
Carbon taxes will do nothing for revenues or climate, but will hurt job and economic growth
Guest post by Paul Driessen
Average planetary temperatures haven’t budged in 16 years. Hurricanes and strong tornadoes are at or near their lowest ebb in decades. Global sea ice is back to normal, Arctic ice is nearly normal, and the Antarctic icepack continues to grow. The rate of sea level rise remains what it was in 1900.
And yet, President Obama and many politicians, newscasters and alarmist scientists continue to insist that carbon dioxide emissions are changing Earth’s climate, and we need to take immediate action to prevent storms like Hurricane Sandy and avert catastrophes predicted by IPCC computer models and alleged “scientific consensus.” Not surprisingly, polls show public support for controlling CO2 output and taxing hydrocarbon use – to “ensure climate security” and “save vital federal programs” from budgetary axes.
As the liberal lobby Think Progress put it, people “overwhelmingly” prefer a carbon tax on “big polluters” versus cuts in favorite programs “like education, Social Security, Medicare and environmental protection.”
Five-alarm climate claims, skewed polling questions and phony taxes-versus-grandma budget alternatives will almost always ensure support for carbon taxes – especially among Bigger Government and Ban Fossil Fuels constituencies. More rational analysis reveals that dreams of hundred-billion-dollar windfalls from slapping regressive new taxes on job creation and economic growth are nothing more than dangerous tax revenue hallucinations. They would bring intense pain for no climate or economic gain.
Employing Energy Information Administration data, a recent Heritage Foundation study by economists David Kreutzer and Nicolas Loris found that a tax starting at $25-per-ton of CO2 emitted and increasing by 5% per year would cut a family of four’s income by $1,400 annually, raise their utility bills by $500 a year, and increase gasoline fill-ups by up to 50 cents per gallon. That’s $2,000 a year chopped from their budget for food, vacations, home and car payments and repairs, college and retirement savings, dental and medical care, and overall quality of life.
Even “millionaire” families making $200,000 a year would find such a hit painful. While the poorest families might get some offsetting tax relief, most would get nothing – nor would employers.
Carbon taxes would thus increase the likelihood that many breadwinners will end up unemployed, since the tax would raise business energy costs dramatically, force companies to trim hours and/or employees, and result in an aggregate loss of at least 1 million jobs by 2016, Heritage notes. That would bring more home foreclosures, greater stress, reduced nutrition, and more strokes and heart attacks, especially for older workers whose odds of finding new employment are increasingly bleak.
No small businesses or energy-intensive manufacturing companies would get a rebate for their soaring carbon taxes. Nor would any mall, hospital, school, church, synagogue or charity group.
Hydrocarbons provide over 83% of all the energy that powers America. A carbon tax would put a hefty surcharge on everything we make, grow, ship, eat and do. It would put the federal government in control of, not just one-sixth of our economy as under Obamacare, but 100% of our economy and lives. It would make the United States increasingly less productive, less competitive globally, less able to provide opportunities for our children.
But it gets worse, because this tax on America’s energy and productivity is not being promoted in a vacuum. It would be imposed on top of countless other job and economy strangling actions.
President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency has already issued 2,071 new rules and dispensed a regulatory burden of over $353 billion per year – equal to all wealth generated annually by Virginia’s private sector. It is now preparing still more rules, the most crushing of which would regulate the same CO2 emissions that some in Congress want to tax, from both moving and stationary sources. Most, if not all of its punitive rules, are based on exaggerated risks, fear mongering, junk science, and illusory health, welfare, “environmental justice” and “sustainability” benefits.
Other agencies are inflicting still more rules, and more crushing paperwork burdens. Obamacare alone will add 127,602,371 more hours per year to the federal paperwork burden for American businesses and families. That’s enough time to carve 1,039 Mount Rushmore monuments, says the Washington Examiner. Even at $25 per hour, that’s $32 billion a year. On top of that, there are the Dodd-Frank financial requirements and myriad other costly, time-consuming, economy-sapping, job-killing rules.
Nothing at all suggests that Congress would reverse or modify even one of these laws, regulations and taxes, as part of a carbon tax deal – or that Mr. Obama would refrain from vetoing any attempted change. Nothing whatsoever suggests that Congress, the President or environmentalists will ease their opposition to issuing leases and drilling and fracking permits for more of our vast onshore and offshore oil and gas deposits, which could generate millions of jobs and billions in royalties and tax revenues. Or that they won’t ultimately enact a punitive cap-and-trade law on top of all of this.
Instead of real energy for real jobs and revenues, President Obama wants to redouble spending on “green” energy – extracting billions of dollars from still productive sectors of our economy, and transferring the money to crony corporatists and campaign contributors, whose operations are exempted from endangered species and other laws that are imposed routinely and punitively on oil, mining and other companies.
Meanwhile, federal “discretionary” spending skyrocketed another $129 billion annually in just four years under Obama. That’s comparable to what carbon tax snake oil salesmen claim a $25-per-ton tax would raise each year, several years into a steadily escalating tax, using static analyses that ignore all these “concrete lifesaver” effects.
The CBO Congressional Budget Office says the US economy will grow by a miserly 1.4% for the next several years, and official unemployment will remain stuck at 7.5% (plus extensive involuntary underemployment and people who have given up looking). Washington Post economics analyst Neil Irwin worries that the United States doesn’t just have a $1-trillion budget deficit. Largely because of government restrictions, regulations, red tape and taxes, it also has a $1-trillion “output gap,” between what it is capable of producing and what it actually produces.
To top it off, if Congress and the White House get more money, they will spend more money!
The net result of a carbon tax will not be new federal revenues. It will be more economic strangulation, a more bloated federal bureaucracy, more layoffs, sharply higher unemployment, food stamp and welfare payouts, reduced corporate and personal income tax receipts – and thus reduced federal revenues.
And for what? The Kyoto Protocol is dead. Japan and many other countries are rejecting any new binding emission targets. China, India, other rapidly developing nations, and even Germany and Europe are burning more coal, emitting more carbon dioxide, and sending atmospheric CO2 levels higher.
And yet, average planetary temperatures show no trend up or down, and global hurricane activity stands at a near-record low. There’s no change in big tornadoes, droughts or rains averaged over the USA for the past century. Polar sea ice is down slightly in the Northern Hemisphere, but up in the Southern. And sea levels show no measurable deviation from trends over the last hundred years.
The only thing that will happen if carbon taxes are inflicted on the US economy is that American jobs, economic growth, living standards, health, dreams and lives will be sacrificed for nothing.
We need to stop basing laws and policies on hallucinations – and start basing them on reality.
_____________
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Related articles
- The Sanders-Boxer carbon tax will be 15 times costlier than letting warming happen (wattsupwiththat.com)
- BREAKING: Carbon Tax bill coming Thursday to Senate (wattsupwiththat.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Behind the curtain
originally by Bishop Hill (and then censored from publication due to old boy pressure from green crooks)
Now and again you get a glimpse behind the curtain. Here’s one such occasion.
On February 13th at a private dining room in a restaurant in London, the great and good met to discuss climate and energy issues. The meeting was organised by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF), an investment firm involved in renewable energy, and was held to promote their latest idea of emissions reductions measures being designed around minimising emissions intensity (i.e. emissions per unit GDP). However, much of the evening seems to have been spent on climate science.
The meeting was held under the Chatham House rule, which precludes attributing quotes to individuals and nowadays seems to preclude identifying attendees either.
However, David Rose has given me a brief report and I am therefore able to pass some of the details on.
Apart from Rose and the people from BNEF, there were:
* representatives of BP and Shell and Bank of America Merrill Lynch
* climate scientists from UCL and UEA
* journalists from the BBC and the FT
* two representatives from the Prime Minister’s office and one from the Treasury
* an MP
* representatives of the Committee on Climate Change and the Carbon Trust
* economists. including one from DECC, one from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and one from the Grantham Institute at LSE.
Rose, who was nearly but not quite the only sceptic present, tells me that the meeting was “breathtaking”. Minds, it seems, were pretty much closed. Over the course of a long evening, it seems that things became fairly heated. Indeed it sounds like it was quite a lot of fun.
A few highlights:
* One of the climate scientists found himself cornered on the pause in temperature rises. How long would this pause have to last, he was asked, before he changed his mind? Another ten years was the answer. When he went on to claim that the heat was disappearing into the deep ocean, he was forced
to admit that there was little evidence to support this case.
* One of the economists became very worked up and accused Rose of being immoral and attacking the models without having a model of his own.
* Another economist was rather put out at the suggestion that Kyoto had been a failure and claimed, somewhat implausibly, that nobody had been linking extreme weather to climate change. It was gently pointed out to him that President Obama had been doing just this in recent days.
* One of the policy wonk people made the extraordinary claim that it is cheaper to build new nuclear than gas.
* One of the BNEF people said that IPCC estimates had turned out to be underestimates and that weather extremes are becoming more pronounced, despite it having been pointed out that there is no evidence to support such a claim.
Here, I think, we seem to see big business going about its work of creating value for shareholders, but not through honest buying and selling their goods and services, but through the murky means of influencing decision-makers and opinion-formers. That nobody was there to make the consumer’s case speaks volumes.
No good will come of it.
Paul Driessen says:
“Average planetary temperatures haven’t budged in 16 years.”
Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3 or any of the major global temperature
indices if smoothed in the manner used for smoothed Hadcrut3.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/
It appears to me more accurate to say that global temperature has gone 11
or 12 years with no upward trend.
Jack Foster says:
February 18, 2013 at 9:40 amThird and perhaps most importantly, all imports should be subject to a carbon tax. People rightfully point out that any unilateral action on the part of the USA to reduce CO2 emission is useless in the face of increasing emissions from India and China. This carbon import tax would allow us to begin to address this.
/////////////////////////////////////
You are right that the USA going it alone (even with Australia, Europe and UK joining in), will do nothing to curb world wide emissions but surely your proposal would create a trade war.
Further given the American debt owned by China, I am far from convinced that the USA could get away with imposing a carbon tax on Chinese imports. The USA and Europe have been exporting their industries to the Far East (and other developing countries) for a decade or more, as part of their drive to decarbionise their economies, so it is more than a little hypocritical to now place a carbon tax on the re-imports.
Donald L Klipstein says:
February 18, 2013 at 7:25 pm
Have a look at smoothed HadCRUT3 ….
It appears to me more accurate to say that global temperature has gone 11 or 12 years with no upward trend.
Hadcrut3 shows no warming since March, 1997 or 15 years and 10 months to December. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.1/trend
The only reason the slope is + 0.000356487 per year is because the low December anomaly of 0.233 has not been updated yet. But SkS verifies the slope is 0 to the end of December. Should the January anomaly be 0.251 or less, then the slope will be 0 for a full 16 years.
Sean says:
February 18, 2013 at 6:23 pm
Behind the curtain
originally by Bishop Hill (and then censored from publication due to old boy pressure from green crooks)…..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks for posting that. I was hoping someone had saved it.
There was nothing really earth shattering in it except the affiliations of who was there. For skeptics it was just confirmation of what we already knew.
Carbon taxes in the EU are failing — maybe even today. Follow link below to the story in current issue of London-based “The Economist”
.http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21571940-crunch-time-worlds-most-important-carbon-market-extremely-troubled-scheme
Jack Foster says:
A properly-designed carbon tax can make this inevitable transition (off fossil fuels) less disruptive,
That’s what supply and demand does for us already. Price drives alternatives. (or at least it used to before the state became a monster!)
It’s already the least disruptive way to transition from one technology to another and only requires the voluntary action of free people!!!
carbon taxes are the first phase. This is the manufacturing of a new age. Think steam age, industrial age, information age, and… green age. Global growth has stagnated because technology has slowed, we have as much information as wel need, and possibly more as a result of the information age. Old technology will “make do” in 90% of cases, so investment in new technology is put on hold. Look no further than the debate around Australia’s NBN – a fibre-based national network which suddenly is questioned as to how useful it actually is.
The green age is a manufactured age to give people and businesses something to invest in, and invest they must or face the wrath of the tax! Solar panels, wind towers, wave power, you name it and it will require investment. The liberal party down here has proposed the building of dams for hydroelectric power – a green initiative that will create jobs and new investment.
The green age is the next technological age and it is being forced upon us whether we like it or not. The taxes are required to pay for it.
@Jack Foster…
The precautionary principle only applies where the marginal cost of mitigation (insurance) is less than adaption. In the case of climate change mitigation is of the order 1 quadrillion dollars per annum per degree C. This doesn’t even start to take into account the flow on effects to an economy of dampening energy use. A good cost-benefit? If you think so I have a nice national broadband network to sell .