Carbon tax hallucinations

Carbon Tax = SCAM

Carbon Tax = SCAM (Photo credit: peace chicken)

Carbon taxes will do nothing for revenues or climate, but will hurt job and economic growth

Guest post by Paul Driessen

Average planetary temperatures haven’t budged in 16 years. Hurricanes and strong tornadoes are at or near their lowest ebb in decades. Global sea ice is back to normal, Arctic ice is nearly normal, and the Antarctic icepack continues to grow. The rate of sea level rise remains what it was in 1900.

And yet, President Obama and many politicians, newscasters and alarmist scientists continue to insist that carbon dioxide emissions are changing Earth’s climate, and we need to take immediate action to prevent storms like Hurricane Sandy and avert catastrophes predicted by IPCC computer models and alleged “scientific consensus.” Not surprisingly, polls show public support for controlling CO2 output and taxing hydrocarbon use – to “ensure climate security” and “save vital federal programs” from budgetary axes.

As the liberal lobby Think Progress put it, people “overwhelmingly” prefer a carbon tax on “big polluters” versus cuts in favorite programs “like education, Social Security, Medicare and environmental protection.” 

Five-alarm climate claims, skewed polling questions and phony taxes-versus-grandma budget alternatives will almost always ensure support for carbon taxes – especially among Bigger Government and Ban Fossil Fuels constituencies. More rational analysis reveals that dreams of hundred-billion-dollar windfalls from slapping regressive new taxes on job creation and economic growth are nothing more than dangerous tax revenue hallucinations. They would bring intense pain for no climate or economic gain.

Employing Energy Information Administration data, a recent Heritage Foundation study by economists David Kreutzer and Nicolas Loris found that a tax starting at $25-per-ton of CO2 emitted and increasing by 5% per year would cut a family of four’s income by $1,400 annually, raise their utility bills by $500 a year, and increase gasoline fill-ups by up to 50 cents per gallon. That’s $2,000 a year chopped from their budget for food, vacations, home and car payments and repairs, college and retirement savings, dental and medical care, and overall quality of life.

Even “millionaire” families making $200,000 a year would find such a hit painful. While the poorest families might get some offsetting tax relief, most would get nothing – nor would employers.

Carbon taxes would thus increase the likelihood that many breadwinners will end up unemployed, since the tax would raise business energy costs dramatically, force companies to trim hours and/or employees, and result in an aggregate loss of at least 1 million jobs by 2016, Heritage notes. That would bring more home foreclosures, greater stress, reduced nutrition, and more strokes and heart attacks, especially for older workers whose odds of finding new employment are increasingly bleak.

No small businesses or energy-intensive manufacturing companies would get a rebate for their soaring carbon taxes. Nor would any mall, hospital, school, church, synagogue or charity group.

Hydrocarbons provide over 83% of all the energy that powers America. A carbon tax would put a hefty surcharge on everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do. It would put the federal government in control of, not just one-sixth of our economy as under Obamacare, but 100% of our economy and lives. It would make the United States increasingly less productive, less competitive globally, less able to provide opportunities for our children.

But it gets worse, because this tax on America’s energy and productivity is not being promoted in a vacuum. It would be imposed on top of countless other job and economy strangling actions.

President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has already issued 2,071 new rules and dispensed a regulatory burden of over $353 billion per year – equal to all wealth generated annually by Virginia’s private sector. It is now preparing still more rules, the most crushing of which would regulate the same CO2 emissions that some in Congress want to tax, from both moving and stationary sources. Most, if not all of its punitive rules, are based on exaggerated risks, fear mongering, junk science, and illusory health, welfare, “environmental justice” and “sustainability” benefits.

Other agencies are inflicting still more rules, and more crushing paperwork burdens. Obamacare alone will add 127,602,371 more hours per year to the federal paperwork burden for American businesses and families. That’s enough time to carve 1,039 Mount Rushmore monuments, says the Washington Examiner. Even at $25 per hour, that’s $32 billion a year. On top of that, there are the Dodd-Frank financial requirements and myriad other costly, time-consuming, economy-sapping, job-killing rules.

Nothing at all suggests that Congress would reverse or modify even one of these laws, regulations and taxes, as part of a carbon tax deal – or that Mr. Obama would refrain from vetoing any attempted change. Nothing whatsoever suggests that Congress, the President or environmentalists will ease their opposition to issuing leases and drilling and fracking permits for more of our vast onshore and offshore oil and gas deposits, which could generate millions of jobs and billions in royalties and tax revenues. Or that they won’t ultimately enact a punitive cap-and-trade law on top of all of this.

Instead of real energy for real jobs and revenues, President Obama wants to redouble spending on “green” energy – extracting billions of dollars from still productive sectors of our economy, and transferring the money to crony corporatists and campaign contributors, whose operations are exempted from endangered species and other laws that are imposed routinely and punitively on oil, mining and other companies.

Meanwhile, federal “discretionary” spending skyrocketed another $129 billion annually in just four years under Obama. That’s comparable to what carbon tax snake oil salesmen claim a $25-per-ton tax would raise each year, several years into a steadily escalating tax, using static analyses that ignore all these “concrete lifesaver” effects.

The CBO Congressional Budget Office says the US economy will grow by a miserly 1.4% for the next several years, and official unemployment will remain stuck at 7.5% (plus extensive involuntary underemployment and people who have given up looking). Washington Post economics analyst Neil Irwin worries that the United States doesn’t just have a $1-trillion budget deficit. Largely because of government restrictions, regulations, red tape and taxes, it also has a $1-trillion “output gap,” between what it is capable of producing and what it actually produces.

To top it off, if Congress and the White House get more money, they will spend more money!

The net result of a carbon tax will not be new federal revenues. It will be more economic strangulation, a more bloated federal bureaucracy, more layoffs, sharply higher unemployment, food stamp and welfare payouts, reduced corporate and personal income tax receipts – and thus reduced federal revenues.

And for what? The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Japan and many other countries are rejecting any new binding emission targets. China, India, other rapidly developing nations, and even Germany and Europe are burning more coal, emitting more carbon dioxide, and sending atmospheric CO2 levels higher.

And yet, average planetary temperatures show no trend up or down, and global hurricane activity stands at a near-record low. There’s no change in big tornadoes, droughts or rains averaged over the USA for the past century. Polar sea ice is down slightly in the Northern Hemisphere, but up in the Southern. And sea levels show no measurable deviation from trends over the last hundred years.

The only thing that will happen if carbon taxes are inflicted on the US economy is that American jobs, economic growth, living standards, health, dreams and lives will be sacrificed for nothing.

We need to stop basing laws and policies on hallucinations – and start basing them on reality.

_____________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.

About these ads
This entry was posted in carbon tax and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Carbon tax hallucinations

  1. Streetcred says:

    This is not about science, it’s not about pollution, it’s not about anything other than paying off the deficit ! We have this same BS in Australia soon to be dispatched to the shredder … along with the wanton waste of excessive ‘green’ policies that the country cannot afford. Strange it is that the ‘wanton waste’ always finds a home in some cronies bank account.

  2. john robertson says:

    Its kind of nice to be in Canada right now, even though the loony greens and libtards in our national media are wailing as if CAGW is real, our Prime Minister is well aware what a debased tax sucking scheme this carbon tax is.
    Actually we should point out that, as we are carbon based lifeforms,all taxes are carbon taxes.
    I personally recommend a tax on do gooders and the political bureaucrats.
    30 lbs of ugly fat each , al madame guillotine , would be a fine contribution.
    Do I need sarc?

  3. John F. Hultquist says:

    Good post, Paul. Thanks.
    ————————————-

    Streetcred says:
    February 17, 2013 at 8:47 pm
    . . . paying off the deficit !

    Say what!? The current administration and the President have no intention of “paying off the deficit” nor the current debt – two different things. The scenario is that Americans are supposed to feel guilty about how they have behaved in the past and this justifies the taking of accumulated wealth and its redistribution to favored groups. Justice and fairness will be achieved when all are poor – except the select few. Climate will do as it pleases, as it always has.

  4. King of Cool says:

    How many times did President Obama raise climate change in the presidential debates with Mitt Romney?

    Did he tell the American people that he would introduce a carbon tax before they voted?

    What does he say now?

    I urge this Congress to pursue a bipartisan, market-based solution to climate change, like the one John McCain and Joe Lieberman worked on together a few years ago. But if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.

    What did Julia Gillard say to the Australian people before the last Australian election in 2010?

    “There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead”.

    What did she do after the election?

    Pass a carbon tax at a fixed $23/tonne with the help of the Greens and independents who gave her their vote in a hung parliament. At the time the price of CO2 in Europe was about 16 Euros a tonne but it has since plummeted to 3.7 Euros mid Jan and is presently hovering around 5.

    (What is it with politicians that they have to push a carbon tax agenda through by not first taking it to the people?)

    Tony Abbott has made his prime objective in the September Australian election of scrapping the carbon tax. He is presently at odds of 1.22 to win compared to Julia Gillard at 5.1 on Betfair.

    All I can say to the US people is be very careful what you wish for.

  5. Neville. says:

    Just add this graph and info again from the EIA.
    http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
    The tax won’t make a difference to the climate or temp because it cannot. Simple kindy maths. Why did you vote in such a dummy for president?

  6. SAMURAI says:

    Thomas Paine once wrote, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

    Few people would deny the US government has moved from a necessary evil to an intolerable one.

    The US Small Business Association estimates that existing government rules, regulations and mandates consume $1.75 TRILLION in compliance costs/yr. That’s just pure evil.

    Sure, SOME business rules and regulations are required to assure businesses run smoothly and reasonable environmental standards are complied, but too many destroy economies and stifle growth.

    I bet if these $1.75 TRILLION compliance costs were reduced to $750 billion, the only effect would be increases in: GDP, job creation, new companies, new jobs, quality of life and living standards; how terrible….

    Now BHO wants to add Carbon Taxes to the mix AND continue blowing money on alternative energy subsidies/projects that produce electricity 800% more expensively than conventional gas-turbine generators.

    LEFTISTS will eventually impoverish us all with their kindness….. Hey, they know what’s best for the masses and it’s for out own good….

    Yeah, right…

  7. EW3 says:

    It’s all about strangling America.
    What are called libs now (very different than a true liberal like Pat Moynahan D-NY) seem to have a sense of guilt that requires them try to strangle us.
    Once things get bad enough, they may change their views.

  8. Brant Ra says:

    MIT IAP Course on LANR-CF Dr. Mitchell Swartz 1/28/2012 Part 1

    Dont need oil for energy. Down with the carbon tax!!!! No more gov wind subsidies…

  9. JohnB says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much.

    After the September elections in Oz disembowel the Left leaning political parties the Democrats won’t dare follow the same line.

    Obama won’t care as he’s in his second term, but the Congress critters will be watching Oz very closely with an eye to their re-election prospects.

  10. george e. smith says:

    Well Obama’s latest proposal; or dictate (your choice) is he wants to spend billions of dollars on “preschools”.

    The funny thing is that the vast majority of children, come into this world with a built in preschool; well the technical term for those institutions, is PARENTS !

    Well yes, sadly (and I mean that) a lot of kids, basically don’t have parents. I guess Obama himself never had any parents. Well he had a grandmother.

    I only had one parent, so I do know that gig.

    But in many countries like the USA, real actual physical parents choose to not be parents; so they palm the job off to pseudo parents; they don’t want the bother of educating their own offspring.

    So under Obama’s newest dictatorial edict, the US taxpayers will treach all these unwanted kids, whicle their biological parents go and play golf. I wonder who raises the two Obama girls while “daddy” is off playing golf with Tiger Woods. It’s a shame; they look like a couple of nice children, and they deserve better.

    There is nothing in the US Constitution, about the government (any government) having ANY role in educating children.

    But then of course, the Marxists believe in getting a hold of the children, and brain washing them, while they are still malleable.

    If you let Obama educate, YOUR children, then you thoroughly deserve the little monsters, you have created.

  11. joe griffin says:

    As long as the ministry of truth(the U.S. media) controls the conversation to the ill imformed low imformation voter this will always be an uphill battle, the government sets the agenda and the media deliberatly ask the wrong questions. I long for a time when the media was for the absolute truth, I think that was a long time ago!

  12. Tiburon says:

    @john robertson
    As a fellow Canuck, I share your sentiments near exactly – though when I listen to Peter Kent’s words in support for CAGW, (our Federal Minister of the Environment. and former newsman), despite the appearance of Prime Minister Harper’s good sense and measure, I fear for our near future, and of hidden agendas.
    Mayhaps it’s only the necessity of ‘political spin’ to hold out of reach one more populist meme surely to be grasped in bid for power by the too-numerous liberal left and their demogogues, should forthright truths about climate be told outright. Yet I don’t see how the government will be able to climb down from their proclaimed and oft-promoted position in support of ‘saving the climate’, if the US goes to carbon trade, or tax. NAFTA would likely collapse if we produced ‘tax-free’ and sold south. Add to this that our most prosperous (read: indebted) Province (Ontario), is up to it’s neck in bird-blenders and contracts paying x10 going rates for solar panel electricity (all made in Asia, oops – WTO just deemed favouring Canadian jobs in manufacture of same, illegal)
    Well, we can hope I guess for some breakthrough of understanding of solar electrical dynamics that will prove correlated, congruent, and orders of magnitude beyond any hallucinatory CO2 climate sensitivity, a breakthrough not repressed by the statist MSM.
    And/or also hope for an awakening of that fabled Canadian common-sense and laconic eye on the B.S meter. Because it SHOULD BE, a tough sell to Canadians, the threat of too-much warmth, given where we live (except in Lotus Land, British Columbia that is…and maybe Quebec, where despite the (hockey-friendly) cold there’s nary a ‘national socialist type’ policy they can refuse, it seems, brutal provincial tax and regulatory burden notwithstanding).

  13. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    Looks like commonsense to me.

  14. Tiburon says:

    Tim Ball has a recent article at his site, which better explains what we’re up against here in Canada, with Environment Canada (EC).
    http://drtimball.com/2013/environment-canadas-ignorance-guarantees-political-climate-science-and-wrong-policy/

  15. jones says:

    King, you say

    ‘Tony Abbott has made his prime objective’

    I honestly hate to say it but I have a sense that is simple political opportunism on his part.

    I suspect he will do no such thing after the election.

    Nothing at all.

    The cynic in me is expressing itself……..We do NOT have any real ‘democracy’.

    I have a question to put out there and it is this………….Are manifesto pledges subject to a legitimate expectation?

    Hang the lot and start again…

  16. James Allison says:

    george e. smith says:
    February 17, 2013 at 10:53 pm

    Getting off topic here somewhat but an increasing numbers of both solo parents and working couples rely heavily on preschool. If little kids can be taught some stuff while Mum and Dad are both out working then surely that is a bonus. Anyways here in NZ that certainly happens and is heavily subsidised. This thought reminds me that my grandma blamed the contraceptive pill on all of modern societies social unheavels. Bless her heart. I also have to say she had no clue how a heavy aircraft flew through the air, even though she flew in them. Similarly I acknowledge that I have no real clue how an iPhone automatically updates information held on an iPad and Mac desktop……

  17. Greg Goodman says:

    Guest post by Paul Driessen
    “Average planetary temperatures haven’t budged in 16 years. Hurricanes and strong tornadoes are at or near their lowest ebb in decades. Global sea ice is back to normal, Arctic ice is nearly normal, and the Antarctic icepack continues to grow. The rate of sea level rise remains what it was in 1900.”

    OH NO. I see this is descending into lowest levels of fighting bull with bull. While some of those points are correct. Many are not or are close to deception by omission. Though I agree the carbon tax proposal is a disaster, just adding deceptive and inaccurate claims to counter other deceptive and inaccurate claims is getting no one anywhere.

    This kind of fighting bull with bull just turns the whole discussion into a food fight.

    Hurricanes and tornadoes are totally different phenomena so while tornadoes have been relatively low hurricanes are definitely linked to sea surface temperature (no surprise there) and since recent decades have been warm, total cyclone energy is up.
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=xbfqtw&s=6

    Both were also high in the 1930s which is why warmist propaganda prefers to focus on the the 50 years.

    “Arctic ice is nearly normal”. That’s Bull, sorry. It’s also playing right into the warmista’s propaganda trap of the idea that the average over the very short time for which we have accurate satellite derived measurements somehow represents “normal”.

    There was a massive loss of Arctic ice coverage that was accelerating from 1997 to 2007.
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=r7uets&s=6

    While that situation has _stabilised_ at a new low, it is absolutely absurd to state that “Arctic ice is nearly normal”.

    This proposal of carbon tax needs to be strangled at birth. But presenting a case that is so obviously flawed and factually incorrect assures that it will dismissed outright by anyone who you may hope to convince.

    This article just provides ammunition for those wishing to portray climate sceptics as being “in denial”.

    It is as stupid politically as it is ill-informed scientifically.

  18. Greg Goodman says:

    john robertson says:
    Actually we should point out that, as we are carbon based lifeforms,all taxes are carbon taxes.

    Good point. The corollary of that is that a carbon tax is a tax on life itself.
    That is why it appeals to those in power. It is the most global, all encompassing tax ever invented.

  19. oldfossil says:

    john robertson says:
    February 17, 2013 at 9:29 pm

    I personally recommend a tax on do gooders and the political bureaucrats.
    30 lbs of ugly fat each , al madame guillotine , would be a fine contribution.
    Do I need sarc?

    I have to call you on this, and I’m extremely surprised that the moderators haven’t already. When alarmists propose that skeptics be executed, we raise a howl:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/27/university-of-graz-responds-to-parncutts-calls-for-death-to-deniers/

    An immediate retraction is in order, please.

  20. King of Cool says:

    jones says:
    February 18, 2013 at 12:05 am
    King, you say
    ‘Tony Abbott has made his prime objective’

    I honestly hate to say it but I have a sense that is simple political opportunism on his part.
    I suspect he will do no such thing after the election…. Etc

    I think the average American can easily make up their own mind on that question by hearing or reading of how Tony Abbott himself answers it:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-12/abbott-promises-to-repeal-carbon-tax-legislation/3550390

    Like the GST which John Howard had the honesty and principle to take to an election BEFORE the vote, in the end it will be the people that will decide whether they want the tax or not – or retain it. But I guess trading in something that you can’t see, can’t feel, can’t touch, can’t smell, can’t eat and can’t drink is always going to more difficult to sell than snake oil.

  21. richard verney says:

    King of Cool says:
    February 17, 2013 at 9:33 pm
    “…All I can say to the US people is be very careful what you wish for….”
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Politicians are the same the world over. They only make a good situation, poor, and a bad situation, worse. There only a few landmark situations where politicians have created a better world (eg., US independence, abolishing the slave trade, universal sufferance, the setting up the welfare state – although with regard to the latter they have allowed it to become a bloated cow and not the safety net that it was intended such that the West is sinking under the expense of the monster it has allowed welfare to become).

    Cheap energy and low costs of production are vital for any vibrant economic development. Politicians in the West seem hell bent on pricing the West out of the market place. The sun will rise in the East in any event, but there is no need to shorten the days and so dramatically clip the wings of the developed western countries. Our children and grandchildren will not thank us for this.

    Unfortunately, not only do politicians not understand simple economics, so too the majority of the general public. In the UK (and this also applies in Europe), we are having a debate about the amount of tax paid by large international companies, such as Starbucks, amazon, e-Bay and the like). The politicians think that these companies ought not to get away with paying little or even no tax in the market place that they are earning billions. What is there not to like about the mantra that they should be made to pay their fair share of tax.

    The answer is simple. Every expense that a company is forced to pay is past onto the consumer. If the company has to pay tax (whether this be a carbon tax, a capital tax, an income tax or security/national indemnity tax), it is the consumer who ultimately pays that tax in higher prices for goods and services. So a tax hike on a company is a cost of living increase on the consumer/the general population.

    This might not be a disaster if it were only 1 rogue company but when it is universal, the consumer cannot shop around to avoid the increase costs, since this increase cost will be accross the board. The Starbucks coffee which costs £2.99 will cost say £3.25, the Big Mac Meal which costs £4.99 will costs £5.60, the cost of everything bought (or sold) on eBay and amazon will be more. Gradually everything the consumer wants will go up in price. In today’s economic environment, it is unlikely that employees will get a corresponding pay rise, and those on benefits are seeing benefits capped. It is the consumer that will be squeezed by any tax rise (or other overhead placed upon business), since ultimately it is the consumer who pays these charges (the company passing them onto their customers).

    I can’t understand why politicians want to make our companies uncompetitive, nor why they wish to push up the day to day living expense for the ordinary person who for the main part is already struggling to make ends meet and enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Politicians either do not know or could not care how much misery they inflict on the people they govern and how at the end of the day, everything they do makes matters worse (not better).

  22. johnmarshall says:

    Obama is the worst president that the US has ever had. After the next four years what will be left of US industry to provide jobs to pay the essential taxes? All jobs will be in China or India.

  23. RESnape says:

    We in the UK suffer a double whammy. Firstly the UK Government has introduced a Carbon Price Floor of £16 ($25)/tCO2 from 2013 rising to £30 ($46)/tCO2 by 2030, and note this is based upon 2009 prices which means that the cost will be higher.

    In ADDITION there is a top-up component, which for 2013-14 was set at £4.94 ($7.67)/tCO2 and indications are that prices for 2014-15 will be £7.28 ($11.30)/tCO2.

    However, it is expected that an announcement this week, because the Market price of carbon has fallen, will indicate that this top-up tax will increase to £10 ($15.52)/tCO2 in 2014-15. It has also been muted that this will double (£20($31)/tCO2) by 2020, all of which means that businesses in the UK will face considerable extra costs for little or no benefit.

    Full story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9150665/UK-carbon-tax-will-leave-British-companies-uncompetitive-warns-Energy-Select-Committee-chairman-Tim-Yeo.html

    Note: Todays exchange rate

  24. richard verney says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:06 am
    /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    Greg you are correct to point out that the opening paragraph establishes nothing. But that in itself is material since it goes to the very heart of the problem with climate science, namely we are looking at data which is not fit for purpose, and which is inadequate in length and extent such that no useful conclusions can be extrapolated. Some 30 years, 50 years, 100 years. heck 200 years of data is simply insufficient to extrapolate any meaningful trends and influencing factors when dealing with earth’s climate which has been changing ever since the first day the earth aquired an atmosphere some 4 billiomn years ago.

    The opening paragraph of this article whilst proving nothing ought to be suffieicient for anyone possessing a reasonable degeree of commonsence to be sceptical as to whether there truly is a real and urgent problem that requires redress, or whether there is any problem at all such that may be it is better to sit back and see what transpires (at the same time endeavouring to obtain a more complete picture of what is going on and why).

    One thing that history establishes is that warm is generally good, life on Earth has flourished in much warmer conditions (indeed even today bio diversity is at its peak in warm wet environments and at its least in cold arid environments), there has never been runaway global warming, and humankind is a master at adaption (indeed adaption is buit into the very DNA of life itself0 There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to conclude that life on Earth, and humanking in particular, would not flourish if planet Earth were 5 or 8 or even 10 degrees C warmer than today.

    I agree that the carbon tax needs to be snuffed out before it does any more harm.

  25. EcoGuy says:

    Politicians love to create problems. A created problem is a lovely thing to behold for the politically minded; no matter what you do the problem, of it’s own accord, it will go away.. This means while the sheep are in shock and awe of the problem, you can fleece their open wallets; knowing at the end of it they will think it actually went to solving the problem…

    This in of itself is quite harmless in the greater scheme of things if the problem is specific or small. But with climate change they have created a monster they cannot afford to slay – they have no option to ride it to the bitter end as the sheep won’t let them get off… The real problem is what it stops being done whilst it sucks up all the oxygen (and money, time, resources, etc).. That’s the real cost of global warming.

  26. D D Leone says:

    We who live with carbon taxes, and has done so for more than 20 years, know that the more you pay in tax the less consumer you become amongst everything else. That’s why the lefties wanted the tax to begin with, to try and influence consumer behavior so that we all consume less, their belief being consumerism is a child of capitalism and capitalism they believe is satan or something of equal note.
    .
    Of course the carbon tax alone didn’t work therefor every citizen in the EU now pays carbon tax, energy tax, energy transmission tax, extra carbon tax on fossil fuel, various emission taxes on private vehicles to heavy trucks, extra tax for nuclear energy (the eco-lefties are the only ones who does not want to recycle the so called spent fuel rods so the taxes here is for longest term storage possible), extra taxes on hydro power generated energy (since hydro power destroys the local flora and fauna the lefties says), and of course theirs value added tax, VAT, on every tax-step on the way to the consumer; who, of course, pays for it all…
    .
    There’s always a tax reason or three for why it often is more expensive to go by train rather than flight in EU…

  27. James Bull says:

    This sounds like one of those
    STOP THE WORLD I WANT TO GET OFF!!!
    Moments
    James Bull

  28. bobl says:

    America, don’t be fooled, this isn’t about science or the climate – it’s about POLITICS. It’s about taxing energy. you can’t fight with science because that doesn’t matter any more. You must fight it with politics, in Australia the public derailed a political leader and went nuts on an opposition. The opposition leader was deposed. At the next election the new opposition leader went to the people on a platform of no carbon tax (as did “no carbon tax under the government I lead” Julia) and beat the progressives, however didn’t get enough votes to hold an absolute majority. Independents played kingmaker and put the progressives back in power. The rest is history. However the people have not forgotten their betrayal and the next election is now nearly upon us. Carbon taxes have wiped progressives from the map in all states bar one and will take down the federal government in September. I suggest the democrats take a look at the political legacy of the carbon tax in Oz before they settle in their shiny new scheme. In Oz carbon taxes have taken down 7 governments so far, 6 of them progressive.
    The moral of my story is that by acting we very nearly did stop our carbon tax, we even took down a party leader – it was only Julia’s lie and two turncoat independents in conservative seats that in the end derailed the will of the people, but we will have our day on 14 September.

    Go nuts on the democrats, tell them you will not vote for anyone that supports a carbon tax in state or federal election and do it enmasse. Wipe them out in the states then take them out in your next federal election. You have a republican congress, get the democrats themselves to haul the president into line -an offer of electoral oblivion aught to do it well.

  29. eric1skeptic says:

    Richard Verney notes: “there has never been runaway global warming” There was just a 0.5C drop from January’s rather high global average temperature ( see http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ ) in the first two weeks of February ( see http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002 and click on 14,000 ) Is runaway global cooling on the way? The theory by the purveyors of warmalarming is that the modest increase in global average warmth from newly minted atmospheric CO2 will create fresh new water vapor that will amplify that warmth.

    But anyone looking at those charts who has a lick of common sense will understand that the water vapor changes including clouds that modulate that global average temperature are the driving force for both the short and long run. The short run is obvious from the graph. In the long run the CO2 warming causes very modest warming that is lost in the noise. The globally averaged warming from doubling CO2 is much less than the black body response (1C) from the radiative flux change (3.7 W/m2) because of the unevenness of the flux.

    OT note: John Daly’s website gives me this: “This Account Has Been Suspended”

  30. Latitude says:

    you can’t hit a moving target…..
    The truly rich can move……the only people left to pay those taxes will be the ones that can’t afford to move

  31. Greg Goodman says:

    Richard says: “The opening paragraph of this article whilst proving nothing ought to be suffieicient for anyone possessing a reasonable degeree of commonsence to be sceptical as to whether there truly is a real and urgent problem that requires redress…”

    Sadly, no. It’s a list of, sometimes, baseless assertions which will cause anyone possessing a reasonable degeree of common sense to dismiss the rest of the article as being a bigoted diatribe by some far-right, tea-bagger character who is blatantly stating false claims about climate to advance his own political worldview.

    I think that first paragraph sums up quite well what could be called being in denial of climate change. It is neither informed, nor helpful. Except possibly to those wishing colour anyone who does not does accept AGW as a right wing nutter.

    Not helpful and well below the standard of articles posted on WUWT.

  32. RACookPE1978 says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:42 am

    Sadly, no. It’s a list of, sometimes, baseless assertions which will cause anyone possessing a reasonable degeree of common sense to dismiss the rest of the article as being a bigoted diatribe by some far-right, tea-bagger character who is blatantly stating false claims about climate to advance his own political worldview.

    Hmmmn. Please, in your hate-filled extremist diatribe reply to Richard … please explain exactly what is factually “wrong” about any part of the statement Richard made.

    I can understand you not “wanting” other people to hear such facts, but what is factually wrong in the first paragraph?

  33. Tiburon says:

    Has the family (or Jerry Brennan?) had to shut down John Daly’s site? http://www.john-daly.com

  34. Old Wolf says:

    The nature of politicians is ever the same, lie to get into office, and pursue whatever one can to increase the power once there. Exempt themselves from the law, and their friends, or give their friends and themselves benefits not extended to the general public, or both.

    Such a pity that there was nothing to prevent such…. or was there? Federalist 57 talks of the limits of congress in such a state.

    “Congress can pass no law which does not equally affect itself, its friends, and the whole of society’.

    We’ve had taxation without representation before. When they tax the air we breathe, the food we eat, the travel on highways our taxes pay for, the right to create jobs, the right to work, the ability to exercise our rights to speak and assemble.. *hehs* Well, they even tax us when we have the temerity to die and get out from under the taxes they’ve levied, then tax our children further for our death.

    It seems the nature of politics.. expanding infinitely out into realm where they are no longer the servants of the people, but their masters, pretend benefactors who choose to steal by tax, which is no less enforced by force than any other robbery.

  35. beng says:

    ****
    Greg Goodman says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:06 am

    There was a massive loss of Arctic ice coverage that was accelerating from 1997 to 2007.
    ****

    There is nothing more visually “impressive”, but of less practical importance, than how much arctic sea-ice there is. Less arctic sea-ice actually means more available sunlight & biological productivity. Grade-school biology.

  36. Gail Combs says:

    richard verney says: @ February 18, 2013 at 2:00 am

    ….I can’t understand why politicians want to make our companies uncompetitive, nor why they wish to push up the day to day living expense for the ordinary person who for the main part is already struggling to make ends meet and enjoy a reasonable standard of living. Politicians either do not know or could not care how much misery they inflict on the people they govern and how at the end of the day, everything they do makes matters worse (not better).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Pascal Lamy, Director General of the World Trade Organizatio explained that:

    All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty — rooted in freedom, openness, prosperity and interdependence.
    http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=9174

    Aside for the fact this shows that sovereignty of nations has been a target for years, another key concept is Interdependence. Several years ago Al Gore let the cat out of the bag while presenting a national award to a Colorado FFA member. Gore asked the student what his/her life plans were. Upon hearing that the FFA member wanted to continue on in production agriculture, Gore reportedly replied that the young person should develop other plans because our production agriculture is being shifted out of the U.S. to the Third World.” The plan is to have different areas responsible for different things. Africa and South America for example would be responsible for food production, China and India for manufacturing, the US for technical inovation…. In trying to find an additional old link to that I ran across this.

    Global interdependence: The case for large-scale green energy
    Thankfully, multi-decade transformative leadership by far-sighted visionaries like Paul Hawken, Al Gore, Amory Lovins, William McDonough and Jeremy Rifkin pioneered green commerce models that have improved the global business activities of established corporations and new ones like SolarReserve.

    This can all be traced back to the Club of Rome.

    “This proposed new global system is highly interdependent as, in the same manner that the human body assigns different tasks to its various organs, each region is assigned specialized and specific tasks, and is each is dependent on the others for their common survival… The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion.” – Goals for Mankind, a report by The Club of Rome, 1977

    “Paths of development, region-specific rather than based on narrow national interests, must be designed to lead to a sustainable balance between the interdependent world-regions and to global harmony. A “horizontal” restructuring of the world system is needed, i.e., a change in relationships among nations and regions and as far as the “vertical” structure of the world system is concerned, drastic changes in the norm stratum. Cooperation by definition connotes interdependence. Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence….

    And cooperation, finally, requires that the people of all nations face up to an admission that may not come easy. Cooperation by definition connotes interdependence. Increasing interdependence between nations and regions must then translate as a decrease in independence. Nations cannot be interdependent without each of them giving up some of, or at least acknowledging limits to, its own independence.” ~ Mankind at the Turning Point by Club of Rome, 1974

    These quotes are lifted from The Green Agenda and Mankind at the Turning Point: Interdependence is Totalitarian Unfortunately the links within those articles to the original documents are now dead.

    Just in case you think the hamstringing of the US economy is a fluke, read this from Al Gore’s book.

    Excerpted from “The Future: Six Drivers of Global Change” by Al Gore.
    In order to reclaim control of our destiny and shape the future, we must think freshly and clearly about the crucial choices that confront us as a result of:
    * The emergence of a completely new balance of political, economic, and military power in the world that is radically different from the equilibrium that characterized the second half of the twentieth century, during which the United States of America provided global leadership and stability-shifting influence and initiative from West to East, from wealthy countries to rapidly emerging centers of power throughout the world, from nation states to private actors, and from political systems to markets;

    His buddy Bill Clinton is of course responsible for the rise of China.

    Chasing the Dragon: Clinton’s China Policy

    …Bill Clinton took contributions he knew came from China, and played another angle as well. US companies wanted to sell China military technology, but the sales were prohibited by law. Economic sanctions for the Tiananmen square massacre and restrictions on technology exports prevented these companies from selling China the armaments they wanted.

    In return for campaign contributions, the President shifted regulation of technology exports from the State Department to the free-wheeling Commerce department. The administration also relaxed export controls and allowed corporations to decide if their technology transfers were legal or not. When easing restrictions wasn’t enough, Clinton signed waivers that simply circumvented the law. The President’s waivers allowed the export of machine tools, defense electronics, and even a communications system for the Chinese Air Force….

    Clinton even involved the Department of Energy, caretaker of our nuclear weapons, in his fundraising schemes. In 1994 and ’95 then Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary accompanied Johnny Chung, John Huang, Charlie Trie, and Bernard Schwartz on trade missions to China. Shortly afterward the DOE relaxed security at US weapons labs. Wen Ho Lee, an ethnic Chinese physicist assigned to Los Alamos, illegally transferred data on nuclear warheads to his private computer files.

    In June of 1995, the CIA learned that China had stolen the crown jewels of our nuclear arsenal, including the neutron bomb and the W-88 miniaturized warhead. Later that year National Security Advisor Anthony Lake is briefed on the thefts. He is replaced on the Security Council by Sandy Berger, a former lobbyist for the Chinese government….

    With their new wealth, China has sought military parity with the United States. They have been aided by President Clinton and corporate America. US companies spent over 100 million dollars lobbying congress to pass the China Relations Act. Most of that money went to buy congressional votes with campaign donations.

    A few American stockholders have profited immensely from modernizing China’s armed forces. Still more US companies have built factories in China. These factories and plenty of cheap, docile labor earn huge profits for these investors. Protecting these profits is Clinton’s China policy.

    None of the economic disasters in the EU and USA are a fluke. They were planned and executed with malice aforethought and the planners have profited handsomely.

    I would also suggest reading the books from Clinton’s Mentor, Carroll Quigley or at least these excerpts.
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Banks/Tragedy_Hope_excerpt.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Anglo_American_Estab.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Naked_Capitalist.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fascism/Wall_Street_Rise_Hitler.html

  37. Steve Garcia says:

    As the liberal lobby Think Progress put it, people “overwhelmingly” prefer a carbon tax on “big polluters”

    Can they really think that those companies are going to pay that tax out of their own pockets? People need to realize that any tax on ANY “big pollutes/companies” – as a class – will be passed on to their customers. ***

    That means you and me.

    Why? Two reasons: Because they aren’t going to impact their profits if they don’t have to, so passing it on (like a VAT) is the way to go. Also if they ALL get the tax, there is no disadvantage in passing on the tax, since all their competitors are in the same boat – and almost certainly passing the tax on. The tax will be paid by the first level of buyer who cannot pass it on to anyone else. With “big polluters” that usually means the public/consumer.

    So, the reality is that the “big companies” become tax collectors. It is a way of taxing US, the little people, but making us feel good that the “big companies” are being punished.

    I brought this up to Ralph Nader 34 years ago (regarding the proposed “Windfall Profits Tax.”

    His response was, “Next question?”

    . . . . *** in about 2007, China finally began to do something about pollution. One feature of their new laws was to place a heavy new tax on manufacturers who used a lot of energy. That tax was simply passed on to my small company in Illinois. Those Chinese companies were not going to pay it, not if they could help it.

    We were buying investment castings from China, and that was one of the industries getting hit with the new tax. On our next invoice the price per piece was 19% higher. (Of course, they raised it even on parts that were shipped before the tax came into effect.)

    And what did WE do? We had to eat it, because we had a contract to sell our tools at a set price, and we could not pass it on. But we did renegotiate at our first opportunity. But we did end up eating part of it.

    The increase that our customer agreed to WAS passed on to the consumer.

    So, the next time anyone talks about punitive taxes on “big” companies/polluters, ask them what they think the big companies are going to do with that tax. Ask them WHO is really going to pay that tax.

    Steve Garcia

  38. Gail Combs says:

    Latitude says:
    February 18, 2013 at 5:30 am

    you can’t hit a moving target…..
    The truly rich can move……the only people left to pay those taxes will be the ones that can’t afford to move
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The truly rich do not even have to move.

    A money ‘black hole': rich hide at least $21 trillion in tax havens, study shows

    Thanks to lax international tax rules the world’s super rich have siphoned at least $21 trillion — more than 50 percent larger than the entire U.S. economy — into secretive tax-free havens, …

    The report by James Henry, a former chief economist at international consultancy McKinsey & Co., shows how with the help of private banks the money has flowed into countries such as Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

    “We’re basically talking about a black hole in the world economy,” …

    The figure of $21 trillion in off-shore funds is conservative and the true sum could be as high as $32 trillion, Henry said.

    According to the study, the world’s top 50 private banks managed more than $12.3 trillion in 2010 in off-shore financial assets, up from $7.5 trillion five years earlier.

    In 2010, the world’s top 10 financial institutions — which today include the U.S.’s Goldman Sachs and JPMorganChase, as well as Switzerland’s UBS and Credit Suisse — controlled about half of this amount. At least seven of these top 10 institutions received huge bailouts in the wake of the financial crisis, Henry said.

    “This isn’t a bunch of shady third-world banks — these are some of the premier institutions in the world,” Henry said. “JP Morgan, Citibank, Barclays, UBS — the top 10 to 20 banks these are some of the ones who received most of the financial bailout, who were involved in the mortgage fiasco, the Libor rates scandal.”

    “Now we find out that they have been spending a lot of time helping very wealthy people avoid taxes,” he added….

  39. mkelly says:

    Greg Goodman says:

    February 18, 2013 at 5:42 am

    Here is one he should have listed. The temperature today is lower than at the height of the Holocene Optimum many thousands of years ago. Until we cross that threshold we are actually cooling.

    signed
    “a bigoted…right, tea-bagger character” I just stated a blatantly false claim.

  40. Gail Combs says:

    I should add to my above comment:

    Citigroup hasn’t paid taxes in 4 years, got $2.5 trillion from feds

    ….In 2010, Bank of America set up more than 200 subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands (which has a corporate tax rate of 0.0 percent) to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It worked. Not only did Bank of America pay nothing in federal income taxes, but it received a rebate from the IRS worth $1.9 billion that year. They are not alone. In 2010, JP Morgan Chase operated 83 subsidiaries incorporated in offshore tax havens to avoid paying some $4.9 billion in U.S. taxes. That same year Goldman Sachs operated 39 subsidiaries in offshore tax havens to avoid an estimated $3.3 billion in U.S. taxes. Citigroup has paid no federal income taxes for the last four years after receiving a total of $2.5 trillion in financial assistance from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.On and on it goes. Wall Street banks and large companies love America when they need corporate welfare. But when it comes to paying American taxes or American wages, they want nothing to do with this country….

    That is why I laugh every time the “Tax the rich” manta is trotted out. The only ones who ever pay tax are WAGE EARNERS aka the middle class. The rich don’t pay a dime.

    It is the typical political sleight of hand. WAGES are taxed at between 10% – 39.6% while non exempt but qualified dividends are taxed at 0% or 15% maximum rate. Capital gains are taxed at a max of 20% for long term and a max of 39.6% for the gamblers.

    Of course the US government has to be aware of the dividends and the buying of selling of the corporate stock before they can tax it…. Welcome to the Cayman Islands.

  41. arthur4563 says:

    Sometimes it’s just hard to explain stupid. Like those who claim that oil companies are rich, for example. These are publicly traded companies with open books and who operate in a very competitive arena. You might wonder where all those riches? They don’t show up in dividends
    or in executive salaries large enough to have any effect on prices, which are set by the market, not by executives. Taxes against oil companies are taxes against their customers, who provide
    the only money they have. Companies do not print currency. You would think these facts would be easily understood. Even windfall profits end up in the hands of ordinary folks, either as investors or retiree/teacher/etc investment funds, etc. The fact that people can be conned into believing that they are only taxing the wealthy by taxing companies is an indication of just how much ignorance pervades our society. The US citizenry is defenseless against these political cons,
    thanks to a corrupt and/or incompetent media and educational and political system. Embarrassingly illogical is the fact that most of these warmist “good citizens” also supposedly firmly believe that legal trials must ensure that both sides of the case at hand must not only be heard, but represented by competent advocates. Go figure. As I said, stupid is hard to explain.

  42. Jack Foster says:

    I haven’t been a participant in WUWT discussions, but I have shared many WUWT entries on my facebook page, and I typically debate the climate change topic on the skeptics’ side; so it’s ironic that I’m stepping in here for the first time in support of a carbon tax! I would categorize myself as a lukewarmer.

    The aspect of the debate that frustrates me the most is that truth typically takes a backseat to politics. It’s OK to scare people with half-truths, if we save the planet, right? Maybe not. I think an accurate understanding of our situation allows us to take the most appropriate action, so my approach tends to be more of a holistic evaluation of ALL pros and cons.

    So here are my ideas about a Carbon Tax. Hydrocarbons as primary energy source for humanity will eventually be replaced by solar energy. A properly-designed carbon tax can make this inevitable transition less disruptive, because it can be imposed slowly and only as needed to truly mitigate environmental concerns. My position (when debating both sides) is that there is a ton of uncertainty, and so the precautionary principle absolutely applies. Personally, I don’t think that global warming will be as strong or have the consequences that the alarmists say. But I confess that I could be wrong.

    Here is how I would design the tax. (No one has asked me to design one!) First, the tax would only be imposed on the largest emitters of CO2 (notice I didn’t say “polluters”.) I have no specific threshold to throw out there, but the point wouldn’t be to slam the brakes on our economy; (the point would be to install brakes.)

    Second, any revenue gained via this tax should be offset by a reduction of business tax rates.

    Third and perhaps most importantly, all imports should be subject to a carbon tax. People rightfully point out that any unilateral action on the part of the USA to reduce CO2 emission is useless in the face of increasing emissions from India and China. This carbon import tax would allow us to begin to address this.

  43. Sam Grove says:

    What government really does: make life more expensive.

  44. Ian W says:

    Greg Goodman says:
    February 18, 2013 at 1:06 am

    …..
    Hurricanes and tornadoes are totally different phenomena so while tornadoes have been relatively low hurricanes are definitely linked to sea surface temperature (no surprise there) and since recent decades have been warm, total cyclone energy is up.
    http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=xbfqtw&s=6

    Interesting graphics you reference – perhaps you would explain the difference with this which shows a drop in ACE

    http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl

  45. johnbuk says:

    “As the liberal lobby Think Progress put it, people “overwhelmingly” prefer a carbon tax on “big polluters” versus cuts in favorite programs “like education, Social Security, Medicare and environmental protection.”
    So the choices are “Cake or Death” – does anyone feel the same as me, how long must we put up with these imbeciles? To lighten things up a bit may I recommend the following from Eddie Izzard put together with the usual Lego figures. The context is the rather club-like, desperate to please culture within the Church of England versus other, more, rigid religions. Enjoy, as they say, and take a break for a few minutes from the holier than thou green taliban.

  46. David Ball says:

    Dr Tim Ball has been awarded a Queen’s Jubilee Medal for service to Canada and it’s citizen’s.

  47. LazyTeenager says:

    [snip. — mod.]

  48. LazyTeenager says:

    [snip. — mod.]

  49. Catcracking says:

    Anthony, et al.
    I would not underestimate the efforts the progressives are putting forward to put this agenda in place. There is a full court press going with massive funding behind the effort.
    For example the “machine” has a video that is being played in churches and probably other locations with the propaganda exaggerating global warming.
    I was wondering if there is a comparable skeptic video that simply gives the facts in a way that the common audience can become informed without all the complex arguments.

    Without a comparable effort from the skeptics we will lose. With the mainstream media, university environment, and government push, including the Academies public opinion, will be molded as it has on other issues.

    The facts are on our side, but there is a need to better get out the message or we wil get run over. WUWT is great and provides a resource for the more informed, but it is not getting into the schools or the media enough in my opinion to stop the train.

  50. Sean says:

    Behind the curtain
    originally by Bishop Hill (and then censored from publication due to old boy pressure from green crooks)

    Now and again you get a glimpse behind the curtain. Here’s one such occasion.

    On February 13th at a private dining room in a restaurant in London, the great and good met to discuss climate and energy issues. The meeting was organised by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), an investment firm involved in renewable energy, and was held to promote their latest idea of emissions reductions measures being designed around minimising emissions intensity (i.e. emissions per unit GDP). However, much of the evening seems to have been spent on climate science.

    The meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, which precludes attributing quotes to individuals and nowadays seems to preclude identifying attendees either.

    However, David Rose has given me a brief report and I am therefore able to pass some of the details on.

    Apart from Rose and the people from BNEF, there were:

    * representatives of BP and Shell and Bank of America Merrill Lynch
    * climate scientists from UCL and UEA
    * journalists from the BBC and the FT
    * two representatives from the Prime Minister’s office and one from the Treasury
    * an MP
    * representatives of the Committee on Climate Change and the Carbon Trust
    * economists. including one from DECC, one from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and one from the Grantham Institute at LSE.

    Rose, who was nearly but not quite the only sceptic present, tells me that the meeting was “breathtaking”. Minds, it seems, were pretty much closed. Over the course of a long evening, it seems that things became fairly heated. Indeed it sounds like it was quite a lot of fun.

    A few highlights:

    * One of the climate scientists found himself cornered on the pause in temperature rises. How long would this pause have to last, he was asked, before he changed his mind? Another ten years was the answer. When he went on to claim that the heat was disappearing into the deep ocean, he was forced
    to admit that there was little evidence to support this case.
    * One of the economists became very worked up and accused Rose of being immoral and attacking the models without having a model of his own.
    * Another economist was rather put out at the suggestion that Kyoto had been a failure and claimed, somewhat implausibly, that nobody had been linking extreme weather to climate change. It was gently pointed out to him that President Obama had been doing just this in recent days.
    * One of the policy wonk people made the extraordinary claim that it is cheaper to build new nuclear than gas.
    * One of the BNEF people said that IPCC estimates had turned out to be underestimates and that weather extremes are becoming more pronounced, despite it having been pointed out that there is no evidence to support such a claim.

    Here, I think, we seem to see big business going about its work of creating value for shareholders, but not through honest buying and selling their goods and services, but through the murky means of influencing decision-makers and opinion-formers. That nobody was there to make the consumer’s case speaks volumes.

    No good will come of it.

  51. Paul Driessen says:
    “Average planetary temperatures haven’t budged in 16 years.”

    Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3 or any of the major global temperature
    indices if smoothed in the manner used for smoothed Hadcrut3.
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

    It appears to me more accurate to say that global temperature has gone 11
    or 12 years with no upward trend.

  52. richard verney says:

    Jack Foster says:

    February 18, 2013 at 9:40 amThird and perhaps most importantly, all imports should be subject to a carbon tax. People rightfully point out that any unilateral action on the part of the USA to reduce CO2 emission is useless in the face of increasing emissions from India and China. This carbon import tax would allow us to begin to address this.
    /////////////////////////////////////
    You are right that the USA going it alone (even with Australia, Europe and UK joining in), will do nothing to curb world wide emissions but surely your proposal would create a trade war.

    Further given the American debt owned by China, I am far from convinced that the USA could get away with imposing a carbon tax on Chinese imports. The USA and Europe have been exporting their industries to the Far East (and other developing countries) for a decade or more, as part of their drive to decarbionise their economies, so it is more than a little hypocritical to now place a carbon tax on the re-imports.

  53. Werner Brozek says:

    Donald L Klipstein says:
    February 18, 2013 at 7:25 pm
    Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3 ….
    It appears to me more accurate to say that global temperature has gone 11 or 12 years with no upward trend.

    Hadcrut3 shows no warming since March, 1997 or 15 years and 10 months to December. See:
    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/trend

    The only reason the slope is + 0.000356487 per year is because the low December anomaly of 0.233 has not been updated yet. But SkS verifies the slope is 0 to the end of December. Should the January anomaly be 0.251 or less, then the slope will be 0 for a full 16 years.

  54. Gail Combs says:

    Sean says:
    February 18, 2013 at 6:23 pm

    Behind the curtain
    originally by Bishop Hill (and then censored from publication due to old boy pressure from green crooks)…..
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Thanks for posting that. I was hoping someone had saved it.

    There was nothing really earth shattering in it except the affiliations of who was there. For skeptics it was just confirmation of what we already knew.

  55. the1pag says:

    Carbon taxes in the EU are failing — maybe even today. Follow link below to the story in current issue of London-based “The Economist”
    .http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21571940-crunch-time-worlds-most-important-carbon-market-extremely-troubled-scheme

  56. Jack Foster says:
    A properly-designed carbon tax can make this inevitable transition (off fossil fuels) less disruptive,

    That’s what supply and demand does for us already. Price drives alternatives. (or at least it used to before the state became a monster!)

    It’s already the least disruptive way to transition from one technology to another and only requires the voluntary action of free people!!!

  57. Billabong bill says:

    carbon taxes are the first phase. This is the manufacturing of a new age. Think steam age, industrial age, information age, and… green age. Global growth has stagnated because technology has slowed, we have as much information as wel need, and possibly more as a result of the information age. Old technology will “make do” in 90% of cases, so investment in new technology is put on hold. Look no further than the debate around Australia’s NBN – a fibre-based national network which suddenly is questioned as to how useful it actually is.

    The green age is a manufactured age to give people and businesses something to invest in, and invest they must or face the wrath of the tax! Solar panels, wind towers, wave power, you name it and it will require investment. The liberal party down here has proposed the building of dams for hydroelectric power – a green initiative that will create jobs and new investment.

    The green age is the next technological age and it is being forced upon us whether we like it or not. The taxes are required to pay for it.

  58. bobl says:

    @Jack Foster…
    The precautionary principle only applies where the marginal cost of mitigation (insurance) is less than adaption. In the case of climate change mitigation is of the order 1 quadrillion dollars per annum per degree C. This doesn’t even start to take into account the flow on effects to an economy of dampening energy use. A good cost-benefit? If you think so I have a nice national broadband network to sell .

Comments are closed.