Obama May Levy Carbon Tax to Cut the U.S. Deficit, HSBC Says
By Mathew Carr – Bloomberg News
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A carbon tax starting at $20 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates.
“Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
h/t to WUWT reader “dp”
DR says:
November 8, 2012 at 10:38 am
May I suggest http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
It all fits together with Obama’s agenda of a “carbon free” economy and sky rocketing electric rates.
_______________________________
Yes it does. Also expect to see the price of your food to sky-rocket as the last of the small farmers are driven into the city and food production is dependent on the “Big Boys” who will not settle for the current prices paid for farm products.
Direct from Al Gore (I heard this first in my county extension office where a first hand witness was having conniption fits about it)
I suggest reading what Sarah Brombaugh had to say in the rest of her article. As she says “If You Eat, You Are Involved In Farming” Too bad no one seems to understand that anymore.
The other piece of law that will be used to drive people into the city is the Food Safety Modernization Act. I have first hand experience of how a USDA agent can twist the law to such an extent that it is impossible for the targeted farmer to meet the requirements because the changes demanded are too darned expense (well over $222,000 for just the fencing she wanted.) Another ‘I gotcha’ is the requirement that the OWNER must be available for any or all SURPRISE inspections. Tough when you hold down a full time job to support your farm. (That is from someone tangling with the USDA over this issue in the Animal Welfare Act)
for those who does not think the USDA is doing this, here it is from the the USDA:
Small farmers were lead to believe they would be exempt under the Tester amendment
This is what the FDA has to say about that now.
One of the dairy farmers in the UK reported he was spending 60% of his time on paperwork (Warmwell.com) US small farmers are already working a second job to keep their farms. How can they afford to pay for these ‘improvements’ in time and money?
I suggest reading the WIKI on HACCP Hazard analysis and critical control points and . “FAO/WHO guidance to governments on the application of HACCP in small and/or less-developed food businesses” (PDF ).
The FAO/WHO document written for small/less developed food businesses (SLDBs) has such goodies as:
Can’t you just see the farmers and small business owners in Africa or Mexico following these guidelines much less the one man operations here in the USA???
ericrgrimsrud;
In case you need a translation of his comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
davidmhoffer
LOL
Folks, in addition to the long list of things that ericgrimsrud has already demonstrated that he has no skill with, we can now add reading comprehension.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
David, ericrgrimsrud is a classic example of what Dr Evans calls the regulating class He is also an excellent example of why using funding from the government to pay a large amount of the labor force is very bad for the country. The word’s “Those that can, do. Those that can’t, teach. Those that can’t teach teach teachers. And those who can’t do anything right become bureaucrats.” comes to mind. (Yeah, I made up the last part)
richardscourtney says:
November 9, 2012 at 3:22 am
….I explained that UK history demonstrates how and why a Carbon Tax cannot work. This is because a Carbon Tax induces the populace to revolt against the tax long before the tax induces their behaviour to change in other ways…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I sure as heck hope you are correct Richard but after seeing the Obama landslide victory I fear many of my countrymen are pretty much brain dead and only listen to the MSM propaganda. In the UK it has taken a rather large death toll AND the media covering it to get a public reaction not that the rich and powerful care, they are steaming ahead anyway.
From Energy Efficiency News
Of interest from the same site
So much for the energy sector not being behind CAGW. Note the fossil fuels with CCS. A boondoggle for lifting cash from the public if ever there was one.
To RichardsCourtney and Friends,
In order to accomplish anything, there must be a will do to so, of course, and no one is saying that changes of this magnitude are easy. If one tries harder one can envision a C tax plan that would not put the public into revolt. It is only the Fossil Fuel Lobby that will be put into revolt and they, of course, have unlimited funds for influencing the public and therefore tell them, as RC does, that it can’t be done. Again Winston Churchill would not be proud of you, RC.. Consider the following more optimistic view of a C Tax which when presented properly to the public could be supported by them.
A Carbon Fee and 100% Dividend plan has a far greater chance of addressing the problem. A version of this has been presented to the US Congress and its details can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2009/20090226_WaysAndMeans.pdf. The basics of this plan are as follows.
A linearly increasing tax would be applied to the production of all fossil fuels (gas, oil, and coal) during the next several decades. The dividend thereby collected would be returned entirely to the public on a per capita basis (after a few years into it, a typical family of four would receive about $9,000 per year). In order to benefit from this arrangement, people would strive to increase their efficiency of fossil-fuel use and would explore use of the alternates. People from all income levels could actually make money if their dividend exceeded their carbon tax. The gradually increasing cost of fossil fuels would make the alternates increasingly more competitive and popular. Within a decade or so, this would lead to a “tipping point” at which time the alternates would become less expensive than the fossil fuels and the ultimate goal of near-zero CO2 emissions would be within sight.
In addition, the Tax and Dividend plan has the great advantage of simplicity. Taxes would be applied at the point of fossil fuel production. This system could be installed very quickly and would require little additional bureaucracy for its management. The decisions of significance would be made by the consumers of energy — does one select taxed fossil fuels or does one select appropriately untaxed alternates. The adoption of similar systems in other countries would be promoted by charging import duties on all goods that were not subjected to such taxes in their own countries. There would be fewer lobby games to be play in DC. The only decision to be made there would concerning the magnitude of the tax each year. The FF lobbyist hate this plan. They want legislation and subsidies concerning FFs to be as complex as possible. So that only full time lawyers and lobbyists can play the game.
So, one might wonder, why hasn’t the Tax and Dividend plan been more favored in Washington up to this point? The answer is probably best provided by Will Rogers’ timeless observation that “we have the best Congress money can buy”. The Tax and Dividend plan holds less interest for some very powerful special interests. As indicated above, the dividend collected under that plan would go to the public, not them. The only hope for passage of the Tax and Dividend plan is that the general public forcefully looks after its own interests. Perhaps with a new wind now blowing in Washington we might finally get some help from elected officials – I hope so.
Is it fair? Of course, does the nuclear power industry charge for waste disposal? Of course it does. But will this do harm to the Fossil Fuel industries? Yes, of course, it will. The object, of course, is to eliminate all CO2 emissions by the end of this century by including the cost of CO2 waste disposal into the atmosphere.
Because of my last sentence, one can see why representatives of the fossil fuel industries, such Richardscourtney, hate this plan and try to sink it before it gets to the public’s attention. This also explains why this group must do their best to undermine to credibility of science and the notion of AGW. Once they acknowledge that our excess CO2 constitutes a horrendous waste problem, a carbon tax would be hard to argue against. Do we allow nuclear wastes to be spread about on our streets? NO. Should we allow more CO2 to be dumped into our atmosphere? No also! And finally, should we allow the lobbyist for the FF industries tell us that the Public will not stand for reasonable measures that preserve the planet for their grandchildren ? I don’t think so – especially if we can get some assistance of our leadership. Winston Churchill once convinced the British public that “without victory in this battle, there will be no survival”. This can be done again.
If I may translate grimsrud’s rant:
“Tax, tax, tax!!”
That’s about it, isn’t it? More Big Government.
Jerk.
This has nothing to do with the deficit. It is Obama’s payback to his “European” sponsors. Germans have been complaining about the US’s energy advantage. Nothing like a carbon tax to put the US at the same competitive disadvantage as the Germans. And they will gladly sell the US all the “solutions” and gadgets to save the Climate. This is WWIII. Climatemongering is only the foreplay.
D Böehm says:
November 9, 2012 at 8:15 am
If I may translate grimsrud’s rant:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Where did you find a gibberish to english translator?
Gail Combs:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at November 9, 2012 at 7:45 am. It makes several good points and I suggest that many would benefit from reading it.
I write to discuss your disagreements with me.
Firstly, I was writing about a Carbon Tax, and I said nothing about the recent election in the US. I am a British Subject and not a US Citizen so it would be presumptive of me to comment on the internal politics of your country.
Secondly, you rightly point out that energy supplies have been used as a source of stealth taxes in the UK with resulting fuel poverty for many. The reason for this is precisely because – as I explained – UK government has learned ‘the hard way’ that large overt fuel taxes are opposed. A Carbon Tax is a large overt fuel tax.
Stealth taxes are levies imposed by government in such a manner that the public have difficulty discerning that they are being taxed and by how much.
An example of an energy stealth tax in the UK is the the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) which was imposed in 1989 by the Electricity Act 1989 which privatised UK electricity generation. The NFFO was intended as a subsidy to UK nuclear power generation which continued to be owned by the government. In the following year the NFFO was enlarged to include the renewable energy sector. Contracts from the last three rounds of the NFFO are still in place and the NFFO is levied at 2.71 pence per kWh. It is being replaced by the Renewables Obligation (RO) and the NFFO will be completely replaced by the RO in 2018. The RO is a very similar stealth tax which is used to subsidise windfarms.
Both the NFFO and the RO extract funds from electricity generators who provide electricity to the electricity supply companies, so the electricity consumers are mostly unaware of them. The contribution of the NFFO and the RO to electricity prices does not appear on electricity bills presented to electricity consumers by the electricity supply companies.
A Carbon Tax is not a steath tax. It is an overt tax on energy supply. As I explained in my post at November 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm, the UK Fuel Tax Escalator showed that people rebel at large and overt taxes on energy supplies. Hence, a Carbon Tax cannot work.
However, as UK history also shows, governments can impose large energy stealth taxes. And this is important information for US Citizens because it may be possible for US Agencies (such as the EPA) to impose energy stealth taxes.
As always, one needs to ‘watch the pea’. A public debate about Carbon Tax could be used as a smokescreen to ‘hide’ surreptitious imposition of energy stealth taxes.
Richard
ericgrimsrud:
In your irrational rant addressed to me and others at November 9, 2012 at 7:55 am you say
Perhaps, but you fail to mention that it has the great disadvantage of damaging the national economy with resulting impoverishment of all and a consequential net reduction to tax revenues.
Perhaps you would care to address reality instead of your imaginary conspiracy theories?
Richard
I saw this article when it came out.
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/11/01/eco-taxes-study-financed-by-us-treasury-will-link-tax-code-to-carbon-emissions/
This is either to find out how to craft a carbon tax to be submitted to the House or, and this didn’t occur to me till this morning, to find a way to incorporate what would be in effect a carbon tax into our existing tax code. I don’t know which but I do know the EPA has been used to promote policy.
Given the fact that oxygen is the second most common element in the universe and carbon is the fourth most common element in the universe, maybe we should tax the universe for everything we can get. Think of the kingly powers of old where we should bow to those that tax us and whatever the kingly queen wants they get. Such powers of the universe have been diminishing lately except for the past few years. We are their subjects and we better get used to it. Long live the carbon queen and hail to the oxygen. What a bunch of crap!
Gunga Din:
re your post at November 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm.
Yes, that is exactly the type of stealth tax of which I was warning in my post at November 9, 2012 at 11:50 am. As my post concluded
Richard
Sorry to interupt this song fest but one comment RC made should be amplified. He said to me:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Perhaps, but you fail to mention that it has the great disadvantage of damaging the national economy with resulting impoverishment of all and a consequential net reduction to tax revenues.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Even if there is a contest between our economy and the maintanance of livable conditions on the planet, I would choose the latter. The economy can rise again in time.
But one doesn’t need to ruin the economy of course by saving the environment. Landmark changes in technology have always occurred before whenever they become necessary. When Ford invented the Model T, to you support there was push back by the blacksmithss of the world? Do you think it would have been wise to not support auto transportation in the early 20th century? With all changes there are always loosers and winners. Why listen to the advise of the loosers in this case – especially when the specific looser in this case is possibly a lobbyist for a fossil fuel industry (a resume would help clarify this point). IF you needed information concerning the health effects of using tobacco, do you ask a cigarette salesman for it.
Grimsrud, you are such an economic illiterate. Here’s a clue: whenever income tax rates are cut, federal revenue increases. And whenever income taxes rates are raised, federal income declines.
What do you want? More money for the government, or less?
[PS: learn to spell loser. Abnd you are a rank hypocrite fossil fuel consumer who bites the hand that feeds you.]
ericgrimsrud says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:51 am
… Who knows – one might even dare to hope that the likes of Andrew Watts might also eventually see the obvious science associated the AGW problem and begin to be part of the solution.
===========================================================================
He did see it. He is part of the solution. That’s why you have his blog to spew on.
Hope you learn something here where all views (within decorum and site policy) are allowed.
ericgrimsrud:
Your post at November 9, 2012 at 2:59 pm attempts to comment on a true statement that I made concerning a Carbon Tax; viz.
Your reply begins by saying
The economy IS what defines “liveable conditions”. The poor suffer then die young.
People need wealth for food, transport, medical provisions. etc. which enable “liveable conditions”. A hurricane that hits Miami has much less effect on the populace than a similar hurricane which hits Haiti. etc.
And you follow that with
I don’t know which planet you inhabit but you seem to be pathetically ignorant of life here on planet Earth.
Everybody wants to live in a healthy environment so desires the benefits of productive land together with clean air and water. Rich people can afford measures (e.g. sewerage, pollution controls, refuse disposal, etc.) which provide a good environment. But the poor have more immediate survival issues on which they must spend all they have.
Hence, those who truly want a healthy environment want a strong and prosperous economy. Destroying the economy destroys the environment because it makes people poor.
Please try to think before posting idiocy of the kind your post presents.
Richard
D Böehm:
I write to comment on the important point you make in your post at November 9, 2012 at 3:30 pm where you write:
All governments need to impose taxes because they exist to supply the provisions of the state. Some such provisions are essential, for example, military defence without which outside forces will overwhelm the country. Other government provisions are induced by the government system and the political philosophy of a nation. Hence, for example, in the US system there are costs of having the Presidency while in the UK system there are the (lesser) costs of having the Royal Family. etc. Each nation makes its choices based on its culture, but the government needs money to fulfill its obligations.
However, government is not the country. Government is a service to the country. And services have costs.
The costs of government are met by taxation and borrowing. So, in each country (whatever its political system, political philosophy, and cultural necessity) there has to be a balance between what the government spends (i.e. the services it provides) and what the country’s economy generates as gross domestic product (GDP).
Failure to maintain that balance can only result in excess taxation which reduces GDP, or excessive borrowing which provides a delayed but very large reduction in GDP, or both. So, taxation is necessary but needs to be of a kind and of a magnitude which minimises deleterious effects on the economy.
Simply, everything a government does depends on the economy of the country. And if the economy collapses then the country collapses. Hence, maintenance of the military and maintenance of the economy have similar importance for government: inadequate maintenance of either inevitably leads to destruction of the country by forces inside or outside the country. Taxation policies which ignore these fundamentals are subversive of the country’s security.
Hence, maintenance of the economy is more important than “the environment” or anything else except defence (and a country’s defences require an adequate GDP to pay for them).
Only when the economy is sufficiently strong then other things can be afforded. Of course, the priorities of those ‘other things’ will depend on the culture of the country.
I am often astonished that there are people who are unaware of these basic facts of life.
Richard
RC, Concerning the posting of idiocies,
You, Mr. Richardscourtney, are serving the role today of Nevil Chamberlian who thought he had brought “peace in our times” to the free world in 1939. Unlike you, however, I have respect for Nevil Chamberlin He genuinely thought he was doing the right thing for the Brits and was not simply a stooge for the Nazis.
I am sure that you have many modern equivalents of Winston Churchill in your country who hold that same view of you. As time goes on, I suspect that you will disappear into the woodwork with your 30 pieces of silver, but will enjoy little respect from you fellow human beings and possibly even your grandchildren.
Eric
Grimsrud says it’s ok for him to use his pellet stove while others can freeze in the dark (although I have mostly wood heat myself). Grimsrud, who as DB points out, is economically illiterate and perhaps has never looked at Haiti which has a very low use of fossil fuels and is therefore a very green country. The problem is that instead of using fossil fuels they have cut down (poached essentially) all of their forests. They have no need for fuel to keep warm but merely use the wood to make charcoal for cooking.
One consequence of the proposed carbon tax is very obvious: people will chop down our forests to survive. My rural county already has lots of people in fuel poverty. It’s often easy to tell because the propane company has taken away their 100 gallon tank(s). So instead they have 20 pound tanks normally used for BBQ which they hook up themselves and refill as they can afford it or barter for. They can’t afford an expensive trailer-safe wood stove. What they do instead is unsafe. We have had houses disappear in propane explosions.
Electricity prices are already difficult to bear for people with heat pumps. They are typically $500 to $800 a month for Dec, Jan and Feb. The electric company will level bill, but rates are rising thanks in part to Obama’s war on coal. The carbon tax will greatly increase electricity prices and force more people to wood heat, often with makeshift barrel stoves.
To his credit, Grimsrud sidestepped the give-more-money-to-politicians tax and proposed the revenue neutral tax instead. I would agree that if we were going to have such a stupid tax, that it would have to be rebated. But Grimsrud has yet to answer about the industry which would not get any rebate and simply move offshore to a country with cheaper fuel.
Richard Courtney,
I can’t disagree with anything in your 4:49 pm comment. Maybe I wasn’t clear, and should have written it this way: “Grimsrud, you are such an economic illiterate. Here’s a clue: whenever income tax rates have been cut, federal revenue has increased.. And whenever income taxes rates were raised, federal income has declined.
Taxes are a necessary evil, for the reasons you listed: national defense, etc. But if the entire EPA, Commerce Department, Labor Department, Department of Education, and Department of Homeland Security were all redlined out of existence over night, a big part of the self-serving, self-perpetuating, and enormously expensive bureaucracy would be taken off the backs of taxpayers:
ericgrimsrud;
You, Mr. Richardscourtney, are serving the role today of Nevil Chamberlian who thought he had brought “peace in our times” to the free world in 1939.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We can now add history to the list of things that ericgrimsrud doesn’t understand. There can be no equivalence between foolishly believing another person’s lies and scientific debate. The former is exclusively a matter of personal of trust, the latter exclusively a matter of facts and reason. That you cannot differentiate between the two makes your statement no less egregious for its ignorance.
If we are to draw comparisons to historical figures, I would observe that the policies you endorse represent those of Saloth Sar Pol Pot. From 1975 to 1979, Pol Pot forced the Cambodian population into an agrarian (low carbon) economy. You flippantly remark that the economy will recover from the damage you propose to inflict upon it, but you seem unaware that there are dire consequences from that damage. 20% of the population of Cambodia starved to death in less than 5 years ericgrimsrud, approximately 2 million people. If your Pol Pot type measures were inflicted upon the world today, with the ratio of urban to agrarian population being many, Many, MANY times higher now than it was then, you would be sentencing billions to death and billions more to poverty stricken misery for their entire lives.
The most foul language in existence cannot possibly convey the utter and complete contempt that you deserve.
There is a phenomenon I have noted that plays our most clearly at WUWT. It is described in local Montana terms simply in the following way — ” s__t sticks”. ( I have not filled in the blanks here in order to be in compliance with the high standards of decorum that are applied to “outsiders” such as myself at WUWT). But note how the phenomon is verified here at WUWT. Whenever the call is sounded, that is, “alert! there appears to be a real scientist in our midst” the three forms of that stuff that sticks show up under the names of davidmhoffer, D Boehm, and the main condensation nuclei of all this sticking, someone who goes by the name of Sir RichardsCourtney. Put it all together have you have a formidable t___d to deal with !!
Well, it looks like grimsrud sticks.☺
Well, it looks like grimsrud sticks.☺
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Kinda gotta feel sorry for him. Seriously. He’s down to flinging poop. He even seems to think he is doing it in a witty fashion. On the one hand, I hate to see some of his remarks go unchallenged. On the other hand, is it fair to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed man? He really and truly believes his own tripe, and clearly is incapable of advocating his position based on facts and logic. When confronted with actual facts and actual logic, he flings poop. Sad, really sad.
[snip. Give it a rest. — mod.]