpopulation and its consequences. Until the population is in balance with resources, the fights will continue. Even were the problem of global warming, the evils of religion, the greed and arrogance of the rich, resource depletion, etc. to be solved, unless the population is brought down, instead of continuing to increase, the proliferation of problems will continue, with two new ones popping up for each one solved. Solving problems other than overpopulation just enables more overpopulation, creating more problems.

The most effective way to combat global warming and all the other told and untold problems we humans are encountering, is to drastically reduce our population. Almost all other current problems proceed from overpopulation and its consequences. Until the population is in balance with resources, the fights will continue. Even were the problem of global warming, the evils of religion, the greed and arrogance of the rich, resource depletion, etc. to be solved, unless the population is brought down, instead of continuing to increase, the proliferation of problems will continue, with two new ones popping up for each one solved. Solving problems other than overpopulation just enables more overpopulation, enabling more problems.

It doesn't cost anything extra to be a vegetarian. If we were a nation of vegetarians, we wouldn't have water shortages (half of all water in this country is consumed by livestock), topsoil erosion, water pollution (the feedlots that line the Mississippi have no sewage treatment facilities whatsoever), and so on. Letting your lawn die is a trivial contribution compared to becoming a vegetarian. We really don't need more taxes - we need smarter consumers. It's great to switch from incandescent to fluorescent light bulbs, to drive a Prius, and so on, but all of such steps have much less impact than going vegetarian. If you are a meat eater, you are going along with the corporate types that you love to loath. Real progressives are stewards of the environment. Meat-eating progressives are hypocrites.

I find it alarming that global warming, the environment, etc. is being couched or framed here in non-class terms. Indeed, even anti- middle/working-class terms. Another reason to further squeeze the blood out of the bottom 90%.

The damage human activity does to the planet is a byproduct of their power, the ability to get things done, to modify resources, set agendas, control economies, fight wars, etc. It makes sense for the wealthy -- those with the power to change things -- to take the brunt of the pain here.

After all, they're the ones who outsourced American manufacturing. How can it possibly be so cheap to ship US raw materials across the Pacific, have the Chinese make things, and then ship the goods back? How much fuel is now required to maintain the mass-outsourcing that's taken place in the past couple decades especially?

I'd like to see a poll aimed at CEO's, boards of directors, major shareholders: would they, too, be willing to forego a little profit for the betterment of the environment?

I'm very skeptical about people being willing to pay higher bills in order to fight Global Warming. If that were the case(for instance) thousands of households in areas such as North Texas where I live would be switching to one hundred percent alternate energy plans with their electric energy providers. The cost for one hundred percent Wind Electricity is only a few cents more per kilowatt hour . Most households here have had that option for four years or more now. I don't see any big rush in that direction. In fact most people I speak to are puzzled why anyone would willingly pay more for electricity. Go figure.

Check with your utility companies to see what programs they may offer to offset global warming.

In 2003, through our electric utility PGE here in Portland, Oregon, we signed up for "Green Source." I didn't think we could afford it, but by then it seemed imperative. With Green Source, PGE instead generates electricity through renewable resources, i.e. solar, wind, geothermal, and of course hydro-electric since we live near the Columbia River and the BPA. The electricity generated through these renewable sources goes into the grid from which we purchase our electricity. Obviously, the more people who sign up for Green Source, or a similar program, means PGE is generating most of its electricity through renewable sources, instead of by burning fossil fuels, or nuclear power (believe it or not, they do have a program that does get 1% of its electricity from nuclear power.)

At the same time in 2003, we signed up for they call "Time of Day", where electricity service is rated "Peak," "Mid-Peak," or "Off-Peak," depending on what time of day demand is highest. I am a night owl, and can afford to wait until after 10:00 to do laundry, run the dishwasher, shower, etc., so it saved us money.

Somehow, we got taken off the "Time of Day" service in 2005. When I questioned PGE about this, they researched our energy usage, and responded with a credit of $49 on my recent bill. Not a large amount, but enough to show that it was worth waiting for off-peak hours. We also had a teenage son at home until this past August who "had a life" beyond waiting for off-peak times to shower, for example. Damn, at least he showered! ;-P)

Even though it supposedly costs more to use Green Source, I haven't noticed that it costs us any more than using strictly hydro-electric power. Add in "Time of Day," and it is definitely less expensive, IF you can adhere to the off-peak hours to do your more energy-consuming tasks.

Usage is considered off-peak all day Sunday, so screw church services that day...saving the planet is more important!

As a construction worker, I clearly see the fallacy in that statement.

When they put scrubbers on coal fired powerhouses in WV, overtime is no problem and waste occurs beyond imagination! Dumpsters are filled with high value scrap and buried in landfills. Job trailers are filled with fancy perfumed beancounters and non-productive personel.

They always tack on a little "surcharge" on my electric bill for the scrubbers that never seems to go away.

'Most Would Pay Higher Bills To Help Climate'

The polluting corporations wouldnt....

"More effecient cars, slower speed limits, more mass transportation, cooler business & home heating, warmer busniess and home air conditioning, more effecient illumination, etc. etc., but raising the prices of everything is continuing right now without helping the environment whatsoever."

That's exactly right, annabelle. The biggest and cheapest savings are through efficiencies and rethinking how and where we work and our transportation to such places.

Rather than wait for governments or even NGOs, we need to take the reins ourselves and do what we can right where we are. Some can do more than others, but the point is to start doing whatever you can right now. This stuff doesn't make the headlines because it isn't sexy, but starting where we each are is the best way.

You all know what may very well come of this I'm sure. We'll have a tax imposed on anthing related to oil or energy and we'll pay it. How many taxes are on your telephone bill for example and what are they for?

Will anthing productive be done with any taxes imposed? Is the moon made of green cheeze, does Bush have a brain, do you think our government is doing the right things? The correct anser to all four question is, ___ NO.

The Earth was just fine before money and taxes..even when lightning sparked forest fires burned by the thousands of square miles and released carbon into the atmosphere.

They want to tax the middle and lower classes into the streets and eventually the gutter.

Also what they want is for us to subsidize their (corporate)switch to solar/wind/tidal/geo thermal etc. Then they will stick it to us when those are up and running by telling us how much they had to invest to upstart.

Right on andersdl. When they cut back all the military waste, close the secret prisons, cut back on all the waste, corruption, etc, etc and when they give me the same benefits they get....then they can raise my taxes.

Brits consistently said over the years that they would pay higher taxes to ensure that welfare state institutions like the National Health Service were properly funded. In practice they consistently voted for parties which actually offered higher taxes and cuts in the welfare state to pay for them. All this poll tells us is that people have realised there is a moral case for tackling climate change. They know the "right" answer to give to pollsters. They will still only support those who will not actually do anything practical about the situation.

Poet,

Yeah, I always get a kick out of balancing the world's troubles on the backs of the former middle-class and poor. If saving the world's ecosystems depends on squeezing the middle-class even more, let's just nuke the whole planet now and get it over with.

The framing of polls like this is unfortunate. Whatever happened to one of Wellstone's beloved phrases: Asking the wealthy to pay their fair share.

more taxes on the wealthy. alternative fuel and energy. it could not be more obvious.

Mike Gravel's platform:

Remove the IRS & Income Tax, replace it with a federal sales tax, AKA a progressive fair tax. Change America from a spending to a savings nation.

As for carbon; tax it at the source, per drop or oil and per lump of coal.

Gasoline? Let it cost $7/gallon. That's what we're paying now with our tax dollars to overseas empire-building.

Oh, and set up an international panel to come up with ways to, as his line goes, "get us off gasoline in 5 years, off of carbon in 10".

He's big into magnetic levitation trains, too. Amtrak is a federal corporation; it should be the first to utilize such technology.

http://www.ni4d.org

on a more mundane level:

this country has an unhealthy fixation on lawns, leading to use of toxic, petroleum-based fertilizers and pesticides (which contribute to ground and surface water pollution), and indiscriminate deployment of fossil-fuel burning mowers, blowers, edgers etc.

kill your lawn! save the earth, save time and money, and save your aching back all in one stroke! no tax increase required! replace your lawn with a ground cover such as vinca minor, sweet woodruff or english ivy. your earthworms will thank you for it.

How about a poll question like this:

"Do you think the world's larger corporations and wealthy should conserve more energy, build more efficient autos, appliances and other products -- and pay higher taxes to offset their polluting?"

The whole issue of energy, its costs, and its long-term consequences is another of the best reasons why our country needs to be led by Democrats in the Congress and The White House (as opposed to Republicans either place.)

Some people say they would pay higher bills to help the environment. Fine. Dems MIGHT actually help get policies that actually do help in exchange for those higher fees. Republicans will pass legislation to help energy companies run ads telling us how they're helping--when they really aren't--and pad the bottom line to the moon. Republicans cannot and do not do anything else, it's in their DNA.

Energy is another non-war, non-security issue the Dems can run on. And they should.

With social muscle at an all time low... Climate taxes are a good example of, lack of leadership, shock capitalism, corporate control and the "Big LazY"

61 percent overall said it would be necessary to increase energy costs to encourage conservation and reduce carbon emissions.

Sure, we need full costs to be reflected in the retail prices of everything. Full costs enlighten the people, quell addictions, and make the ethical choice the easy choice.

Do not leave the implementation of full costs to the capitalists - they will only pervert it. Do not leave ANY public policy to the capitalists. The capitalist's proper role is very limited: to satisfy market demands under very strict orders.

Deviate from this formula and the capitalists will destroy your society.

"And another thing–why do the "UN Environment Minsters" have to trapse off to Bali for their meeting. Better they should meet in East LA, or The Ruhr Valley, or how about Bangladesh during monsoon season?" - Poet

The UN is already CORRUPT since it is run by the same corporate THUGS that are running this country ! Most UN meetings are clear displays of CORRUPT leaderships getting together !

Pay "higher bills" to whom and for what?--The Devil is truly in the unsaid details. This smells like Al Gore Inc. and the DLC looking for a new way to suck up to multi-national corporations.

And another thing--why do the "UN Environment Minsters" have to trapse off to Bali for their meeting. Better they should meet in East LA, or The Ruhr Valley, or how about Bangladesh during monsoon season?

Not my dime, thank you very much. You know darn well that every increase in energy costs will benefit the energy companies bottom line. More effecient cars, slower speed limits, more mass transportation, cooler business & home heating, warmer busniess and home air conditioning, more effecient illumination, etc. etc., but raising the prices of everything is continuing right now without helping the environment whatsoever.

The elected and tax collectors must be lickin their chops to hear this. Sure I'd be glad to pay higher bills to help clean up our atmosphere, but do any really believe the money would be used in a productive manner to do so?

I would much rather see us stop starting and financing illegal and unjust wars and use the money wasted on such to cleanup the enviroment. Imagine what we could have accomplished in that respect with the trillion or so we have already wasted fightng a war in Iraq, for nothing more than to control the oil we shouldn't be usng in the first place if we'd revert to clean energy sources. We must use clean energy other than nuclear power BTW.

You don't have to sacrifice anything. Fight to legalize hemp and put solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, etc ... out in full force. Oversacrificing only makes you look RETARDED IMO.

If the US had publicly financed campaigns and cut off corporate welfare to the miltary industrial media complex, the income tax that I and every other American already pay could be diverted to addressing climate change.

"Read my lips...no new taxes".

This is fallacious reasoning. Anyone who wants to help the climate, or to help the climate, we must pay more taxes. How about instead reducing spending elsewhere... makes much more sense considering the government is already overspending.