<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_06_218246</id>
	<title>Minnesota Introduces World's First Carbon Tariff</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1262770140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>hollywoodb writes <i>"The first carbon tax to reduce the greenhouse gases from imports comes not between two nations, but between two states. <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/01/06/minnesota-levies-wor.html">Minnesota has passed a measure</a> to <a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=first-carbon-tariff-will-tax-co2-at-2010-01">stop carbon</a> at <a href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/01/minnesota-slaps-north-dakota-with-first-carbon-tariff.php">its border with North Dakota</a>. To encourage the switch to clean, renewable energy, Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012 ... Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders, but the utility companies that operate in MN have, over the past decades, sited a lot of coal power plants on the relatively cheap and open land of North Dakota, which is preparing a legal battle against Minnesota over the tariff."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>hollywoodb writes " The first carbon tax to reduce the greenhouse gases from imports comes not between two nations , but between two states .
Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota .
To encourage the switch to clean , renewable energy , Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $ 4 and $ 34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity , to begin in 2012 ... Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders , but the utility companies that operate in MN have , over the past decades , sited a lot of coal power plants on the relatively cheap and open land of North Dakota , which is preparing a legal battle against Minnesota over the tariff .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>hollywoodb writes "The first carbon tax to reduce the greenhouse gases from imports comes not between two nations, but between two states.
Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota.
To encourage the switch to clean, renewable energy, Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012 ... Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders, but the utility companies that operate in MN have, over the past decades, sited a lot of coal power plants on the relatively cheap and open land of North Dakota, which is preparing a legal battle against Minnesota over the tariff.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675554</id>
	<title>Re:Its about time</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So with this new found money that they receive the intern further destroy the environment with what they purchase with it. Everything is about energy it's the one commodity that all others are derived from.  Carbon extortion is what this is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So with this new found money that they receive the intern further destroy the environment with what they purchase with it .
Everything is about energy it 's the one commodity that all others are derived from .
Carbon extortion is what this is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So with this new found money that they receive the intern further destroy the environment with what they purchase with it.
Everything is about energy it's the one commodity that all others are derived from.
Carbon extortion is what this is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675354</id>
	<title>Your First Premise Is</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wrong. There is no United States of America, more or less.<br>Just wait until all 50 states declare bankruptcy.</p><p>Yours In Ashgabat,<br>Kilgore Trout</p><p>P.S.: Senator Dodd will not seek another term. Good riddance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wrong .
There is no United States of America , more or less.Just wait until all 50 states declare bankruptcy.Yours In Ashgabat,Kilgore TroutP.S .
: Senator Dodd will not seek another term .
Good riddance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wrong.
There is no United States of America, more or less.Just wait until all 50 states declare bankruptcy.Yours In Ashgabat,Kilgore TroutP.S.
: Senator Dodd will not seek another term.
Good riddance.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308</id>
	<title>It's just gunna get pushed to the customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I live in the region and if Minnesota goes through with this then Minnesota customers are the one's that are going to be paying for the carbon tax.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I live in the region and if Minnesota goes through with this then Minnesota customers are the one 's that are going to be paying for the carbon tax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I live in the region and if Minnesota goes through with this then Minnesota customers are the one's that are going to be paying for the carbon tax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675968</id>
	<title>Re:Interstate Commerce</title>
	<author>jgtg32a</author>
	<datestamp>1262777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Die? This has already been smacked down, the eventual court case and what not are just formalities.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Die ?
This has already been smacked down , the eventual court case and what not are just formalities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Die?
This has already been smacked down, the eventual court case and what not are just formalities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675278</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675958</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm guessing people are going to be using less energy at home, since prices will invariably increase. This could matriculate to a bad place, considering how cold it can get up north.</p><p>End result? Less energy being used, and less carbon being 'spilled' into the atmosphere. Win-Win I say!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing people are going to be using less energy at home , since prices will invariably increase .
This could matriculate to a bad place , considering how cold it can get up north.End result ?
Less energy being used , and less carbon being 'spilled ' into the atmosphere .
Win-Win I say !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing people are going to be using less energy at home, since prices will invariably increase.
This could matriculate to a bad place, considering how cold it can get up north.End result?
Less energy being used, and less carbon being 'spilled' into the atmosphere.
Win-Win I say!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675448</id>
	<title>This qwill fail;</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1262775060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you can't tariff another state..you can TAX the hell out of electricity from that state. tariff and tax is not the same thing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you ca n't tariff another state..you can TAX the hell out of electricity from that state .
tariff and tax is not the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can't tariff another state..you can TAX the hell out of electricity from that state.
tariff and tax is not the same thing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676650</id>
	<title>Wonderful!</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1262780760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota.</i> Wonderful! So Minnesota has deployed a large-scale working version of Maxwell's daemon, then? Or perhaps they've merely come up with a scheme to make generating power with coal in ND and then selling to MN less cost effective (which admittedly is perverting the free market to achieve a common good).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota .
Wonderful ! So Minnesota has deployed a large-scale working version of Maxwell 's daemon , then ?
Or perhaps they 've merely come up with a scheme to make generating power with coal in ND and then selling to MN less cost effective ( which admittedly is perverting the free market to achieve a common good ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minnesota has passed a measure to stop carbon at its border with North Dakota.
Wonderful! So Minnesota has deployed a large-scale working version of Maxwell's daemon, then?
Or perhaps they've merely come up with a scheme to make generating power with coal in ND and then selling to MN less cost effective (which admittedly is perverting the free market to achieve a common good).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676122</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>X\_Bones</author>
	<datestamp>1262778060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In certain states like Massachusetts, the power plants and the transmission wires are owned by different people.  <a href="http://www.saveonenergy.com/section-124-Massachusetts" title="saveonenergy.com">Residents can choose who they want to get their electricity from</a> [saveonenergy.com].<br> <br>That way the local public utility infrastructure can be regulated by one set of rules, and the electricity providers by a different set.  Makes sense to me.  Now if we could only have the same separation of infrastructure and content with the cable companies...</htmltext>
<tokenext>In certain states like Massachusetts , the power plants and the transmission wires are owned by different people .
Residents can choose who they want to get their electricity from [ saveonenergy.com ] .
That way the local public utility infrastructure can be regulated by one set of rules , and the electricity providers by a different set .
Makes sense to me .
Now if we could only have the same separation of infrastructure and content with the cable companies.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In certain states like Massachusetts, the power plants and the transmission wires are owned by different people.
Residents can choose who they want to get their electricity from [saveonenergy.com].
That way the local public utility infrastructure can be regulated by one set of rules, and the electricity providers by a different set.
Makes sense to me.
Now if we could only have the same separation of infrastructure and content with the cable companies...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676300</id>
	<title>Pollution</title>
	<author>a whoabot</author>
	<datestamp>1262778900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Given the prevailing Westerlies, most of that pollution from those Dakotan coal plants gets pushed over Minnesota, delivering acid-rain and whatever else to Minnesotans.  Yet because these electricity producers have government-given guarantees that they need take no responsibility for such damages, Minnesotans (and others further away) have to suffer the consequences without recompense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the prevailing Westerlies , most of that pollution from those Dakotan coal plants gets pushed over Minnesota , delivering acid-rain and whatever else to Minnesotans .
Yet because these electricity producers have government-given guarantees that they need take no responsibility for such damages , Minnesotans ( and others further away ) have to suffer the consequences without recompense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the prevailing Westerlies, most of that pollution from those Dakotan coal plants gets pushed over Minnesota, delivering acid-rain and whatever else to Minnesotans.
Yet because these electricity producers have government-given guarantees that they need take no responsibility for such damages, Minnesotans (and others further away) have to suffer the consequences without recompense.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677612</id>
	<title>Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1262787000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?</p></div><p>Huh?  That's exactly what this is all about.  They're trying to get people to stop using coal.  They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the <i>whole point</i> of this tax is to create a disincentive.  If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.</p></div><p>Except it will result in more expensive electricity in MN while having almost no impact on the use of coal to generate electric. As a result it will make it more expensive to do business and to live in MN, this will result in businesses and people moving out of MN to states that are less expensive to do business and live in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives ? Huh ?
That 's exactly what this is all about .
They 're trying to get people to stop using coal .
They 're not failing to consider the disincentives , the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive .
If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax , they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.Except it will result in more expensive electricity in MN while having almost no impact on the use of coal to generate electric .
As a result it will make it more expensive to do business and to live in MN , this will result in businesses and people moving out of MN to states that are less expensive to do business and live in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?Huh?
That's exactly what this is all about.
They're trying to get people to stop using coal.
They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive.
If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.Except it will result in more expensive electricity in MN while having almost no impact on the use of coal to generate electric.
As a result it will make it more expensive to do business and to live in MN, this will result in businesses and people moving out of MN to states that are less expensive to do business and live in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675562</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>jamesh</author>
	<datestamp>1262775420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure</p></div><p>I prefer to think of it as balancing the books. If you actions are responsible for pumping x amount of pollution into the atmosphere then you should be responsible for cleaning it up. This cleaning up can happen in various ways, in the example of using electricity from coal fired power stations and only considering the CO2 pollution:<br>. The electricity company plants some trees or otherwise sucks the pollution out of the air, and charges you an increased rate for doing so<br>. The electricity company pays a third party to plant some trees, and on-charges you<br>. You plant some trees<br>. You pay a third party to plant some trees<br>. The government puts a tarriff on the cost of the electricity and plants some trees</p><p>Obviously that's insanely simplified, but the idea is that the cost of the product includes the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced in the manufacturing of that product.</p><p>Are such tariff's against the various free trade agreements that are floating around these days?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procureI prefer to think of it as balancing the books .
If you actions are responsible for pumping x amount of pollution into the atmosphere then you should be responsible for cleaning it up .
This cleaning up can happen in various ways , in the example of using electricity from coal fired power stations and only considering the CO2 pollution : .
The electricity company plants some trees or otherwise sucks the pollution out of the air , and charges you an increased rate for doing so .
The electricity company pays a third party to plant some trees , and on-charges you .
You plant some trees .
You pay a third party to plant some trees .
The government puts a tarriff on the cost of the electricity and plants some treesObviously that 's insanely simplified , but the idea is that the cost of the product includes the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced in the manufacturing of that product.Are such tariff 's against the various free trade agreements that are floating around these days ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procureI prefer to think of it as balancing the books.
If you actions are responsible for pumping x amount of pollution into the atmosphere then you should be responsible for cleaning it up.
This cleaning up can happen in various ways, in the example of using electricity from coal fired power stations and only considering the CO2 pollution:.
The electricity company plants some trees or otherwise sucks the pollution out of the air, and charges you an increased rate for doing so.
The electricity company pays a third party to plant some trees, and on-charges you.
You plant some trees.
You pay a third party to plant some trees.
The government puts a tarriff on the cost of the electricity and plants some treesObviously that's insanely simplified, but the idea is that the cost of the product includes the cost of cleaning up the pollution produced in the manufacturing of that product.Are such tariff's against the various free trade agreements that are floating around these days?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677192</id>
	<title>I'd say screw it to MN and just stop serving them</title>
	<author>DigitalReverend</author>
	<datestamp>1262784240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's easy.</p><p>Dear Minnesota Consumer,</p><p>Your representatives wish to charge us tarriffs for the electricity we generate and send to your homes and businesses.  After much analysis we have come to the conclusion that the cost of this tariff will make the cost providing reliable and inexpensive electricity to you, our consumers, prohibitive  Therefore  beginning 31 January 2010, we will no longer be providing electricity for any entity in Minnesota.  We wish you luck with whatever power company in the future provides your energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's easy.Dear Minnesota Consumer,Your representatives wish to charge us tarriffs for the electricity we generate and send to your homes and businesses .
After much analysis we have come to the conclusion that the cost of this tariff will make the cost providing reliable and inexpensive electricity to you , our consumers , prohibitive Therefore beginning 31 January 2010 , we will no longer be providing electricity for any entity in Minnesota .
We wish you luck with whatever power company in the future provides your energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's easy.Dear Minnesota Consumer,Your representatives wish to charge us tarriffs for the electricity we generate and send to your homes and businesses.
After much analysis we have come to the conclusion that the cost of this tariff will make the cost providing reliable and inexpensive electricity to you, our consumers, prohibitive  Therefore  beginning 31 January 2010, we will no longer be providing electricity for any entity in Minnesota.
We wish you luck with whatever power company in the future provides your energy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676182</id>
	<title>Maybe just the headline is misleading, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262778360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> British Columbia has had a carbon tax for a couple of years. </p><p> <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/29/bc-gas-prices-carbon-tax.html" title="www.cbc.ca">http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/29/bc-gas-prices-carbon-tax.html</a> [www.cbc.ca] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>British Columbia has had a carbon tax for a couple of years .
http : //www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/29/bc-gas-prices-carbon-tax.html [ www.cbc.ca ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext> British Columbia has had a carbon tax for a couple of years.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2008/04/29/bc-gas-prices-carbon-tax.html [www.cbc.ca] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675942</id>
	<title>Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...</title>
	<author>osu-neko</author>
	<datestamp>1262777040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?</p></div><p>Huh?  That's exactly what this is all about.  They're trying to get people to stop using coal.  They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the <i>whole point</i> of this tax is to create a disincentive.  If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives ? Huh ?
That 's exactly what this is all about .
They 're trying to get people to stop using coal .
They 're not failing to consider the disincentives , the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive .
If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax , they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?Huh?
That's exactly what this is all about.
They're trying to get people to stop using coal.
They're not failing to consider the disincentives, the whole point of this tax is to create a disincentive.
If everyone stops using coal and they end up generating no revenue at all with this tax, they will consider the tax to have been wildly successful.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675278</id>
	<title>Interstate Commerce</title>
	<author>BarefootClown</author>
	<datestamp>1262774220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I suspect this will die in court; the power to regulate interstate commerce is reserved exclusively to the Federal government.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I suspect this will die in court ; the power to regulate interstate commerce is reserved exclusively to the Federal government .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I suspect this will die in court; the power to regulate interstate commerce is reserved exclusively to the Federal government.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675436</id>
	<title>I am proud</title>
	<author>haderytn</author>
	<datestamp>1262775000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>To live in Minnesota!</htmltext>
<tokenext>To live in Minnesota !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To live in Minnesota!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30678992</id>
	<title>Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers</title>
	<author>smchris</author>
	<datestamp>1262798700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And if it doesn't go through, you can pay for your kid's asthma medication and you and the wife's emphysema before you die young.  Your choice.  Which option seems more intelligent to you?</p><p>Feel strongly about the issue.  Left a good job in Baltimore a couple decades ago because I couldn't handle the blue "fog" (as the locals lovingly called it).  Minnesota air, at least in the Twin Cities, is already surprisingly mediocre during inversions -- largely because we are 20-30 years behind many other U.S. metropolitan areas in mass transit.  Which is not to compare against world-class mass transit of course.  Essentially because we have a numb-nuts Republican "national-level-wanna-be" for a governor who wouldn't invest a dollar on the "commons" if you put a gun to his head, and because the state is half urban/half rural so the state congressmen from the rural areas couldn't care less if the cities choke in their own vomit of traffic jams.</p><p>North Dakota is like China except that in its case it's so \_under\_populated that environmentalism is something other people do.  "How dare anyone suggest that North Dakota is a 'dirty state?'"  Just isn't in their image of themselves.  So how is Minnesota supposed to protect itself against that mentality when the winds usually blow west to east?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And if it does n't go through , you can pay for your kid 's asthma medication and you and the wife 's emphysema before you die young .
Your choice .
Which option seems more intelligent to you ? Feel strongly about the issue .
Left a good job in Baltimore a couple decades ago because I could n't handle the blue " fog " ( as the locals lovingly called it ) .
Minnesota air , at least in the Twin Cities , is already surprisingly mediocre during inversions -- largely because we are 20-30 years behind many other U.S. metropolitan areas in mass transit .
Which is not to compare against world-class mass transit of course .
Essentially because we have a numb-nuts Republican " national-level-wan na-be " for a governor who would n't invest a dollar on the " commons " if you put a gun to his head , and because the state is half urban/half rural so the state congressmen from the rural areas could n't care less if the cities choke in their own vomit of traffic jams.North Dakota is like China except that in its case it 's so \ _under \ _populated that environmentalism is something other people do .
" How dare anyone suggest that North Dakota is a 'dirty state ?
' " Just is n't in their image of themselves .
So how is Minnesota supposed to protect itself against that mentality when the winds usually blow west to east ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And if it doesn't go through, you can pay for your kid's asthma medication and you and the wife's emphysema before you die young.
Your choice.
Which option seems more intelligent to you?Feel strongly about the issue.
Left a good job in Baltimore a couple decades ago because I couldn't handle the blue "fog" (as the locals lovingly called it).
Minnesota air, at least in the Twin Cities, is already surprisingly mediocre during inversions -- largely because we are 20-30 years behind many other U.S. metropolitan areas in mass transit.
Which is not to compare against world-class mass transit of course.
Essentially because we have a numb-nuts Republican "national-level-wanna-be" for a governor who wouldn't invest a dollar on the "commons" if you put a gun to his head, and because the state is half urban/half rural so the state congressmen from the rural areas couldn't care less if the cities choke in their own vomit of traffic jams.North Dakota is like China except that in its case it's so \_under\_populated that environmentalism is something other people do.
"How dare anyone suggest that North Dakota is a 'dirty state?
'"  Just isn't in their image of themselves.
So how is Minnesota supposed to protect itself against that mentality when the winds usually blow west to east?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676480</id>
	<title>taxing North Dakota, eh</title>
	<author>JeanBaptiste</author>
	<datestamp>1262780040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>im sure all 17 people are gonna be pissed off.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>im sure all 17 people are gon na be pissed off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>im sure all 17 people are gonna be pissed off.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30678566</id>
	<title>Re:Why?</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1262794740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And thank you to the brilliant mod who rated this "overrated" before anyone else modded it. It's nice to know you guys are out there trying to have an honest discussion.  Thankfully, I have plenty of karma to burn.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And thank you to the brilliant mod who rated this " overrated " before anyone else modded it .
It 's nice to know you guys are out there trying to have an honest discussion .
Thankfully , I have plenty of karma to burn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And thank you to the brilliant mod who rated this "overrated" before anyone else modded it.
It's nice to know you guys are out there trying to have an honest discussion.
Thankfully, I have plenty of karma to burn.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676272</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</id>
	<title>Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
<br>
How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
<br>
What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will , of course , ultimately be passed on to the customers .
Ultimately , this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry .
The government keeps the money , and we the people pay the taxes .
It wo n't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers .
You ca n't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies .
How , exactly , will this force " cleaner " electricity generation ?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs ?
Will it only be used for environmental concerns , or will it just go into the general budget ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers.
Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry.
The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes.
It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers.
You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs?
Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30679824</id>
	<title>Re:UNCONSTITUTIONAL</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1262895420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is basically screaming "FOUL!" the first post?  The constitutionality of this is the most boring aspect for me personally, and almost none of us are really lawyers let alone supreme court justices.  I'm sure the legislators would tell you it's a publicity stunt to raise the issue to a generally apathetic public.  Next they might try some type of tie in with the "Jersey Shore" cast.</p><p>If we're going to get bogged down on constitutionality, what can Minnesota do constitutionally to accomplish it's goals?  Cry while the power companies dance around saying "Ha ha you can't touch me!  Lalalalal!  Burning coal in a different state!  Suck it environmentalists!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is basically screaming " FOUL !
" the first post ?
The constitutionality of this is the most boring aspect for me personally , and almost none of us are really lawyers let alone supreme court justices .
I 'm sure the legislators would tell you it 's a publicity stunt to raise the issue to a generally apathetic public .
Next they might try some type of tie in with the " Jersey Shore " cast.If we 're going to get bogged down on constitutionality , what can Minnesota do constitutionally to accomplish it 's goals ?
Cry while the power companies dance around saying " Ha ha you ca n't touch me !
Lalalalal ! Burning coal in a different state !
Suck it environmentalists !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is basically screaming "FOUL!
" the first post?
The constitutionality of this is the most boring aspect for me personally, and almost none of us are really lawyers let alone supreme court justices.
I'm sure the legislators would tell you it's a publicity stunt to raise the issue to a generally apathetic public.
Next they might try some type of tie in with the "Jersey Shore" cast.If we're going to get bogged down on constitutionality, what can Minnesota do constitutionally to accomplish it's goals?
Cry while the power companies dance around saying "Ha ha you can't touch me!
Lalalalal!  Burning coal in a different state!
Suck it environmentalists!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675222</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676092</id>
	<title>America!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262777820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck yeah!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck yeah!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675794</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1262776440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers.</p></div></blockquote><p>The claim is used frequently, by people who have no business knowledge at all, and it's almost always used incorrectly.</p><p>In truth, higher costs are almost always only partially passed on to the customer, if at all.</p><blockquote><div><p>It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.</p></div></blockquote><p>Do you have any idea what subject you're discussing, or did you not make it through the summary?</p><p>We're talking about OUT-OF-STATE electricity.  YOU (the consumer) will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be doing business with them directly, so it doesn't matter that you can't switch.  Instead YOUR POWER COMPANY is the one doing business with them, and they sure as hell CAN switch to some other provider.</p><blockquote><div><p>How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?</p></div></blockquote><p>Go read the definition of a tariff.  Why you think they don't work is beyond me.</p><p>When the "dirty" electricity is 5\% more expensive, that means "clean" electricity becomes 5\% less expensive, by comparison.  So now there is a slightly larger curve where "clean" makes economic sense.  Additionally, this opens the door to clean power plants using technologies which are 5\% more expensive, but can now be profitable.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will , of course , ultimately be passed on to the customers.The claim is used frequently , by people who have no business knowledge at all , and it 's almost always used incorrectly.In truth , higher costs are almost always only partially passed on to the customer , if at all.It wo n't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers .
You ca n't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.Do you have any idea what subject you 're discussing , or did you not make it through the summary ? We 're talking about OUT-OF-STATE electricity .
YOU ( the consumer ) will NEVER , NEVER , NEVER be doing business with them directly , so it does n't matter that you ca n't switch .
Instead YOUR POWER COMPANY is the one doing business with them , and they sure as hell CAN switch to some other provider.How , exactly , will this force " cleaner " electricity generation ? Go read the definition of a tariff .
Why you think they do n't work is beyond me.When the " dirty " electricity is 5 \ % more expensive , that means " clean " electricity becomes 5 \ % less expensive , by comparison .
So now there is a slightly larger curve where " clean " makes economic sense .
Additionally , this opens the door to clean power plants using technologies which are 5 \ % more expensive , but can now be profitable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers.The claim is used frequently, by people who have no business knowledge at all, and it's almost always used incorrectly.In truth, higher costs are almost always only partially passed on to the customer, if at all.It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers.
You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.Do you have any idea what subject you're discussing, or did you not make it through the summary?We're talking about OUT-OF-STATE electricity.
YOU (the consumer) will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER be doing business with them directly, so it doesn't matter that you can't switch.
Instead YOUR POWER COMPANY is the one doing business with them, and they sure as hell CAN switch to some other provider.How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?Go read the definition of a tariff.
Why you think they don't work is beyond me.When the "dirty" electricity is 5\% more expensive, that means "clean" electricity becomes 5\% less expensive, by comparison.
So now there is a slightly larger curve where "clean" makes economic sense.
Additionally, this opens the door to clean power plants using technologies which are 5\% more expensive, but can now be profitable.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1262775240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure.</p></div><p>How about the things such as coal burning plants which aren't "blatantly harmful" to human beings? I recognize there is some pollution issues with coal burning. It produces small amounts of sulfur dioxides, nitrates, and even introduces more radiation than nuclear plants. They also provide electricity to people and businesses. Benefits outweigh the minor harm.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of "cheap" and "profitable" driving harmful things.</p></div><p>I'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as "harmful".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>However , I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings , and the planet in general , should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure.How about the things such as coal burning plants which are n't " blatantly harmful " to human beings ?
I recognize there is some pollution issues with coal burning .
It produces small amounts of sulfur dioxides , nitrates , and even introduces more radiation than nuclear plants .
They also provide electricity to people and businesses .
Benefits outweigh the minor harm.I 'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of " cheap " and " profitable " driving harmful things.I 'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as " harmful " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure.How about the things such as coal burning plants which aren't "blatantly harmful" to human beings?
I recognize there is some pollution issues with coal burning.
It produces small amounts of sulfur dioxides, nitrates, and even introduces more radiation than nuclear plants.
They also provide electricity to people and businesses.
Benefits outweigh the minor harm.I'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of "cheap" and "profitable" driving harmful things.I'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as "harmful".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676190</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>ptbarnett</author>
	<datestamp>1262778360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.</p> </div><p>

In your state (and Minnesota?), that might be true.  In mine, it's not.  I have the choice of many power generation companies:</p><p>

<a href="http://powertochoose.org/" title="powertochoose.org">http://powertochoose.org/</a> [powertochoose.org] </p><p>

I can choose variable rates or fix my electricity rate for up to 24 months.  I can also choose electricity solely from renewable sources (it's usually a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour more, compared to non-renewable sources from the same provider).</p><p>

Rather than imposing a tax on producers, Minnesota legislators should consider giving consumers this kind of choice and let each individual decide whether they want to pay more for electricity from a renewable source.</p><p>

The funny thing is:  renewable sources are reportedly the least popular in the most "liberal" parts of Texas.  I guess that when it's time to write that check, the money in their wallet is "greener" than their desire to save the planet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You ca n't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies .
In your state ( and Minnesota ?
) , that might be true .
In mine , it 's not .
I have the choice of many power generation companies : http : //powertochoose.org/ [ powertochoose.org ] I can choose variable rates or fix my electricity rate for up to 24 months .
I can also choose electricity solely from renewable sources ( it 's usually a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour more , compared to non-renewable sources from the same provider ) .
Rather than imposing a tax on producers , Minnesota legislators should consider giving consumers this kind of choice and let each individual decide whether they want to pay more for electricity from a renewable source .
The funny thing is : renewable sources are reportedly the least popular in the most " liberal " parts of Texas .
I guess that when it 's time to write that check , the money in their wallet is " greener " than their desire to save the planet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
In your state (and Minnesota?
), that might be true.
In mine, it's not.
I have the choice of many power generation companies:

http://powertochoose.org/ [powertochoose.org] 

I can choose variable rates or fix my electricity rate for up to 24 months.
I can also choose electricity solely from renewable sources (it's usually a fraction of a cent per kilowatt-hour more, compared to non-renewable sources from the same provider).
Rather than imposing a tax on producers, Minnesota legislators should consider giving consumers this kind of choice and let each individual decide whether they want to pay more for electricity from a renewable source.
The funny thing is:  renewable sources are reportedly the least popular in the most "liberal" parts of Texas.
I guess that when it's time to write that check, the money in their wallet is "greener" than their desire to save the planet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675678</id>
	<title>All I can say is --</title>
	<author>dwiget001</author>
	<datestamp>1262775900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>-- what's next? A fat tax? If so, Minnesota might just tax itself into oblivion.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>-- what 's next ?
A fat tax ?
If so , Minnesota might just tax itself into oblivion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>-- what's next?
A fat tax?
If so, Minnesota might just tax itself into oblivion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675478</id>
	<title>Them are fightin words</title>
	<author>Archangel Michael</author>
	<datestamp>1262775120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I smell War! North Dakota should invade!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I smell War !
North Dakota should invade !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I smell War!
North Dakota should invade!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30679658</id>
	<title>Re:Its about time</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1262806920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage, its obviously not $0. If an industry is making money damaging the environment, that may be fine, but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.</p></div><p>So then...the tax levied in MN should be paid out in SD and wherever else the plants are?  Something tells me that won't be as easy to push through the SD legislature...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage , its obviously not $ 0 .
If an industry is making money damaging the environment , that may be fine , but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.So then...the tax levied in MN should be paid out in SD and wherever else the plants are ?
Something tells me that wo n't be as easy to push through the SD legislature.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage, its obviously not $0.
If an industry is making money damaging the environment, that may be fine, but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.So then...the tax levied in MN should be paid out in SD and wherever else the plants are?
Something tells me that won't be as easy to push through the SD legislature...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675300</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677190</id>
	<title>Re:Just surrender the carbon...</title>
	<author>PGOER</author>
	<datestamp>1262784240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is kind of like pollution, it just stops at the boarder, right?  I'm sure the those chemicals respect interstate and political borders.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is kind of like pollution , it just stops at the boarder , right ?
I 'm sure the those chemicals respect interstate and political borders .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is kind of like pollution, it just stops at the boarder, right?
I'm sure the those chemicals respect interstate and political borders.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676876</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30680488</id>
	<title>Ireland got there earlier, actually</title>
	<author>franoreilly</author>
	<datestamp>1262862720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Since the budget on 9th December, we've had a carbon tax in Ireland, at &euro;15 per tonne. See <a href="http://www.moneyguideireland.com/new-carbon-tax-in-budget-2010.html" title="moneyguideireland.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moneyguideireland.com/new-carbon-tax-in-budget-2010.html</a> [moneyguideireland.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Since the budget on 9th December , we 've had a carbon tax in Ireland , at    15 per tonne .
See http : //www.moneyguideireland.com/new-carbon-tax-in-budget-2010.html [ moneyguideireland.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Since the budget on 9th December, we've had a carbon tax in Ireland, at €15 per tonne.
See http://www.moneyguideireland.com/new-carbon-tax-in-budget-2010.html [moneyguideireland.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676812</id>
	<title>No action here folks, move along</title>
	<author>vik</author>
	<datestamp>1262781660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So in 2012 someone might think about taxing CO2 emissions. Not cutting them, taxing them. Too late.</p><p>What we need is action now. Action like massive taxes on the construction of fossil fuel-powered power plants, so that the CO2 absorbtion systems (i.e. trees) can be ready at approximately the same time as new emissions start, and alternatives can be financed before new power plant starts emitting.</p><p>Vik<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:v)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So in 2012 someone might think about taxing CO2 emissions .
Not cutting them , taxing them .
Too late.What we need is action now .
Action like massive taxes on the construction of fossil fuel-powered power plants , so that the CO2 absorbtion systems ( i.e .
trees ) can be ready at approximately the same time as new emissions start , and alternatives can be financed before new power plant starts emitting.Vik : v )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So in 2012 someone might think about taxing CO2 emissions.
Not cutting them, taxing them.
Too late.What we need is action now.
Action like massive taxes on the construction of fossil fuel-powered power plants, so that the CO2 absorbtion systems (i.e.
trees) can be ready at approximately the same time as new emissions start, and alternatives can be financed before new power plant starts emitting.Vik :v)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675268</id>
	<title>Church is in session</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; The reverends of Church of Climatology will now ADDRESS YOU!!!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>  The reverends of Church of Climatology will now ADDRESS YOU ! ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
  The reverends of Church of Climatology will now ADDRESS YOU!!!!
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30774732</id>
	<title>Anonymous Coward</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263485100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Beautiful.</p><p>What happens if ND decides to shutdown the generators rather than submit to this asinine tax?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Beautiful.What happens if ND decides to shutdown the generators rather than submit to this asinine tax ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Beautiful.What happens if ND decides to shutdown the generators rather than submit to this asinine tax?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677016</id>
	<title>Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262783040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?</p></div><p>They don't.  They never do.  They have fully considered the effects and concluded that collecting more money to redistribute to their favorites is more important than the standard of living of their subjects.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives ? They do n't .
They never do .
They have fully considered the effects and concluded that collecting more money to redistribute to their favorites is more important than the standard of living of their subjects .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?They don't.
They never do.
They have fully considered the effects and concluded that collecting more money to redistribute to their favorites is more important than the standard of living of their subjects.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630</id>
	<title>I guess the State of Minnesota...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>... has such a surplus that it can afford to introduce yet another incentive to leave.
<p>
Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?  For example, when raising taxes, they calculate expected increases in revenue while underestimating changes in the behavior of the taxed.  They always act surprised when the expected additional revenues don't materialize, or indeed revenues fall.
</p><p>
Perhaps it has something to do with most elected officials being lawyers and not businessmen, engineers, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... has such a surplus that it can afford to introduce yet another incentive to leave .
Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives ?
For example , when raising taxes , they calculate expected increases in revenue while underestimating changes in the behavior of the taxed .
They always act surprised when the expected additional revenues do n't materialize , or indeed revenues fall .
Perhaps it has something to do with most elected officials being lawyers and not businessmen , engineers , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... has such a surplus that it can afford to introduce yet another incentive to leave.
Why do governments so often fail to consider the effects of disincentives?
For example, when raising taxes, they calculate expected increases in revenue while underestimating changes in the behavior of the taxed.
They always act surprised when the expected additional revenues don't materialize, or indeed revenues fall.
Perhaps it has something to do with most elected officials being lawyers and not businessmen, engineers, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675258</id>
	<title>Constitutional?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's great that they're pushing for cleaner power, but isn't this a textbook case of interstate tariffs that states are forbidden to enact?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's great that they 're pushing for cleaner power , but is n't this a textbook case of interstate tariffs that states are forbidden to enact ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's great that they're pushing for cleaner power, but isn't this a textbook case of interstate tariffs that states are forbidden to enact?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30681776</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>csartanis</author>
	<datestamp>1262876460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I favor this as well.  The disincentive of using stores of carbon as an energy source will push the development of cleaner (and now cheaper) ways of harvesting energy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I favor this as well .
The disincentive of using stores of carbon as an energy source will push the development of cleaner ( and now cheaper ) ways of harvesting energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I favor this as well.
The disincentive of using stores of carbon as an energy source will push the development of cleaner (and now cheaper) ways of harvesting energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675248</id>
	<title>culmination of quite a long attempt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Minnesota's attempt to do this dates back nearly 20 years, long before the current global-warming political debate, so interesting to see it finally passing. I believe the first bill was proposed in 1992, which would've imposed a $6 per ton tax; here's a <a href="http://www.ilsr.org/ecotax/greentax.html" title="ilsr.org">1994 report</a> [ilsr.org] by a MN environmental group as well. Major attempts seemed to happen every 3-5 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Minnesota 's attempt to do this dates back nearly 20 years , long before the current global-warming political debate , so interesting to see it finally passing .
I believe the first bill was proposed in 1992 , which would 've imposed a $ 6 per ton tax ; here 's a 1994 report [ ilsr.org ] by a MN environmental group as well .
Major attempts seemed to happen every 3-5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Minnesota's attempt to do this dates back nearly 20 years, long before the current global-warming political debate, so interesting to see it finally passing.
I believe the first bill was proposed in 1992, which would've imposed a $6 per ton tax; here's a 1994 report [ilsr.org] by a MN environmental group as well.
Major attempts seemed to happen every 3-5 years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675410</id>
	<title>They are building a border wall with cameras</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And they are building a distributed system that will allow citizens to remotely view the cameras and report any carbon dioxide molecules that illegally cross.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And they are building a distributed system that will allow citizens to remotely view the cameras and report any carbon dioxide molecules that illegally cross .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And they are building a distributed system that will allow citizens to remotely view the cameras and report any carbon dioxide molecules that illegally cross.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676078</id>
	<title>How wrong can a /. story be?</title>
	<author>bfree</author>
	<datestamp>1262777760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and The Netherlands introduced a Carbon tax in 1990-1991.   France and Ireland have just introduced their own and it appears that even in the US this isn't a first as Boulder Colorado (2006) and the "Bay Area Air Quality Management District" (2008) had already introduced Carbon Taxes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sweden , Finland , Denmark , Norway and The Netherlands introduced a Carbon tax in 1990-1991 .
France and Ireland have just introduced their own and it appears that even in the US this is n't a first as Boulder Colorado ( 2006 ) and the " Bay Area Air Quality Management District " ( 2008 ) had already introduced Carbon Taxes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Norway and The Netherlands introduced a Carbon tax in 1990-1991.
France and Ireland have just introduced their own and it appears that even in the US this isn't a first as Boulder Colorado (2006) and the "Bay Area Air Quality Management District" (2008) had already introduced Carbon Taxes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675756</id>
	<title>It is Obvious...Way to go MN!!!</title>
	<author>clonan</author>
	<datestamp>1262776200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Question...Why can't you change energy companies?</p><p>Energy has been deregulated for some time now.  The owners of the power lines are forced to lease them to anyone.  I live in Georgia and have the option of 3 different companies.</p><p>This law will encourage people to use power more efficiently.  In addition it helps remove the subsidy that Coal powered electricity has enjoyed for most of the last century.  (And yes it is subsidized through legal protections and by not having to clean up much of its environmental damage).  This will also encourage the power companies to build / buy cleaner power to avoid the tax.</p><p>Since there is 1.5 lbs of CO2 (about) per KWH, we are talking about a tax of $0.004 to $0.02 per KWH.  Or between 4 and 18 dollars per YEAR for the end user.</p><p>This won't affect end users much but would be expensive for larger industrial users.  Since some forms of local generation are already almost competitive with coal, this law would encourage thoes people to install some non-CO2 emiiting power locally.</p><p>Finally, it also depends on what the money is used for.  If it is just used for general funds or as a tax break for the wealthy it won't do much.  If it is used to improve infrastructure, attact green tech, improve energy efficiency of clean up the environment then it is an EXCELLENT source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Question...Why ca n't you change energy companies ? Energy has been deregulated for some time now .
The owners of the power lines are forced to lease them to anyone .
I live in Georgia and have the option of 3 different companies.This law will encourage people to use power more efficiently .
In addition it helps remove the subsidy that Coal powered electricity has enjoyed for most of the last century .
( And yes it is subsidized through legal protections and by not having to clean up much of its environmental damage ) .
This will also encourage the power companies to build / buy cleaner power to avoid the tax.Since there is 1.5 lbs of CO2 ( about ) per KWH , we are talking about a tax of $ 0.004 to $ 0.02 per KWH .
Or between 4 and 18 dollars per YEAR for the end user.This wo n't affect end users much but would be expensive for larger industrial users .
Since some forms of local generation are already almost competitive with coal , this law would encourage thoes people to install some non-CO2 emiiting power locally.Finally , it also depends on what the money is used for .
If it is just used for general funds or as a tax break for the wealthy it wo n't do much .
If it is used to improve infrastructure , attact green tech , improve energy efficiency of clean up the environment then it is an EXCELLENT source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Question...Why can't you change energy companies?Energy has been deregulated for some time now.
The owners of the power lines are forced to lease them to anyone.
I live in Georgia and have the option of 3 different companies.This law will encourage people to use power more efficiently.
In addition it helps remove the subsidy that Coal powered electricity has enjoyed for most of the last century.
(And yes it is subsidized through legal protections and by not having to clean up much of its environmental damage).
This will also encourage the power companies to build / buy cleaner power to avoid the tax.Since there is 1.5 lbs of CO2 (about) per KWH, we are talking about a tax of $0.004 to $0.02 per KWH.
Or between 4 and 18 dollars per YEAR for the end user.This won't affect end users much but would be expensive for larger industrial users.
Since some forms of local generation are already almost competitive with coal, this law would encourage thoes people to install some non-CO2 emiiting power locally.Finally, it also depends on what the money is used for.
If it is just used for general funds or as a tax break for the wealthy it won't do much.
If it is used to improve infrastructure, attact green tech, improve energy efficiency of clean up the environment then it is an EXCELLENT source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675200</id>
	<title>Better yet...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262773860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>California Introduces World's First Micropenis Tariff.  Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is the first to be slapped with a fine due to his pathetic 2 inch wang.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>California Introduces World 's First Micropenis Tariff .
Rob " CmdrTaco " Malda is the first to be slapped with a fine due to his pathetic 2 inch wang .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>California Introduces World's First Micropenis Tariff.
Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda is the first to be slapped with a fine due to his pathetic 2 inch wang.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675814</id>
	<title>Re:Of course</title>
	<author>ari\_j</author>
	<datestamp>1262776500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Except that Minnesota's tax is on electricity generated by coal plants anywhere, which is the source of the whole North Dakota thing.  North Dakota has a huge electrical generating capacity, most of it from North Dakota coal with increasing portions from wind farms in various parts of the state, and exports a lot of that electrical power to Minnesota.  Minnesota is doing nothing but increasing the price of electricity for its people.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Except that Minnesota 's tax is on electricity generated by coal plants anywhere , which is the source of the whole North Dakota thing .
North Dakota has a huge electrical generating capacity , most of it from North Dakota coal with increasing portions from wind farms in various parts of the state , and exports a lot of that electrical power to Minnesota .
Minnesota is doing nothing but increasing the price of electricity for its people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except that Minnesota's tax is on electricity generated by coal plants anywhere, which is the source of the whole North Dakota thing.
North Dakota has a huge electrical generating capacity, most of it from North Dakota coal with increasing portions from wind farms in various parts of the state, and exports a lot of that electrical power to Minnesota.
Minnesota is doing nothing but increasing the price of electricity for its people.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675568</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676272</id>
	<title>Why?</title>
	<author>demonlapin</author>
	<datestamp>1262778720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is like finding out that Canada or Russia supports a carbon tax - MN is one of the places on earth for which there is no downside at all to climatic warming.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is like finding out that Canada or Russia supports a carbon tax - MN is one of the places on earth for which there is no downside at all to climatic warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is like finding out that Canada or Russia supports a carbon tax - MN is one of the places on earth for which there is no downside at all to climatic warming.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676138</id>
	<title>Tariff? nah</title>
	<author>butchersong</author>
	<datestamp>1262778120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not necessarily a big fan of the legislation but it would seem to be constitutional.  Obviously if the tax is on both on local energy produced as well as that from out of state it doesn't qualify as a tariff.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not necessarily a big fan of the legislation but it would seem to be constitutional .
Obviously if the tax is on both on local energy produced as well as that from out of state it does n't qualify as a tariff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not necessarily a big fan of the legislation but it would seem to be constitutional.
Obviously if the tax is on both on local energy produced as well as that from out of state it doesn't qualify as a tariff.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676526</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262780280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Amen.  Acid rain is only harmful if you're a huge wuss, obviously.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Amen .
Acid rain is only harmful if you 're a huge wuss , obviously .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Amen.
Acid rain is only harmful if you're a huge wuss, obviously.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675608</id>
	<title>Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262775600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>People who pay the Windows tax are being discriminated against!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People who pay the Windows tax are being discriminated against !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People who pay the Windows tax are being discriminated against!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675298</id>
	<title>Constitution: Article 1, Section 10.</title>
	<author>GWRedDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1262774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No state shall , without the consent of the Congress , lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports , except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it 's inspection laws : and the net produce of all duties and imposts , laid by any state on imports or exports , shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States ; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675886</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone must not pay their own electricity bill. There are very few places where you get to choose where your power comes from.</p><p>As a result, the realistic effect of such a tax will be that people in Minnesota will pay more for their electricity, and get absolutely no gain out of it. However, the state will bring in more money in the form of tax dollars, which will be corruptly blown on just about anything but something people actually need.  I'd say now is the time to start donating to some Minnesota State Senator's campaigns, to get the corrupt payoff when the money starts rolling in.</p><p>It's not like the government knows how to save money, even though that is exactly what they try to tell everyone else to do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone must not pay their own electricity bill .
There are very few places where you get to choose where your power comes from.As a result , the realistic effect of such a tax will be that people in Minnesota will pay more for their electricity , and get absolutely no gain out of it .
However , the state will bring in more money in the form of tax dollars , which will be corruptly blown on just about anything but something people actually need .
I 'd say now is the time to start donating to some Minnesota State Senator 's campaigns , to get the corrupt payoff when the money starts rolling in.It 's not like the government knows how to save money , even though that is exactly what they try to tell everyone else to do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone must not pay their own electricity bill.
There are very few places where you get to choose where your power comes from.As a result, the realistic effect of such a tax will be that people in Minnesota will pay more for their electricity, and get absolutely no gain out of it.
However, the state will bring in more money in the form of tax dollars, which will be corruptly blown on just about anything but something people actually need.
I'd say now is the time to start donating to some Minnesota State Senator's campaigns, to get the corrupt payoff when the money starts rolling in.It's not like the government knows how to save money, even though that is exactly what they try to tell everyone else to do.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675924</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1262776920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as "harmful".</p></div><p>Well, since toxicity is related to dosage rather than substance, one could argue that <i>everything</i> is harmful, and should be regulated, taxed, and carry a warning label, which is where a lot of the alarmists would like to take us.
<br> <br>
That being said, coal-fired power plants suck ass is a major way, and fuck up the environment for lots of people who bear none of the benefits of that plant.  The water here in the northeast has been plagued for decades by acid rain produced by power plants in the midwest.  The local power producers there reap the benefits of cheap coal, allow the fallout to cause problems here, while they deny responsibility and refuse to modernize their equipment.  They profit at the expense of my backyard.
<br> <br>
I don't like the idea of a carbon tax, and I don't like the idea of over-regulating industry, or granting the government another revenue stream to become addicted to.  However, I love seeing coal plants take a good kick in the nuts, because that's exactly what they've been doing to the rest of us for a long time now.
<br> <br>
Of course, the problem here is that the coal plants won't suffer much<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it will all fall on the shoulders of consumers.  Good luck to the unemployed folks in Minnesota paying their electric bill.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as " harmful " .Well , since toxicity is related to dosage rather than substance , one could argue that everything is harmful , and should be regulated , taxed , and carry a warning label , which is where a lot of the alarmists would like to take us .
That being said , coal-fired power plants suck ass is a major way , and fuck up the environment for lots of people who bear none of the benefits of that plant .
The water here in the northeast has been plagued for decades by acid rain produced by power plants in the midwest .
The local power producers there reap the benefits of cheap coal , allow the fallout to cause problems here , while they deny responsibility and refuse to modernize their equipment .
They profit at the expense of my backyard .
I do n't like the idea of a carbon tax , and I do n't like the idea of over-regulating industry , or granting the government another revenue stream to become addicted to .
However , I love seeing coal plants take a good kick in the nuts , because that 's exactly what they 've been doing to the rest of us for a long time now .
Of course , the problem here is that the coal plants wo n't suffer much ... it will all fall on the shoulders of consumers .
Good luck to the unemployed folks in Minnesota paying their electric bill .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm frankly tired of seeing things which are not harmful being labeled as "harmful".Well, since toxicity is related to dosage rather than substance, one could argue that everything is harmful, and should be regulated, taxed, and carry a warning label, which is where a lot of the alarmists would like to take us.
That being said, coal-fired power plants suck ass is a major way, and fuck up the environment for lots of people who bear none of the benefits of that plant.
The water here in the northeast has been plagued for decades by acid rain produced by power plants in the midwest.
The local power producers there reap the benefits of cheap coal, allow the fallout to cause problems here, while they deny responsibility and refuse to modernize their equipment.
They profit at the expense of my backyard.
I don't like the idea of a carbon tax, and I don't like the idea of over-regulating industry, or granting the government another revenue stream to become addicted to.
However, I love seeing coal plants take a good kick in the nuts, because that's exactly what they've been doing to the rest of us for a long time now.
Of course, the problem here is that the coal plants won't suffer much ... it will all fall on the shoulders of consumers.
Good luck to the unemployed folks in Minnesota paying their electric bill.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675340</id>
	<title>Wonderful!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Greenhouse gases and global warming has been shown to be a hoax, yet these morons are dreaming up more taxes based on a lie.  That just goes to show you it has nothing whatever to do with cleaning up the environment, but rather more and ever increasing control over peoples' money and lives.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Greenhouse gases and global warming has been shown to be a hoax , yet these morons are dreaming up more taxes based on a lie .
That just goes to show you it has nothing whatever to do with cleaning up the environment , but rather more and ever increasing control over peoples ' money and lives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Greenhouse gases and global warming has been shown to be a hoax, yet these morons are dreaming up more taxes based on a lie.
That just goes to show you it has nothing whatever to do with cleaning up the environment, but rather more and ever increasing control over peoples' money and lives.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676296</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>guspasho</author>
	<datestamp>1262778840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How exactly?</p><p>Easy. Just like you said, the cost of the tax will be passed on to customers. As taxed carbon-based energy grows more expensive, consumers will turn to cleaner forms of energy that will be relatively cheaper, and companies will increase its production to meet the increased demand for cleaner energy.</p><p>Also, there may be no choice between electricity providers, but providers can offer a choice between clean and dirty energy. Portland General Electric does this. It costs slightly more but PGE guarantees the generation of a certain amount of renewable energy if we buy it.</p><p>Of course, hydroelectric power is plentiful here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How exactly ? Easy .
Just like you said , the cost of the tax will be passed on to customers .
As taxed carbon-based energy grows more expensive , consumers will turn to cleaner forms of energy that will be relatively cheaper , and companies will increase its production to meet the increased demand for cleaner energy.Also , there may be no choice between electricity providers , but providers can offer a choice between clean and dirty energy .
Portland General Electric does this .
It costs slightly more but PGE guarantees the generation of a certain amount of renewable energy if we buy it.Of course , hydroelectric power is plentiful here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How exactly?Easy.
Just like you said, the cost of the tax will be passed on to customers.
As taxed carbon-based energy grows more expensive, consumers will turn to cleaner forms of energy that will be relatively cheaper, and companies will increase its production to meet the increased demand for cleaner energy.Also, there may be no choice between electricity providers, but providers can offer a choice between clean and dirty energy.
Portland General Electric does this.
It costs slightly more but PGE guarantees the generation of a certain amount of renewable energy if we buy it.Of course, hydroelectric power is plentiful here.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675568</id>
	<title>Of course</title>
	<author>lcoscare</author>
	<datestamp>1262775480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This will not likely reduce carbon, what will likely happen is coal plants in other states to will increase capacity while the ones in Minnesota will likely shut down.
This is the same thing that is happening with the US and China. Companies in the US can't afford to meet all the environmental regulations, so they move to China, and continue to pollute. The end result is the same amount of pollution, and increased unemployment in the state/city/country with the strict regulations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will not likely reduce carbon , what will likely happen is coal plants in other states to will increase capacity while the ones in Minnesota will likely shut down .
This is the same thing that is happening with the US and China .
Companies in the US ca n't afford to meet all the environmental regulations , so they move to China , and continue to pollute .
The end result is the same amount of pollution , and increased unemployment in the state/city/country with the strict regulations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will not likely reduce carbon, what will likely happen is coal plants in other states to will increase capacity while the ones in Minnesota will likely shut down.
This is the same thing that is happening with the US and China.
Companies in the US can't afford to meet all the environmental regulations, so they move to China, and continue to pollute.
The end result is the same amount of pollution, and increased unemployment in the state/city/country with the strict regulations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368</id>
	<title>I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>ihuntrocks</author>
	<datestamp>1262774640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the risk of getting flamed and shot down, I have to admit that I actually favor actions like this. Will it hold up in a legal sense? Like the Queen's ass, that remains to be seen. However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure. Oh, I think you should be free to buy whatever you wish, but I think that freedom should include the freedom to have to spend all of your money on the stupid, inefficient, and harmful things if you so desire them. I'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of "cheap" and "profitable" driving harmful things. It's time the tables turned, in my opinion.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At the risk of getting flamed and shot down , I have to admit that I actually favor actions like this .
Will it hold up in a legal sense ?
Like the Queen 's ass , that remains to be seen .
However , I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings , and the planet in general , should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure .
Oh , I think you should be free to buy whatever you wish , but I think that freedom should include the freedom to have to spend all of your money on the stupid , inefficient , and harmful things if you so desire them .
I 'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of " cheap " and " profitable " driving harmful things .
It 's time the tables turned , in my opinion .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the risk of getting flamed and shot down, I have to admit that I actually favor actions like this.
Will it hold up in a legal sense?
Like the Queen's ass, that remains to be seen.
However, I have long though that those things which are blatantly harmful to human beings, and the planet in general, should have enough economic disincentives as to make them all but beyond the ability of anyone to procure.
Oh, I think you should be free to buy whatever you wish, but I think that freedom should include the freedom to have to spend all of your money on the stupid, inefficient, and harmful things if you so desire them.
I'm frankly tired of seeing the economic incentives of "cheap" and "profitable" driving harmful things.
It's time the tables turned, in my opinion.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676490</id>
	<title>Carbon Tax on imported goods</title>
	<author>cyberspittle</author>
	<datestamp>1262780100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There should be a carbon tax on imported goods. Of course that would upset the New World Order. However it would level the playing field against countires that have state-sponsored factories and subsidize gasoline.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There should be a carbon tax on imported goods .
Of course that would upset the New World Order .
However it would level the playing field against countires that have state-sponsored factories and subsidize gasoline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There should be a carbon tax on imported goods.
Of course that would upset the New World Order.
However it would level the playing field against countires that have state-sponsored factories and subsidize gasoline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676636</id>
	<title>Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...</title>
	<author>simp7264</author>
	<datestamp>1262780700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He's saying they might not like the disincentive of paying more for electricity so much, they will take their business to another state.  Causing a loss in tax revenue in the process of course.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He 's saying they might not like the disincentive of paying more for electricity so much , they will take their business to another state .
Causing a loss in tax revenue in the process of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He's saying they might not like the disincentive of paying more for electricity so much, they will take their business to another state.
Causing a loss in tax revenue in the process of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675942</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675222</id>
	<title>UNCONSTITUTIONAL</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262773980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is totally unconstitutional, but I wonder how long the legal battle will take before this idea dies...</p><p>afterall, post 9/11 sneak&amp;peak is still on the books in spite of america's 4th amendment...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is totally unconstitutional , but I wonder how long the legal battle will take before this idea dies...afterall , post 9/11 sneak&amp;peak is still on the books in spite of america 's 4th amendment.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is totally unconstitutional, but I wonder how long the legal battle will take before this idea dies...afterall, post 9/11 sneak&amp;peak is still on the books in spite of america's 4th amendment...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30682316</id>
	<title>Re:I guess the State of Minnesota...</title>
	<author>csartanis</author>
	<datestamp>1262879280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So you're saying maybe it isn't a money grab after all?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So you 're saying maybe it is n't a money grab after all ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So you're saying maybe it isn't a money grab after all?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675616</id>
	<title>Re:Constitutional?</title>
	<author>InsaneProcessor</author>
	<datestamp>1262775660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They are not pushing for cleaner power.  This is nothing more than another way to tax the people.  A money grab.  Who do you think will be paying this tax?  The price of power will simply go up.  We need to get rid of anyone that wants to raise taxes to grab more money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They are not pushing for cleaner power .
This is nothing more than another way to tax the people .
A money grab .
Who do you think will be paying this tax ?
The price of power will simply go up .
We need to get rid of anyone that wants to raise taxes to grab more money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They are not pushing for cleaner power.
This is nothing more than another way to tax the people.
A money grab.
Who do you think will be paying this tax?
The price of power will simply go up.
We need to get rid of anyone that wants to raise taxes to grab more money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675258</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677540</id>
	<title>Except...</title>
	<author>(arg!)Styopa</author>
	<datestamp>1262786580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...except the eco-stupid and eco-shortsighted have been opposed to the expansion of nuclear power, and the same groups have opposed the creation of any nuclear waste repositories, so power companies have been FORCED to meet demand by building plants in ND because it's really their only solution.</p><p>So, we have an increasing demand, an insistence that these needs be met, and walls dropped around any solution EXCEPT out-of-state coal or ng plants, and now they're going to be punished for choosing the cheaper solution.</p><p>Government by the people...brilliant.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders " ...except the eco-stupid and eco-shortsighted have been opposed to the expansion of nuclear power , and the same groups have opposed the creation of any nuclear waste repositories , so power companies have been FORCED to meet demand by building plants in ND because it 's really their only solution.So , we have an increasing demand , an insistence that these needs be met , and walls dropped around any solution EXCEPT out-of-state coal or ng plants , and now they 're going to be punished for choosing the cheaper solution.Government by the people...brilliant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Minnesota has been generally pushing for cleaner power within its borders" ...except the eco-stupid and eco-shortsighted have been opposed to the expansion of nuclear power, and the same groups have opposed the creation of any nuclear waste repositories, so power companies have been FORCED to meet demand by building plants in ND because it's really their only solution.So, we have an increasing demand, an insistence that these needs be met, and walls dropped around any solution EXCEPT out-of-state coal or ng plants, and now they're going to be punished for choosing the cheaper solution.Government by the people...brilliant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30686150</id>
	<title>not unconstitutional and not a tarrif</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262895300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From what the actual text of the articles say, this is a tax on carbon emissions from electricity, meaning it applies to in-state generated electricity and to electricity generated in states other then ND, as well as ND. This law effects carbon-emiting plants in MN just as much as in ND, it just so happens that there aren't many coal-fired (the worst "offenders") plants in MN, due to their exsisting laws (or maybe because MN doesn't have good coal reserves... someone suggested that, I don't know). Since it seems to affect all elertical generators it is a normal tax, not a tarrif (tarrifs are spacificly worded so they only affect imports) and therefore perfectly constitutional.</p><p>I also want to say I like this because it is being done on a state level, rather then a federal level. Far to much is done on the federal level when the state level is more appropriate, and this seems to be a vary well crafted law which is designed spacificly to not run afoul of the constitution. good job MN.</p><p>I read all three articles, NOT ONE described a tarrif, but a normal tax. Although all three wrongly called it a tarrif in it's headlines (as did<nobr> <wbr></nobr>./) so to all of you BUY A DICTIONARY! You all get a D+ on this assignment, spreading confusion via poor language usage is just bad journalisum.</p><p>Oninoshiko</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From what the actual text of the articles say , this is a tax on carbon emissions from electricity , meaning it applies to in-state generated electricity and to electricity generated in states other then ND , as well as ND .
This law effects carbon-emiting plants in MN just as much as in ND , it just so happens that there are n't many coal-fired ( the worst " offenders " ) plants in MN , due to their exsisting laws ( or maybe because MN does n't have good coal reserves... someone suggested that , I do n't know ) .
Since it seems to affect all elertical generators it is a normal tax , not a tarrif ( tarrifs are spacificly worded so they only affect imports ) and therefore perfectly constitutional.I also want to say I like this because it is being done on a state level , rather then a federal level .
Far to much is done on the federal level when the state level is more appropriate , and this seems to be a vary well crafted law which is designed spacificly to not run afoul of the constitution .
good job MN.I read all three articles , NOT ONE described a tarrif , but a normal tax .
Although all three wrongly called it a tarrif in it 's headlines ( as did ./ ) so to all of you BUY A DICTIONARY !
You all get a D + on this assignment , spreading confusion via poor language usage is just bad journalisum.Oninoshiko</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From what the actual text of the articles say, this is a tax on carbon emissions from electricity, meaning it applies to in-state generated electricity and to electricity generated in states other then ND, as well as ND.
This law effects carbon-emiting plants in MN just as much as in ND, it just so happens that there aren't many coal-fired (the worst "offenders") plants in MN, due to their exsisting laws (or maybe because MN doesn't have good coal reserves... someone suggested that, I don't know).
Since it seems to affect all elertical generators it is a normal tax, not a tarrif (tarrifs are spacificly worded so they only affect imports) and therefore perfectly constitutional.I also want to say I like this because it is being done on a state level, rather then a federal level.
Far to much is done on the federal level when the state level is more appropriate, and this seems to be a vary well crafted law which is designed spacificly to not run afoul of the constitution.
good job MN.I read all three articles, NOT ONE described a tarrif, but a normal tax.
Although all three wrongly called it a tarrif in it's headlines (as did ./) so to all of you BUY A DICTIONARY!
You all get a D+ on this assignment, spreading confusion via poor language usage is just bad journalisum.Oninoshiko</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676864</id>
	<title>It depends; you can switch providers in NY</title>
	<author>jdmonin</author>
	<datestamp>1262781960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends on where you live.  In New York state, you can pick your own energy providers.  This includes "green" electricity from places like <a href="http://www.ecny.org/" title="ecny.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.ecny.org/</a> [ecny.org] .  It's a great choice to have; I'd imagine other states will gain the same kind of option with time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends on where you live .
In New York state , you can pick your own energy providers .
This includes " green " electricity from places like http : //www.ecny.org/ [ ecny.org ] .
It 's a great choice to have ; I 'd imagine other states will gain the same kind of option with time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends on where you live.
In New York state, you can pick your own energy providers.
This includes "green" electricity from places like http://www.ecny.org/ [ecny.org] .
It's a great choice to have; I'd imagine other states will gain the same kind of option with time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675802</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262776440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are you going to volunteer to have the exhaust pass over your home?  Do you even live within 10 miles of a coal power plant?</p><p>They aren't clean, and they cost lots of money each month to run.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you going to volunteer to have the exhaust pass over your home ?
Do you even live within 10 miles of a coal power plant ? They are n't clean , and they cost lots of money each month to run .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you going to volunteer to have the exhaust pass over your home?
Do you even live within 10 miles of a coal power plant?They aren't clean, and they cost lots of money each month to run.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675960</id>
	<title>Re:I happen to favor this</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1262777100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, to plant enough trees to compensate for the carbon we're throwing in the air, we'd probably have to reforest the Amazon for millions of years.  Not that it's a bad idea, I just sayin'<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , to plant enough trees to compensate for the carbon we 're throwing in the air , we 'd probably have to reforest the Amazon for millions of years .
Not that it 's a bad idea , I just sayin ' .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, to plant enough trees to compensate for the carbon we're throwing in the air, we'd probably have to reforest the Amazon for millions of years.
Not that it's a bad idea, I just sayin' ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675300</id>
	<title>Its about time</title>
	<author>Jenming</author>
	<datestamp>1262774340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not having a "tax" on environmental damage causes everyone who is effected by damage to the environment to subsidize industry that damages the environment.</p><p>While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage, its obviously not $0. If an industry is making money damaging the environment, that may be fine, but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.</p><p>Its also nice to see individual states take the lead in issues like this.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not having a " tax " on environmental damage causes everyone who is effected by damage to the environment to subsidize industry that damages the environment.While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage , its obviously not $ 0 .
If an industry is making money damaging the environment , that may be fine , but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.Its also nice to see individual states take the lead in issues like this .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not having a "tax" on environmental damage causes everyone who is effected by damage to the environment to subsidize industry that damages the environment.While it is hard to put a monetary value on environmental damage, its obviously not $0.
If an industry is making money damaging the environment, that may be fine, but some of the money really should go to everyone living in the damaged environment.Its also nice to see individual states take the lead in issues like this.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675250</id>
	<title>Minnesota Carbon Tariff is Illegal</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262774040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No state may regulate interstate commerce. One can find that written in the U.S. Constitution. The legislature in Minnesota needs an education in civics.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No state may regulate interstate commerce .
One can find that written in the U.S. Constitution. The legislature in Minnesota needs an education in civics .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No state may regulate interstate commerce.
One can find that written in the U.S. Constitution. The legislature in Minnesota needs an education in civics.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677380</id>
	<title>Re:This qwill fail;</title>
	<author>LostCluster</author>
	<datestamp>1262785500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>futhermore, states can't tax cargo moving through... that's Interstate Commerce and only the feds can mess that up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>futhermore , states ca n't tax cargo moving through... that 's Interstate Commerce and only the feds can mess that up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>futhermore, states can't tax cargo moving through... that's Interstate Commerce and only the feds can mess that up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675448</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675696</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious, but...</title>
	<author>Trepidity</author>
	<datestamp>1262775960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?</p></div> </blockquote><p>It makes cleaner electricity generators more competitive because, as you point out, it raises the price of their competitors' product (electricity from coal-fired generators). A tax on a competitor is basically an indirect subsidy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>How , exactly , will this force " cleaner " electricity generation ?
It makes cleaner electricity generators more competitive because , as you point out , it raises the price of their competitors ' product ( electricity from coal-fired generators ) .
A tax on a competitor is basically an indirect subsidy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
It makes cleaner electricity generators more competitive because, as you point out, it raises the price of their competitors' product (electricity from coal-fired generators).
A tax on a competitor is basically an indirect subsidy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675636</id>
	<title>Probably Wind Incentives to Companies</title>
	<author>eldavojohn</author>
	<datestamp>1262775720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers. Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry. The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes. It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers. You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.


How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?


What will be done with the money from these tariffs? Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?</p></div><p>Minnesota has <a href="http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/installed\_capacity\_current.jpg" title="windpoweringamerica.gov">grown to be fourth in Wind Power generation</a> [windpoweringamerica.gov].  And if you look at <a href="http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/images/windmaps/installed\_wind\_capacity\_561.gif" title="windpoweringamerica.gov">time lapse growth</a> [windpoweringamerica.gov] they're really pushing that.  The weird thing about it is that they're not even <a href="http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/wind\_maps.asp" title="windpoweringamerica.gov">one of the prime wind resource states</a> [windpoweringamerica.gov] although I will testify that the wind gets ridiculous out there.  Now, you probably already know this but <a href="http://www.governor.state.mn.us/welcome/aboutgovernorpawlenty/index.htm" title="state.mn.us">Tim Pawlenty (Republican)</a> [state.mn.us] is the governor of Minnesota and of course is going to try to get a bid for the presidential run in 2012.  On his about page:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25\% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025</p></div><p>As a moderate Democrat, I was kind of afraid when he almost got a bid in 2008<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... because he's actually not that bad of a candidate.  He doesn't talk like a moron and he's got his head in a lot of the right places.  If he would cut the Christian God talk out of his speeches, I'd probably be on board.  Sorry to get offtopic but I'm trying to say that this tariff would probably be a <i>huge</i> in road for him to moderates if he could pull it off.  I'm certain he's not the prime motivator behind this but I would bet that they'd take the taxes from this and dump it into wind incentives.  They're racing against Iowa in the wind department.  California and Texas are too big and too prime locations to take on for Megawatt generation from wind power.  <br> <br>

That is where I bet they would take this money: incentives to corporations for wind power.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This will , of course , ultimately be passed on to the customers .
Ultimately , this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry .
The government keeps the money , and we the people pay the taxes .
It wo n't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers .
You ca n't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies .
How , exactly , will this force " cleaner " electricity generation ?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs ?
Will it only be used for environmental concerns , or will it just go into the general budget ? Minnesota has grown to be fourth in Wind Power generation [ windpoweringamerica.gov ] .
And if you look at time lapse growth [ windpoweringamerica.gov ] they 're really pushing that .
The weird thing about it is that they 're not even one of the prime wind resource states [ windpoweringamerica.gov ] although I will testify that the wind gets ridiculous out there .
Now , you probably already know this but Tim Pawlenty ( Republican ) [ state.mn.us ] is the governor of Minnesota and of course is going to try to get a bid for the presidential run in 2012 .
On his about page : implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25 \ % of the state 's electricity from renewable sources by 2025As a moderate Democrat , I was kind of afraid when he almost got a bid in 2008 ... because he 's actually not that bad of a candidate .
He does n't talk like a moron and he 's got his head in a lot of the right places .
If he would cut the Christian God talk out of his speeches , I 'd probably be on board .
Sorry to get offtopic but I 'm trying to say that this tariff would probably be a huge in road for him to moderates if he could pull it off .
I 'm certain he 's not the prime motivator behind this but I would bet that they 'd take the taxes from this and dump it into wind incentives .
They 're racing against Iowa in the wind department .
California and Texas are too big and too prime locations to take on for Megawatt generation from wind power .
That is where I bet they would take this money : incentives to corporations for wind power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This will, of course, ultimately be passed on to the customers.
Ultimately, this is a way to raise taxes to force a change in private industry.
The government keeps the money, and we the people pay the taxes.
It won't hurt the companies in this case because there is no choice in electricity providers.
You can't switch electric companies like you can cell phone companies.
How, exactly, will this force "cleaner" electricity generation?
What will be done with the money from these tariffs?
Will it only be used for environmental concerns, or will it just go into the general budget?Minnesota has grown to be fourth in Wind Power generation [windpoweringamerica.gov].
And if you look at time lapse growth [windpoweringamerica.gov] they're really pushing that.
The weird thing about it is that they're not even one of the prime wind resource states [windpoweringamerica.gov] although I will testify that the wind gets ridiculous out there.
Now, you probably already know this but Tim Pawlenty (Republican) [state.mn.us] is the governor of Minnesota and of course is going to try to get a bid for the presidential run in 2012.
On his about page:implementing a plan to Americanize our energy sources by generating 25\% of the state's electricity from renewable sources by 2025As a moderate Democrat, I was kind of afraid when he almost got a bid in 2008 ... because he's actually not that bad of a candidate.
He doesn't talk like a moron and he's got his head in a lot of the right places.
If he would cut the Christian God talk out of his speeches, I'd probably be on board.
Sorry to get offtopic but I'm trying to say that this tariff would probably be a huge in road for him to moderates if he could pull it off.
I'm certain he's not the prime motivator behind this but I would bet that they'd take the taxes from this and dump it into wind incentives.
They're racing against Iowa in the wind department.
California and Texas are too big and too prime locations to take on for Megawatt generation from wind power.
That is where I bet they would take this money: incentives to corporations for wind power.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30683658</id>
	<title>Re:culmination of quite a long attempt</title>
	<author>Ferretman</author>
	<datestamp>1262884920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is illegal and unconstitutional.
<br>
<br>
States can't tax imports from other states.  The Founders did this deliberately to avoid many of the problems that were happening between the early states after the Articles of Confederation were written and before the Constitution was adopted.
<br>
<br>
I predict a nasty slapdown for a bunch of folks who don't understand the Constitution very well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is illegal and unconstitutional .
States ca n't tax imports from other states .
The Founders did this deliberately to avoid many of the problems that were happening between the early states after the Articles of Confederation were written and before the Constitution was adopted .
I predict a nasty slapdown for a bunch of folks who do n't understand the Constitution very well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is illegal and unconstitutional.
States can't tax imports from other states.
The Founders did this deliberately to avoid many of the problems that were happening between the early states after the Articles of Confederation were written and before the Constitution was adopted.
I predict a nasty slapdown for a bunch of folks who don't understand the Constitution very well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676876</id>
	<title>Just surrender the carbon...</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1262782080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All people in Minnesota just need to surrender the carbon in their bodies at the border and the problem will be solved.  IF they can return to the border to go back into the state they can have their bodily carbon back and it is up to them to get it back into their bodies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All people in Minnesota just need to surrender the carbon in their bodies at the border and the problem will be solved .
IF they can return to the border to go back into the state they can have their bodily carbon back and it is up to them to get it back into their bodies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All people in Minnesota just need to surrender the carbon in their bodies at the border and the problem will be solved.
IF they can return to the border to go back into the state they can have their bodily carbon back and it is up to them to get it back into their bodies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30682462</id>
	<title>Re:It's just gunna get pushed to the customers</title>
	<author>guruevi</author>
	<datestamp>1262880180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course. And since companies won't like this they will either get an exemption or they will move out of state which will leave you without jobs (and thus no money) to pay for said electricity - see, problem solved, Minnesota will no longer have any carbon emissions, only methane emissions from their subjects rotting away.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course .
And since companies wo n't like this they will either get an exemption or they will move out of state which will leave you without jobs ( and thus no money ) to pay for said electricity - see , problem solved , Minnesota will no longer have any carbon emissions , only methane emissions from their subjects rotting away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course.
And since companies won't like this they will either get an exemption or they will move out of state which will leave you without jobs (and thus no money) to pay for said electricity - see, problem solved, Minnesota will no longer have any carbon emissions, only methane emissions from their subjects rotting away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675886
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30682462
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30678992
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675968
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30679824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675222
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675608
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675554
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677016
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675756
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30682316
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30683658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677380
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676122
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676296
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30679658
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675924
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675568
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676876
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30678566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676272
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30681776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_06_218246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676190
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675300
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675554
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30679658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676876
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675298
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677380
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675616
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30678566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675348
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675696
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676296
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676864
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676122
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676190
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675756
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675636
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675568
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675278
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675968
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30681776
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675500
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676526
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675802
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675924
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675562
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675250
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675222
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30679824
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675354
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676182
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30683658
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30682316
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677016
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30676636
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30677612
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_06_218246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30675608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30678992
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_06_218246.30682462
</commentlist>
</conversation>
