Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: City Approves ‘Carbon Tax’ in Effort to Reduce Gas Emissions

  1. #1
    Get off my grass...
    Commando

    Member No
    13914
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Online
    05-31-2010 @ 08:09 PM
    Location
    70's
    Posts
    1,073
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts


    Rep Power
    20

    City Approves ‘Carbon Tax’ in Effort to Reduce Gas Emissions

    City Approves ‘Carbon Tax’ in Effort to Reduce Gas Emissions

    Article Tools Sponsored By
    By KATIE KELLEY
    Published: November 18, 2006

    BOULDER, Colo., Nov. 14 — Voters in this liberal college town have approved what environmentalists say may be the nation’s first “carbon tax,” intended to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases.

    The tax, to take effect on April 1, will be based on the number of kilowatt-hours used. Officials say it will add $16 a year to an average homeowner’s electricity bill and $46 for businesses.

    City officials said the revenue from the tax — an estimated $6.7 million by 2012, when the goal is to have reduced carbon emissions by 350,000 metric tons — would be collected by the main gas and electric utility, Xcel Energy, and funneled through the city’s Office of Environmental Affairs.

    The tax is to pay for the “climate action plan,” efforts to “increase energy efficiency in homes and buildings, switch to renewable energy and reduce vehicle miles traveled,” the city’s environmental affairs manager, Jonathan Koehn, said.

    The goal is to reduce the carbon levels to 7 percent less than those in 1990, which amounts to a 24 percent reduction from current levels, Mr. Koehn said.

    “The climate action plan serves as the roadmap to meet our reduction goal,” he said.

    The tax grew out of efforts by a committee of residents and members of the City Council and Chamber of Commerce to try to enable Boulder to reach goals set by the United Nations Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to curb global warming.

    The protocol requires 35 developing nations to reduce their emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide. The United States has not ratified the pact.

    The Boulder environmental sustainability coordinator, Sarah Van Pelt, said residents who used alternative sources of electricity like wind power would receive a discount on the tax based on the amount of the alternative power used.

    A total of 5,600 residents and 210 businesses use wind power, Ms. Van Pelt said.

    A program similar to Boulder’s began in Oregon in 2001. There, a 3 percent fee is assessed on electricity bills by the two largest investor-owned utilities, said Michael Armstrong, a policy analyst in the Portland Office of Sustainable Development.

    The tens of millions of dollars is transferred to the Energy Trust of Oregon, a nonprofit organization, rather than the state government. The trust distributes cash incentives to businesses and residents for using alternative sources like solar and wind power, biomass energy and structural improvements to improve efficiency.

    Mr. Armstrong said that although Portland had several programs for “sustainable living,” it had not enacted a carbon tax and that he knew of no other American city with one.

    “We are interested to see how it plays out and see what we can learn from that,” he said of the Boulder tax. “We certainly follow other local governments, and there are lots of innovative initiatives all over the country. It’s a great exchange among local communities.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/18/us...f3bd09&ei=5088


    So this is what it's all about, another excuse for the government to take money out of our pockets. I'm surprised Cali. didn't do it first, they seem to love government intervention more than anybody.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  2. #2
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:42 AM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,749
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,396
    Thanked 6,298 Times in 4,722 Posts


    Rep Power
    144
    Well, at least this would be a fair taxation, as the rich, who have bigger houses and consume more energy would pay more of it.

    Until the fucking bastards found loopholes to get around it, of course.

    Not my preferred solution though. I'd prefer that they plug existing tax loopholes, revoke the BCE tax cuts on those who don't pay taxes, and divert money being wasted on Iraq to energy independence.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  3. #3
    Kick Ass Rock & Roll
    Groupie
    StretchOnBass's Avatar
    Member No
    21788
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Online
    03-21-2007 @ 01:40 PM
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    58
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Rep Power
    18
    a great way to bring in more revenue.

    I think they should have a snow tax too. Every day it snows the residents get taxed.

    Then a view tax, like Washington state has, if you have a view you get taxed. And, a SUNNY DAY tax.... you get the picture.
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  4. #4
    Sniper
    Lqskdiver's Avatar
    Member No
    5535
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Last Online
    11-08-2020 @ 05:35 PM
    Location
    I'm Blind In Texass!
    Age
    53
    Posts
    763
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts


    Rep Power
    20
    Originally posted by FORD
    Well, at least this would be a fair taxation, as the rich, who have bigger houses and consume more energy would pay more of it.

    Until the fucking bastards found loopholes to get around it, of course.

    Not my preferred solution though. I'd prefer that they plug existing tax loopholes, revoke the BCE tax cuts on those who don't pay taxes, and divert money being wasted on Iraq to energy independence.
    Too bad they didn't implement this in Nashville. I know of a certain Fat Bastard who deserves to be taxed cuz of his big house. And no it ain't Elvis, either!

    Also, some of those tax loopholes that he benefits from could also be taken away for good measure. That'll teach him for being rich!

    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  5. #5
    Fuck this and fuck that
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    FORD's Avatar
    Member No
    32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Today @ 10:42 AM
    Location
    Cascadia
    Posts
    58,749
    Status
    Online
    Thanks
    3,396
    Thanked 6,298 Times in 4,722 Posts


    Rep Power
    144
    Yeah sure..... snow tax. coming from someone in Southern California.

    And would you demand a "smog exemption" from the sunny day tax?

  6. #6
    Get off my grass...
    Commando

    Member No
    13914
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Online
    05-31-2010 @ 08:09 PM
    Location
    70's
    Posts
    1,073
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts


    Rep Power
    20
    Originally posted by Lqskdiver
    That'll teach him for being rich!

    Another good one...

  7. #7
    I really am
    Roadie
    studly hungwell's Avatar
    Member No
    22725
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Last Online
    04-06-2008 @ 10:10 PM
    Location
    Accoville Hollow
    Posts
    106
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Rep Power
    18
    This is typical. It happens all the time. Here is the premise: Carbon emmission is killing the planet. Will we stop it? Will we move to ban it? No! We will find a way to profit off of it. We will villify the offenders to the point that no one will come to their defense so that we can exploit their weakness to extort money from them. Same with tobacco and alcohol. Chickenshit politicians in every major city across this nation will increase the tobacco and beer tax when they come up short on the money they want. Why? Nobody will stand up for the rights 0f a smoker or a beer drinker because they have been villified to the extent that they are easy marks. These people engage in perfectly legal commerce and consumption. Why are they targeted for punishment? An objective eye would see no difference in taxing(punishing) consumers of yarn. Yeah!...fuck those old ladies....we don't like yarn! But......yarn is perfectly legal. Are ya feelin' me?
    Hey Jackass! You need to [Register] or log in to view signatures on ROTHARMY.COM!

  8. #8
    Get off my grass...
    Commando

    Member No
    13914
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Last Online
    05-31-2010 @ 08:09 PM
    Location
    70's
    Posts
    1,073
    Status
    Offline
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts


    Rep Power
    20
    Originally posted by studly hungwell
    This is typical. It happens all the time. Here is the premise: Carbon emmission is killing the planet. Will we stop it? Will we move to ban it? No! We will find a way to profit off of it. We will villify the offenders to the point that no one will come to their defense so that we can exploit their weakness to extort money from them. Same with tobacco and alcohol. Chickenshit politicians in every major city across this nation will increase the tobacco and beer tax when they come up short on the money they want. Why? Nobody will stand up for the rights 0f a smoker or a beer drinker because they have been villified to the extent that they are easy marks. These people engage in perfectly legal commerce and consumption. Why are they targeted for punishment? An objective eye would see no difference in taxing(punishing) consumers of yarn. Yeah!...fuck those old ladies....we don't like yarn! But......yarn is perfectly legal. Are ya feelin' me?

    Preach it....

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Industry caught in carbon ÔsmokescreenÕ
    By DrMaddVibe in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-27-2007, 07:53 PM
  2. Tourists driving private individuals's cars from city to city
    By Jérôme Frenchise in forum Max's Non VH/DLR Related Stuff
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-28-2006, 07:59 AM
  3. FDA approves first vaccine for cervical cancer
    By Steve Savicki in forum The Front Line
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-10-2006, 03:04 AM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-29-2005, 01:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •