Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Carbon tax is not acceptable

January 23, 2013

Now that President Barack Obama has won re-election and begun his second term, he is free to pursue some of the goals he considered, but backed away from due to public outcry during his first four......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(17)

Colonelbanters

Jan-23-13 3:22 AM

Jeez, I wonder what a newspaper owned by a West Virginia company would be told to print on such a topic? Of course, this will only affect those CHOOSING to rely on fossil fuels. I suspect that people getting much of their power from solar & wind won't notice as much of a shock on this one. Iowa makes plenty of power with those turbines blowin' in the wind, maybe they should stop building power lines all over to take that power to Chicago & elsewhere until every home in Iowa has energy originating from a source other than fossil fuels-or nuclear for that matter. Carbon-emitting energy sources are not the future so, let's not get caught-up in the propaganda from a coal-producing state to defend their archaic methods & business models. Our wind turbines are waaaay better than their silly coal!

4 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Need6letters

Jan-23-13 9:12 AM

And what are you going to do when the wind doesn't blow? Yesterday was freezing cold and there was hardly any wind. You going to sit in the dark and freeze? Also it's interesting that the libs want something like a carbon tax but the ones it will affect the most are the poor because they don't have the extra income to pay more for utilities, vehicle fuel, etc.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Jan-23-13 2:44 PM

Sure you initially will have to use SOME fossil fuels to get by but, we can and will drastically reduce our consumption of fossil fuels in the future. The coal industry just needs to wake up to the fact that it's a whole new era just like the American auto companies had to realize. This isn't a debate as I know I'm right on this topic but, Republicans want most of us living like cave men so, I get it. You know, I just met a happy, beautiful young girl at the local convenience store the other day with license plates from Webster county Iowa-we were both from Fort Dodge! She, like myself and most other young people these days simply gave up on their Iowa community having a clue in their lifetime and moved. This is sad for Iowa that it can't see the future for what it plainly is and will continue to lose young, talented people because of it.

4 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Need6letters

Jan-23-13 3:55 PM

"This isn't a debate as I know I'm right on this topic" translation I can't refute your comments so I will declare victory and go home. Please tell me how a carbon tax doesn't negatively impact low income people greater than those with higher incomes.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-23-13 5:37 PM

What will you do when they blow up all those Columbia River dams that are getting in the way your canoes up there, ColB, and killing all those delicious salmon we bought for 10 cents a pound can when I was a kid? And we'll see what the price of electricity really is when every KWH of wind or solar energy has also to be backed up with otherwise totally redundant fossil fuel or nuclear generators! As is, on-shore wind power costs more than twice times much to generate/KWH (backup included) as does coal-fired steam generation, and off-shore generation (backup included) costs three times more (Royal Academy of Engineers figures). Yeah, and do order up that coal train when the rails have disappeared! Meanwhile, go on trusting that all-knowing BHO - engineer, too, I presume?

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bubbaG

Jan-23-13 9:00 PM

It's the same newspaper chain that printed this in the Fairmont Sentinel.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bubbaG

Jan-23-13 9:12 PM

And the Wheeling Intelligencer.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bubbaG

Jan-23-13 9:13 PM

And the Minot Daily News

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-24-13 10:46 AM

And the drive-by media are out to pulverize and destroy the Party of Lincoln, so says the CBS political director. Yeah, that's what we and Obama need, a one-party, banana republic so he can really change the world's oldest constitutional republic "fundamentally." How much more "fundamental" can you get than that?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

iRoxxu

Jan-24-13 11:44 AM

Bulletin.. .. there is no cheap energy.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Jan-24-13 3:51 PM

Energy is not cheap unless you found Tesla's papers that were taken upon his death. Having said that, if we have to invest in ANY form of energy, what kind of fool prefers to invest in energy production that is harmful to our existance? Solar power likely has the least impact on us followed by wind. Solar is catching on more now that more efficient production of panels is possible but, still is a very small percent of production of energy. If we invested in panels on the rooftops of every home in America, it would create hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs and reduce the need for so many coal & nuclear plants-a double victory! This is simply another battle between intelligent common sense and old industries that lobby to keep us from moving forward. Let's NOT be the fools here.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-25-13 6:15 PM

It's not what you invest in, ColB, but who best to decide where to invest: Obama and a few all-knowing politicians, scientists (pseudo or other) using tax dollars, or a myriad of inventors, innovators and private investors deploying their own time and financial resources? Where has the former proved better - in the USSR, Cuba, China, post-WWII Europe or India? NOT, to use the current vernacular.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Jan-26-13 5:13 AM

Hbockoven, I just read yesterday where Volkswagen just opened a new plant in Tenn. that has a field of solar panels next to it that they say will cover about 12.5% of total plant needs at full production and all of the plant's needs at low production-that's pretty good on a large-scale. I'm sure people had the smame sort of concerns about the idea of "indoor plumbing" or air conditioning but, there aren't even any moving parts to a solar array and when everyone does it in a small way, it adds up significantly. It IS trued that solar panels are more efficient when they are cold which is why I say put them on the rooftops of all our schools. An energy source that is best during the day and the school year-that's an easy call. Yes, there will be the need for some professional wiring and occasional maintenance but, that's where new jobs are created.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Jan-26-13 5:18 AM

These jobs are already growing rapidly in places like Chicago & Minneapolis so, if Iowa could keep up or even out-pace neighboring states with high levels of skilled people for such work, Iowa could become a regional center for the industry and be home to companies called upon for work in other states. It's the future, whether it be now or 20 years down the road but, Iowa has a chance to jump out ahead of other states with solar the way they did with wind and have a disproportionately large number of related jobs in that industry-if it acts now.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-26-13 12:18 PM

And views don't count in Iowa like they do in Hyannis Port, do they, ColB? Those lovely windmills contribute so much to the beauty of Iowa's countryside, unlike those derelict ones in Banning Pass and seas of panels in the deserts in CA, of course. Would you care to address the small matter of unit cost - and maintenance that you dismiss so cavalierly? (Just remembering my former neighbor's problems with HIS solar panels.)

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Colonelbanters

Jan-26-13 5:28 PM

True but, what or when is the 100% return on a nuclear power plant? Governments have to insure them because no private insurance company will anywhere on the planet. If you spend $2-$3 billion on a nuclear plant, you have tons of things that can go wrong or that same money would make a much better future if used on solar-that's the return.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Anderson

Jan-26-13 10:36 PM

Govt "investment" is a euphemism for govt "spending" to line the pockets of political favorites, nothing more so than all Obama's green energy grants and guarantees for his green energy cronies, or should we say "contributors"? Market forces sort things out much more efficiently if only allowed to do so, as both the Russians and Chinese are continuing to learn. Too bad Democrats can't. (PS. It's not difficult to find reliable studies of unit costs for the different sources of electrical energy, but pseudo studies are rampant.)

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments
 
 

 

I am looking for: