California communities suing for polluters to pay for storm damage

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by Moontide

I disagree with the suit, but doesn't anyone realize that if the plaintiffs win it really means the companies were selling too cheap and they would have had to raise prices to cover these additional "costs". Now they are being penalized for giving us lower prices.

No company "pays" for anything. The customer pays in the form of higher prices if costs go up. As customers we could have been paying higher prices all along which the same people would have bitched about.

They have gotten the benefit of lower prices for all these years and now want to avoid paying the true cost of what they were buying. They want to get for free what they should have been paying for all along. Maybe it would be fairer to gi back and make us all pay the amount we shoukd have been paying based on how much oil we used. As often said, there are no free lunchs.

A rather simplistic view I think. Its true that the US (especially) government has been subsidizing oil and coal companies and not allowing the true market value, including cleanup and health care costs, to prevail. However the oil and coal companies have know for many years that their products were causing environmental problems but instead of owning up and assisting in the cure of those problems they preferred to spend money financing propaganda against the truth while pocketing huge profits. For example, cleaning up Alberta's oil and gas wells could cost the tax payer somewhere around C$100 billion million. That will be up to the taxpayer while big oil and gas have walked off with a lot more than that. You think that is fair?

We seem to be witnessing some of the results of the environmental damage these products have contributed to, all over the world. It seems that where there are not floods and huge storms there are massive fires burning.

[ski69sail]

Big oil like big tobacco has a waged a campaign of miss information. This propaganda has been around from the 70s. It seems the public in general is happy to believe a good story instead of the truth.

The climate change debate implies two equal and opposite sides. Yet the truth is more like 99% of scientists recognizing there is a serious issue. There are a few individuals well funded by industry hoping the odd inconsistency in scientific research is sufficient to discredit all their good work

This court case if nothing else will help to expose what big oil has know and when they knew it.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by ski69sail

Big oil like big tobacco has a waged a campaign of miss information. This propaganda has been around from the 70s. It seems the public in general is happy to believe a good story instead of the truth.

The climate change debate implies two equal and opposite sides. Yet the truth is more like 99% of scientists recognizing there is a serious issue. There are a few individuals well funded by industry hoping the odd inconsistency in scientific research is sufficient to discredit all their good work

This court case if nothing else will help to expose what big oil has know and when they knew it.

What a load of bunkum. By the way. Can't wait for the new Federal Tax law changes. Best change coming is the annulment of tax deductions for State and Local Taxes from a persons Federal Income Tax. This deduction has allowed the looney tunes running State and Local Governments to spend like drunken sailors at a whorehouse. Oops. I should have said a house of ill repute. Sorry.

[markpierce]

No doubt the state collects more taxes on the sale of fuel than producers profit That is, government taxes exceed the profits of the companies.

[alansmith]

I've lived in Philippines, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, Russia, and many months in china. I've travelled to many other countries and have felt grateful to see how other people live and see their customs.

I was born here in California. Can u name me one state that has better weather? I love that I can ski in about a 2 hour drive. San Francisco and the Delta are in my backyard. We have diverse populations and for the most part people get along. Many of finest brains in the world are concentrated here. It really is a gorgeous state with coast lines and big beautiful mountains. I am paid top dollar to do a job that is not paid anywhere else in the other 49 states.

Yes, there are problems here. Do I agree with all views of the Berkeley left? No, I don't. But they have been right many times like Peace initiatives and environmental issues. Our culture in California is amazing. It is deep and wide and full of life. I love to travel. Art and history. But California is not a shi?hole state. Brother or sister... come visit and u will understand why we are the 5th largest economy in the world (or something like that). I love this state.

[DeepFrz]

The climate change debate implies two equal and opposite sides. Yet the truth is more like 99% of scientists recognizing there is a serious issue.

There is no debate about climate change. The scientific evidence is clear. What we can debate is the extent to which climate change influences individual weather events.

GoingWalkabout, good to see you back with your ever so helpful and insightful comments.

Any one interested might like to read this article by one of the worlds brightest minds. Of course that is my opinion.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/09/...g-going-wrong/

[danielamartindm]

Originally Posted by BobHorn

I think the folks in the other 49 states should take a vote and force California to secede.

Any talk of California seceding is fantasy; the DNC would never allow the loss of that many electoral votes.

[thinwater]

So when will the tread come to suggesting a carbon tax. That's what it boils down to; for a free market economy to produce the desired, optimum result, every activity must bear its full cost. Failures of a market economy emerge anytime something is free (whales or fish), when damage has no cost (solution, dangerous working conditions), or competition fails (collusion or predatory practices).

In this case a carbon tax is simple. Figure out less carbon intensive production processes, drive a smaller car, live smaller, and your taxes go down. Fail to reduce and you pay fairly for the damage. Would it damage the economy? Only if other taxes are not adjusted at the same time to make it near zero sum.

In theory the same could apply to many pollutants, though most often the $ cost/pound is much higher and elimination by permit works out about the same or better in the long run, although there are exceptions.

I'm not a fan of regulations, but there are times when rules and taxes are the simplest, most equitable solution.

[BobHorn]

Originally Posted by alansmith

I've lived in Philippines, Japan, Guam, Hawaii, Russia, and many months in china. I've travelled to many other countries and have felt grateful to see how other people live and see their customs.

I was born here in California. Can u name me one state that has better weather? I love that I can ski in about a 2 hour drive. San Francisco and the Delta are in my backyard. We have diverse populations and for the most part people get along. Many of finest brains in the world are concentrated here. It really is a gorgeous state with coast lines and big beautiful mountains. I am paid top dollar to do a job that is not paid anywhere else in the other 49 states.

Yes, there are problems here. Do I agree with all views of the Berkeley left? No, I don't. But they have been right many times like Peace initiatives and environmental issues. Our culture in California is amazing. It is deep and wide and full of life. I love to travel. Art and history. But California is not a shi?hole state. Brother or sister... come visit and u will understand why we are the 5th largest economy in the world (or something like that). I love this state.

And so concludes the message from the California Chamber of Commerce.

[Lepke]

California must be running out of other peoples money. I had 2 businesses in California and decided it wasn't worth trying to do business there. And that was many years ago, it's worse now. Many other people I knew or did business with in California have also left or moved their business. And some wish they could.
In some parts of the state, the sales tax is 10% or more. If your business has a competitor in Oregon, they have an automatic 10% advantage plus lower tax and regulation rate. Many other sales tax states don't charge tax on out of state business. But not California. As a business, you not only have the EPA and OSHA but predatory California versions, too.

[DeepFrz]

Originally Posted by thinwater

In this case a carbon tax is simple. Figure out less carbon intensive production processes, drive a smaller car, live smaller, and your taxes go down. Fail to reduce and you pay fairly for the damage. Would it damage the economy? Only if other taxes are not adjusted at the same time to make it near zero sum.

In theory the same could apply to many pollutants, though most often the $ cost/pound is much higher and elimination by permit works out about the same or better in the long run, although there are exceptions.

I'm not a fan of regulations, but there are times when rules and taxes are the simplest, most equitable solution.

I don't think anyone likes regulations but the fact is that, human greed what it is, regulations are necessary. I think it has been proven over and over again that unregulated industry cannot or will not regulate itself. The main reason that we have governments is because many people will not regulate themselves and that spills over into industry. Just look at how the imbalance has mushroomed since the deregulation that we have seen in the last half century alone. We have seen that just as corporations have, governments from national to city have become more and more corrupt and more and more decisions are being made that adversely effect the ordinary people, especially the people at the lower end of the spectrum.

[sailorchic34]

Originally Posted by GoingWalkabout

This deduction has allowed the looney tunes running State and Local Governments to spend like drunken sailors at a whorehouse. Oops. I should have said a house of ill repute. Sorry.

AH No. The deduction is giving a slight credit back to the individual for the taxes already paid to state and local. It does nothing to reduce state and local taxes at all. What it does, is allow the feds to tax the tax we pay to state and local. Sort of a double tax...


Gee now you got me talking about taxes.

Edit: On the carbon tax thingy. Our benevolent FTB already has a carbon tax added at the fuel pump. It adds 13 cents to each gallon of gas. That is in addition to the regular road tax. They are also talking about raising it again.... Luckily, I don't own a car.

[GoingWalkabout]

Originally Posted by sailorchic34

AH No. The deduction is giving a slight credit back to the individual for the taxes already paid to state and local. It does nothing to reduce state and local taxes at all. What it does, is allow the feds to tax the tax we pay to state and local. Sort of a double tax...


Gee now you got me talking about taxes.

Edit: On the carbon tax thingy. Our benevolent FTB already has a carbon tax added at the fuel pump. It adds 13 cents to each gallon of gas. That is in addition to the regular road tax. They are also talking about raising it again.... Luckily, I don't own a car.

I see your point in taxes. But I think the Federal deduction for State and Local taxes causes a cost distortion creating a false lower real cost for the State and Local taxes.

The carbon tax is wgat it was alwats meant to be. A way to take more money from the industrial class (workers). But these dimwitted lefties don't understand that such taxes are regressive in that they affect the poor at the same rate as the wealthy.

[NevisDog]

Sounds to an outsider that USA is one totally divided nation of extremists. May I wish those suing the best of luck, for all our sakes. If governments won't act, then someone has to stop the race to oblivion.

[44'cruisingcat]

Sea levels have risen 30-35 metres in the last 10,000 years. Who're we gonna sue for that?