"Carbon Credit" system is not the best option
Save-AmeriKa said 03/13, 01:40 AM
First, I think its great that some people can conserve in order to off set carbon emissions. Also that I agree that climate change is being influenced by human uses of resources.
But the people that are over producing carbon aren???t always doing so purposefully and they shouldn???t be penalized for this. Furthermore determining how many credits a person receives by figuring the average is outrageous. Lifestyles and CO2 emissions vary throughout the country.
Carbon trading further would further destroy the middle class. By creating a have not and have some mentality. Families would have to choose between buying food and buying more carbon credits in order to drive to work. This is ultimately a tax on fuel, with gas prices as high as they are this would further put people into debt and poverty.
How would people in rural areas survive on carbon credits? Think of farmers or farming families, or even people that work in the city but live outside of the public transportation routes.
IamFry said 03/15, 05:36 PM
I'm posting a link to the article that was the source of the first debate below (since it won't fit up here).
In the first debate, I stated that the logistics of a carbon credit program couldn't possible be outlined here, as there would be so many facets. Of course, there would be different carbon allotments for people of different regions and ages, deductions for work commuting; the program would be nearly as intricate as the tax code, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't do it.
Sure, most of us wish the IRS would just blow up, and that the last thing the government needs is another IRS, but curtailing our greenhouse emissions is IMPERATIVE for our country, and indeed, the world. The fact that we don't SEE the damage occurring each day gives some people license to disregard the warnings, but action needs to be taken, and if that means creating a "Greenhouse IRS" then so be it.
I smoked for ten years; the reason it was so hard to stop is because I wasn't really paying for it in the present; I'll be paying for it in the future, though. I hope I stopped in time to prevent anything catastrophic; I hope the same can be said about our society.
Save-AmeriKa said 03/15, 09:07 PM
Fry, I appreciate your response. But you did not answer the questions that I proposed about Carbon Credits. Please debate those topics.
Your argument actually defeats itself. I see no real statement about the topic that is positive. The article that you posted does not support your argument unless you present those facts here, and that article does not address the questions that I have proposed.
Second you said it yourself the Carbon Credit program would be like a greenhouse IRS. And you stated "that the last thing the government needs is another IRS". You are supporting my point that the Carbon Credit program would be inefficient and would ultimately be another tax (mostly on the poor).
IamFry said 03/15, 09:25 PM
I posted the article, not to support my case, but to supply reference information about the carbon credit theory.
What I said in response to your original points is that I COULDN'T POSSIBLY OUTLINE A COHESIVE PLAN IN 1200 WORDS, but the plan would have to be flexible and engineered in such a way that poor people DON'T get screwed. It would require thorough legislation, on par with the tax code.
And quoting me as saying, "the last thing the government needs in another IRS," is pretty cheap! My entire quote was that most of us THINK that "the last thing, etc.", BUT it's imperative for our survival. Are you kidding me?
If you're going to try misquoting me to build your case then this isn't worth my time. You're bush-league Save!
Save-AmeriKa said 03/15, 10:20 PM
Fry, you still have no plan or evidence that it would not negatively effect the poor. Saying that the legislation would be designed to not hurt the poor is wishful thinking if there is not an actual solution or plan outlined. Surely you can give us the detail on how it will not negatively effect the poor. There is also not an answer about my question about the people who live in rural areas. Do you expect people to move next to the area where they work? Do you expect farming families to move to the city and start biking to work?
We are not debating the existence of the IRS here so I will not comment on needing the IRS for our survival. The quotation is irrelevant because everyone can look above at your argument and see what was said.
In conclusion I have outlined two great concerns that surely prove that the carbon credit program will not work within the United States. I ask you to either give me concrete answers on these issues or forfeit this debate.
IamFry said 03/15, 10:54 PM
Evidence?! This legislation doesn't even exist! How's this: it won't hurt people in rural areas because they'll be alloted more credit for their longer commutes. It doesn't hurt people who travel for a living because they'll be able to deduct credit. People who live in colder climates will be alloted more credit to heat their homes. And so on and so forth. There will have to be rules that ensure people have the right to live and support themselves.
As for the poor, the program doesn't hurt them, because they'll be able to cash in on the credit they save by taking the bus and living by modest means. They'll be able to sell their credit to someone who just needs to run that yacht for an extra five minutes. They'll earn a nice chunk of supplemental income. The poor will benefit the most, because their consumption is already limited, if by necessity.
Plus, it will raise consciousness and provide incentive for people who don't absolutely need to limit their consumption. A penny saved is a penny earned? A walk taken is a penny earned. A low electric bill means extra savings. The plan seems radical, but it could be sensible.
Comments
Add Your Comment
I accept your challenge, and I'll get to responding sometime in the near future.
IamFry | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
i agree with both Save-AmeriKa and shrek, i'll see how it goes.
MorgMcA | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment
Here's the original story: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2008/02/24/brother_can_you_spare_a_carbon_credit/
IamFry | 03/15/08
Report Offensive Comment
I think the person with the weak argument here is Save-Amerika, mainly because he has resulted to quote-mining and, in essence, denouncing his opponent in the debate, while simply re-stating his case. IamFry has actually came up with some outlines on how the Poor and Rural demographics would be compensated, even though he has stated multiple times that the word limit would keep him from posting a comprehensive outline. My vote goes to IamFry.
J.A.B.C. | 03/16/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
I agree with Save-AmeriKa on this topic but I will hold my vote untill Iamfry states his arguement. However, it better be a good one because this arguement is pretty strong.
shrek | 03/13/08
Report Offensive Comment