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”
Ok, the reflubitcrats should see the real opportunity to keep the reflubitcans deep into the political wilderness for decades, possibly. If they back off the extremist stances, like the carbon tax scheme. They should have Clinton’s second term still fresh in their minds. Especially after all the years they were in need of deep woods off.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell could have gotten with SpaghettiO and said, “We are going to resolve the fiscal cliff and alternative minimum tax, we will get it done.” Instead of a pledge to work together that markets didn’t believe for a minute.
Pick the damn can up and quit kicking it down the road.
It would have given reflubitcans an opening to eventually emerge from the political wilderness.
Oh ‘ell, ewww, hmmm, of them are politicians, they definitely rode the short bus to school. So what looks like couldn’t possibly happen could easily happen.
This is a Bloomberg subsidised article. Sell Danny Weston letter.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/07/job-candidate-tells-bloomberg-to-take-this-job-and-over-global-warming-cover/
Aussie beat me to it. If you want to see how damaging a Carbon Tax is just check out Australia. We have had one for four months and people everywhere are complaining about the additional costs. Gillard said she would only charge the big “polluters” ie the power stations but guess what? They have the audacity to pass on their increased costs to the small “polluters” who seem to be going broke. Our ALP/Greens have the business accumen of a toadstool and think raising taxes gets the economy going. Well it does give more so the mendicants in society can have more but eventually the hard working ants will jack up and the lazy grasshoppers will starve. Seems St. Barack has caught the ALP disease. America is in for a rocky ride unless you can find a reason to impeach him.
First, this will be like the Euro VAT tax where the tax is imposed “up the line”. It’s a truly great tax since the voting public won’t really be able to figure out how much they pay. It’s much better than the VAT since is blunts the normal opposition to taxes and substiture the “feel good about saving the planet and the environment”. Congress can raise the rate almost at will to huge amouts so long as it’s phased in over many years. Like that old fable of the frog in water that’s heated to boiling.
Don’t think the headline “Obama may impose a carbon tax” is just an eye-catcher. Given this new “mandate”, since it’s not likely Congress will pass a carbon tax, at least not in the House, the EPA will simply set up a fee/fine/liscensing system where Obama will have a Carbon Czar simple impose it. Actually, Obama may call it a something else, like a Business Czar. Obama will likely win a court case on this. After all, it’s just a tax/fee/fine and SCOTUS has already ruled carbon is an enemy.
Oh, and don’t even start to think the voters will toss them out. See the results this Tuesday.
@Lawrie Ayres
We have plenty of reasons, but no one with the gnads to actually do it… let alone half a chance of being successful.
This is the problem re-electing that democrat. Bad Choice America, voting without thinking. Just wait for the rest of the bad news from the EPA later in November.
You can’t undo your vote.
“Lawrie Ayres says:
November 8, 2012 at 12:56 am
Gillard said she would only charge the big “polluters” ie the power stations but guess what?”
And the real irony here in Australia is that “big polluters”, or “power stations”, like Snowy Hydro and Hydro Tasmania are in the list of “top polluters”. And many people still don’t get the con!
Romney was correct when he warned that another Obama term will turn the USA into Greece. Its started. Hurricane Sandy was localised to a few states and lasted a few hours. Hurricane Obama will hit the US, consequently the ROTW and will last for four years and its effects for decades at least. If US voters could not see this coming then it is what you deserve. The problem is that Obama’s first term effected me and my famly badly due to high energy prices, which caused loss of jobs world wide (except China), high inflation, property devaluation.
Imagine what a repeat would cause. Which reminds me of the saying: Madness is repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting different results each time.
Winston Churchill described creating wealth by taxation as a trying to lift oneself up by standing in a bucket and pulling on the handle.
Hmm. So $1.5e13 deficit (to date) vs $1.5e11 in tax revenues over 8 years. I put those numbers into my calculator it comes up with a sad face.
Of course, that’s assuming it works, that the deficit doesn’t grow (ho ho ho), and that the economy behaves as predicted. Huh.
Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, introduced a carbon tax in Australia because she believed the IPCC science was settled, that human’s were causing global warming, and a carbon tax would halt climate change by forcing people to change their behaviour over fossil fuels. Now go ask Australia if its carbon tax has had any impact on carbon dioxide emissions or in halting climate change. Then ask those Australians how they feel about their electricity prices that have been going up and up and up due to the carbon tax.
How about a coordinated worldwide party – fueled by carbonated alcoholic beverages – for all ‘deniers’ as soon as atmospheric CO2 goes above 400ppm?
HSBC seems to be ignorant of the US Constitution
Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives
Grimsrud is knowingly supporting a destruction of the U.S. Economy. Claims of concern for his grandchildren seem like BS. THe future under Obama will NOT be good for the elderly or the infirm.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Tandt%2Bbetter%2BCanada%2BRomney%2Bhands%2Bdown/7501629/story.html
Confused voter: But what of all them sweet words that thau spoke before the election?
Obama: Aw, well… Well, that’s just what we call “pillow talk,” baby. That’s all.
Still, sceptical voices should try to beat them at their own game. With good science.
Make some submissions here and see if they’re somehow accepted now, after this election and King Wal~Mart bashing media having run a few.
http://public.conxport.com/walmart/sponsorship/home.aspx
I sat with Sam Walton in a snack bar at a store in Fayetteville, AR about 1980 and talked politics for a while. But I was a green as pie youngster back then. I used to work for them. I was really surprised at some of the things they WOULD get involved in.
The ‘quail hunters’ bird dog wanted to runnoft with me, heh.
So OBAMA allows a deficit to exist because he chooses to let private central bankers lend our govt money at interest, vesus printing that money on our own, which is perfectly legal for the US govt to do. Then to pay off the debt owed to the private central bankers, OBAMA create “carbon” laws that require us to give up our privacy and our freedom, in order to pay back the debt to these private central bankers.
No, that doesn’t sound corrupt. Not corrupt at all. Not even Luciferian or Communitarian.
Concerning the commenst of my several “admirers” on this thread,
I have a simple response here to many criticism of my thoughts expressed above on this thread. Note that I will ignore here the numerous and mindless personal insults that the mods seem to think are just fine when delivered by this set of “regulars” at WUWT.
First, concerning the small issue about wood burning stoves. In my short comment concerning it, I answered the question that had been asked. The suppliers of wood and pellet burning stoves will obviously benefit from a carbon tax. Such businesses are already doing very well in my area of the country and most of the heat for my own house, in fact, comes from a pellet stove. The technology works very well and it is cost effective. The question asked was not whether this bit of alternate energy would supply the entire world with its needs. Obviously it will not. So why would one of my “admirers” dis on me for not answering a question that was not asked? I suppose it was just so that he could lob a few more personal insults in my direction.
Concerning several other insults and criticisms, the issue boils down to whether or not ones thinks that AGW is a serious problem that needs to be forcefully addressed ASAP. I am obviously such a person. And then in seeking solutions to this difficult problem – one then immediately runs into very challenging aspects of the solutions one thinks we should try. So then those that do not believe that AGW is a problem, of course, will pick away at the weak points of those solutions. Their object I suppose is to argue that the solutions won’t works, so this becomes just another reason to believe that AGW is all a big Hoax !!!! That sort of thinking is both deceptive and childish. It attacks the concept of AGW based on the argument that “there is nothing we can do about it anyway”, so AGW must be false!!!
With this in mind, the personal insult often lobbed, “Grimsrud is a Fool!”, on this and other threads at WUWT become code words for “since AGW is all a Big Hoax, why even try to address it” as Grimsrud suggests we do.
For any of the readers of WUWT that might like to see more evidence of my background (entirely spent in science and atmospheric chemistry) and the basis of my thoughts on climate change, see my website, ericgrimsrud.com, and, in particular, the free short course provided on it. Then please do feel free to conclude that Grimsrud is a Fool, but preferable after you have tried to learn the subject.
“Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
———————————————————————————————————————
It would do no such thing because the monies would not be used to pay off the deficit. He would use the monies to create new spending programs.
ericgrimsrud says:
November 8, 2012 at 8:08 am
“Their object I suppose is to argue that the solutions won’t works, so this becomes just another reason to believe that AGW is all a big Hoax !!!! That sort of thinking is both deceptive and childish. ”
This seems to be an increasing propaganda talking point among cultists.
The irony here is that it is completely “deceptive and childish” if a fix doesn’t work it doesn’t work period. Since its clear the fix doesn’t work why use it? This is the question that people ask and never get a response to.
The simple answer is because the fix is not about fixing global warming it is about “fixing” other issues that could never been pushed in public less the doomsday threat of global warming. Thus that when a fix for doomsday doesn’t work and in fact could make the fabled doomsday worse… clearly the doomsday event is not an issue to the people pushing the “fix”. Thus most logical would argue that doomsday would be fake too since the pushers of said fix don’t believe in the doomsday they say is real.
PS
“Such businesses are already doing very well in my area of the country and most of the heat for my own house, in fact, comes from a pellet stove.”
Don’t you know cutting down trees is evil and that causes global warming and that by doing such you are not only destroying our forests but the planet as well. [..insert more eco terrorists 1980s propaganda]. In short please stop destroying the planet with your wood stove.
Please do not waste time on ericgrimsrud. I have attempted, in the past, having logical discussions with such as he and it is non-productive. It is unfortunate but it is what it is.
Oh Canada !!!!
The specific comments of David Ball shown below do merit careful consideration. They are:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
David Ball says:
November 8, 2012 at 5:40 am
Grimsrud is knowingly supporting a destruction of the U.S. Economy. Claims of concern for his grandchildren seem like BS. THe future under Obama will NOT be good for the elderly or the infirm.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/Tandt%2Bbetter%2BCanada%2BRomney%2Bhands%2Bdown/7501629/story.html
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
First off and as I pointed out on my previous post above, both David Ball and the article in the Calgary Herald do not even mention the issue of AGW – which, of course, their imagined adversaries take very seriously. This “little point” alone – if AGW is real – turns everything they say above on its head, of course. But let’s overlook that little point and move on to consider how the perspective of Canadians might differ on these issues. (note that I believe David Ball is also a Canadian).
First, let me point out that for very good reason, I love Canada and, in particular the Province of Alberta. I spent 4 of my working years at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, and was exposed to the research being done on the Tar Sands starting in 1970. I am very well aware of the effort the Albertans have put in over the last half century to develop a potentially valuable resource that has just recently become viable as the value of oil have increased as world supplies became more limited.
Nevertheless, and as is explained in both my book and my free short course (see ericgrimsrud.com) the world can simply not stand the use and combustion of vast new sources of fossil fuels, such as the tar sands. It cannot ever stand the continued use of is vast reserves of coal – such as my present state of residence, Montana, has in great abundance. All of this follows very directly and understandably if one understands and believes that AGW has a high probability of occurrence as expected upon reading all of the science related in the scientific literature of this field.
So what should be the difference between a Canadian and USA scientific opinion on the topic of AGW? Canada will certainly benefit in the short term if the Tar Sands are connected to the rest of the world via the Keystone XL pipeline. Also some portions of Canada will probably reap some benefit w.r.t. food production during the first phases of AGW. In addition, AGW is likely to make the very northern portions of Canada more amenable to extraction of minerals and more gas and oil.
So that leaves us with a Canadian over the USA advantage over the short term, if AGW is allowed to proceed. Now, if we are also is willing to bet the future of the planet on the possibility that the notion of AGW is all a bit Hoax, then yes of course, Canadians and Americans will both benefit by non-action on AGW. Indeed, why address a problem if there is none? In that case the “happy version” of the science will have come true and the noses of Mr. Ball and the editors at the Calgary Herald will stop growing.
In summary, if you are a Canadian and are mainly concerned about the short term, sure, go ahead and “be happy, don’t worry” while betting on the entire planet’s longer term future. If you are an American, however, those short term downsides already seem to be upon us. How much is it going to cost to dike some of our major cities against those “100 year” storms? And are we really pleased to learn that more of our immediate food supplies can be supplied to us by our good neighbor to the north as our own “bread basket” suffers increasing levels of drought?
Oh Canada !!! I really do love you, but ………… !!!!
I did a little additional math this morning. All of the green energy grants to companies like Solandra totaled around $ 7.4 billion. That is the equivalent of 2 days interest on the $ 16 trillion deficit. If you divide the $ 16 trillion by 330 million (high side US population), every man, woman and child currently owe $ 48, 484 to pay off the deficit. Open your wallets America.
ericgrimsrud;
Their object I suppose is to argue that the solutions won’t works, so this becomes just another reason to believe that AGW is all a big Hoax !!!!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not recall a single instance of anyone on this blog trying to argue that the solutions won’t work so AGW is a hoax. Not a single one ericgrimsrud. In fact, I challenge you to substantiate your claim. Provide a direct quote from this blog making such a claim.
Quick now….you wouldn’t want to add fabrication of facts not to your other foolish statements.
Jim G says:
November 8, 2012 at 8:56 am
Please do not waste time on ericgrimsrud. I have attempted, in the past, having logical discussions with such as he and it is non-productive. It is unfortunate but it is what it is.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ah…. but he is a self proclaimed sock puppet for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a fact which the readership should be repeatedly reminded of. The discourse with ericgrimsrud is a regular reminder of what they are all about, and the complete hollowness of their “science” evident in the frequent discourse with ericgrimsrud (not to mention that pathetic excuse for a science site he keeps trying to promote).
This is the best they’ve got? ericgrimsrud? Perhaps they don’t know about his activities in this forum, because if they did, they’d probably ask him to stop embarrassing them.