Guest post by Steven Goddard
The Senate Budget Committee chairman said today :
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said he has spoken to enough colleagues about several different provisions in the budget to make him think Congress won’t pass it. Conrad urged White House budget director Peter Orszag not to “draw lines in the sand” with lawmakers, most notably on Obama’s plan for a cap-and-trade system to curb carbon emissions. “Anybody who thinks it will be easy to get the votes on the budget in the conditions that we face is smoking something,”
So who is Senator Conrad referring to with that last comment?
Orszag acknowledged concerns over the budget and added that the budget plan represents the administration’s “best judgments.“
I wonder if the people in Michigan fighting to keep ice from destroying their houses, are willing to pay extra taxes to fight global warming?
“Despite the Obama administration’s claim that its budget wouldn’t raise taxes on families earning less than $250,000 a year, ‘the budget before us assumes large amounts of money’ from the climate-change legislation, Rep. Dave Camp of Michigan, the top Republican on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, said at a hearing Tuesday. ‘And that means higher prices for Americans for food, for gas, for electricity, and in a state like Michigan for home heating – pretty much anything that they buy.'”
“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
– Candidate Obama in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle January 17, 2008
I wonder if any of that huge sum might get passed on to people making less than $250,000? What do readers think?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A lot of you have opinions, but have any of you ever done any science in your lives? Have you actually studied it? Not just reading papers, but doing actual science?
Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
I thought not.
Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.
You should not talk about Al Gore, Rajendra Pachauri, Leonardo Di Caprio, George Monbiot, Suzanne Goldberg, Fred Pearce, John Kerry, Barack Obama or Ban Ki Moon like that. They might find it offensive.
Christopher Wing,
What’s in it for you?
What is in it for me?
Free speech, intellectual honesty, good science, keeping government from confiscating money, a healthy economy, sane government. Did I miss anything?
“”Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university? I thought not.”
Have you browsed this site for more than a day? I thought not.
Steven Goddard (10:53:25) : said
“What is in it for me?
Free speech, intellectual honesty, good science, keeping government from confiscating money, a healthy economy, sane government. Did I miss anything?”
Yes.
The opportunity to focus our time, effort, and money, on things that desperately need fixing, rather than on those that don’t.
Tonyb
The trouble with havin a popular place to come discuss is that some folks just come to stop the discussions, like Aron. We’ve had a pretty steady stream of them lately. I cant imagine how frustrated they must be coming here, no one screamin the world is ending, people having good natured non hatefilled discussions. What is the world coming to?
Whoops .. sorry Aron.. the name should have been different… My bad for mistype.
Steven Goddard (09:52:39) :
tallbloke,
And would this be a tax on carbon dioxide emanating products or on the individuals emissions? How would it be implemented without gross invasion of privacy if the latter?
The point is that it (theoretically) gives people the opportunity to keep more of their money, while making sensible environmental choices.
Hansen is suggesting that the Government have direct access to everyone’s bank account. Now that is scary.
You didn’t answer my question, which is it, a tax on products, or a tax on emissions? I can see why they’d like both. The former to make easy money, the latter for an excuse to monitor our every breath.
It’s unlike you to concede the need for either, or are you just comparing the lesser of two evils?
I have just Prince Charles announcing on the Brazilian TV that there is only 100 WEEKS left for saving the world, what we need, southamericans and owners of the Amazon forests is change it into carbon credits (in other word “they” will BUY OUR amazon forests for just a few peanuts…..I am sure his highness does not know us..
Recently, last year, during the ALCUE (European and Latin american & Caribbean Countries Summit) held in Lima, Peru, some greenies introduced a whole phraseology which should have declared the amazon forests as a “resource of the whole humanity”-translation:THEIRS. This phraseology was REMOVED from the final agreement.
Did you know it?
Christopher Wing (09:54:42) :
“Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
I thought not. Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.”
Christopher, if you continue reading posts at WUWT, I think you’ll find a good number of scientists and teachers. The host here Mr. Watts, is IMO an excellent teacher. This site allows courteous opposing points of view and regularly moderates excess or discourteous comments.
Sounds like you might be a student with a healthy dose of idealism. Hang on to it whilst you can – reality will soon interrupt it.
At a lecture given in Copenhagen this tuesday (10th of March) by James Hansen he stated clearly that he was against the Kyoto-protocol. This is more or less a direct quote (any inaccuracy is only in the wording not the content and due to my hurried note scribbling.):
“I would rather that the meeting in Copenhagen later this year (COP15) ended with no agreement than with an agreement similarly inefficient as Kyoto.”
“Cap and Trade mechanisms do not work in any meaningfull manner”
“Rather than a tax, which any cap and trade mechanism ultimately is I would endorse a tax and dividend policy where the money was returned directly to people so they can afford green technology rather than to the politicians in Washington”
Now, I know that this doesn’t make him “all right” in the eyes of a lot of people (“Sceptics”) but I have to give him that he is right in these points. Add to this that there are other benefits for the US and Europe to become less dependent on fossil fuels (security policy, peak oil issues, energy-independence, ?) than a potential “risk” of Climate Change. He is not for government administrating the money which is basic sound thinking for any merely moderately economically savvy person. In fact the best quote was; “that Kyoto does not work should be logical to any A-student”. He also said in small-talk afterwards “that he disliked the whole ‘movement’ which Kyoto is essentially founded on.”
I know it is a stretch from going to “opposing” climate change theory to actually “endorsing” doing something about it. The way I see it is that regardless of my opinion and all those smart criticisms of IPCC et al. fact is that the world is meeting in Copenhagen later this year to agree on the follow-up to Kyoto. Call it damage-mitigation or something else, but rather than merely fighting the (lost?) cause of arguing if climate change theory is correct or not in its predictions, then addressing whatever ideas politicians implement should not be completely ignored either. As outright opposition to doing anything is clearly being ignored right now I see it as considering the old ‘if you can’t beat them, join them’ paradigm. If we are to do something at least let’s make it as economically smart and efficient as possible. Relatively speaking of course. Don’t get me wrong I don’t buy CO2 as “original sin” or a new “white man’s burden” or any of such superficial mumbo-jumbo.
All I am saying is that Hansen came of (on the “what do we do” issue) as a genuinely smart person. Accepting principles of economics rather than fighting them and coming of as a liberalistic economist where government influence is better minimized than maximized. (This of course doesn’t take much in Europe in general and especially not good old Denmark, 😉 )
Anyways why not get a bit interested and practically active in trying to oppose that Obama goes with a cap and trade and the subsequent mass-monitoring and administrative chaos when simpler and more efficient opportunities exist? I know it’s a question of ‘evils’ in case one does not think anything in AGW is correct, however could this not be one of those times where it is necessary to choose between ‘evils’. Figuratively speaking: If one side is suggesting a plague – is then the flu not worth fighting for as an alternative?
(As a side note during the Bush administration the US has actually done more for ‘green’ power technology in terms of implementation and research than what can be said of many of the ‘oh so green’ European countries. Wind and solar power in the US is growing tremendously whether we like it or not. Don’t let Obama, and implicitly Gore, take all the glory which we know this will generate from the MSM once they discover the expansion of green tech in a few years.)
I know it’s not optimal what I am saying but based on rationally accepting that too many people and the MSM are backing this whole thing it could very well be a pragmatic path to choose?
Regardless of whether you agree with my considerations of the situation in terms of COP15, Cap and trade and so on, I personally found it nice to hear Hansen be so honest and smart about the actions pursued by government as it is today.
My apologies for any bad grammar, misspellings and wrong use of language.
Regards
Mikkel, Copenhagen, Denmark.
tallbloke,
I’m not making any suggestions about how to implement a carbon tax. I just find the idea of reducing traffic and pollution while eliminating income tax very appealing. It would be fantastic if we could cut our energy usage, CO2 production and traffic by 40%, – while increasing our available income. Who would argue with that?
What concerns me is that cap and trade is just another tax piled on all the rest of them.
Steven Goddard (19:50:18) :
It would be fantastic if we could cut our energy usage, CO2 production and traffic by 40%, – while increasing our available income. Who would argue with that?
The people who no longer had a job in a diminished economy?
Those who dislike being monitored and controlled by beaurocrats?
Those who know human emitted co2 doesn’t have anything much to do with global temperature?
Pensioners?
Farmers?
A friend and I had a discussion the other evening. We like the idea of cutting down food miles by growing locally, but anticipate severe problems with production and distribution in a cooling world.
Do you really envisage a return to cottage industry and smallholding on an island with a population of 60 million? It’s an open discussion and I’m ready to be convinced, because I believe in a lighter tread within our environment too. I’m just doubtful of how we turn wishes into reality. I’m not at all sure that a top down directive of ‘you can’t afford fuel anymore so just deal with it’ is going to work too well.
tallbloke,
I’m talking about doing things like telecommuting, four day work weeks, properly insulating homes, solar, fusion, Internet shopping, high speed rail, etc.
None of those things would be harmful to the economy, they would improve the quality of people’s lives, and would reduce traffic deaths and injuries. More than 100 people die every day in the US in traffic accidents, and thousands more are injured. More Americans die in their cars every month, than did during the entire Iraq war.
If people had more of their money to spend, that would boost the economy much more than flushing it down the government sinkhole.
Christopher Whinge, (09:54:42) :
A lot of you have opinions, but have any of you ever done any science in your lives? Have you actually studied it? Not just reading papers, but doing actual science?
Do any of you actually work in climate studies? Or teach at a university?
I thought not.
Just greedy people, worrying about what’s in it for yourselves.
Christopher, have you ever actually delved into the “science” of AGW/CC, or rather, do you just blindly accept what you are being told?
I thought so.
AGWers generally are like mindless robots, endlessly cranking out the same garbage they’ve been spoon-fed by the MSM, schools, and groupthink sites like RealNonsense, Desmogblinkered, etc.
Just clueless people, worrying about a non-problem, and concerned only with pumping up their own egos with their idiotic desire to “save the planet” by demonizing humanity.
Steven Goddard (04:13:40) :
tallbloke,
I’m talking about doing things like telecommuting, four day work weeks, properly insulating homes, solar, fusion, Internet shopping, high speed rail, etc.
Sounds great, sign me up for some of that fusion powered warmth. Oh, you mean I’ll freeze until they can do fusion?
My roof is already stuffed with rockwool and I already have double glazing, so I’ll just burn wood in the grate instead I guess. Oops, that’ll attract a carbon surcharge.
Telecommuting sounds good though, I’ll just email a picture of a spade and some saplings to my boss instead of turning up to plant them.
I love internet shopping. I pay with paypal and the item just pops out of nowhere onto my doorstep the next morning, no transport fuel involved from the centralised depot down south.
Solar power: Hmm, ebay has some 60 watt panels at 180 pounds. Still, I’ll be able to save up with all that extra money from the tax breaks on the job I lost because the economy has gone bust. Errrr, hang on….
I don’t know, Mikkel. Chamberlain’s signing of the Munich Agreement in 1938, and his containment policy of Germany may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but look how that turned out.
We must never give in.
Carbon taxes may be the lesser of two evils, but they are still evil. Forcing the cost of energy up can never be good energy policy.
Carbon taxes are an unnecessary evil, won’t do anything for the pollution situation, and will result in starvation and hypothermia deaths. Food & Fuel prices will hit the hardest at the worst possible time, undermining governments. Such pressures have happened in the past. To be avoided as deadly catastrophe.. The smarter countries will not follow such a foolish path, and will be ready to take full advantage.
The countries that go down the Carbon Tax path will shoot themselves in the foot and become easy targets.
Even if all countries were to agree & follow through, the result would be a Dark Age for all but the warmest climates.
Another possibility is that people will quit wasting so much energy, and choose instead to keep their money.
If I didn’t have to pay income tax, I could afford all kinds of ways to further reduce my fossil fuel wastage – and have lots of money left over.
Steven, have you stopped to consider that the poorer members of society don’t pay much income tax anyway, but will be hit hard by taxes on fuels which they will have to pay at the same rate as the better off?
Steven Goddard (19:53:15) :
Another possibility is that people will quit wasting so much energy, and choose instead to keep their money.
“Wasting energy” is generally a function of wealth, Steven, as is any type of conspicuous consumption. Having a huge home and driving, say a Hummer are two good examples. Those people are not going to be affected much, if any by a tax on energy. Those who are middle class would certainly already have an incentive not to “waste energy”.
If I didn’t have to pay income tax, I could afford all kinds of ways to further reduce my fossil fuel wastage – and have lots of money left over.
Nonsense. Unless you are living paycheck-to-paycheck that is.
tallbloke,
One of the primary complaints we always hear is that wealthy westerners generate 20X as much CO2 as poor people. Thus the “wealthy” would be the ones paying the taxes.
Bruce Cobb,
I’d suggest not using the word “nonsense” in this discussion. There are many different points of view.
An investment in a fuel efficient car is expensive, but would be possible and attractive for millions if income tax was replaced with carbon tax. In the UK you can get a clean diesel that gets 50/mpg and has enough acceleration to keep you constantly in trouble with the police. But they are very expensive.
Same for many things you could do around your house. And at a government level, the investment required is much larger, but also worthwhile in the long run.
Interesting thread…I’m pleased to see discussion going in the direction of what I call “good stewardship” of this island earth we call home. Being good stewards of the panet is and should be a different and distinct discussion from AGW. I’m certain that most of the readers and posters on this website want to keep our air, water and landscapes clean despite the picture painted by the AGW cult depicting us as “deniers” on the scale of flatearthers or worse, holocaust deniers who wantonly foul and destroy the planet. AGW is 95% politics and 5% science with power and control at it’s roots fed by the politics of greed and envy. All thinking people should resist it while promoting a clean sustainable environment as a legacy for the next generation. Thanks for all of the thoughtful and thought-provoking posts on this site. I’m gradually becoming enlightened…
“At least the war on the economy is going well…”