Comments on: McMansions and the Carbon Tax http://queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/ We're here, We're queer, and We're not going Shopping without Coupons Wed, 10 Mar 2010 04:23:21 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: » It’s the 93rd Carnival of the Green! http://queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-62922 » It’s the 93rd Carnival of the Green! Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:10:16 +0000 http://www.queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/#comment-62922 [...] Nina over at Queer Cents writes about McMansions and the Carbon Tax . John Dingell seeks to ‘remove the mortgage interest deduction on McMansions — homes over 3,000 square feet.’ Dingell said he recognizes that such a proposal will spark much criticism, but he also said it is essential to reducing carbon emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050.” [...]<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-62922">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> [...] Nina over at Queer Cents writes about McMansions and the Carbon Tax . John Dingell seeks to ‘remove the mortgage interest deduction on McMansions — homes over 3,000 square feet.’ Dingell said he recognizes that such a proposal will spark much criticism, but he also said it is essential to reducing carbon emissions by 60 percent to 80 percent by 2050.” [...]

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Review: Festival of Frugality #90 : A Penny Closer http://queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-62850 Review: Festival of Frugality #90 : A Penny Closer Wed, 05 Sep 2007 10:50:31 +0000 http://www.queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/#comment-62850 [...] McMansions and the Carbon Tax @ Queercents - 3000 sq. ft. is a McMansion? Outside of “the coasts”, this is a big home but certainly no “mansion”. If the government wants to try and combat carbon emissions, perhaps we should go after older homes. Older homes are frequently less energy efficient, and an older 1000 sq. ft. home could very well use more energy than a new, 5000 sq. ft. home that has been built with energy efficiency in mind. Is the government’s point really to cut carbon emissions, or to punish those who buy big homes? Great post from Queercents, bad idea from the government. [...]<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-62850">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> [...] McMansions and the Carbon Tax @ Queercents – 3000 sq. ft. is a McMansion? Outside of “the coasts”, this is a big home but certainly no “mansion”. If the government wants to try and combat carbon emissions, perhaps we should go after older homes. Older homes are frequently less energy efficient, and an older 1000 sq. ft. home could very well use more energy than a new, 5000 sq. ft. home that has been built with energy efficiency in mind. Is the government’s point really to cut carbon emissions, or to punish those who buy big homes? Great post from Queercents, bad idea from the government. [...]

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]> By: Bill Long http://queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/comment-page-1/#comment-60903 Bill Long Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:26:44 +0000 http://www.queercents.com/2007/08/27/mcmansions-and-the-carbon-tax/#comment-60903 Ultimately, the greenhouse gas emissions come from the power plants producing electricity for the houses and for everything else. 50% of the power in the US comes from coal-burning plants, with almost another 20% coming from natural gas. So, although I don't necessarily want the mortgage deduction to persist (I'd rather see our current tax system replaced with a flat tax than continuing a system where special interests constantly fight for their own deductions), specifically targetting homeowners and trying to get them to buy smaller homes seems kind of silly. How much of that 17% of US greenhouse gas emissions do we expect to eliminate using this plan? 2%? If it was any more than that I'd be surprised. How about just fixing the root of the problem instead - replacing fossil-fuel power plants with other solutions. There are actually some "<a href="http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/coalpower/turbines/program.html">clean coal</a>" technologies in the works, but failing that there's always hydrogen or good old nuclear power. As long as we have power plants that spew carbon dioxide, power consumption by homeowners or anyone else is going to cause greenhouse gas emissions.<p class="top-comments">Current score: <span class="top-comments-karma" id="karma-60903">0</span> <small>(to vote for this comment, please visit the site)</small></p> Ultimately, the greenhouse gas emissions come from the power plants producing electricity for the houses and for everything else. 50% of the power in the US comes from coal-burning plants, with almost another 20% coming from natural gas.

So, although I don’t necessarily want the mortgage deduction to persist (I’d rather see our current tax system replaced with a flat tax than continuing a system where special interests constantly fight for their own deductions), specifically targetting homeowners and trying to get them to buy smaller homes seems kind of silly. How much of that 17% of US greenhouse gas emissions do we expect to eliminate using this plan? 2%? If it was any more than that I’d be surprised.

How about just fixing the root of the problem instead – replacing fossil-fuel power plants with other solutions. There are actually some “clean coal” technologies in the works, but failing that there’s always hydrogen or good old nuclear power. As long as we have power plants that spew carbon dioxide, power consumption by homeowners or anyone else is going to cause greenhouse gas emissions.

Current score: 0 (to vote for this comment, please visit the site)

]]>