Predictions of Coal, CO2 Production Flawed, Says Latest Research

Sounds to be that if you decrease power plant efficiency by 50%, you need twice as much output, leading to higher CO2 emissions. If IPCC touches or comes near to something, I avoid it.

The guy said it himself- there is no real peak coal- it's just that KNOWN deposits are harder to get to and exploit. "Peak Oil" is a fiction, too.

Essentially, this "research" is an end-around. You will note that he isn't calling for development dollars for alternatives- he's arguing for weaker regulation of fossil fuels in the here and now, based on the false premise that all this stuff is going to run out, so why bother about the carbon, since(according to him) supply is dwindling. The petrochem/FF industry is our friend, so we shouldn't be pestering it with "regulation" and "taxation", now -should we?
Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, doesn't it?

By the same logic, you could say that since Polio and Small pox have been 99.9% eradicated from the face of the earth, that we should stop manufacturing the vaccines.

This steaming pile isn't even science- rather, the most rank, obvious, industry propaganda. Pretty clear who Tad is trying to please.

Interesting quote in the article: "For instance, large-scale subsurface sequestration of CO2 will decrease power plant efficiency by up to 50 percent." That puts an effective ceiling on the efficiency hit, but what about a floor? No one thinks you can do it for free, but 50% is technology that is, at least, 5 years old and a worst case. Present technologies such as oxy-fuel appear to be able to do the same thing for about a 20% hit and advanced technologies (those that have not been demonstrated at full scale) such as chemical looping could reduce that farther. It is interesting that he is clearly using the worst case (in his own words when he says "up to"). Even 20% is not great but has been demonstrated with current technology.

"Credible forecasts of coal production, by contrast, predict a 50 percent reduction over the next 50 years.

"Most of the IPCC scenario writers accepted the common myth of 200-400 years of coal supply, and now their 'eternal' (100 years plus) growth of carbon dioxide emissions in turn is a part of the commonly accepted social myth," "

Is the tide turning? Maybe now real science can be accomplished as the power of IPCC and AGWites are discredited.

Is the tide turning? Maybe now real science can be accomplished as the power of IPCC and AGWites are discredited.

No, mangy -no new science here. In fact, no science at all. Even you would be hard-pressed to find such transparent propaganda. You would've known that, if you had read the article, much less the comments posted after it.

""The IPCC carbon estimates, which are used by all major decision makers, are based on economic and policy considerations that appear to be unconstrained by geophysics," says Patzek. "The value of our approach is that it provides a reality check on the magnitude of carbon emissions.""
Sounds like science to me that the IPCC ignored.

"The paper provides a physical model of historical and future production of coal worldwide. The model demonstrates that despite enormous coal deposits globally, coal production rates will decline because the deposits show increasing inaccessibility and decreasing coal seam thickness, according to the research."

This, as you know, goes against every precept of free market capitalism, and will not fly in the face of supply and demand. This guy is consciously skewing the facts to distort the science(of "Peak"FF -itself highly questionable, if not outright untrue) on behalf of his masters.

And you are being quite selective about what you are ignoring, as well. Not that I'm surprised.

For government to base policy on the concept of diminishing usage of FF is suicide.

This guy ought to be laughed out of Academia. I'm sure his buddies could find him a cozy spot to crash land into at the Petroleum Institute.

This is scientific opinion - even if Tad Patzek walked on water, he would still be a charlatan, at the service of his paymasters

Caliban,

It is well know that the world's giant oil fields are collectively in decline. The annual rate of decline is estimated to vary from 4% to 6%. Those estimates come from IEA and CERA.

World oil discoveries in the 1960s and oil reserve figures are very soft. No one can verify the OPEC figures. OPEC provides no field level data ...

Shell exaggerated its 'proven oil reserves' by 25% and the CEO had to resign when the fraud was uncovered.

US oil production peaked in 1973 despite Prudhoe Bay coming on line in the late 70s. Norway and UK have both peaked and are in rapid decline.

What is not scientific is the cornucopian view that technological progress will always be able to extract sufficient fossil fuels at reasonable cost.

That's an act of faith.

Caliban,

There is nothing in economic theory which says the market will always be able to find enough natural resources to keep the price from skyrocketing.

I am an economist by training. Show me where the Arrow-Debreu model or Hotelling's depletion model the world has a happy ending.

I am waiting ....

Peak coal next year. (Peak, as in supply will tighten and cost will rise. Not peak, as in we fall off a cliff and plunge to our deaths as some misinterpret the term.)

That means the cost of creating electricity using coal will increase. And that will make new coal plants even more of a bad investment. Sounds pretty much like the end of coal plant construction in the US.

BTW, PV solar prices have now dropped to $0.16/kWh in moderately sunny states such as North Carolina, less in sunny states. That makes solar-produced electricity less expensive than either new nuclear or new coal.

http://www.ncwarn...nal1.pdf

Looks like our transition away from fossil fuels is really being helped by the economics of rising fuels cost.

As Caliban says, it's a cheap piece of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain". But what isn't really being dealt with is the *result* of tightening coal/oil supplies and decreased power generation. This would be an *uncontrolled* reduction in power availability, with all the concommittent economic impacts. I'd love to solve the greenhouse gas and global warming problems, but not by producing a Mad-Max-like future.

I like how the commenters here claim to be touting science, yet dismiss all criticism of AGW-related work as ”bought and paid for”. The IPCC puts together entirely unrealistic worst-case scenarios and then having governments base their policies on them. The assumption of constant or rising emissions from coal, has been annoying me for a long time. As efficiency rises, emissions go down. Unclean burn is indicative of inefficient operation.

The best solution lies, as always, in increasing the efficiency of operation. I'm not just talking about the Carnot-limited energy conversion cycle, but rather about the efficiency of the entire operation - instead of hiding away the waste product, find a way to utilize it. Recapture all waste heat, feed the cooled exhaust gases into microbe pools that consume the CO2 to make fuels, remove particulate emissions and use them for making bricks or fertilizing soil.. any technological problem can be solved by technology. Wishing it away doesn't help.

The IPCC puts together entirely unrealistic worst-case scenarios and then having governments base their policies on them.

The IPCC uses a variety of models with different assumptions. The best-case, worst-case, and most likely scenario's are described. There is no intrinsic assumption about the availability of coal, or oil. The models use CO2 ppm. Its usually stated as an if-then situation. If the level of CO2 rises above 600ppm, then..., or if the level of CO2 can be held to 450ppm, then...

I do see that economics combined with technology will almost certainly solve this problem, just like the automobile solved the enormous urban horse dung problem early in the 20th century.

My main fear is that we will reach a climate tipping point while the problem is being solved.

The funny thing about this is that in the end, it doesn't matter. We either need to cut back because of global warming or we run out like he says, our response should be the same. We need to reduce our usage of oil and coal. The only thing he is arguing successfully for is against sequestration in favor of other technologies. Sequestration is a bandaid and won't solve the problem. Nevertheless, when one is bleeding, you put on a bandaid until you heal. The only longterm solution to the problem is to stop using oil and coal as fuel.

Caliban,
There is nothing in economic theory which says the market will always be able to find enough natural resources to keep the price from skyrocketing.

My point exactly, nimrod.

I am an economist by training. Show me where the Arrow-Debreu model or Hotelling's depletion model the world has a happy ending.

I am waiting ....

It makes me happy to know that you were able to find(apparently) employment in a field for which you were able to obtain training. Unfortunately, you picked a field that suffers from considerable error and lack of predictive success, and it is therefore no surprise that you would have chosen it, given your inability to accurately interpret even the simplest information, and to draw any valid conclusions therefrom. But then again, accuracy doesn't have any particular meaning in the "science" of economics.

And by the way, thanks for warning us about the "recession".

Hope I didn't keep you waiting too long.

I do see that economics combined with technology will almost certainly solve this problem, just like the automobile solved the enormous urban horse dung problem early in the 20th century.

Or how kerosene helped to save the whales and put the US whaling fleet out of business and moved industry and wealth to PA and OH. But then Edison put the kerosene lantern business out of business and GE was launched creating all sorts of wealth around the world.

I do see that economics combined with technology will almost certainly solve this problem, just like the automobile solved the enormous urban horse dung problem early in the 20th century.

If only it could fix the enormous bull dung problems we see on every marjon/alizee/kevinrtrs/fredjose post.

No BS, data:
"We know, based on economic experience, theory, and logic, how to create another economic boom that will last 25 years, or a generation into the future."
"Several times in the last 100 years, whenever the nation's economic policies adhered to the timeless principles of economic growth and prosperity, our economy has boomed. When it has departed from those policies, it has fallen into stagnation, or worse."
"Mellon adopted what became the supply-side economic formula. He slashed the top income tax rate to 25%, and the bottom rate from 8% to 1%, increasing the income level to which it first applied by 50%. Moreover, Mellon led the Fed to stop the money supply drain, return interest rates to standard levels, and devote itself to stable prices. The Fed would look to market price levels, particularly commodities, including gold, for its guide.

The result was the Roaring '20s, the greatest boom in American history to that point, "
http://spectator....8/the-ti

The result was the Roaring '20s, the greatest boom in American history to that point, "

Followed by a bubble burst called the Great Depression.

You free marketeers don't get it. Whenever regulation is relaxed business does really really well, until someone checks the books. The regulation allows someone to check the books.

All you're telling us is "business does far better when it is allowed to cheat". You've never owned a business. What good are your anecdotal statements when you have neither the practical or applicable knowledge and experience?

Followed by a bubble burst called the Great Depression

Caused by Hoover's policies.
In a free market, there is extra effort to check the books on the part of those who are risking their money. They can't depend upon crooks like Kennedy running the SEC.
What anecdotes? Reams of data are in plain view supporting how the booms occur and how government policies worsened the depression then and now.
Why ignore the data?

Not worth responding anymore. I now leave onlookers to the painfully non-soothing sounds of the wild free-market YEC Mangyhole.

Not worth responding anymore. I now leave onlookers to the painfully non-soothing sounds of the wild free-market YEC Mangyhole.

So like a typical liberal, you insult and run away instead of responding to data.

Followed by a bubble burst called the Great Depression

Caused by Hoover's policies.
In a free market, there is extra effort to check the books on the part of those who are risking their money. They can't depend upon crooks like Kennedy running the SEC.
What anecdotes? Reams of data are in plain view supporting how the booms occur and how government policies worsened the depression then and now.
Why ignore the data?

The reams of data support lack of regulation, deregulation, and under-regulation as the cause of both the De- and Re- cession. Both times(and those in between)enabled by the entry of corp/bank interests into the body politic. Gov't by, of, and for the people, unfortunately allows the disproportionate representation of moneyed interest, and therefore the creation of policy favorable to those interests, at the expense of everyone and everything else. As a direct consequence, about 85% of Americans are left
-raped and bleeding- to fend for themselves.

The reams of data support lack of regulation, deregulation, and under-regulation as the cause of both the De- and Re- cession.

No, the data does not support that.
It does support examples of inept government policies to control the economy.

allows the disproportionate representation of moneyed interest,

For the first several decades of the Constitution, only male property owners could vote. They were 'moneyed' interests and and the incentive to have a government with limited power to confiscate their wealth. That concept worked pretty well until politicians started bribing voters with OPM.
Why shouldn't the rich try and take care of themselves when they pay most of the taxes?

As Plutocracy's greatest champion here on Physorg, it will be interesting to see which side of the mangyhole the noise blows out of when the same thing happens to mangy that has befallen several million others, and mangy's job evaporates.

When you have to take whatever job you can get, at whatever pay, and you don't have the money to keep your family fed, clothed, housed, and healthed, because you're underwater on your 350% overpriced house, and your investment portfolio/401k, et c lost 80% of its value, and you don't have the money to pay the inflated COBRA premiums to temporarily keep the health coverage active to pay for your teenaged daughters TypeII diabetes treatment, or your wife's chemo for breast cancer- maybe then, mangy's trollhood may revert to some type of humanity, and the rose-colored "freemarket" glasses fall from the mangysnout.

The forces that drive the "freemarket" to endlessly cycle boom'n'bust are inherently cold-blooded, selfish, and evil.

When you have to take whatever job you can get, at whatever pay, and you don't have the money to keep your family fed, clothed, housed, and healthed, because you're underwater on your 350% overpriced house,

BTW who forced you to buy a 350% overpriced house? How can anyone believe housing prices would continue to rise? But they could not have exploded in price without the easy money offered by the government. This was just another form of inflation.
ALL those problems are the direct result of bad government economic policies.
The ONLY way to create jobs is for the government to get out of people's way.
There has been no free market in health care for quite some time. You complain about its expense but blame free markets? The governemnt controls health care since Medicare and Medicaid and FDA.

Even Barney admits to the data:
"In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank--the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie--admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us."
http://www.forbes...nto.html

Caliban,

No is interested in your populist rage. And despite disparaging economists, you ideology is largely based on a misreading of economics.

Here is the greed, govt unions:
" The "me first" rally. "Pay me my raise first. Pay me my free health benefits first. Pay me my pension first. And everybody else in New Jersey, get to the back of the line." Well, you know what? I'm not going to sit by and allow that to go unnoticed, so we'll shine a bright light on it, and we'll see how the people react. But I think we are seeing how the people of New Jersey are reacting, and that's how you make it politically palatable in other states in the country. Just shine a bright light on greed and self-interest."
http://www.realcl...est.html

Caliban,

No is interested in your populist rage. And despite disparaging economists, you ideology is largely based on a misreading of economics.

You tell No for me that I'll be happy to expand upon my "populist rage" for he/she/its edification.

Here is the greed, govt unions:
" The "me first" rally. "Pay me my raise first. Pay me my free health benefits first. Pay me my pension first. And everybody else in New Jersey, get to the back of the line." Well, you know what? I'm not going to sit by and allow that to go unnoticed, so we'll shine a bright light on it, and we'll see how the people react. But I think we are seeing how the people of New Jersey are reacting, and that's how you make it politically palatable in other states in the country. Just shine a bright light on greed and self-interest."
http://www.realcl...est.html

And Mangy thereby implies that mangy would never consider employment in a union shop, or not insist upon access to any of the benefits that could be extracted(and I use the term literally)from an employer, that would better mangy's position in life.

Mangy, thy name is hypocrite.

So like a typical liberal, you insult and run away instead of responding to data.

Like a typical propagandist you provide no data and expect an answer to it.

You've received exactly what you've asked for.

So like a typical liberal, you insult and run away instead of responding to data.

Like a typical propagandist you provide no data and expect an answer to it.

You've received exactly what you've asked for.

Free markets, limited government, low taxes have been proven to create prosperity and government controlled markets and high taxes are constantly being demonstrated to destroy prosperity.
The data is staring you in the face every day. How do you reject it out of hand? Not very scientific of you.

or not insist upon access to any of the benefits that could be extracted(and I use the term literally)from an employer,

Benefits are not extracted. They are incentives to attract and keep the best employees.
Health care benefits were started because the government prohibited the use of wages to attract employees during WWII.

Free markets, limited government, low taxes have been proven to create prosperity and government controlled markets and high taxes are constantly being demonstrated to destroy prosperity.
The data is staring you in the face every day. How do you reject it out of hand? Not very scientific of you.

The data is staring you in the face, moron. By no means has your above assertion been demonstrated to be true. The 1 percenters- those veritable(according to mangy) engines of prosperity- are subject to the lowest taxation in a half century, courtesy of Jr Bush, and yet, withal, we have economic collapse.

Once again, it is apparent that mangy is incapable of truth-telling. Mangy's only object is the generation of noise to blow from the confines of the mangyhole.

Blow, mangy- blow!

The evidence that government interference in the economy destroys prosperity IS staring me in the face NOW and it was all the fault of government agencies like Freddie and Fannie controlled by Congressional liberals like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.
The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the personal federal income tax. The bottom 50% pay 2%. http://www.ntu.or...xes.html

The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the personal federal income tax. The bottom 50% pay 2%.

So you'd like to tax the elderly and teenagers more? Can't wait to see you justifying an audit for everyone's grandmother.

The top 1% of income earners pay 40% of the personal federal income tax. The bottom 50% pay 2%.

So you'd like to tax the elderly and teenagers more?

Everyone should have skin in the game.
Governments are not going broke because they tax too little it is because they spend too much.
Small towns in MA are going broke paying the high pensions and health care benefits for their few employees.

Everyone should have skin in the game.
Governments are not going broke because they tax too little it is because they spend too much.
Small towns in MA are going broke paying the high pensions and health care benefits for their few employees.

You'd tax the elderly on their retirement and pensions just to suit your self righteous sense of "they're not paying enough".

Unbelievable. Well what else could I expect from a hypocrite.

Everyone should have skin in the game.
Governments are not going broke because they tax too little it is because they spend too much.
Small towns in MA are going broke paying the high pensions and health care benefits for their few employees.

You'd tax the elderly on their retirement and pensions just to suit your self righteous sense of "they're not paying enough".

Unbelievable. Well what else could I expect from a hypocrite.

Better define elderly. Govt employees like police and fire fighters can retire at 50 or 55 with full pensions and medical benefits for 20-30 years.
I would eliminate death taxes as all that wealth has already been taxed.
You are OK with elderly pensioners paying 10% sales taxes?

You are OK with elderly pensioners paying 10% sales taxes?

Sales tax isn't income tax, pay attention to the one discussion you're having and try not to get too confused.

Go ahead and quantify what elderly means to you. Police and Firefighters cannot retire at 50 and receive full pensions, at least not that I am aware of so justify this statement.

Beyond that, I'm willing to bet you're collecting right now, and probably skirting taxation. Marjon NIMBYton, bad debator extrordinaire.

"A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.
Alexis de Tocqueville "
" special pension category for front-line law enforcement officials that allows them to retire early with full benefits.

Keating will turn 58 years old in September."
http://www.boston...pension/

Keegan, Brenda M. Schools $110,658
O'Brien, John * Police 1/2/2009 $110,156
Gorgone, Frank * Police 7/31/2001 $105,818
Van Putten, Henry Schools $104,563
http://www.boston...ensions/
These 'elderly' should not be taxed?

Keating is neither a fire fighter nor is he a police officer.

And those pensions are taxed so I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here.

More importantly, I'd like to see mangy produce evidence that anyone with a personal income of more than 250k per annum is paying 40% of that income as Federal Income Tax, upon filing of their IRS return.
That's right, mangy- turn blue in the face- because you aren't going to find any of those animals. The Statutory Rate and the Effective Rate are two very different things, and, the greater the personal income, almost invariably, the lesser the effective tax paid. Oh, and let's not forget the capital gains non "tax".

And now let's talk about your malignant, economy-busting inheritance tax -that the Cons insist on referring to as the "death tax". Wah, wah, wah.
"It's already been taxed- so why should it be taxed again?" is the Mantra for those of the mangy school. Smoke and mirrors from the Haves.

Most of the so called "Estate" or "inheritance" for people in the 250K or higher bracket, was never taxed at all, as it was Capital gains or other tax sheltered/investment income

s paying 40% of that income as Federal Income Tax,

Rates are graduated. Every dollar over a certain limit is taxed at a higher rate.
If I have a small business employing a few people, and if every dollar over 250K is taxed at 75%, why would I want to expand the business (hire more people) and earn more money?
With such high rates, there is little incentive to do anything more except do what the Europeans do, take vacations and drink.

Capital gains or other tax sheltered/investment income

How much money have you risked in a business venture?
If you want a job, you need people with money to risk it to create jobs. It is all very simple. If you don't want people to risk their money to create jobs, tax it. That is exactly what is happening now.
Businesses are not risking their cash as the tax and regulatory environment is too uncertain.

s paying 40% of that income as Federal Income Tax,

Rates are graduated. Every dollar over a certain limit is taxed at a higher rate.
If I have a small business employing a few people, and if every dollar over 250K is taxed at 75%, why would I want to expand the business (hire more people) and earn more money?
With such high rates, there is little incentive to do anything more except do what the Europeans do, take vacations and drink.

Huh. I never knew that, Mangy. Do you mean to say that income is taxed at a variable rate, depending upon Adjusted Gross?

You don't have any data to back up your ludicrous claim, so you...punted. More MANGYNOISE.

If you want to make more money, then why would you be stopped by a Statutory Rate of 75%? Last time I checked, 25% of a billion dollars was still 250 million. Is that money no good? Is that what you're trying to say, mangy?

Go blow noise out of your mangyhole.

Huh. I never knew that, Mangy. Do you mean to say that income is taxed at a variable rate, depending upon Adjusted Gross?

"changes in marginal tax rates do affect behavior over the long term. Some high-income workers would decide to work fewer hours and retire a bit earlier. Some spouses in two-earner families would decide to stay out of the workforce. Some angel investors would have less cash to invest in start-up ventures. And some small businesses would decide not to buy new equipment or hire new workers."
(cont)

"If Congress raised the top income tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent, the government would gain 4.6 percentage points on the money in the top bracket. But reported income would fall modestly, and that fall would offset a substantial portion of the revenue gain. In a recent paper, economist Robert Carroll summarized Treasury estimates that modeled changes in the top two income tax rates.5 The results suggest that raising the top two rates would cause reported income of affected taxpayers to fall three percent, which would be enough to offset about 40 percent of the expected static revenue gain.

When considering raising tax rates at the top end, Congress needs to think carefully about who would be hit. Today's highest-earners are generally not passive inheritors of wealth, but are usually self-made and entrepreneurial.6"
http://www.cato.o...223.html
That's how Wal Mart makes money, volume. Low margins, high volume. Cut tax rates, more income generated, more revenue.

s paying 40% of that income as Federal Income Tax,

Rates are graduated. Every dollar over a certain limit is taxed at a higher rate.
If I have a small business employing a few people, and if every dollar over 250K is taxed at 75%, why would I want to expand the business (hire more people) and earn more money?
With such high rates, there is little incentive to do anything more except do what the Europeans do, take vacations and drink.

You don't have any data to back up your ludicrous claim, so you...punted. More MANGYNOISE.

If you want to make more money, then why would you be stopped by a Statutory Rate of 75%? Last time I checked, 25% of a billion dollars was still 250 million. Is that money no good? Is that what you're trying to say, mangy?

Go blow noise out of your mangyhole.

You didn't answer the question, mangy.

Yes, I did. See previous post.

No, you didn't, you quotemined the Cato Institute for a few words of glancing relevance, and even at that, were spun to distort the truth about the issues they "addressed".

Answer the question.

Most multi-millionaires like Kerry and Perot put their money in tax free municipal bonds. They don't care about income taxes.
Those who do care are the ones at the margins. As the Cato article pointed out, if $400 of the next $1000 dollar earned goes to the govt, why bother?
There are a lot more people in this situation than the fantasy created by Caliban.
Here is a dilemma for all you socialists, do you eliminate tax exemption for government bonds? They need the wealthy to invest to fund the city and state governments, but why should the rich benefit so? But if the bonds were not tax exempt, you would have to compete in the market. No wonder so many of you are irrational.

Most multi-millionaires like Kerry and Perot put their money in tax free municipal bonds. They don't care about income taxes.

Which is exactly the strategy that mangy and the millions of other stupid, selfish, objectivist, bible-thumping, freemarket-humping, hypocritical, douchebags that think like mangy hope to pursue at the very earliest opportunity, as soon as they are able to slit someone's -anyone's- throat to make it happen.

And your argument from the Cato Institute about the limiting effect on the inclination to pursue wealth produced by a 40 percent tax on the next 1000 in income simply doesn't hold water. It is nothing but whining about only getting 2/3 of the bag of candy, as opposed to 3/3.

Profit is profit, and has, historically, been pursued quite vigourously for amounts of even as little as half a percent per annum. Go blow that noise out of your mangyhole.

And your argument from the Cato Institute about the limiting effect on the inclination to pursue wealth produced by a 40 percent tax on the next 1000 in income simply doesn't hold water.

The USG says so:
"The economy boomed during the 1920s and increasing revenues from the income tax followed. This allowed Congress to cut taxes five times, ultimately returning the bottom tax rate to 1 percent and the top rate down to 25 percent and reducing the Federal tax burden as a share of GDP to 13 percent. As tax rates and tax collections declined, the economy was strengthened further."
"By reducing marginal tax rates it was believed the natural forces of economic growth would be less restrained. The most productive individuals would then shift more of their energies to productive activities rather than leisure and businesses would take advantage of many more now profitable opportunities. "http://www.ustrea...ax.shtml

And your argument from the Cato Institute about the limiting effect on the inclination to pursue wealth produced by a 40 percent tax on the next 1000 in income simply doesn't hold water.

The USG says so:
"The economy boomed during the 1920s and increasing revenues from the income tax followed.

Even more wank.

This little bit of Treasury Department revisionism cleverly puts the cart before the horse, and makes zero mention -of course- of the rapacious Gilded Age unregulated freemarket capitalist frenzy that resulted in the COLLAPSE of the US economy, and resulting worldwide DEPRESSION.

The entire scenario was pretty faithfully reproduced over the past 30 years or so. I suppose your perfervidly worshipped freemarket Mammon-men had an excellent blueprint upon which to build their dream of SHEARING THE SHEEP.

And, AGAIN, mangy sidesteps my point, as mangy has no answer to the whining of his kind about not getting the entire bag of candy.

he cart before the horse,

Before the government can confiscate any wealth, that wealth must somehow be created.
How does a government create wealth?

he cart before the horse,

Before the government can confiscate any wealth, that wealth must somehow be created.
How does a government create wealth?

Mangy is so far gone in spinstistics as to be utterly incapable of rational dialogue.

Of course, that won't inhibit the continued blowing of noise from the mangyhole.

he cart before the horse,

Before the government can confiscate any wealth, that wealth must somehow be created.
How does a government create wealth?

Mangy is so far gone in spinstistics as to be utterly incapable of rational dialogue.

Of course, that won't inhibit the continued blowing of noise from the mangyhole.

Once again, the behavior of the ignorant socialist is on display. When confronted with data he cannot refute, he proceeds to insults and tantrums.

The professor has a very valid point -- that fossil fuel supplies are not infinite and that there should be a supply constraint included in the forecast of GHG emmissions and levels. This is especially relevant because peak FF production will probably occur during this century. Climate change activists should embrace this as constructive input to the discussion and include a supply constraint in the GHG forecast.

I don't think that Peak FF models will change the basic conclusion -- that GHG levels will soar, along with ocean acidity and other bad things. Furthermore, maybe some climate change skeptics will start to focus on the need to develop alternate energy to replace fossil fuels that will become too scarce and expensive.

I love how everyone has to pay their "fair share" as long as it's only the people with money paying all of it, and the poor helpless slobs who just can't *sob* be burdened with any of the cost because they only *sob*choke* have the skills to work at McDonalds.

Since when do we live on a planet where people who can make money because they are capable of doing so "owe" those who can't a free or subsidized ride through their own lives? I don't remember seeing anything in the constitution that says if I make $30 bucks an hour, I "owe" the guy who makes $8 bucks an hour $15 of my bucks.

Then of course when someone dares to criticize this world-view they are accused of wanting the "children" to starve, the elderly to get kicked out of their retirement homes into alleys, polluting the oceans and forests, causing global warming, consorting with the devil, etc. etc. etc.

I don't OWE anybody anything, what I CHOOSE to give away is my business, not anyone elses, especially the government.

Saying that the rich pay more in taxes is like saying that elephants eat to much because they eat more than you.

That said. Of course coal will peak but not in the manner of this individual's article. The cost of getting the coal will become more but political pressure by the dirty energy industry will seek to loosen environmental and property rights hurdles to get at the resource they make money from. So instead of making real investments they will just throw a few dollars at some of the slimier politicians so they look the other say and "adjust" regulations so they can do what they want. Of course the dirty energy industry will resist all efforts at decentralized energy production (notice I didn't say not clean) because what is not centralized can not be controlled by them.

Saying that the rich pay more in taxes is like saying that elephants eat to much because they eat more than you.

The key part is the top 1% pay 40% of ALL federal income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2%.
When over 50% pay little or no taxes, why shouldn't they support state redistribution of wealth and why shouldn't politicians suck up to them?
The reason why they should not, of course, is one of fairness, but even more important, those with extra wealth invest to create more wealth and jobs.
Protecting everyone's private property, equally, IS very important.

The key part is the top 1% pay 40% of ALL federal income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2%.

You're insinuating that there is more data in that graph than is actually there.

The top 1%, according to that graph, have an average gross income, after adjustments, of $410,000. Now a Bill Gates making 1 million a year in salary, and several million in stock options, etc will probably pay about 5 million or more when you take in his entire federal tax amount, depending on donations to non-profits. If you took just the top ten US high earners, you'd probably be looking at 10% of that 40% figure, maybe more.

I'm not exactly upset that the richest 1%, a total of 3,300,000 people, pay 40% of the income tax when the top 1 percent of them (33,000 people) can afford to heat their houses burning 1 dollar bills all year long.

The top 1% in this country hold over 50% of the wealth of the country. The progressive tax system is fair but requires greater transparency.

One fact that is certain is that the vast majority of carbon that once existed as subterranean coal deposits will (at one time or another) be thrust into the atmosphere in the form of CO2 -- unless we take quick and deliberate action to outlaw this type of atmospheric pollution.

The top 1% in this country hold over 50% of the wealth of the country

They don't 'hold' it. They do not bury their wealth and hide it from you.
They invest their wealth. Mama Kerry and many other multi-millionaires invest in tax free government bonds.

The progressive tax system is fair but requires greater transparency.

Reagan and JFK demonstrated how to do that, cut rates. But that doesn't satisfy your envy, desire for class warfare and your desire fore control.

The Gates Foundation donates at least $1.5 BILLION per year.
And you statists are worried they contribute their 'fair share'.
Statists can't stand foundations like the Gates Foundation contribute to functions that don't increase the power of the state.
Of course some foundations, like Ford and Tides do support socialist causes.

The Gates Foundation donates at least $1.5 BILLION per year.
And you statists are worried they contribute their 'fair share'.
Statists can't stand foundations like the Gates Foundation contribute to functions that don't increase the power of the state.
Of course some foundations, like Ford and Tides do support socialist causes.

I want you to give your comment another read. Do you see the logical disconnect between the subjects you're engaging in here? You've been cornered and you're unprepared so you've changed the subject to socialism. I'm not biting. I specifically stated, in a neutral manner, that the figure would be after donations. I was also referring to an individual, not a non-profit organization. Are you upset that clergy aren't taxed, but continue to receive state benefits? After all, you're against free-loaders. I'm thinking no based on our past discussions. I think non-profits, and tax free investment are abused quite often but not in all cases.

Ah, the age old debate between free marketers and regulators. It is important to remember that the economic theory (neoclassical economics) that most of the previous commenters are citing like holy scripture is far from perfect. Read "New paradigm in macroeconomics" by Richard Werner (and no, no one paid me to say that). The book basically points out all the gaping flaws in current economic theory (such as assuming all parties have perfect information) as applied to the sideways Japanese economy that modern economists still cannot adequately explain. Personally I'm a supporter of a mostly free market with some sparse but well designed regulations to fix the problems that the market obviously cannot fix.

You've been cornered and you're unprepared so you've changed the subject to socialism.

Cornered by what?
You need to be more specific.

I was also referring to an individual, not a non-profit organization

It is called the Gates foundation or the Ford Foundation or Carnegie... because these individuals put THEIR wealth into the foundation. If the government takes more, their is less for such charity.

It is called the Gates foundation or the Ford Foundation or Carnegie... because these individuals put THEIR wealth into the foundation. If the government takes more, their is less for such charity.

You've grossly mischaracterized one of the few non-profit organizations that I support due to your ignorance and lack of depth in this subject.

Are you upset that clergy are not taxed but still receive benefits?

I'd like to know when the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation forced people to join their foundation.

You support them but want them to pay more taxes for the government to use?
I think clergy should be taxed like everyone else then they would be allowed their first amendment rights to criticize the government. Now, only liberal clergy can talk about the government. Conservatives who support life and oppose socialism or are threatened with lawsuits.
Liberal clergy could endorse Obama from the pulpit, but conservatives could not oppose Obama from the pulpit.
The first amendment, THE LAW, applies to all or none.

Going to answer the question or is your mind stuck in a loop of rhetoric while you search for a supportable answer?

Going to answer the question or is your mind stuck in a loop of rhetoric while you search for a supportable answer?

You had better repeat the question as it was not too clear the first time.

Cali, more data showing the failures of socialism:
"President Raul Castro expanded self-employment fields on Sunday, ahead of looming government plans to slash as many as one million jobs -- 20 percent of communist Cuba's work force -- from state payrolls.

The economy, 95 percent of which is currently in state hands, does not have the ability to absorb such vast numbers of jobless. Castro's move aims to try to reduce the socioeconomic fallout, but it will be an uphill battle. "
" But social resentment emerged as an issue when some workers, particularly in small private restaurants, achieved dramatic levels of success.

The government began increasing taxation and regulation, and decreasing license-granting, until the self-employed sector was largely rendered paralyzed, like the rest of the economy. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1

Hey, mangy-
Don't start clogging up my inbox with PMs that are only more of your mindless rants, taken to a private forum.

If you need a loan or something not related to the physorg forum, I'll see what I can do, but I'm already quite familiar with your ideology, so PMs along those lines are both redundant and unwanted.

Cali, more data showing the failures of socialism:
"President Raul Castro expanded self-employment fields on Sunday,(.....)battle. "
" But social resentment emerged as an issue when some workers, particularly in small private restaurants, achieved dramatic levels of success.

The government began increasing taxation and regulation, and decreasing license-granting, until the self-employed sector was largely rendered paralyzed, like the rest of the economy. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1

Don't cite Breitbart as support of your caims, mangy. If you are going to provide citations, make certain, first, that they are from reliable, credible, objective, and independently verifiable sources, of which Breitbart is most definitely NOT.

White- and position-papers, op-ed, talking head, and opinion mill/talk show transcripts are generally obvious, agenda-driven agitprop, and not objectively derived DATA.

You had better repeat the question as it was not too clear the first time.

Or the second time?

Here's a third.

Are you upset that clergy receive state sponsored benefits without ever paying income tax? Yes or no answer please, and feel free to elaborate after you answer with a yes or no.

Don't cite Breitbart as support of your caims,

Maybe you should learn how to read a news story. Breitbart is the editor. He does some of his own work but like all other news sources publishes stories from news services.
The story about Cuba was from AFP: "AFP, worldwide news agency, maintains a network of journalists in 165 countries around the world covering events 24/7 in 6 languages. The AFP brand guarantees editorial quality and reliability built since the agency was founded in 1835."
Maybe you should be more worried about how the NYT and WaPo ignore and try to spike such stories.

One politicians understands:
""Let's remember, our rights and our privileges flow from our creator and not from our member of Congress," Pawlenty said at a fundraiser in Cedar Rapids."
http://news.yahoo...nty_iowa
This is the governor of MN. Most of its population are 2nd, 3rd generation Scandinavians.

One politicians understands:
""Let's remember, our rights and our privileges flow from our creator and not from our member of Congress," Pawlenty said at a fundraiser in Cedar Rapids."
http://news.yahoo...nty_iowa
This is the governor of MN. Most of its population are 2nd, 3rd generation Scandinavians.

Wow. You managed to fit in all possible bad stereotypes of a conservative in one post. Congratulations.

I answered that a few hours ago. See above.

No, you stated you think they should be taxed, you didn't state whether the answer was yes or no. So are you upset about the situation as it is right now, yes or no?

One politicians understands:
""Let's remember, our rights and our privileges flow from our creator and not from our member of Congress," Pawlenty said at a fundraiser in Cedar Rapids."
http://news.yahoo...nty_iowa
This is the governor of MN. Most of its population are 2nd, 3rd generation Scandinavians.

Wow. You managed to fit in all possible bad stereotypes of a conservative in one post. Congratulations.

What is bad about quoting the Declaration of Independence?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. "

That isn't a direct quote but it's close enough to only be a semantics discussion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The creator being spoken of here was not the Christian God.

That isn't a direct quote but it's close enough to only be a semantics discussion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The creator being spoken of here was not the Christian God.

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
http://www.ushist...ndex.htm
What God are they talking about?

That isn't a direct quote but it's close enough to only be a semantics discussion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The creator being spoken of here was not the Christian God.

Why do you bring it up? Pawlenty was quoting the Declaration and 'q' made some irrelevant comment about conservatives.

"Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"
http://www.ushist...ndex.htm
What God are they talking about?

The belief system is called Deism. Which posits some very Star Warsy stuff, "there's a prevailing force or set of forces within nature that are responsible for all of reality." Very similar to natural sciences but with an aire of mysticism akin to pantheism.

Why do you bring it up? Pawlenty was quoting the Declaration and 'q' made some irrelevant comment about conservatives.

Since you replied twice I can only assume you're concious of the fact that the named God was Deistic in nature and as such are attempting to change the subject to a topic you think you're more suited to debate with me. You're incorrect, both in action and assumption.