King Canuccitelli plans to tax carbon right out of the air

King_CanuccitelliMany readers know the story of the Viking turned King who was said to be able to hold back the sea, only to realize that he had no such power.

King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was “So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back”

I think that’s how SkS political advocate Dana Nuccitelli views his pet climate movement. He thinks that a Carbon Tax is the solution. In a hilariously swivel-eyed op-ed he managed to get published at the Sacramento Bee, Viewpoints: Climate debate is settled; carbon tax is vital where the editorial board didn’t take note of the slow motion discrediting of his claims about the so called 97% scientific consensus, Nuccitelli beams:

One of the most effective solutions – a revenue-neutral carbon tax

The only thing a Carbon Tax will command in California, is a mass exodus of business.

After Obamacare hits business owners hard in 2014 with expected increases up to 146%, many will be stretched to the breaking point. A Carbon Tax would be the final impetus for many to leave the state. That would include my own small business. While we are quoting fables in the context of California business and tax revenue, Dana would do well to read the The Goose With the Golden Egg

ONE day a countryman going to the nest of his Goose found there an egg all yellow and glittering. When he took it up it was as heavy as lead and he was going to throw it away, because he thought a trick had been played upon him. But he took it home on second thoughts, and soon found to his delight that it was an egg of pure gold. Every morning the same thing occurred, and he soon became rich by selling his eggs. As he grew rich he grew greedy; and thinking to get at once all the gold the Goose could give, he killed it and opened it only to find,—nothing.

“GREED OFT O’ERREACHES ITSELF.”

California, once the “golden state” now faces routine economic exodus.

And in the face of world CO2 production, particularly China, what possible difference could a California Carbon Tax make in the face of these numbers?

Source: CDIAC and Harvard, from this WUWT essay: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/co2-emissions-china-is-the-big-hockey-stick-in-the-room/

Note, the drop in the green line. It’s the economy, stupid.

California has already reduced emissions due to its own economic decline, with drops over three straight years, with 2011 dropping 22%, but apparently that isn’t fast enough for King Canucitelli.

But sure, let’s imagine we can tax the Carbon Dioxide right out of the air. With workable ideas like this, I predict Governor “moonbeam” Jerry Brown will soon tap King Canucitelli to head up a new program to tax that CO2 right out of the air, and business tax revenue right out of the state.

About these ads

108 thoughts on “King Canuccitelli plans to tax carbon right out of the air

  1. “revenue neutral” is the ignorant definition used by those unable to understand any tax will bear a cost, an administrative cost that is.

  2. The drop in US CO2 emissions is also from greater reliance on natural gas. Without benefit of signing the Kyoto Treaty, we’ve met its goals, while the cap & tax countries haven’t, despite starving their citizens of energy, while further enriching Chinese windmill makers.

  3. Please stop talking about this clown and his deranged mentor, John Cook. You accord them undeserved credibility every time you mention them.

  4. Anthony…

    You forgot the real meaning of the King Canute fable:
    “He knew his limitations – even if his courtiers did not – so he had his throne carried to the seashore and sat on it as the tide came in, commanding the waves to advance no further. When they didn’t, he had made his point that, though the deeds of kings might appear ‘great’ in the minds of men, they were as nothing in the face of God’s power.”

    REPLY: But, Dana doesn’t believe in God, he’s a Scientologist – Anthony

    Note: While Dana Nucitelli is a unique name, Zeke points out below in comments that it may or may not be the same person. And Richard Tol says one Dana is a man, another is a woman. So I’ve redacted the reply accordingly. – Anthony

  5. “any tax will bear a cost, an administrative cost that is”
    If fairly implemented, it is hard to see how administrative costs of a carbon tax could be worse than what the IRS does.

  6. He should stand for governor. Anyone that goes to the polls saying. “we want tax you until you bleed” always does really well.

  7. “He’s a Scientologist”!!

    Great. Next time I read some idiot having a go at Chris Brooker for (apparently) being a Creationist, I shall have a riposte in my quiver. Thanks.

  8. “REPLY: But, Dana doesn’t believe in God, he’s a Scientologist – Anthony”

    Well, that explains a very great deal.

  9. Steve Reynolds:
    If fairly implemented, it is hard to see how administrative costs of a carbon tax could be worse than what the IRS does.

    Steve, this is California. Don’t be underestimating our politicos.

  10. gallopingcamel says:
    June 5, 2013 at 9:32 am

    What the kinetic dromedary said. Unfortunately, We need to know the enemy, because he gets airtime with his ill-considered foolishness, and we need to be armed with information to counter it.

  11. Steve Reynolds says:
    June 5, 2013 at 9:41 am

    I take it, then, that you implicitly support a carbon tax. Sigh…….

  12. ‘Note, the drop in the green line. It’s the economy, stupid.”

    It’s actually more than the economy. hmm in a little bit we will post some analysis that explains the primary causes. of course the economy is one of the causes, but there are other important factors at play as well.

  13. Eric says:
    June 5, 2013 at 9:36 am

    REPLY: But, Dana doesn’t believe in God, he’s a Scientologist – Anthony

    That explains entire volumes worth of weird.

  14. Anthony,

    Careful about the scientology claim. Reading those leaked scientology documents we also find:

    “DANA NUCCITELLI and MERRICK LEVETAN of Atlanta were married in December,
    2003
    by the Rev. Tom Davis”

    Source: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/alt.religion.scientology/cOqkp9Pd0fU

    Unless gay marriage was legalized in Georgia recently, and Dana made quite a treck, you might have the wrong Dana Nuccitelli.

    REPLY: Such a unique name, who would suspect there is another? That was in Dec 2003 though, not recently. Not enough information to tell either way since I know nothing about Dana’s preferences. So, we’ll call it ambiguous. – Anthony

  15. Actually the anology in which King Canute is often used is a misrepresentation of the legend.

    According to the story, the king had his chair carried down to the shore and ordered the waves not to break upon his land.

    When his orders were ignored, he pronounced: “Let all the world know that the power of kings is empty and worthless and there is no King worthy of the name save Him by whose will heaven and earth and sea obey eternal laws,” (Historia Anglorum, ed D E Greenway).

    The account shows Canute setting out to demonstrate that the tide would come in regardless, says Professor Simon Keynes of the department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic at the University of Cambridge.

  16. Carbon Trading Schemes ( scams) will collapse Banks, Economy’s and Government’s Faster then credit default swaps snd Sub-Prime mess combined of 2008 almost completely did. Governments and States are in such debt they are looking for any way to keep pensions, benefits for the politicians and keeping the Heat or AC on.

  17. Before Revenue-neutral Carbon Tax, the people pay tax amount T1 and the State receives revenue R1

    T1=R1+OH1 where OH1 is current overhead (admin)

    After RN-CT the State expects revenue R2=R1. Old overheads are insignificantly reduced as many taxes are unchanged, plus there is a OH2 of carbon tax overheads.

    So the people pay

    T2=R1+OH1+ OH2

  18. “One of the most effective solutions – a revenue-neutral carbon tax..”

    OMG, not revenue neutral again. Do you know how many times I have heard this term thrown around over the years? Thousands of times.

    The public must understand this simple rule: There is no such thing as a revenue neutral tax!!!!! They do not exist.

    No government is going to take the time and cost of bringing in a new tax and then not make money on it. They might be revenue neutral in the first year or so, then they incrementally increase the tax so that it is not neutral anymore.

    When I hear someone talk about revenue neutral taxes, I’m not sure if they are just young and naive, or if they are flat-out lying through their teeth.

  19. Richard Tol:
    Scientologist Dana is a woman. Environmentalist Dana is a man.

    How does he do that?

  20. Gillard is going to get such a beating for this Carbon Tax that labour will probably disappear as a political entity in Australia come september. They have already in Queensland (they got 1 or 2 seats in parliament)

  21. “REPLY: But, Dana doesn’t believe in God, he’s a Scientologist – Anthony”

    No, he isn’t. Maybe you were joking, but people believed it.

    He also didn’t make any claim that taxing carbon in Cali or the US would single-handedly solve global warming. Not sure why you felt debunking that point was worth a thread.

    REPLY: well, you wouldn’t since you tend to be in agreement with such schemes. I’ll post opinions as I see fit, tough noogies if that confuses you. – Anthony

  22. Anthony,

    Definitely a doppleganger (and a woman). See: http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/l/e/v/Janice-S-Levetan/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0185.html

    Similarly: http://pinterest.com/dananuch/pins/?filter=likes

    Methinks you might owe Dana an apology.

    REPLY: I’ve redacted the claim. I’ll be happy to apologize to Dana, provided he offers an apology for the vitriol and hate (and wishes for my death) that goes on at SkS in their forum. Its one thing to make an honest mistake in an off the cuff comment, quite another to hate on a systemic level. – Anthony

  23. Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    June 5, 2013 at 10:12 am
    Scientologist Dana is a woman. Environmentalist Dana is a man.

    So that would make e-Dana a Climatologist? Though he does seem to have the same blind conviction that he can control matter, energy, space, and time, in this case via a carbon tax…. Every time I hear the the name Nucitelli it makes me think of Nutella….a lot of nuts with only a little bit of chocolate…

  24. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/699c1f18-8d79-11e2-a0fd-00144feabdc0.html

    March 15, 2013 7:02 pm
    A least-worst tax

    A levy on carbon is an idea whose time has come

    Taxes are always a regrettable necessity, but some are less regrettable than others. A tax that strengthens energy security and cuts pollution, while minimising the damage done to employment and investment, is one of the least regrettable of all.

    Yet a carbon tax, which has all those characteristics, is struggling to find support from the US administration or in Congress. It deserves much wider enthusiasm.

    One of the few uncontroversial conclusions of economics is that it is better to tax “bads” than “goods”. Wages and profits are desirable objectives, and governments have no good excuse for obstructing them. They are taxed largely for reasons of convenience, at the cost of disincentives to wage-earning and profitmaking that are a drag on the economy.

  25. “REPLY: well, you wouldn’t since you tend to be in agreement with such schemes. I’ll post opinions as I see fit, tough noogies if that confuses you. – Anthony”

    Whether I agree with it doesn’t really matter. You still wasted a whole post debunking a claim he didn’t make.

    REPLY: That’s a strawman argument. Again tough noogies for you. – Anthony

  26. Anthony,

    Not to get overly argumentative, but “provided he offers an apology for the vitriol and hate (and wishes for my death) that goes on at SkS in their forum” is a bit silly. You are not responsible for the occasional vitriolic (or downright violent) comment that appears here, and Dana is not responsible for the comments other might make at SKS. If he had personally written something vitriolic or hateful toward you, or called for your death, that would be one thing, but holding comments made by others on a forum he moderates against him seems like a bit of a double standard.

    Anyhow, the scientologist thing seems like a reasonably innocent mistake. Lets move on to more important things.

    REPLY:At WUWT, we do our best to moderate those things out when we see them, because they don’t speak for our views. Well, you should walk a mile in my shoes someday if you think the amount of hate directed at me and requests for an apology is “silly”.

    The difference is that it was an insider’s forum, with no moderation and an “anything goes attitude”. One commneter said the lack of moderation was “liberating”. As one of the principals of that website, Dana can most certainly speak for it, and he has. He simply prefers to keep the status-quo there. They are in their comfort zone. One of these days that comfort zone will get somebody hurt, fiscally, physically or both. – Anthony

  27. So much for a “revenue-neutral” carbon tax – quote:

    “But a new report from the Congressional Research Service released today illustrates why it’s such an enticing prospect. According to the CRS analysis, a modest carbon tax of $20 per ton that rises 5.6 percent annually could cut the projected 10-year deficit by 50 percent — from $2.3 trillion down to $1.1 trillion.”

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/09/25/903521/20-dollar-per-ton-carbon-tax-could-reduce-deficit-by-12-trillion-in-10-years/?mobile=nc

    Liar. liar, pants on fire, Dana!

  28. Scottie says:
    June 5, 2013 at 10:38 am

    Richard Tol:
    Scientologist Dana is a woman. Environmentalist Dana is a man.

    How does he do that?
    ————————————————————————————————————–
    Anything goes for a Twoface with a forked tounge…

  29. Dana is using “Gore” tactics. Scare them the hell to death and watch the the coffers fill by people selling or buying. Dana may not actually be making money out of this but he hopes to fill the “kudos” coffers.

  30. I also retract my support of the statement that Nuccitelli is a Scientologist. I should have realised that anything relating – even so ephemerally – to ‘science’ would be beyond his pale. (Although, he and Scientology are definitely reported to be ‘cults’ – according to the Guardian (H/T to the great Bob Monkhouse))

  31. Omnologos says:
    “So the people pay
    T2=R1+OH1+ OH2″

    It is way worse than that. That is just the additional tax we will pay. The increased cost of energy increases the cost of pretty much everything since it takes energy to produce and transport goods sold. A carbon tax will result in lost jobs and a lowering of standard of living for the middle class and the poor. Taxes will have to be further increased to pay for the increased number of people needing to live on welfare.
    Proof of what happens when you institute a carbon tax is to observe what is happening in Australia as Sean points out.
    Not a pretty sight at all, unless you happen to be a “greenie”.

  32. Anthony says:
    California, once the “golden state” now faces routine economic exodus.
    ============================================================
    yep. The famous Prop 13, getting rid of California’s land tax,
    killed the “golden state.”

    Same thing happened in Michigan 1995. Last economic crash
    (2008) GMC fell over.

    Delaware is now only state with land tax. How is it doing?

    No land tax is bad for business because taxes have to be shifted to
    economic activity. As Willis has so clearly pointed out: tax energy, you
    tax economic activity. Tax economic activity and business is damaged.

    Result: business becomes very sensitive to location. The higher the
    burden of non-land taxes, the more business either shuts down or
    emigrates. Either choice is bad for jobs and no jobs is bad for people.

  33. The carbon dioxide tax we pay now is revenue neutral. I don’t pay it and they have zero revenue increase because I don’t pay it. That is the best kind of revenue neutral tax.

  34. Dear Sophistry, err, Sophecles

    Were you here in California when Prop 13 passed? Do you live here now?

    A no to either or both of those questions makes your post nothing but uninformed drivel. There are property taxes in California. Quite high by most state standards. The reason Prop 13 passed resoundingly was that people were receiving tax bills that exceeded their mortgage payment. People were being forced to remodel and rent part of their homes or outright sell them because they could not afford the taxes.

    A tipping point was finally reached and government’s ability to steal from the public was curtailed. The failure of the state government here to live within their means has everything to do with promising billions and starting new programs and nannying us all to death. It has nothing to do with protecting homeowners from being tossed out on their ears when they can no longer afford the property taxes.

    pbh

  35. Where is the tax scheme? It’s hard to understand how it works. Anybody have a link to the actual plan? I read the article & he only says a few consertives support the plan, but doesn’t give the plan.

    Because it utilizes the free market to drive the transition to clean energy. Putting a tax on carbon corrects the distortion in the market that gives fossil fuels an unfair advantage over clean energy. Once that distortion is corrected – by making fossil fuels accountable for their costs to society – clean tech becomes the more attractive option for generating energy.

    In a free market you don’t drive anything. You let the market work it’s will. If green enegry was profitable on a large scale folks would be using it. Whom ever makes green enegry usable on a large scale will be giving Bill Gates a weekly allowance. :)

  36. He may not be a scientologist, but he is wasting his families inheritance from their tasty chocolate hazelnut spread on his climate nonsense.

  37. Anthony, we left CA 3 years ago and moved to Austin TX. Though Austin is a liberal bastion it benefits greatly from the overall conservative, business friendly Texas. You would be welcomed here with open arms!

  38. He may not be an “actual” scientologist, but his ideas have the same credibilty as Xenu:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu

    Or possibly he has been infected by a Xenusian Thetan and is “a person who is able to create his own universe”.
    Now that

  39. The hidden agenda for most Warmists is nothing to do with global warming. It’s all about shutting down the fossil fuel infrastructure. They just haven’t thought through the unintended consequences yet.

  40. Nuccitelli beams:

    One of the most effective solutions – a revenue-neutral carbon tax

    The only thing a Carbon Tax will command in California, is a mass exodus of business.

    After Obamacare hits business owners hard in 2014 with expected increases up to 146%, many will be stretched to the breaking point. A Carbon Tax would be the final impetus for many to leave the state. That would include my own small business.

    The leftists will keep coming back to this over and over. And if they ever get it they will then move on to something else, and go after that over and over. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. Here in the “free” USA they already have succeeded in swamping the citizens with an unholy triad of Ponzi scheme timebombs set to detonate on future generations: Socialist Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Obamacare. There is already no way to massage the numbers of financing these into fiscal sanity. But they are working too slowly for the leftists so naturally they need more. A Carbon Tax fits the bill. As does a VAT. They will press these until you cry “uncle”, and then proceed to the next attack.

    The only thing that bothers me is that even today we still have those that want to take some purist view on Climate matters, continually steering the discussion back to an alleged scientific dispute and away from the painful truth. That truth? You have been had. This is politics disguised as Science, plain and simple. Dana Nutcase is nothing more than a leftist useful idiot, as is Mann and Hansen and McKibben and Romm and John Kook. It is yet another form of the old parable: “the greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing everyone he doesn’t exist”. He does exist, and in our timeline his preferred form is that of the totalitarian left.

    I am starting to believe that human beings have a normally dormant gene, one that is normally active in other species like ants and bees that causes the critter to be natural born slaves forever seeking domination by a leader, allowing themselves to be a happy worker servant to the hive. This gene is active in probably 1/4 to 1/3 of the population in the USA. Consequently we have two distinct types of people: those that want to be free, and those that don’t and are willing to be dominated. The third possible type of human are those so-called independents who are too cowardly to pick a team and continually insist on trying to compromise the two sides. However there is no compromise between freedom and domination because compromised freedom is domination.

    In earlier times that gene was more dominant resulting in Kingdoms and Empires and Feudal societies with more obvious servitude toward the Queen Ant and Queen Bee. Here in the USA we rolled back that structure, at least for a while. It will take a lot of courage from the fickle “free” people here to maintain it. Dana Nutcase and the rest are on a mission to unravel it, and quickly. They have targeted the fickle moderates and have chosen to use “Science” as the vehicle. Don’t fall for it.

  41. Revenue neutral just means that they tax guys they don’t like, and use the money to buy votes.

  42. Canute was the prototypical sceptic and BS-debunker. He should be your model, your hero. His demonstration was staged to deflate and discredit the syncophants around him.

  43. The Sacramento Bee op-ed by Dana Nuccitelli and Mark Reynolds (who you did not acknowledge as coauthor) is really just pointing to the agruments made by two conservatives from the Hoover Institution in the WSJ. That column can be found here:

    Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
    by George P. Shultz (Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow; Chair, Energy Policy Task Force; and member of the Working Group on Economic Policy) and Gary S. Becker (Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow; member of the Working Group on Economic Policy; and member of the Task Force on Energy Policy)

    http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/144046

    Why are you attacking Nuccitelli and not them?

  44. MS says:

    June 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    If the Hoover Institution had the same idea then they are as bad as Dana.

  45. Thomas L. Friedman has argued for a revenue-positive carbon tax as a means of reducing carbon emissions, paying for infrastructure upgrades, and paying down the national debt.

    Suppose the Democrats recapture the House of Representatives in 2014. Would any kind of carbon tax, revenue neutral or otherwise, have any real chance of being enacted into law in 2015 if the Democrats regain full control the Congress?

    Suppose the Democrats regain control of the House in 2014, but then in 2015 balk at imposing a direct carbon tax through legislation. (They are politicians first and Democrats second, after all.)

    In that case, would there be pressure on President Obama to impose a system of stiff carbon pollution fines levied by the EPA on carbon emitters, a system of fines that was the functional equivalent of a tax on carbon emissions?

  46. Yeesh, this is a terrible post. As Brian H. pointed out, Canute was a role model for how to apply evidence to evaluate a theory, so you are complimenting Nuccitelli by comparing him. And you screwed up the religion thing. And the apocalyptic stuff about the economy is no more credible than the worst claims of CAGW. Can’t you just pull the entire post and comments and apologize to US for letting things get so sloppy?

  47. I wouldn’t go as far Matt, but King Canute was mocking hubris, not practicing it. And like a few others, I do worry that you are raising Nutty’s profile more than you are discrediting him (and besides, to anyone with brain-1 he is self-discrediting, so why bother?).

  48. The fine State of California obviously has to pass a law to tax all Chinese CO2 emissions, then find a way to enforce it. Now, that’s what I would call a challenge.

  49. I thought that Canute said “I’ll make this sea retreat even if it takes me 6 hours”

  50. MS says:
    June 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm

    “http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/144046

    Why are you attacking Nuccitelli and not them?”

    “Americans like to compete on a level playing field. All the players should have an equal opportunity to win based on their competitive merits, not on some artificial imbalance that gives someone or some group a special advantage.

    We think this idea should be applied to energy producers. They all should bear the full costs of the use of the energy they provide. Most of these costs are included in what it takes to produce the energy in the first place, but they vary greatly in the price imposed on society by the pollution they emit and its impact on human health and well-being, the air we breathe and the climate we create. We should identify these costs and see that they are attributed to the form of energy that causes them.
    At the same time, we should seek out the many forms of subsidy that run through the entire energy enterprise and eliminate them. In their place we propose a measure that could go a long way toward leveling the playing field: a revenue-neutral tax on carbon, a major pollutant.”

    Glad to oblige! This tripe from the dopes…er gentlemen at the Hoover Institute, whose work( not these two but the Institute itself) I generally tend to agree with, is proof that even if you argue from sound principles, if you start from a fallacious premise i.e. carbon is a major pollutant, you have no chance of arriving at a correct conclusion.
    A carbon tax is one of those things that can be made to sound reasonable and attractive when discussed in the abstract, but will never be reasonable and attractive if and when the politicians finally succeed in enacting one. Whatever form that it takes, it will decidedly NOT be revenue neutral and, if not from the very beginning, it will eventually evolve into a tax on everything.

  51. Brian H said on June 5, 2013 at 1:15 pm:

    Canute was the prototypical sceptic and BS-debunker. He should be your model, your hero. His demonstration was staged to deflate and discredit the syncophants around him.

    The Legend of King Canute has a long-established popular interpretation, as used by Watts. You wish to skewer him for using it? Are there any other popular viewpoints you wish to complain about now, like young pop stars behaving as privileged brats who drive recklessly and illegally imbibe, but you find them to be misunderstood artistic geniuses worthy of emulation?

    But I agree, Anthony should accept Canute as a role model. So King Watts should immediately order the executions of those within his realm he suspects of being willing to undermine his reign, sanction the slaughtering by associates of potential opposition elsewhere, and support the assassinations of those who attempt to flee his righteous wrath.

    Good choice for a hero, Brian. BTW, ask not for whom the door is knocked, it is knocked for thee.
    ===

    Matt Skaggs said on June 5, 2013 at 2:40 pm:

    Yeesh, this is a terrible post. (…) Can’t you just pull the entire post and comments and apologize to US for letting things get so sloppy?

    So Anthony should just “pull a SkepSci”, and delete embarrassing stuff? Maybe keep the comments nice and tidy as well? And should delete derogatory comments, like yours, or edit them into something more pleasing to the management?

    Interesting proposal.

    Oh, and Anthony should apologize to US, to YOU? Wow. I am so sorry you are dissatisfied with your WUWT experience. As a contributor to this site, I feel, you know, a little sorry about your disappointment.

    I’ll tell you what I can do. I’ll speak with Anthony about returning your site subscription fee. You are unhappy. The customer is always right even when wrong. I’ll ask Anthony, on your behalf, to return every cent you paid to the site to read this poor article that so badly fell short of your expectations. You really do deserve to have everything you paid for. Shall I do that for you, Matt?

  52. Clyde says:
    June 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm

    Where is the tax scheme? It’s hard to understand how it works. Anybody have a link to the actual plan? I read the article & he only says a few conservatives support the plan, but doesn’t give the plan.

    I went looking for a James Hansen reference to this tax scheme, as I heard about it from him first. I don’t have to look closely, but I found

    http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2010/04/25/scientist-james-hansen-proposes-%E2%80%9Cpeople%E2%80%99s-climate-stewardship-act%E2%80%9D-a-simple-carbon-fee-with-revenue-returned-to-americans/

    and it goes to

    http://www.carbontax.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/The-Carbon-Fee-and-Dividend-Act-of-201011.doc

    Oops – dinner time.

  53. Berényi Péter says:
    June 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
    The fine State of California obviously has to pass a law to tax all Chinese CO2 emissions, then find a way to enforce it. Now, that’s what I would call a challenge.
    ===========================================
    EASY !!!
    California Democrats will tax California citizens for the Chinese CO2.
    (Makes as much sense as most Democrat economic/environmental ideas)

  54. Don’t even know what is going on here for sure.
    But, I do know stupid mistakes can remind oneself of fallibility.
    I always took (my hated and embarrassing) mistakes as a wake-up call.
    But, how many mistakes were not caught ?

    Are mistakes even permitted, let alone made anymore, in this political atmosphere.
    Or is the pressure just too crushing.

  55. If there are two Dana Nucitellis, it is clearly not a unique name. “Unique” means “the only one’. It is an absolute term. Expressions of qualification, such as “very unique”, are simply demonstrations of ignorance.
    “Unique” does not mean “strange”. My DNA structure is probably unique, but probably not strange. The reverse is probably true of my mental processes.

  56. Beta Blocker says:
    June 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm

    They are politicians first and Democrats second, after all

    ####

    They are Marxists first and Democrats second, after all

  57. His climate-salvation busyness looks like self-promotion for the simple joy of celebrity. It’s probably more appealing than swallowing live goldfish in front of an audience of dozens.

  58. Dana Nuccitelli and Kevin Sanker were married on August 25, 2012!
    They have a wedding website.

    http://nuccitelliandsanker.ourwedding.com/

    Dana Nuccitelli (dananuccitelli) is on Pintrest!

    Well, don’t know how I feel about a woman named Kevin, but clearly Dana sure married up. I suppose they can do whatever they want as allegedly responsible consenting adults, but offhand I’m sure she could have done better.

  59. Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations……
    He has something to say about Nuccitelli’s new “Blog” at the UK Guardian,
    he has been given, to write with the “shill” John Abrahams ( yes the very same)
    This is the Abrahams that ranted at and analysed a speech of Christopher Monckton’s
    for two years and more, “nit picking” from Abraham, and ill conceived at that,
    and as Monckton proved in a series of video reposts, without foundation.
    Now he has teamed up with Nuccitelli, for presumably Twice the Hilarity,
    and of course twice the money. The “Greenian” is well known for inviting
    aboard controversial crackpotterii because it does sell newspapers rather well.

    Still The Bob Tisdale analysis is worth reading here :
    bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/

    See The Entire Monckton / Abraham Video Battle Saga
    at the special page devoted to that, at the Fraudulent Climate
    website – Click the name Axel abobe and select the entry …
    “Monckton & Abraham” from the Quick Page Menu Button.

  60. Kim Moore said on June 5, 2013 at 6:24 pm:

    His climate-salvation busyness looks like self-promotion for the simple joy of celebrity. It’s probably more appealing than swallowing live goldfish in front of an audience of dozens.

    Swallowing live goldfish is easy. Having them come out alive on the other end, that’s worthy of a BBC Science special. Maybe Richard Black could host.

  61. The Greenian, Grauniad, Guardian isn’t all bad though …

    This surreal entry from another page at the Guardian illustrates the controversial reporting style of other bloggers like Charlie Skelton, for instance, as he rails against the Bilderberg Attendees.

    “What this whole thing boils down to,” boomed the councillor, “is this: are you, or are you not, setting a precedent for vehicles parking on the verge of the Old Hempstead Road?”

    Thus began an hour-long (hour-and-a-half-long?) discussion about whether or not cars and press vehicles should be allowed to park on a strip of grass running parallel to the A41, just opposite the Grove hotel. It was like a weird, dystopian episode of “Keeping Up Appearances” [ a British TV Show based upon the mirth of pointless trivialities]. Never mind that our Ministers are meeting in secret with the heads of Shell, BP, Google and Amazon – what about the verge!

    There was an audible gasp when, under intense questioning, Chief Inspector Rhodes was forced to admit, citing a “bylaw”, that the no-parking signs on the verge were actually fraudulent: no such law existed.. One lady, almost beside herself, gestured to the audience. “There are media here! This story is going to get out!”

    guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/bilderberg-2013-goldman-sachs-watford

  62. If the government of California is really looking at the purported merits of a carbon tax, for your consideration, here are 2 words to ponder: Julia Gillard.

  63. Hmm,

    Prior to employing a revenue neutral tax, I would think the first thing to do is to remove the subsidies that fossil fuels get. And then because I’m a libertarian I have to object to the huge defense expenditures we have protecting our interests in foreign oil supply. I mean seriously, if extract gas here in the US the cost of building and protecting your pipelines is a part of the product cost.
    But if you import Oil from the middle east your supply is protected by the taxpayer who funds the military. freeloaders piss me off.

  64. RoHa says:

    June 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    @ u.k.(us)

    “Are mistakes even permitted”

    No. You have to be perfect, like me.
    ——————
    Dang, out of the woodwork they come.

  65. @Ric Werme – I went looking for a James Hansen reference to this tax scheme, as I heard about it from him first. I don’t have to look closely, but I found

    ——————————–

    Thanks for the link.

    If Dana’s plan is anything like Hansen’s it will fail. Hansen wants to tax the fossil-fuel companies upon the first sale at the mine, wellhead or port of entry. Then…

    The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, and it should help win public support for a rising carbon fee.

    1. The fossil-fuel companies will pass the cost on to the customers.
    2. The transition period to a clean energy future will take decades or longer.
    3. The “dividend” or “green check” won’t cover the cost.

    I wish Hansen & those who support these schemes would have to live on green energy for 3 months. Green electric, green cars, buy products produced using only green enegry, work place is green powered..etc Then ask them how they liked it.

  66. “Revenue neutral” means that the amount collected in tax will be returned to taxpayers, either in the form of rebates or by abolishing other taxes. Either way, it is another form of income redistribution, since there is no point in taxing people and then giving them all back exactly what they paid. And, as others have pointed out, “revenue neutral” does not mean cost free. As well as overheads, there is the drag effect on the economy of punishing the sectors that pay the bulk of the tax.

    Mind you, anyone who believes that politicians will keep their grubby mitts off a big pot of new money should contact me about a bridge I have for sale …

  67. Revenue Neutral

    The liberal definition of revenue neutral is — all the money taken in is spent. You start in debt, increase taxes and increase spending and end up still in debt — therefore revenue from new taxes is always neutral. It never effects indebtedness.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  68. Money is best spent by those that know how to spend it.
    How it is acquired, is best left to those with no oversight.

  69. The story of King Canute keeps on giving.

    When the British Parliament passed the Climate Change Bill, a slow motion suicide note for the economy, it was at almost the exact spot that Canute got his feet wet.

    Eventually this fact will be commented on in every article written about the madness of crowds which afflicted Western society in the late 20th century.

    JF

  70. Elizabeth said “Gillard is going to get such a beating for this Carbon Tax …”

    True, but I’ll wager the party that replaces her will keep the tax. They will simply make up an excuse, and over time the public gets used to the tax and simply forgets about it.This exact scenario happens regularly in Canada, its astonishing and sad.

  71. Jimbo says:
    June 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm

    The hidden agenda for most Warmists is nothing to do with global warming. It’s all about shutting down the fossil fuel infrastructure. They just haven’t thought through the unintended consequences yet.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Yes they have. It is called Problem – Reaction – Solution (Where the problem is intentionally manufactured)
    This quote from Pascal Lamy Director General of the World Trade Organization lays out the actual thought and motivations behind the orchestrated economic collapse and CAGW scare.

    …The challenges posed by globalization are far from simple. Global policymaking has become more complex as it has become more important….

    In the same way, climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared….

    Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?….

    At the same time, globalization is blurring the line between national and world issues, redefining our notions of space, sovereignty and identity. As we saw during the recent financial crisis, economic turbulence in one country now sends shockwaves worldwide.

    And finance is not the only area where domestic issues are turning into global concerns. Countries claim the right to use national resources as they see fit. But the byproduct can be greenhouse gases or disappearing fish stocks or raw material shortages — which impact the interconnected world we share.

    It is true that popular criticism of globalization can be irrational — or worse. But it is equally true that people are increasingly, and legitimately, worried about unemployment, poverty and growing inequalities, about the health of the planet, about the safety of their children’s food, about the basic rights of their fellow women and men. These are complex issues — too complex to be resolved in Internet chat groups, but too important to be ignored.

    How to resolve the tension between the globalization of issues and our narrow national interest?….

    The reality is that, so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

    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.

    In short the ‘Vision’ of world leaders like Pascal Lamy, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Al Gore is “a new international order” where there is no national sovereignty, (Lamy points to the EU as a template) and nations are ‘interdependent’

    Interdependence is the key concept we at WUWT are overlooking

    The Interdependence Movement – Citizens without Borders
    From a Stanford University site: Message from Global Models about an Interdependent World – John M. Richardson, Jr.

    Preparing Students for an Interdependent World: Role of Cooperation and Social Interdependence Theory. Karl A. Smith. Purdue University…

    The IMF on Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence – Finance & Development September 2012

    ….New convergence and strengthened interdependence coincide with a third trend, relating to income distribution. In many countries the distribution of income has become more unequal, and the top earners’ share of income in particular has risen dramatically. In the United States the share of the top 1 percent has close to tripled over the past three decades, now accounting for about 20 percent of total U.S. income…

    average per capita incomes in emerging market and developing economies taken as a whole began to grow much faster than in advanced economies. The sharp division between rich and poor countries that characterized the world since the industrial revolution in the early part of the 19th century is now weakening….

    NOTE: the real winners are the top 1 percent whose $$$ has tripled over the last three years.(Economic down turn? What economic down turn…)

    If you read nothing else I link to read: “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations” …Does economic interdependence increase or decrease the probability of war among states?

    This concept of ‘Interdependence’ explains why it is ‘EVIL’ for the EU, USA, and Australia to have coal and produce goods and why it is ‘GOOD’ for China, Brazil and India to fire up coal burning plants to support new manufacturing plants. World Bank funding for coal power stations has soared 40-fold over the last five years to hit a record high of $4.4 billion in 2010, new figures reveal. and graph

    Some of Al Gore’s thoughts on the emergence of a deeply interconnected global economy.

  72. Cnut actually did the wave thing to prove his doting courtiers wrong. He wasn’t so daft to think he was that powerful to hold back the tides.

  73. Steven Mosher says:
    June 5, 2013 at 9:28 pm
    Hmm,
    Prior to employing a revenue neutral tax, I would think the first thing to do is to remove the subsidies that fossil fuels get. And then because I’m a libertarian I have to object to the huge defense expenditures we have protecting our interests in foreign oil supply. I mean seriously, if extract gas here in the US the cost of building and protecting your pipelines is a part of the product cost.
    But if you import Oil from the middle east your supply is protected by the taxpayer who funds the military. freeloaders piss me off.
    ============================================
    I need some help here.
    What are the “subsidies” for fossil fuels?

  74. Perhaps it is told differently in the US or Australia, but the King Cnut (Canute) analogy works very badly for many UK readers. When I was at school, the fable was taught as the King being a very modest, wise, ruler who was teaching his fawning courtiers the limits of his power.

    “You-know-who” and “that website” receive more of your time than they merit.

  75. Rather unfair to Canute (Cnut).
    He staged the commanding of the tide to demonstrate that though a King, he was a mere mortal, with no God like powers. A rather wise King in fact.

  76. Ruler of the waves[edit]Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”.[95] This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.[96]

  77. “klem says:

    June 6, 2013 at 1:03 am”

    When has a politician, going in to an election, ever kept their word? In all my memory, none have. Whoever wins in Aus in Sept, which given the result in 2010 is no guarantee that it won’t be an ALP/Green/Independent coalition, I am pretty sure the revenue stream will remain. The Aussie budget deficit is at it’s highest ever in modern politics, the Govn’t *IS* broke!

  78. Matthew W – I am also wondering about the subsidies for fossil fuels that Mosher refers to. I assume, also, that he would offset them against the massive taxes that are imposed on them by every jurisdiction that has the opportunity to do so.

  79. They keep talking about these carbon taxes. They never say exactly where all this money is going to go or how they are going to eliminate the dreaded CO2 monster. I guess they figure everything will be so expensive that no one will buy any carbon-based fuel… maybe we can sit around remembering campfires and sing Kum-bi-ya…

  80. johanna says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am

    Matthew W – I am also wondering about the subsidies for fossil fuels that Mosher refers to. I assume, also, that he would offset them against the massive taxes that are imposed on them by every jurisdiction that has the opportunity to do so.
    ============================================================
    There no (substantial) subsidies for fossil fuels.
    Just Leftist claptrap.

  81. “TimO says:

    June 6, 2013 at 6:46 am”

    10% of the Aussie carbon tax goes to the UN climate fund. Thanks Minister Combet, like some of your colleagues, have you cleared out your office yet? Maybe you should follow their lead?

  82. “Matthew W says:

    June 6, 2013 at 7:28 am”

    Apparently there is going to be an investigation into why fuel (Gas/diesel etc) prices are so high in the UK. Apparently, it’s the oil companies that are gouging prices. Really? What about the ~80% component in the price of a litre of petrol that is tax/duty/vat?

  83. Patrick says:
    June 6, 2013 at 8:10 am
    “Matthew W says:
    June 6, 2013 at 7:28 am”
    Apparently there is going to be an investigation into why fuel (Gas/diesel etc) prices are so high in the UK. Apparently, it’s the oil companies that are gouging prices. Really? What about the ~80% component in the price of a litre of petrol that is tax/duty/vat.
    ===========================================================
    I have no idea as to what your point may be.
    Do you think that the VAT is a subsidy?
    Got news for you , BIG OIL ain’t collecting that tax.

  84. johanna says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am

    “Matthew W – I am also wondering about the subsidies for fossil fuels that Mosher refers to. I assume, also, that he would offset them against the massive taxes that are imposed on them by every jurisdiction that has the opportunity to do so.”

    All I can think of is the oil depletion allowance, http://www.answers.com/topic/depletion-allowance:

    “In tax law, the deductions from gross income allowed investors in exhaustible commodities (such as minerals, oil, or gas) for the depletion of the deposits. The depletion allowance is intended as an incentive to stimulate investment in this high-risk industry, though critics argue that mineral deposits are valuable enough to justify high levels of investment even without tax incentives.”
    And:
    “The U.S. tax code provides so-called depletion allowances for mineral deposits and standing timber used in the creation of income. These allowances were instituted by the Revenue Act of 1913 and derive from the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows the federal government to tax income, but not capital. The Revenue Act of 1926 allows owners or operators of mineral properties to calculate depletion as a percentage of gross income. As of 2001, the depletion allowance on mineral deposits may be calculated on either a cost or a percentage basis. Since 1975, however, integrated producers have not been allowed to calculate oil and gas depletion on a percentage basis. Timber depletion must be calculated on a cost basis.”

  85. It looks to me like Richard Tol has been playing tricks on Anthony. First Richard tweets this:

    Anthony seems to have picked this up, thus explaining his reply above. Richard Tol then comes here to comment that there are two different Danas. But Richard already knew that about 10 hours earlier than the tweet above:

    I could be wrong though.

    REPLY: I don’t think Dr. Tol is playing any tricks, and I wasn’t aware of a second Dana until comments in this thread. – Anthony

  86. “REPLY: I don’t think Dr. Tol is playing any tricks, and I wasn’t aware of a second Dana until comments in this thread. – Anthony”

    No, you weren’t, but Richard Tol knew that there was a second Dana when he responded to your tweet announcing this blog post.

  87. JPeden says:
    June 6, 2013 at 9:31 am
    johanna says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am
    ===================================
    Yes, but that ain’t a “subsidy.”

  88. Item: There is no such thing as a “revenue-neutral” tax. Even if the proceeds are fully refunded to taxpayers, there is still the cost of administering it – paying all those new zillions of bureaucrats – which will come out of the taxpayers’ hide somewhere else. And as with other so-called revenue-neutral schemes, wealth will be redistributed from poorer to richer.

    Item: At least 125,000 jobs were lost and 10,000 companies were put out of business in Australia by the carbon tax. (The US equivalent would be 150,000 businesses closed and 1,875,000 jobs lost.)

    Item: As many as 36,000 people died of hypothermia or related causes because of carbon taxes in Europe during the last three years.

  89. Matthew W says:
    June 6, 2013 at 11:31 am

    JPeden says:
    June 6, 2013 at 9:31 am
    johanna says:
    June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am
    ===================================
    Yes, but that ain’t a “subsidy.”
    ————
    Exactly! Other than what any business might get as a deduction, I have no idea what the Progressives are calling a “subsidy”. The depletion allowance was all I could think of that might be somewhat unique to Big Oil….which now has even “subsidized” Algore.

  90. JPeden – the depletion allowance is not confined to oil. We have a similar setup in Australia, and I daresay that other countries that have substantial resource extraction industries do as well.

    The principle is that the mine/oilwell/gas field or whatever is a finite resource – unlike a farm, or a factory. In recognition of the fact that these businesses are very risky and require a lot of capital investment, the value of the asset is allowed to be depreciated at a greater rate than, say, a factory building. It applies across all resource industries, and is certainly not a specific favour to the evil “fossil fuel” crowd.

    I was surprised to see Mosher repeating this meme, especially when taxes on fuel of the carbon-based kind frequently constitute more than half of the price for consumers, and outweigh the benefits of tax concessions many times over in terms of government revenue.

  91. @Reich
    No tricks.

    Kevin M send me a link to scientology Dana, which I ignored, until scientology came up in an unrelated conversation with Tallbloke. So I forwarded Kevin’s link. Anthony must have picked up on that.

    Embarrassed by my action — alerting people to unchecked data — I then searched and found that there are three people called Dana Nuccitelli.

    I alerted Anthony as soon as I realized that he had copied my mistake.

  92. @Richard Toll

    Ok! Then it was a honest mistake, I take back ‘trick’. Still wondering about your twitter timeline though (just double checked the time difference), but there could be some technical explanation for that.

    Lesson of the day: Check and double-check!

    On that note, Richard, I looked at your version 3 of the consensus paper and to me it appears that you used the same graph for Figures S2 and S3 (probably some file mix-up).

  93. @ Richard Tol

    Sorry (again) for miswriting your last name (stupid spelling self correction features!)

  94. BELIEVE IT WHEN YOU SEE IT, or
    CARBON TAX: DAMAGE FIRST, NOTHING SECOND

    http://tinyurl.com/ct3bnxh

    AUSTRALIA: Federal Minister for Climate Change Greg Combet has confirmed the government will defer $1.4 billion of tax cuts that were supposed to be funded by revenue associated with the carbon tax.

    The tax cuts would be deferred until the carbon price recovered, after it was linked with the European carbon.

    The tax cuts would be dumped and there would be cuts to clean energy initiatives.

    “The clean technology programs were the only programs Labor specifically put in place to compensate manufacturing for the damage caused by the carbon tax”

    “Whilst industry and the Coalition were highlighting the damage that the carbon tax would inflict on Australian manufacturing, Greg Combet hid behind the pretence that industry carbon tax handouts were the solution, and now he’s preparing to dump them.”

  95. It is an economic impossibility to tax an item of any sort, with the revenue confiscated by the government, to result in a revenue nuetral situation.

  96. If You can bend the Laws of Mathematics,
    Like I can bend the Laws of Physics,
    Then anything is possible with Government Accounting.
    secret tip – Really I am bending the
    the Laws of Perception, and so >>>>
    (did you see what I did there?)

Comments are closed.