Conservatives, accountability, and environment

Former Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) nails it in Business Week:

And:

So ... why don't more conservatives believe in accountability?

 

Where is the accountability of environmentalists and democrats whose policies would destroy the middle class? Where is the accountability of using corn for ethanol that increases food costs? Why is the EPA pushing E-15 instead of E-85? You are looking at the wrong side for accountability

 

What policy destroys the middle class?

Corn ethanol is being pushed by farm state politicians, not environmentalists.

 

It is democrats that push it with the help of environmentalist money

Where is the environmentalists demanding other sources for ethanol and for E-85?

 

Which brings us back to the original question: why are you against accountability in the cost of coal and other fossil fuels? Why are you against paying for the mess you make?

You're living in the past:
Senate votes to end ethanol subsidies. Dem votes: 38-13. GOP votes: 33-14. So Democrats are more strongly in favor of ending ethanol subsidies than Republicans. (Source)

Right here:
Environmental organizations call for end to ethanol subsidies

Environmental groups want to end ethanol tax credit

Corn Ethanol subsidy a losing proposition, says Environmental Working Group

 

So the democrats have a majority and lose the vote? I think you are trying to make excuses and condemn GOP. The fact is Obama and the EPA want E-15 and have not mentioned E-85
Right here:

 

Accountability for what? Bad energy policies?

 

What costs in particular are you attributing to fuels?

 

From the article (which I wish you had read ...)

And that's not even counting the costs of climate change, which are staggering.

 

His proposal for a carbon emissions tax would have to be retroactively implemented. However, I agree with the premise of a CO2 emissions tax in order to eliminate negative externalities imposed on society.

This concept from an economic standpoint is even backed by Arthur Laffer, father of Supply-Side Economics:

http://www.carbontax.org/who-supports/scientists-and-economists/

 

oh, you mean the entire article? yea, I just read your quotes which referred to emissions and hidden costs. so I was asking you to be more specific.

I agree that government should completetly get out of the energy industry, subsidies and all the rest. and obviously energy producers and users should be held accountable for any violation of other peoples property rights they commit.


But, I don't believe in climate change. So perhaps there are other property rights violations committed by energy producers and users?

 

Surely the market can self-regulate pollution. The good people of the coal and oil industries wouldn't hurt a fly or various fish stocks in the Gulf.

 

Actually, Bob Inglis proposes that government can regulate pollution, but that if we implement a carbon emissions tax on businesses, we should lower their income tax rates.

 

Businesses can. They have no incentive to mess up their own property. That hurts the bottom line. If they mess up your property, they know they'll face lawsuits.

There are only a few situations where businesses have to dump on their own property.

 

Absolutely correct

 

He must be a RINO or a socialist...

Well of course... They're far better off dumping in wilderness areas or lakes and streams.

But yes, I'm sure that I can afford a good enough lawyer to defeat the staff of lawyers that companies like Exxon can afford if they do something wrong to me.

 

I agree with the OP, and I'd think you'd find that many other conservatives do as well.

The issue is externalities. If we could somehow devise a very good system of measuring the cost of externalities on society, the true cost of goods and services would be reflected in the price of everything we buy. Personally, I am in favour of this, as it puts a true price on behavior we want to discourage in its fair degree, however it would have to come in conjunction with the removal of taxes on the things that we don't want to take incentives away from, such as labour. I'll trade you polution taxes for income taxes ok?

 

I propose we end the EPA and all air and water standards. Anything less is Communist.

 

Exactly! This is the economic argument for a carbon emissions tax. Pollution costs do not directly affect corporations, but they cost society as a whole.

 

Well I wouldnt call them communist. But yea, let's get rid of them.

 

But only if you believe carbon emissions pose a cost on society.

 

They are better off but they can't unless they file for a vacant lot to dump in. The other alternative is to dump on their own property.

You can if you win the settlement.

 

Which it doesn't. It's not even a pollutant.

 

I don't think my plants could live without it

 

Here are some articles on air pollution and their effects on humans and the environment:

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview/

http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article.asp?parentid=1700

http://www.earthworksaction.org/oilgasairpollution.cfm

Carbon by itself is not an air pollutant, but various HCFC's, CFC's, and Carbon Monoxide contribute to air polluton. When one talks about a carbon emissions tax, they are actually implying a CFC, HCFC, or Carbon Monoxide emissions tax, all of which have carbon within their molecular makeup.

http://www.epa.gov/oar/airpollutants.html

Even the EPA doesn't list CO2 or Carbon as an air pollutant.