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”
The net result after the lost jobs and productivity will be less tax revenue, but we must not let logic stand in the way of class warfare.
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. .
Keep also in mind that Illinois is the highest nuclear based economy in the US. Average cost per KwH is 12-14 cents for residential. In Wisconsin the cost per KwH is 6-7 cents per KwH. Half of Illinois. Also, Commonwealth Edison has $ 40 billion in stranded debt. What does that mean? It means ComEd will NEVER pay off the cost of the nukes that have been sitting for over 40 years. It also means that the US government pays for all of the storage of the waste that are located in Illinois. Why are we paying for all of this mismanaged energy production? Senators?!
ericgrimsrud says:
November 8, 2012 at 9:19 am
“How much is it going to cost to dike some of our major cities against those “100 year” storms?”
Thats depends… is the city repub or democrat… if democrat well billions probably trillions since 99% of the money will go into fraud and kick backs as it did in new orleans.
The problem is once again its far cheaper even assuming pretty bad CAGW to simply adapt then go eco-nazi.
PS still waiting on why you hate tree and endorse cutting down the rain forest etc, etc, etc eco-terrorist propaganda
@ericgrimsrud
I bought a corn/wood stove in 2005 when it was all the rage and used it for 5 seasons purely for economic reasons. Corn was $1.70/bushel, life was great and we saved money over propane. In time it became a ball and chain not much unlike the days of cutting wood. One of the driving forces for people jumping on the bandwagon at that time was “rebate checks” from the government and the promise of cheap fuel to heat their homes. That only lasted a couple years. By 2009 the dream began to fade and I read the tea leaves. Now those burning corn for fuel to heat their homes have more money than brains.
As for the technology “works very well”, that is subjective. You are a slave to the stove, they are dirty (wood worse than corn), the quality of the wood pellets are not all equal, and as wood stove pellet manufacturers compete with the housing/paper and other wood product industries, prices are not stable and the supply is sparse in many areas.
Typically the CP electronics are sensitive to power spikes as they are made cheaply, the motors wear out, gaskets go bad and the exhaust passages/vents need to be cleaned often depending on stove brand. Relying on these stoves to run unattended without a backup system is playing Russian roulette.
Further, the glowing accolades for how “green” corn/wood stoves are is deceptive. With few exceptions (ex. Dell-Point), particulate emissions are still much higher than NG/propane. So while it makes some feel good thinking how much smaller their carbon footprint is over evil fossil fuel users, they are spewing more particulate emissions and other pollutants than NG/propane furnaces. The efficiency ratings of corn/wood pellet stoves are, how shall I put it, “exaggerated”..
Basically, corn/wood stoves are a labor of love because they require a lot of labor to run and maintain, not to mention buying/transporting/storing/hauling to the stove 400+ bags of pellets. . Only true love justifies that. There is a reason why so many stove manufactures have gone belly up in the past 3 years.
A carbon tax makes as much sense as this did.
http://www.horology-stuff.com/clocks/parliament.html
Hopefully it wouldn’t last as long.
To DR
Sorry to hear about the terrible experience you have had with your pellet stove. I have had mine going for about 4 years now with no problems whatsoever. Also, with no mess, very little work, and no observable emission problems. In addition, I also have a 6.3 kwatt solar panel system that provides all of our electrical needs for the year. This is because of the “net-metering” system we have with our utitlity – our meter runs backwards when the sun is shining and forward only during the evening. And we live in an area (Kalispell, MT) that is not particulary sunny all year. So our experience is that these things, along with a well designed house provides about 90% of our heating and electrical needs with very little inconvenience relative to normal power (gas and grid electric which was also have by the way).
My apologies to those who do not like to hear that things of this sort can be done with ease. And to DR, it might be that you purchased a lousy pellet stove and/or have been buying low quality pellets – I can’t identify with the problems you describe. My system is controlled by a conventional thermostat and trickles pellets for several days from an enlarged hopper that I refill as needed – no more than every other day in the coldest winter months and much less when the weather is mild. Of course all of this also depends on house design – our’s is large but well designed for zonal comfort.
Friends:
The real issue is whether a Carbon Tax would be beneficial (it is not the ‘noises off’ from the ridiculous Eric Grimsrud).
There are two possible benefits which supporters of a Carbon Tax assert; viz.
1. A Carbon Tax would change how people behave and so reduce CO2 emissions
and
2. A Carbon Tax would reduce a government’s deficit.
I shall ignore arguments about whether either of these ‘benefits’ is or is not desirable because a Carbon Tax cannot have either of the asserted effects.
A Carbon Tax sufficient to alter how people behave cannot be imposed except by a totalitarian government.
People need fuel to survive and they will oppose a government which restricts their ability to survive. This has been demonstrated by the ‘fuel escalator’ in the UK. This ‘escalator’ increased the tax on transport fuel by a percentage each year. Eventually fuel tax reached ~80% of the price of transport fuel. At that point hauliers rebelled. They went on strike and blockaded roads with the result that the country came to a halt. In other words, the only way that people amended their behaviour was to resist the tax. The government had no option but to stop the ‘fuel escalator’. This shows that any Carbon Tax would either not be sufficient to alter public behaviour or would result in public opposition that a government could not resist (unless the government were totalitarian).
A Carbon Tax would increase a government’s deficit.
All economic activity requires use of fuel. So, a Carbon Tax is a tax on economic activity. Reduced economic activity is reduced wealth production and, therefore, is reduced wealth from which a tax can be drawn. The net result can only be reduced tax income for the government. In other words, as others have pointed out, a Carbon Tax is an extreme example of the ‘broken window fallacy’.
Why support something which cannot achieve its objectives?
Richard
ericgrimsrud says:
November 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nice how you pick and choose what you reply to and what you don’t.
Upthread you accused people of arguing that certain AGW solutions don’t work and from this they claim that AGW is a hoax.
Either produce evidence of same as requested, or admit that your accusation is false.
ericgrimsrud says:
November 8, 2012 at 1:32 pm
Still waiting on why you hate trees and want to destroy the rainforests… anytime you want to respond to that…
Well, there you have it again. RichardsCourtney, just like David Ball, informs us of the “fact” that a Carbon Tax Plan can not work. Therefore, AGW must all be a hoax, right. Either that or “there is nothing we can do about it”.
Richards, consider for a moment the enormous and largely unaddressed challenge your country was faced in the 1930’s. If he were still living, I suspect that Winston Churchill would refer to you as a “sheep in sheep’s clothing!” with respect to your inclination to bow to the powerful.
Davidmhoffer,
The response you have requested should be “on the way” if and when the mods allow it to go through. I don’t know why it has been held up – it followed very logially from your request. Eric
To temp, Please understand that the mods do not want me to encourage extented interactions with persons that ask silly questions. I am only too pleased to honor their request.
note to the mods. AS you know, Davidmhoffer has the impression that I am refusing to answer his question and I have the impression that I submitted that response to you. If you have lost it or if it did not get to you, please let me know so that I can redo it for DH. Thanks, ERic
[Reply: Not in Spam folder. — mod.]
A little OT from a Carbon Tax but a graduated tax system is sold on the idea that it will tax the rich to give to the poor.
I wonder what will surprise Obama voters most, to find out that the he thinks they are too rich or that he considers the USA is too rich?
ericgrimsrud;
ericgrimsrud says:
November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Well, there you have it again. RichardsCourtney, just like David Ball, informs us of the “fact” that a Carbon Tax Plan can not work. Therefore, AGW must all be a hoax
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I read his response and he said that a carbon tax could not work. No where in his response did he suggest this as evidence that AGW is a hoax.
Ok, so here is another response to DavidMhoffer’s question shown below. He said:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Just to mention one that appears shortly before that of Mr. Hoffer:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In case you need a translation of his comments, Mr. Ball;’s first sentence says that a C tax will ruin the economy of the USA (that is, will not work) and the second suggests that my view of AGW is BS (that is, a hoax). If you require additional explanation of the point I was making, please understand that I might not be allowed by the mods to accommodate future silly questions of this sort.
ericrgrimsrud;
In case you need a translation of his comments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
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.
No need for a tax, when China backs our play, in exchange for our technology.
stefanthedenier says:
November 7, 2012 at 6:31 pm
…In 4y time, American deficit will be so high; China will have a say for what money are spent / how much to be cut from the military budget… similar as the Germans are controlling the Greek government. credit is always the biggest enemy….
_____________________________________
Actually the biggest enemy is printing fiat currency.
So far the USA has avoided the problems of hyper-inflation because the US dollar is the the world reserve currency. However that classification is under attack. June 29, 2010 Dollar should be replaced as international standard, U.N. report says
More on Hyper-inflation outlining the causes and why the author thinks the US dollar is safe. link
If the US does go bankrupt it will be the World Bank/IMF to the rescue. Greece is part of the EU so the EU (Germany and France) hold the reins. The USA is closer to the Iceland bankruptcy where the bankers screwed over the population. However the Iceland government unlike the US government let the banks fail and did not bail them out.
So what do that mean?
Pelicanman says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:14 pm
…… HSBC was founded by British opium traffickers such as Keswick, Matheson, and Jardine to launder their opium and heroin funds. The firm has a long and sordid history of drug running and money laundering up to the Vietnam War and the present day….
________________
Then you will really appreciate this from the HSBC website:
I guess the growing of various plants is ‘sustainable’ (snicker) as well as very profitable.
GeoLurking says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:20 pm
….He doesn’t need Congress… or the Legislature at all. The EPA, a “is an agency of the United States federal government which was created for the purpose of protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations.” A part of the Executive Branch, it was brought in to being December 2, 1970 by Executive Order which was later ratified by the House and the Senate.
In short, they legally can do what they please within their purview and there is not a thing that Congress can do about it, other than bleat like sheep and try to get whatever it is overturned….
____________________________________
There is actually something Congress can do and that is cut off the money flow. If Congress really wanted to balance the budget all they have to do is de-fund the bloated bureaucracy by slashing the budgets of the EPA, USDA, FDA, DOE…. the United States federal government with over four million employees worldwide and a lot of that is deadwood. It is time to start trimming.
(The Universities need a trim job too.)
ericgrimsrud says:
November 7, 2012 at 8:26 pm
To Theo Goodwin,
Yes, businesses that sell woodstoves should do better….
________________________________
You are out of your ever loving tree!
Woodstoves are highly regulated in most states. In some states burning is pretty much outlawed. Therefore the costs have skyrocketed. link (stove only does not include pad or chimney)
Gunga Din says:
November 8, 2012 at 5:22 pm
A little OT from a Carbon Tax but a graduated tax system is sold on the idea that it will tax the rich to give to the poor….
________________________
And that is one of the biggest pieces of propaganda Evah!
The rich are not taxed except for the 0-15% on taxable dividends because they do not earn regular paychecks. Most of their wealth is safely tucked where it is not taxed. If you look at the chart in this article the two biggest tax catagories are ‘Individual Income’ (tax on wages) and ‘Employment’ (social security, railroad retirement, medicare and such) and their contribution is doing nothing but increasing while excise tax and corporate tax are decreasing.
And just to finish off here is the real scary chart of government spending vs GDP link
Over 40% of GDP! gag, no wonder the deficit just keeps on increasing.
ericgrimsrud:
I am replying to your silly comment at November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm. It says in total
In my only post to this thread (at November 8, 2012 at 3:07 pm) 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.
My post specifically said
[emphasis added: RSC]
So, my post specifically stated that it was NOT addressing the validity of the AGW-scare which I chose to “ignore”. Grimsrud, as usual, you have ignored what I did write and you have asserted I wrote something which I did not. You really are incorrigible.
And I never “bow to the powerful”. My peers elected me to every elected post up to and including National Vice President of a TUC-affiliated trade union. They would not have elected me to represent them if I ever bowed to the powerful.
A Carbon Tax is a way for the powerful to obtain monies from everybody else.
I wrote my post because there is something “we can do about it”. We can oppose imposition of a Carbon Tax so it cannot provide the impoverishment which results in people revolting against it.
Richard