Republicans shifting towards climate change legislation.

[Direckshun]

Thank you god.

Can we get this done in the next two years, please?

Norquist seems to be pushing for it to be part of the Grand Bargain. The last time Obama scored energy legislation it was wrapped up in the stimulus package. Wrapping up more energy legislation in a Grand Bargain would be consistent with that -- never let an opportunity go to waste, amiright?

http://www.nationaljournal.com/energ...ledge-20121112

Norquist: Carbon-Tax Swap for Income-Tax Cut Wouldn't Violate No-Tax-Hike Pledge
Coral Davenport
November 12, 2012 | 5:09 p.m.

In a step that may help crack open the partisan impasse on climate change, Grover Norquist, the influential lobbyist who has bound hundreds of Republicans to a pledge never to raise taxes, told National Journal that a proposed “carbon tax swap”—taxing carbon pollution in exchange for cutting the income tax—would not violate his pledge.

Norquist’s assessment matters a lot, and could help pave the way for at least a handful of Republicans to support the policy. Over the past six months, a growing number of conservative voices, including former Republican officials and renowned economists, have amped up pressure on their party to finally address climate change.

One group, the Energy and Enterprise Initiative headed by former Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., has been working for months to persuade the GOP to take up a carbon-tax swap as part of a broad tax-reform package next year. The idea is to create a market signal to drive consumers away from fossil fuels by taxing the carbon pollution caused by burning coal, oil, and natural gas.

The problem is that creating a new “energy tax” would be viewed by some as political suicide. And Republicans who have signed Norquist’s pledge would be barred from supporting it.

That’s where the “swap” side of the policy comes in: The new carbon tax would be paired with a cut in the income tax—something Republicans have long sought. The idea essentially would be to cut the tax on income and move it over to carbon pollution—keeping the proposal revenue-neutral.

“It’s possible you could structure something that wasn’t an increase and didn’t violate the pledge,” Norquist told National Journal.

But Norquist made clear he himself doesn’t like the policy. “It would infuriate taxpayers,” he said. He also opined that politically, it’s beyond a long shot. While supporters might now be talking about how to structure the tax swap in such a way that it could win political support, “It’s a conversation about what color unicorn you’d like,” Norquist said.

“If the Democrats thought it was a good idea and the country wouldn’t hate them for it they would have done it in 2009,” when their party held majorities in both chambers of Congress, he said.

Still, if the tax swap could indeed be structured in such a way that it wouldn’t violate Norquist’s pledge, it could remove at least one political obstacle for some Republicans.

“We hear frequently, constantly from Republican lawmakers who say, we see climate change as a huge problem and we want to talk about ways to do this, but for now they’re afraid to talk about it, because of the political repercussions,” said Rob Sisson, president of the group ConservAmerica, formerly Republicans for Environmental Protection.

Conversation about a carbon tax is increasing in Washington. In September, the Congressional Budget Office released a report concluding that a carbon tax on its own—not paired with a tax cut elsewhere—could reduce the federal deficit by 10 percent to 50 percent.

The day after the presidential election, the global bank HSBC put out a research note identifying a carbon tax as a policy that could emerge in President Obama’s second term.

On Tuesday, the Brookings Institution hosts a daylong conference on the economics of a carbon tax, featuring speakers from CBO, the Treasury Department, and the International Monetary Fund.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Climate change happens all the time in nature. For instance, winter is coming and it's getting colder.

Holy balls, that's retarded.

I normally just completely ignore your existence, but holy balls.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

So you would agree that there has been a shift from the specific (i.e. global warming) to the general (i.e., climate change), yes?

I don't understand your question, honestly.

For some time, they defined climate change as "global warming," even though global warming is only one (critical) symptom of the broader issue of climate change.

I hope that answers your question.

[HonestChieffan]

In all honesty, lets drop the climate angst and just admit this is a new avenue to add taxes. That is the objective. It has nothing to do with carbon, ozone, ice melting or any of this shit.

The good news is we have a new tax that everyone pays!! Tax all the bastards so we can waste it somewhere else.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Holy balls, that's retarded.

I normally just completely ignore your existence, but holy balls.

Climate change has been happening for millennia, roughly since the last ice age to be specific and I, for one, welcome the change for life thrives during tropical warm periods, throughout the fossil record. In fact I look forward to a robust and burgeoning diversity of new and fascinating organisms that will be discovered in the millennia to come.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Climate change has been happening for millennia, roughly since the last ice age to be specific and I, for one, welcome the change for life thrives during tropical warm periods, throughout the fossil record. In fact I look forward to a robust and burgeoning diversity of new and fascinating organisms that will be discovered in the millennia to come.

The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

[HonestChieffan]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

Drink the koolaid you fool

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't understand your question, honestly.

For some time, they defined climate change as "global warming," even though global warming is only one (critical) symptom of the broader issue of climate change.

I hope that answers your question.

You just acknowledged that there has been a shift from everyone saying "global warming" to saying "climate change."

I'm asking if you agree that with the above being true, these people are going from a specific (global warming) to a general (climate change). If global warming is just part of climate change, it seems obvious.

I'm asking if you'll acknowledge the obvious.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

You just acknowledged that there has been a shift from everyone saying "global warming" to saying "climate change."

I'm asking if you agree that with the above being true, these people are going from a specific (global warming) to a general (climate change). If global warming is just part of climate change, it seems obvious.

I'm asking if you'll acknowledge the obvious.

I've been acknowledging it all thread.

[RaiderH8r]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

The recent bout of global warming, however, has no precedent.

The planet has been warming in years and decades in ways that previously took centuries.

That's not for no reason.

What's the problem? We're getting to a more biologically friendly climate more efficiently. Do you know what happened the last time the planet cooled? The whole thing froze the **** over. It's like Alaska in January all the time. Have you been to Alaska in January? No, you haven't because if you had you would see that warming is good. Ever see a verdant forest on a glacier? Nope. Why? Shit don't grow on an ice sheet.

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

What's the problem? We're getting to a more biologically friendly climate more efficiently.

Link, or you're full of it.

Originally Posted by RaiderH8r

Do you know what happened the last time the planet cooled? The whole thing froze the **** over.

You heard it here first, folks.

If we attempt to slow global warming, we are daring to invite the next ice age.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I've been acknowledging it all thread.

Good. And why do you think there has been a shift from the specific to the general?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

Good. And why do you think there has been a shift from the specific to the general?

Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue than the phrase global warming.

And why is that important enough to make the change from the specific to the general?

[Direckshun]

Originally Posted by Donger

And why is that important enough to make the change from the specific to the general?

Because climate change is more or less a more complete description of the issue.

[Hoover]

Cap and Tax would be a deal breaker. And Norquist is just a little hairy dude, not the power house people make him out to be IMO.