Carbon Taxes and Global Warming

Uh, no one here has been fooled by any red herrings. This thread 'devolved' into a debate about climate-change because a few people made some comments which already PRESUPPOSED the falsity of AGW (see "the fraud that is the cooked up scam of man-induced global warming").

When you do that, people who disagree are going to take issue.

So if you want to debate the fee hike, go ahead. Is ANYONE here capable of making a cogent argument against it without taking a potshot at our governor/ elitist liberals with fancy degrees?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
Since when in driving and parking a human right?
Click to expand...

Do you feel like taking a sh*t is a human right? Because it's a hell of a lot more expensive to go # 2 in this state than anywhere else in the country.
It's a lot more expensive than going to the airport, I can assure you that much.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I'm saddened that we still can't have a civilized and informed conversation about greenhouse emissions/global warming.
Click to expand...

You're right Van. It's a very hot flash point and I believe it's because nobody here on this forum knows or understands climate change. Myself included. I don't study this shit. And yet, based almost entirely on political beliefs, we all become scientists.

The only thing I know about global warming is that I don't know anything about it. Any of you who claim to have the answer are really just pushing the political ideology behind the science, or conversely, junk science.

Me: libertarian, get government out of my way, help businesses so they can help people =therefor> Global warming is a gigantic scam

Others: socialism, government as lifestyle policeman, help regular people by taking money away from businesses =therefor> Climate change is real


Neither of the above two scenarios include science. The science, the facts, etc.? We all pick and choose. There is a reason why socialists all believe in climate change, and it doesn't involve science.
 
blade_bltz said:
Is ANYONE here capable of making a cogent argument against it without taking a potshot at our governor/ elitist liberals with fancy degrees?
Click to expand...

In excessively simple economic terms: Higher costs whether they come in the form of a higher fee from a firm or an increased tax from a government entity disincentivize consumer spending, which is the single most important factor in aiding in recovery from a period of economic distress.
 
@pelhamhall You are right, we are not scientists. That's why the best I can do is listen to scientists who study this and who happen to agree that the world is warming at a rate that just happens to be a similar rate of carbon dioxide emissions. That's not politics, that's scientific facts.

Politics is finding the few scientists who disagree about WHY this is happening and using them for one side or the other.

@bosdev I'm going to disregard that ridiculous statement and just ask this: how much will a $2 fee on airport parking really affect you? How much will it really affect the average person in the state? If you are going to the airport THAT MUCH you have so many other options open to you.

But, ok, I get it. That's not the point. The point is government charging people for a service. Which brings me back to the original question: since when is parking a human right? If this was a private parking garage and they upped the price $2 would you still make such a bru-haha?

How about that, lets sell off the parking at Logan to a private company and let them raise prices. Then the airport won't have an extra revenue source and be forced to make cutbacks. Free-market solves everything, don't it?
 
pelhamhall said:
So are you in favor of the $2 parking fee hike or not? To Deval's delight, you are still chewing on that global warming red herring.

And by the way, "educted and liberal" is stinky elitism. Everyone knows the worlds of government, policy and academia are where people hide who can't hack it in the world of business.

Again, $2 charge - good/bad?
Click to expand...
First, your previous post wasn't solely about the tax itself, despite the fact that you stated it would be. Let's not be hypocritical. As for the two dollar charge, yes, I am in favor of it.

Lurker said:
Three points

Point 1
Educated doesn't automatically equal 'liberal'. The actual meaning of the 'Taliban' is actually a group of educated scholars. They just happen to be 7th Century reactionaries. Most of the fascist and imperial powers of the last century were quite educated, yet I wouldn't ever call any of them 'liberal'.

Point 2
Liberal can also mean anything from leftist to libertine. What it means in Europe vs. the US is in part to people misusing the label for three quarters of a century. The same is true of 'conservative'. Both labels are used too broadly in this country to the point they've lost most of their meaning.

Point 3
pelhamhall is right about Deval trying to distract everyone from the financial issues he won't fix with reform so he once again passing the cost of ineffective government on to the public.
Click to expand...

If I felt the words liberal and educated were synonymous I would have used only one of them. (I agree that the words liberal and conservative have been misused to the point that their definitions have changed and split from their original meanings, though within this discussion I think you know what I mean.) My original point was that Boston is a liberal, educated city in a liberal, educated state. There may or may not be a correlation between these two things and intelligence, but there is certainly a correlation between these to things and the belief that man has had an impact on the planet's rising temperatures.

Now, as far as what Patrick would like people to be discussing, perhaps the two of you are correct. As stated, he is a politician, and as such, will always have an angle. This, however, does not imply that he is being disingenuous. This is in fact a tax on people who use more carbon. Considering it is charging people who use the airport a couple dollars to improve/maintain conditions at the airport, I don't think those apposed really have much ground to stand on. Especially since, short of a physical handicap, there is no good reason to not take the T.
 
Today Massport says they won't raise the parking fee, so now we can go back to being ArchBoston instead of ScienceBoston (not that I'm saying Climate Change denial is a science).
 
^^ I assume you are referring to this:
Massport ends Logan Airport?s $1 parking fee hike
By Associated Press | Tuesday, March 3, 2009 | http://www.bostonherald.com | Local Coverage

BOSTON ? The agency that runs Logan International Airport has decided to rescind a new $1 parking fee hike at the request of Gov. Deval Patrick?s administration.

State Transportation Secretary James Aloisi had faulted Massport for raising the fee without public input.

The agency said the decision was not done in a vacuum, but came after it had cut its budget by more than 3 percent and instituted a hiring freeze.

Massport said parking revenue was down more than $4 million for the first eight months of the fiscal year.

Without the annual $1.5 million the increase was projected to bring, Massport said it would be forced to make an additional $7.5 million in cuts to it five-year construction program.

The fee will end Friday.
Article URL: http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1156032
Click to expand...

This is different from the Carbon fee. Patrick basically told Massport to rescind their hike so his hike won't looks so bad. :rolleyes:
 
kmp1284 said:
In excessively simple economic terms: Higher costs whether they come in the form of a higher fee from a firm or an increased tax from a government entity disincentivize consumer spending, which is the single most important factor in aiding in recovery from a period of economic distress.
Click to expand...

More ec 10 intuitions:

In your argument, the recession is the red herring. We're talking about trips to the airport. Demand for parking at Logan is, I presume, relatively inelastic. The fee hike is just a tax to correct an externality (but climate change skeptics deny this...why? I only see selfishness and intellectual dishonesty). I don't see how you can argue that a small change in price for parking at Logan is going to keep us in the doldrums of the recession. Instead, the fee hike would go *some* way towards reducing emissions while more importantly generating revenue for projects that will be economically beneficially down the road.
 
$2 fee won't kill the economy, but this scenario will:

Tolls are increased another $4
Parking fee increased another $2
Gas tax increased raises drive to airport $2-3 for metrowest family of four
Massport "fees" and surchages on plane tickets - $25/50 added

Etc.
Etc.

Working class family of four from Lowell says to themselves, "It's too f****ing expensive to fly from Logan. We're going on fly Southwest from New Hampshire"

In an attempt to raise revenue, Logan raises fees. Therefore, Logan has lowered revenues.

Public transportation is not the answer and never ever will be. Society will not de-evolve back to the day before cars. This is how our society is established.

A family of four does not take the T to Logan, it is dumb and financially unfeasible. From the suburbs you might be talking $10-15 each person round trip on the commuter rail plus $4 to switch onto the T system. Plus the cost of parking at the external MBTA lot for a 7 day vacation. Not to mention the hassle of two children and their bags on the T...

Our society is auto-based. Now let's plan for that, and let's live with that. Let's make cars zero-emissions. But only the foolish would plan for a world without personal transportation devices.

Public transportation by definition sucks compared to private transportation.

The MBTA system from Scituate, Needham, Billerica, etc. is a rip-off hell ride for losers and suckers. So let's try to think about reality and not a fantasy world where the T is the answer to society's transportion needs in 2009 in Greater Boston.

Ahem... therefore, I am against the added $2 parking fee on families coming to the airport for a vacation or anybody else for that matter.
 
If you want to make an economic argument, how about this one:

US society is auto-based because of unsustainable government policies that encourage people to live in auto-centric communities. As soon as the practice crumbles under it's own weight, people will go back to living in the natural state of society that's developed over the past 3,000 years, namely cities, and no one will give two shits about "those people" sitting next to them on the T.
 
pelhamhall said:
$

Our society is auto-based. Now let's plan for that, and let's live with that. Let's make cars zero-emissions. But only the foolish would plan for a world without personal transportation devices. .
Click to expand...


People forget that pollution isnt the only car problem, its congestion and the amount of space they take up.
 
So let's plan for that, deal with that and live with that fact of life. Not ignore and plan for cities and destinations without cars.
 
Who is planning cities for life without cars?
It's a $2 parking fee.
A little perspective people.
 
Go to Frankfurt or Amsterdam or London, or even Chicago, and you'll see public transportation that effectively serves an airport.
 
Logan is effectively served by public transportation - two direct T lines (blue and silver) busses, and water taxis. Logan is great for public transportation, that is the only way I ever get to the airport.

But I can walk to the T station, with my suitcase. Round trip it costs me $4. It's great. If I'm in Needham, I have to drive to the Commuter Rail station, pay for parking for the 7 nights for parking, pay $8 round trip for the commuter rail, switch to a T line at South Station, pay $4 for the T. So $12. Not bad. But with a wife and two kids? $48. I think I'll drive. After all, if my flight gets in at midnight, might I be screwed with a $50 cab ride home?

No, I'll just drive, it's easy, cheap and convenient. I can make my own schedule. Viva the automobile!
 
It's served, but not especially effectively -- not compared to the other cities I mentioned.

If it had service comparable to Frankfurt's or Amsterdam (frequent rail right to the terminal, no need to go outdoors), there would be no need for you or anyone else to drive to the airport.
 
I just think it would be brave if a city planner in 2009 embraced reality and launched a project that dealt with the reality of our society and worked to improve it, rather than saying "society is wrong, and we must shutter and abandon the suburbs, cities will rise again, we will radically re-work human society in America, and therefore I am planning for this future radical world, completely ignoring the way people live their lives today"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top