![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.
The biggest reduction in emissions has been made because of innovations in the oil and gas industry that has made shale gas and oil so successful in the US. Gas prices at around $3 / mmbtu means gas displaces coal. Will any of the funds raised by the Boxer proposal go to the real source of emissions reduction (ie will the money go to increase the amount of shale gas being produced)?. Of course reporting on this matter was another area where Ms Goldenberg tried to spin the reduction in emissions as a result of a small change in renewables rather than the larger change in the use of gas.
But but… the money that would go to each US citizen would also be taxed… So people I’d receive 60% of my share. The result? Another boon for Green Energy as the price of fossil fuel edges up due to this (if it passes) and to feed-in-tarifs and other sin taxes as well as EPA’s other regulations that consider CO2 as pollution. A little bit here, some more over there, and eventually, green energy, which is heavily subsidized, looks like a less of a bad deal.
When we consider some of the comments above; the billions of funding to alarmists; and the graph WUWT published a year or two ago showing the changes in number of climate stations versus temperature–we have proof of globalist conspiracy if you can face such a thing.
And what is behind it?–apparently the desire for a global carbon tax, to make the very, very wealthy richer. After all, they are so rich in the first place because they value money–and control.
Al Gore is a good example–he is a multimillionaire politician whose father was a Congressman. All his life, he has lived at taxpayer expense, so he thinks of money and the good life as coming through taxes. Being normal in this respect, he wants more than he has. Most of us do. So how do you get more tax money? Well, a handy new tax.
But there is a catch–the people are tapped out. They simply WILL not actually pay more taxes. Rates can be raised or new imposts cooked up, but the result will be employers leaving the country, illegal immigrants working “under the table” and other black markets, and the harder they try to squeeze more milk out of the dry cow, the more she will collapse. That is what is behind the world’s current economic crisis–governments trying desperately to grab more than people will give, resulting in a collapse of production.
Welcome to our world in Australia. It is frustrating that the so called “elites” always believe they know better.
Couple of things there are three parties in the US the Dems, the Repubs and of course the Bureaucratic Party, Guess who wins every time.
@ur momisugly Eve can’t help myself; Sending out Adam to do the fighting?
cmarrou said “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”
Living and working near DC I can vouch for that. The Defense-Industrial complex is part of the problem, but it’s really all part of the same larger federal government and contractor complex (same players, same waste). There are multiple 10 billion+ dollar contracts to buy “IT services” which translates to “everybody upgrades perfectly good hardware with new hardware and we waste millions trying to set up simple servers often ending in failure”. There are multiple billion dollar companies that are allegedly non-profit that are full of highly overpaid people that look like Keith Briffa and do almost nothing except pontificate about their brilliance in meetings. There are buildings full of government employees where almost everyone is a manager and passes paper or bytes from other managers to yet more managers except instead of actually doing it, they have a couple of SETA (systems engineering and technical assistance) contractors who do it for them when they are not busy doing other busywork.
It’s a mess. People ask, aren’t you afraid of losing your job and the local economy going in the crapper (with sequestration)? Yes and yes. It’s a small start. A lot more needs to be cut including all departments outside of defense (defense is taking the most cuts this time).
What I do not understand is why anyone would take this bill seriously when it comes from an avowed socialist and by far the dumbest member of the Senate. Perhaps the press who give credence to this possess the same two attributes.
The saying, ‘if you only have a hammer, all problems look like a nail’ comes to mind.
Barbie & Bernie have been talking to the lawyers again, so their solution to the ‘global warming problem’ is to follow the successful class action gravy train lawsuit model, except this time you don’t have to actually settle a case. You pick the industry, extract the money, pay your pennies to the class and keep the 40% for the lawyers. The only winners are the attorneys and politicians because they can leverage their 2/5ths vig to buy more votes, campaign contributions and influence.
As Samuel Johnson said: “I do not care to speak ill of any man behind his back, but I believe the gentleman is a lawyer.”
The meteor that hit Russia… I know off topic, but wow… great video. This is not related to the meteor that will miss earth by 17,000 miles tonight.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/meteorites-fall-from-the-sky-in-russias-ural-mountains/2013/02/15/b0bcd7c6-776b-11e2-b102-948929030e64_video.html
Boxer is a millionaire – filthy rich with emphasis on the filth. Why don’t you tax Wall St and leave working people alone. As a matter of fact, change the tax rate to apply only after you make 100k.
abinico warez: You have conflated at least three different things together.
1) filth and boxer – OK – I get it
2) tax Wall Street – it is taxed all sorts of ways
3)change the tax rate to apply only after you make 100k. – It does change, a lot. We who make more get raped. But the harder you make it for people to get wealthy, the more hopeless you make it for yourself. Think about it. It sounds like you are not ever expecting to do well, so you just want to take it from me.
I am sick and tired of people who think it is NOT their responsibility to contribute to the spending their people vote for. Why don’t you (abinico) think about the envy you have for people who contribute many times more than people such as yourself? Why don’t you ask what you can do for your country instead of ask what more I can do?
Mario Lento, how much more have you done?
abinico warez says: February 15, 2013 at 5:30 pm
“….Boxer is a millionaire – filthy rich with emphasis on the filth. Why don’t you tax Wall St and leave working people alone?…”
Mario Lento says: February 15, 2013 at 9:13 pm
“….Why don’t you ask what you can do for your country instead of ask what more I can do?…”
Me says: February 15, 2013 at 9:35 pm
“…Mario Lento, how much more have you done? …”
Ah, the old tax issue. Old style income taxes are probably not the answer. Perhaps more focus on consumption or transaction taxes is the answer (if they can be automated so as to not incur such an administrative burden as they now do). Good system, the more you want to consume or transact, the more you choose to contribute to society.
Perhaps couple this with employment laws and food outlet laws (Singapore style) which allow the poorest of the poor to get jobs, and run small (food) businesses, and all to eat well and cheaply.
But, this is about (usually wealthy) people telling the rest of us to lead more austere lives, while they will simply soak up the costs and proceed with their lifestyle as usual. As Hans Rosling so wisely says: Of the top level consumers (the rich) ..”… until they have the same energy consumption per person they should not give advice to others what to do and what not to do…!!! …” (Hans Rosling and the magic Washing Machine) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sqnptxlCcw
People whose main worry currently is what colour the third Ferrari or Roller in the garage should be are not likely to flinch at a hike in fuel or power bills, are they?
You got that right markx, they don’t flinch at a hike in fuel or power bills, chances are they have investments in that.
@markx says: “But, this is about (usually wealthy) people telling the rest of us to lead more austere lives, while they will simply soak up the costs and proceed with their lifestyle as usual.”
Do you think taxing the rich is about wealthy people telling “you”…? It is in fact the other way around. The rich are told by the poor that they need to pay a larger share of their income to pay for the poor, and all things needed by the poor. The wealthy, contrary to your un-thoughtful statement, would be quite happy for the less affluent to earn and pay more of their share.
I do agree that a flat tax would be a good start in cleaning up the mess. But then I see people like you complaining that the rich are not paying enough… and soon, the mess would return to what we have today. In a republic (which is what the US is supposed to have) the minority is to be protected from the majority. However, that is no longer the case.
Mario Lento says: February 16, 2013 at 11:23 am
“… It is in fact the other way around. The rich are told by the poor that they need to pay a larger share of their income to pay for the poor, and all things needed by the poor….”
Re: “But, this is about (usually wealthy) people telling the rest of us to lead more austere lives, while they will simply soak up the costs and proceed with their lifestyle as usual.”
The “telling us what to do” statement was more in regard to the surfeit of millionaires and billionaires trying to save the world by reducing everyone else’s carbon footprint while they continue “business as usual” …. because they can afford to .
Income tax is a whole separate issue, but in regard to both income tax and carbon taxes, it is worth contemplating the fact that for the man at the bottom of the pile there is no such thing as ‘discretionary spending’…. this was brought home to me from years of managing business in a third world country, where I’d have men sitting in front of my desk explaining why they needed a pay rise or a loan (and often both). These guys might be on US$100 per month, whereas their local managers would be on US$1000 to US$2000 per month, and most expat managers were probably on about US$10,000 month. I’d spend more out having a drink with friends in one night than some had in a month to feed their family, send their kids to school, pay for a house, and perhaps pay off a motor bike (albeit a much cheaper school, a much smaller house, and an older second hand motorcycle than we’d imagine). I don’t know how they did it, and I was always being chastised from above for the pay rises and interest free loan schemes I provided.
Funny thing was, when it came to pay rise time, or loans, the local managers, already 10 or 20 times better off than their subordinates, always had a great argument as to why they needed a bigger percentage pay-rise and bigger loans than the workers.
While these things are obvious in third world countries, and there are no social security systems at all, in western societies it is sometimes very easy to lose sight of how those less well off than us are struggling.