![climate-funding-US-govt-spending-web[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/climate-funding-us-govt-spending-web1.jpg?quality=83)
While the Guardian’s environmental amateur journo Suzanne Goldenberg bloviates about the horrible possibility that some climate skeptic think tanks may have actually gotten a drop in the bucket of funding compared to all the billions of money poured down the climate research hole, we have a money and power grab move front and center by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) and Bernie Sanders (I- VT).
The transparency of this move to funnel money to people within her sphere of influence on climate matters is clear to people in the know. Here’s an article from the SFO chronicle that highlights her grab for cash:
Boxer’s push is a twist on carbon tax
Carolyn Lochhead
Washington — Sen. Barbara Boxer plans Thursday to co-sponsor a radical plan to control carbon dioxide emissions modeled on Alaska’s rebates of oil royalties to residents.
The California Democrat is a marquee draw for an otherwise obscure bill by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont liberal and independent. Called “fee and dividend,” the legislation is an unusual variant on a carbon tax. It would impose a fee on carbon emissions at their source, such as coal mines, raising the price of fossil fuel energy.
But instead of giving the proceeds to the government, three-fifths of the money would be refunded to U.S. residents.
Such rebates could run into hundreds of dollars. The idea is modeled loosely on Alaska’s “permanent fund” that distributes royalties from the state’s oil and gas industry to every Alaskan resident.
Sounds great right? Stick it to those coal and oil companies so they can stick us with higher bills. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
But what about that other two-fifths of that carbon tax revenue?
$1.2 trillion
The tax would raise an estimated $1.2 trillion over a decade and reduce greenhouse gas emissions 20 percent from 2005 levels. Three-fifths of the tax would be rebated to “every legal U.S. resident,” which might make it more politically feasible than if it went to the government.
The rest of the money would go to incentives for clean energy and research.
A version of the “fee and dividend” idea is a favorite of NASA climate scientist James Hansen and climate activist Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org.
Let’s see, two fifths of 1.2 trillion works out to be: 480 billion dollars. And over 10 years, that’s about 48 billion per year.
No wonder Hansen and McKibben like it. It will line the pockets of them and their friends for “research” far more so that they could ever imagine now.
But Guardian amateur journo Goldenberg is worried about that supposed “secret” funding of 120 million dollars for some think tanks from 2002 to 2010. Since she seems to want to look the other way, maybe she’s getting some of the money too.
Small correction: Sanders is officially an (I-VT) as he is officially a socialist. He does caucus with the Democrats though.
REPLY: Fair enough, – A
Nice follow the money. This bill better be dead on arrival.
How would any of this reduce emissions? It’s pain-free for the energy companies.
Senator Boxer Plans to get Climate Bill to Floor by Summer
I encourage readers to leave a comment on this mornings The Hill article related to Senator Boxer’s intent to move a Carbon Tax to the floor for a summer vote.
Hill Reporters and Congressional Aids read these articles and comments to the articles so its likely that a well written comment will find its way to Congressional Representatives.
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/283189-sen-boxer-plans-to-get-climate-bill-to-floor-by-summer
Boxer’s been a sleazebucket since she initially took office. I disagree with Feinstein on most things and I have wanted her to lose an election for decades, but at least she won’t outright dismiss you when you disagree with her.
Again, the lack of turnover in the senate is beyond disturbing.
Omitted is that the money comes from consumers, who have to pay the higher energy prices, then much of the money is bled off by bureaucrats before being given back to the consumers (if they fill out the proper paperwork).
$48 billion divided by 310 million people is $155 per person per year.
Since 100% of the $1.2 trillion will be derived from making energy more expensive for all energy consumers, the per capita increase in energy cost would be $387 per year. A net loss of -$232. For a family of four that would be -$929 per year.
It’s really idiotic to compare this to Alaska’s permanent fund. It’s almost the exact opposite.
You never go for the whole hog – you go for a pork chop first. They could promise to give 90% back, but that would last but a year, before it would become the next target of the taxers.
They would never claim to give 100% back – they have to take their vigorish after all.
I read some of the comments thread on the Grauniad article. There was a lot of 97% of scientists agree, and a lot of not mentioning any of the models match reality, but nothing about sceptics getting the remainder of the $60bn funding they need to catch up with the warmists. Still, no change there then.
Ooops… Corrected post:
$72 billion divided by 310 million people is $232 per person per year.
Since 100% of the $1.2 trillion will be derived from making energy more expensive for all energy consumers, the per capita increase in energy cost would be $387 per year. A net loss of -$155. For a family of four that would be -$619 per year.
It’s really idiotic to compare this to Alaska’s permanent fund. It’s almost the exact opposite.
USA emissions have reduced by 13% over 5 years….has the weather settled down? No.
Hypothesis tested…hypothesis fails
“Three-fifths of the tax would be rebated to “every legal U.S. resident,” which might make it more politically feasible than if it went to the government.”
A clear case of attempted bribery. A new low for the senate. I cannot believe that this bill will get serious consideration in the senate.
There is no way to know that a carbon tax, at any level, would reduce carbon emissions by some percentage over some period of time.
I suspect the temptation to redistribute income would keep any refunding of the tax from being proportional to the individual’s tax payments. “It’s just too hard!”
Typical government scam. Use a third party to take your money then give 60% of it back to you to make it look like you’re getting a windfall courtesy of the people who fleeced you in the first place. Divert the other 40% to those who will assure a hold on a position of power. Odds are the opposition party is either too dumb or too dirty to label this for what it is.
Anthony, I hope I didn’t hit a nerve picking that nit…but the detractors to your good science would latch onto something tiny like that to try to discredit your accurate reporting. They don’t have the facts or the science, so they will try to change the subject.
This bill is so predictable. I just hope Sen Boxer’s attempts can be so discredited that the President gets scared away from trying it as an executive order because it is too toxic.
Just a reminder. This article appeared Nov 20, 2012, a week before Doha, about the climate gravy train. Once again the elites of the world have cornered the energy field, like the Rockefellers did at the beginning of the 20th C:
Investment alliance with $22 trillion in assets pleads for urgent climate action
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/11/20/investment-alliance-with-22-trillion-in-assets-pleads-for-urgent-climate-action/
The “open letter to the globe’s largest governments (PDF)”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/investorclimateletter.pdf
Anyone know who is behind Ceres? Is this Gaia Redux? And I’m talking about Maurice Strong’s Gaia group in Colorado.
Omnilogos and Anonymoose are correct in their comments, but I would like to point out that ALL government programs work that way. Money comes from the consumers (all other taxes are merely pass-throughs), goes through Washington and some of it comes back. How much depends on the program. Social Security only keeps about 3% because it’s a simple money transfer, but 3% of $700 billion is still $21 billion. Senator Boxer’s 40% is somewhere in the middle. Most money spent on research dissolves in the D.C. area. The Energy Department has a $27 billion budget but bravely spends $10 billion on research…except that much of that figure goes to think tanks and lobbyists and other enablers around Washington. That’s why 8 of the 10 highest counties in household income are right around Washington D.C. As I have often said in a more political vein, a politician is a person who takes a dollar out of your back pocket, puts a dime in your front pocket, and expects you to thank him.
David Middleton says:
February 14, 2013 at 10:46 am
“A net loss of -$232. For a family of four that would be -$929 per year.”
Doesn’t that mean there is a net tax gain to the government of $929/year?
Tax revenues are NEVER strictly allocated. So all the monies that are supposed to go for green technologies actually go to general revenue, and some today, maybe some tomorrow, will go to tax breaks that are considered as revenue transfers. Some to subsidies, of course, but the serious net benefit is to general revenue.
All governments of all stripes refuse to lock in contributions to anything specific, which is why we have pension and medical and unemployment insurance shortfalls. The same will happen with any taxes here.
Previously, tax increases were justified under war costs, then never dropped. Carbon taxes are perhaps the non-war, war charges of 2013.
The lack of required accountability to the electorate for responsible government is astounding for an age with such education and access to current information. But if Bush’s lies to get the war going in Iraq don’t cause any political damage (except in the history books), you have to wonder if the electorate really cares about the governors doing an effective, let alone efficient, job.
Just another attempt to try to tax the air we breathe.
Just like in “Groundhog Day” Phil has gotta be stopped. But you wake up tomorrow and there is another attempt you’ve gotta stop.
I think some of the outrage here is overblown. Tax policy at all levels of government is structured to encourage some economic behaviors and discourage others. How the proceeds of any particular tax are allocated to budgets is part of fiscal policy. We all have different views on just what the feds and our local school districts ought to be doing with our money.
Basic research in all fields and various kinds of infrastructure spending have always been subject to the pork barrel phenomenon, and not just at the congressional level. So make a case that an increase in carbon consumption taxes at the source is bad tax policy, or argue that spending such revenue (or any other revenue) in a particular way is unwise, but drop the moral outrage posture.
Hmm, ‘enrichen’ – is that a word over in the colonies then? Over in the Isles of Britain, we are less profligate with our use of letters!
Alaska’s rebate makes sense, since the money comes from the selling of assets owned by the state. Assets owned by the state are owned by all citizens of that state equally. So the checks go to all citizens equally.
They money that Pelosi is paying out comes from all citizens, but it doesn’t come from them all equally. What this bill is take from those who are successful, and hence use more energy and give back equally to everyone.
The portion that goes back to the people is also just another form of welfare for those who tend to vote Demcorat.
omnologos says:
February 14, 2013 at 10:29 am
How would any of this reduce emissions? It’s pain-free for the energy companies.
—
That should be painfully obvious. By making energy more expensive for consumers.
Another scam attempt from the San-Fran Skank of Sleaze. Pardon my ad hominem, but it seems to fit.
BTW, I would like to see an end to all energy subsidies—coal, oil, wind, solar, etc.— it is time enough for them to stand on their own or wallow in their own excrement.
The people who applaude this are the same ones that rejoice when they get a tax refund at the end of the year. “Free money”!!!!!