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”
richardscourtney says:
November 9, 2012 at 11:50 am
……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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thank you for the explanation.
The USA like the UK is full of stealth taxes as the 151 Taxes in a Loaf of Bread shows.
George Smith (ChiefIO) makes a case for the Federal “tax take” is only going to be 18% of GDP, the peak of the Laffer Curve, but that is the overt federal tax. The real tax rate is much higher.
In my opinion the worst stealth tax is inflation.
Gunga Din says:
November 9, 2012 at 1:25 pm
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/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gee thanks, now I will have nightmares tonight. It is horrible to think that those leading this country are intent on it’s wholesale destruction but that is the only explanation I can come up with for the current madness.
I am beginning to think living in N.Korea for a year should be a prerequisite for running for public office!
richardscourtney says:
November 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm
I write to comment on the important point…
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…
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…. 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Very well put. What astonishes me is that our elected representatives are unaware of these basic facts of life. Where in the name of the 1000 little gods do this jerks expect to live when the EU, Australia, Canada and the USA collapses? China? Brazil?
Do they really think they can continue to live and SURVIVE in the USA?
This guy is talking of the hidden tax, inflation but he is spot on.
We are already seeing that happen in Greece.
According to CNN For the USA
That is a healthy chunk of the adult US population receiving government funds in one form or another. No wonder Obama has been reported to have backed a U.N. committee’s call on Wednesday to renew debate over a draft international treaty to regulate the $70 billion global conventional [small] arms trade hours after he was re-elected. { /sarc }
Gail Combs,
What’s the problem with inflation? We could all be rich, like this guy!
/sarc <—[is this really necessary?]
D Böehm says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm
….Currently the biosphere is starved of CO2. We need more, not less.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If nothing else, I wish we could get that fact drummed into the heads of Activists.
I have a waking nightmare of some idiots coming up with a really good CO2 sequestering process. Some other idiots in positions of power responding to Activists “More is better” rantings and forcing the CO2 levels down to ~220PPM. Then climate abruptly shifts towards the glacial mode, the oceans cool sucking up CO2 as they have in the past. Plants wither and starve starting in the higher elevations as does the animal life that depends on them.
It is not completely out of the realm of possibilities either. AsWoods Hole Oceanographic Institution noted “… Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth’s climate can shift gears within a decade… Pushed past a threshold, the system can jump quickly from one stable operating mode to a completely different one,… Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur…”
Would make a good Science Fiction book. Too bad I can not write.
You could even add in the bursting of CO2 storage vessels and the flooding of cities/towns with CO2 and the silent deaths that follow as happens at lake Nyos and lake Monoun.
D Böehm says:
November 10, 2012 at 5:44 pm
…As far as being a teacher, I feel real pity for the impressionable minds grimsrud has poisoned over the years with his pseudo-scientific nonsense — which we see here every day.
_______________________________
Now I know why the lab techs with BS chem degrees were such duds I had to fire them. (Wish I could add a /sarc but I can’t because the new grads were duds and I did fire them.)
DBoehm, I am sincerely all ears concerning any measurements by Beck of the background CO2 levels in 1958. Perhaps you could provide more than the figure you did provide? In addition, if the techniques he used were superior, I should have thought those measurements would have continued to the present. If so, where might we find them? Eric
davidmhoffer and richardscourtney,
You were indeed honored to have known Zbigniew Jaworowski and Ernst Beck. If this current madness passed without a descent into the new “Dark Age” that Grimsrud so desires, these two men will have the recognition they deserve and a place in history.
To David Ball,
I am sorry to hear your “teachers were the dumbest”, I was more fortunate that you. At the University of Alberta where I was a post doc for 3 years, at the University of Wisconson, Madison, where I was a PhD candidate, and St, Olaf College in Minnesota where I recieved my BA degree and even in my high school in Zumbrota Minnesota, I was blessed by having a lot of excellent teachers.
Thanks for helping me understand you and your background. At the same time, however, please know that its never too late to improve oneself. Best Regards, Eric
richardscourtney says: ”Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration”
Richard, contemporary measurements of CO2 are.not to inform; but to mislead: 1] monitoring is on Hawaii – lots of submarine volcanoes spewing CO2, then stop, or slow down – but for them.. must show ”increasing…?
2] CO2 distribution is not evenly distributed; it would be same as saying: H2O in the air is 3000ppm… well, where? it goes from one extreme to another. Stating that is 380ppm, or any number – is for misleading. 3] CO2 helps condensation of water vapor and falls down together with the rain, rain washes things, did you know that? = before the rain was much more co2, than after – stating that is 385ppm ”FOR THIS YEAR” is a total crap. b] any farmer can tell you that: crops get much better from 2 inches of rain, than from equal amount of water by flood irrigation – BECAUSE RAIN BRINGS CO2 TO THE TREES / CROPS!!! More CO2 +H2O = green.
4] because CO2 has NOTHING to do with the phony GLOBAL warming; why are you wasting your miserable life imitating a broken record? 5] around any coal powered power station – the vegetation is much healthier, than in Sahara – because it produces CO2 + water vapor from the cooling towers.
Or, do you still see all that terrible smog coming out of the cooling towers as CO2,? (that’s how was constantly presented by the Australian media – they were scaring the people by that distilled water)…
ericgrimsrud says:
“Perhaps you could provide more than the figure you did provide?”
Why? Because it’s never enough, is it? You stated:
“So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument.”
I provided exactly that. So I ‘nailed the argument’. But now you want more. And if I provide more Beck info, which I easily can, you will demand still more, ad infinitum.
So do your own homework. I have once again falsified your pseudo-science. I accepted your challenge and returned you a slam dunk. No need to play more word games with you. You lost the debate. Man up and admit it. Everyone here can see the score, crybaby.
ericgrimsrud says:
“I was a post doc for 3 years, at the University of Wisconson, Madison, where I was a PhD candidate…”
So you flunked your PhD. Color me not surprised.
Of course, the watering down of PhD degrees makes it possible for even below average students to obtain one.
ericgrimsrud says:
November 11, 2012 at 8:32 pm
You have shown once again to be a presumptuous cur. Hilarious. You know nothing of me and less of science. The classic scenario of the doctors (teachers) making the worst patients (students).
richardscourtney says: ”Measurements and other proxies indicate the ice core records accurately show when atmospheric CO2 variations occurred but provide low and wrong indications of atmospheric CO2 concentration”
Richard! Ice core ”records” are interpreted in WRONG alphabet! ”Interpreter’s”.presumption is: it doesn’t rain or snow on Antarctic = 1,2km down on the bottom, ice must be 60000years old…?
THE TRUTH: about 2m of ice is melted every year, from the bottom; by the geothermal heat – similar amount on the top is added every year by freeze-drying the moisture from the air – same as in the old fridges, needed defrosting; with zero rainfall / snowfall in the kitchen
Bottom line: the ice that your scum was presuming that was 80000years old – was actually 350y old. There is no reliable data from ice, they know it, so should you!
Do you want correct science: by invention of artificial fire about 55000y ago -> CO2 was increasing many times on different places. Before that; Sahara, Arabian peninsular, Australia, Gobi desert were covered by thick vegetation and 4feet deep mulch. Your ”ice core / proxy crap” is just that, crap. Remember what Stefan told you: rubbing two sticks turned big part of the planet into desert. No, not because produced extra CO2; but because after 10-30 burnings = no organic matter in the soil – vegetation belly up; erosion and winds take ash away / trace elements – without vegetation and swamps – rain-clouds avoid land = hotter days / colder nights follow = worse climate. The only more destructive than invention of artificial fire is; the contemporary ”Climate from Changing Stoppers” like you. Those ”proxies” are same lies, as any other lie you produce. Stick to my proofs and facts, forget ice core records. those that collected / made up those records, should be in jail; don’t rely on criminals
stefanthedenier says:
“…the ice that your scum was presuming …”
Your hostile attacks against people on your own side cause self-inflicted wounds. You are your own worst enemy, and nothing you can say will change that fact.
Try being supportive instead of hateful. You will have many more friends and supporters that way.
D Boehm, Why would you suggest that I did not complete my PhD program when I did way back in 1970 at the U of Wis, Madison?
And why would you withhold the reference for Burk’s measurement of background CO2 in 1958 – if it exists as you say it does.?
Would the answer to both be that you are nothing more than a BSer of the First Water? Please do prove me wrong on the latter question. Of course, I know you are on the former.
To David Ball, It is true that I know nothing about you – other than what you have confessed to us on this blog. You say you have had lousy teachers and I guess I have no reason to dispute that. All I know for sure is that I have have quite good teachers. Hope you are OK with that. Eric
ericgrimsrud:
Your ridiculous post at November 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm avoids the questions I posed to you and asks a silly question of me. I write to address those questions but first I make an important point.
If you had read what I wrote about my associations with Ernst Beck and Zbigniew Jaworowski then you would have seen I was declaring an interest in that I worked with each of them on their work. Others may judge for themselves in what way(s) that ‘interest’ may ‘colour’ my views of their works (which is why failure to declare an interest is always reprehensible).
Also, I reported that Jaworowski so trusted my understanding of his work on ice cores that he asked me to present his paper on it to the first Heartland Conference. Hence, I rejected your claims that you understand more of these matters than I do.
The questions are as follows.
Your post asks me
The analysed leaves for obtaining the stomata data are from trees. Such leaves are not grown at ground level.
The plants adjust to background CO2 by increasing stomata until they obtain optimum CO2 exchange and ceasing to form additional stomata when the addition does not provide a benefit. Hence, their stomata indicate ‘background’ CO2. This is observed experimentally, and these experiments provide the calibration data for use of stomata to obtain indications of past atmospheric CO2 content.
I am not a biologist and – unlike you – I don’t assert knowledge I don’t have. Therefore, I am not willing to discuss the precise mechanisms by which a tree determines the optimal stomata density. This need for adequate understanding of different subjects is why Arthur Rorsch, Dick Thoenes and I formed the multi-disciplinary (and multi-national) team which conducted the studies of the carbon cycle that I cited to you. Arthur Rorsch is a biologist who is one of Europe’s most respected and most honoured scientists.
I have answered your questions, now please answer mine. I remind that I quoted you and asked in reply as follows
I still await your explanation.
Richard
To RichardsCourtney,
So you are very sure that the air within the branches of a tree have the same concentration of CO2 as the truely backgound air high above the forest, are you? So you think that trees are tall enough to get above the canopy that the forest itself creates, do you? Just a bit of common sense suggests that might not be very good thinking there, Mr. Courtney . So it seems that it is your turn to “prove” something (and that one might be very difficult to find even any support for in view of the fact that CO2 fluxes (that is concentration gradients) are routinely observed above forests until one gets well above the atmospheric canopy effect.
Since you asked, now it’s my turn to explain what I “know” about the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere
First, I know it there has been a lot of peer-reviewed literature on this topic. Just to mention one very comprehensive recent paper by David Archer et al (can be retrieved at http://forecast.uchicago.edu/Projects/archer.2009.ann_rev_tail.pdf ) was published in 2009 and is full of refs to earlier work. The very long lifetime of the excess CO2 is described and explained there in considerable detail.
But in addition, one expects this from very basic observations of CO2’s presence in the atmosphere. The atmosphere now holds almost 800 gtons of C in the form of CO2. In 1850, the atmosphere had about 550 gtons C. That is an increase of about 250 gtons C. Since 1850, man has burned about 500 gtons C. One half of that comes to 250 gtons, the amount that has remained in the atmosphere.
Now how is this possible if the annual input of C by man is “only” about 7 gtons per year today and was even smaller previously while the annual input by Mother Nature has been about 200 gtons per year? This is possible only if the loss of C from the atmosphere is very slow so that the excess simply accumulates.
And we expect the rates of loss of the excess CO2 to be very slow. Loss by weathering for example is slow – it takes a long time to convert CO2 to limestone (CaCO3). I also takes a long time for the C in plants to be converted to fossil fuels. Atmospheric CO2 relatively rapidly does comes into an equilibrium condition with the CO2 dissolved in the oceans but that involves only the top surface layers of the oceans. Unfortunately the mixing of those surface layers with the depths below is also a very slow process requiring centuries.
In addition to all of the above, events have occurred in the past that were triggered by huge carbon releases into the atmosphere. The best known of these is called the PE Thermal Maxima which occurred about 56 Myrs ago. This caused a global T rise that took about 150,000 years to return back to its previous value. Ocean core sample show how CaCO3 shells were similarly knocked back for about 150,000 years due to the increased atmospheric CO2 which in turn made the oceans more acidic which in turn increased the solubility of CaCO3, which in turn knocked back populations of shell-bearing critters. In short, it took a very long time for the excess CO2 in that atmosphere to be removed.
Now that is what I “know” about the expected long life time of atmospheric CO2. And that is quite a lot of “knowing” given the universal fact that one can never know things in science with absolute certainty. We can only make conclusions of high probability based on the evidence available.
So now it is your turn to explain how you “know” that the CO2 content in the air within a forest is the same as the background CO2 level that does exist starting say about one mile above that forest and upward for more than 30 miles into the stratosphere?
To DBoehm in response to:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
D Böehm says:
November 11, 2012 at 8:39 pm
ericgrimsrud says:
“Perhaps you could provide more than the figure you did provide?”
Why? Because it’s never enough, is it? You stated:
“So if you can find a publication by Beck in 1958 that shows that background CO2 was 315 ppm you will have nailed your argument.”
provided exactly that. So I ‘nailed the argument’. But now you want more.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Yes, of course, I want “more” expecially in this case where the definiiton of “more” is simply a reference to the literature from which you got the figure you showed. Such a request is standard practice in science, you know.
In addition, it would be most interesting to see the “background CO2” measurements made by either Beck himself or by others using his methods and his sampling sites over the entire period from 1958 to the present. One reason for this would be to compare the results obtained by his methods with those obtained by Keeling and the now dozen some monitorring stations throughout the world – all of these have yeilded essentially the same values for background CO2 over that entire period.
In summary why hold back important reference information if, as you say, you could easily provide it ? We are “all ears” I am sure w.r.t. learning more about Beck’s important work – especially his measurements taken during an era for which we have confidence in our knowledge of the answer.
ericgrimsrud is wrong, as usual. That link shows thirty six peer reviewed papers, all of which dispute the IPCC’s claim that CO2 is long lasting. Grimsrud is always wrong. He gets his misinformation from alarmist blogs, then passes it off here as if it were factual. grimsrud is a lunatic suffering from incurable cognitive dissonance.
CO2 is simply not a problem. More is better. That has been proven repeatedly, and only misguided loons believe otherwise.
Regarding Beck, grimsrud was shown to be flat wrong. As I correctly predicted, grimsrud will never admit that I called his bluff. He will always demand more sources. I am not posting this Beck link for grimsrud’s benefit; he is a cognitive dissonance-affected crazed individual whose mind is closed tight and filled with nonsense. But other readers can decide if grimsrud’s ridiculous claim that CO2 was always under 280 ppmv for the past 800K years is correct, or wrong.
Here is an extract from Beck’s 2007 peer reviewed paper, which proves that grimsrud is wrong.
More from Beck. Still more. And more.
I have more, but those are sufficient to show that grimsrud’s silly assertion is flat wrong.
The totally stupid ignorant ignore the freaking 16 trillion dollar elephant in the room is…what?
What?
Why are we even talking about cutting the deficit? The deficit is how much OVER your budget you are spending. We need to run a surplus, bump the idea of cutting the deficit, I want to hear about cutting the DEBT not the deficit. Day 1, our budget is $X. Anything, read: ANYTHING (Everything?) that has to be not spent to make that a reality, is simply not spent. Not borrowed. Not added to the debt.
Let me break it down (all figures round DOWN)
item billion
medicare/medicaid 750.1
soc sec 781.3
defense 659.5
income security 363.1
debt interest 258.6
fed pensions 212.3
total 3024.9
Federal Revenue 2430.8
OK. Lets see… that means we need to cut EVERYTHING by 19.6% (equal across the board, why not? better than anything politicians have suggested – since they suggest nothing at all)
(Figure sources, Congressional Budget Office via: usdebtclock org)
So now it is your turn to explain how you “know”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don’t believe that further response to grimsrud in this thread is warranted. He constantly refers to all the papers he has read, but his discussion of them makes it clear that he doesn’t understand them. When referred to papers that he hasn’t read, he either doesn’t read them at all, or doesn’t understand what he read, it is very difficult to say which. What we can say is that he’s made a complete fool of himself so many times in this thread that we need collect no further evidence to draw conclusions as to what he is.
For anyone who does not understand the futility of imposing carbon taxes that affect countries other than your own as someone foolishly proposed upthread, this recent story says it all:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/12/aircraft-carbon-emissions-tax-crashes-and-burns/
Try and dictate behaviour outside your borders, and you provoke nothing more than retaliation.
ericgrimsrud:
This is a response to your post addressed to me at November 12, 2012 at 8:19 am.
At November 11, 2012 at 5:16 pm you wrote
I answered all those points in my reply to you at November 12, 2012 at 5:12 am.
I pointed out that the leaves of trees are NOT at “ground level” (you said they are in contact with the ground). So you have ‘changed your tune’ and now say they need to be “above the canopy of the forest itself”. No, they don’t.
The important fact is that – as I explained – the stomata are calibrated by experiment so (contrary to your assertion) no “thinking” is required for absolute certainty in the knowledge that you are wrong.
Your childish insults and arm-waving do not change that and fool nobody except perhaps yourself.
And you are plain wrong when you say to me
There is nothing for me to “prove”. It is an empirical fact that the trees adjust their stomata to suite the prevailing atmospheric CO2 concentration and the “fluxes” are not relevant.
Then you attempt to justify your claim to “know” atmospheric CO2 concentration could not have been above present levels in the nineteenth century. I again remind that I asked you how you could “know” what you claimed in your writing
Your long-winded attempt to justify that untrue assertion is laughable.
You cite Archer et al. but do not say what they wrote and you say it supports your claim. But it does not. That paper addresses what they assert are future prospects for atmospheric CO2 concentration. Its only statement relevant to the issue we are discussing says
So, they consider outputs of a selected set of “models” and assert that shows something and they then assert – without evidence – that a single observed atmospheric CO2 fluctuation of unknown cause supports their contention.
If you had read our paper which I cited then you would have known we demonstrated the existing data can be modelled to show anything.
Then you copy and paste this
That is not relevant to your claim that nature could not have sequestered the high levels of atmospheric CO2 measured to exist in the nineteenth century.
However, it is plain wrong so – despite its irrelevance – I will refute it.
The accumulation rate of CO2 in the atmosphere (1.5 ppmv/year which corresponds to 3 GtC/year) is equal to almost half the human emission (6.5 GtC/year). However, this does not mean that half the human emission accumulates in the atmosphere. There are several other and much larger CO2 flows in and out of the atmosphere. The total CO2 flow into the atmosphere is at least 156.5 GtC/year with 150 GtC/year of this being from natural origin and 6.5 GtC/year from human origin. So, on the average, 3/156.5 = 2% of all emissions “accumulate”.
Nature emits 34 molecules of CO2 for each molecule of CO2 emitted by human activities. And nature sequesters almost all of the emitted CO2. You assume that nature does sequester all of it because of the human activity. But there are several reasons to doubt this. As example I will cite one of them.
At present the yearly increase of the anthropogenic emissions is approximately 0.1 GtC/year. The natural fluctuation of the excess is at least 6 ppmv (which corresponds to 12 GtC) in 4 months. This is more than 100 times the yearly increase of human production, which strongly suggests that the dynamics of the natural processes can cope easily with the human production of CO2. A serious disruption of the system may be expected when the rate of increase of the anthropogenic emissions becomes larger than the natural variations of CO2. But the above data indicates this is not possible.
You follow that irrelevance with several assertions of what you “expect”. That, too, is all irrelevant. I asked you to justify your assertion: I did not ask you to provide additional unsubstantiated assertions (especially when what you “expect” has less credibility than effects of pixie dust).
I answer, because the addition by man is trivially small and is overwhelmed by natural fluctuation.
But you follow your admission of ignorance by another of your silly and unsubstantiated assertions; i.e.
Rubbish!
The loss from the atmosphere is very, very fast compared to rate of human emission. Its rate is seen in the fall of atmospheric CO2 concentration which is part of the seasonal variation, and it is two orders of magnitude greater than the rate of human emission.
You conclude by saying
I am willing to agree that is what you know about the ability of atmospheric CO2 concentration to have fallen from its nineteenth century levels. It total it says you know nothing whatsoever about the matter.
Richard