Many readers know the story of the Viking turned King who was said to be able to hold back the sea, only to realize that he had no such power.
King Canute the Great, the legend says, seated on his throne on the seashore, waves lapping round his feet. Canute had learned that his flattering courtiers claimed he was “So great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back”
I think that’s how SkS political advocate Dana Nuccitelli views his pet climate movement. He thinks that a Carbon Tax is the solution. In a hilariously swivel-eyed op-ed he managed to get published at the Sacramento Bee, Viewpoints: Climate debate is settled; carbon tax is vital where the editorial board didn’t take note of the slow motion discrediting of his claims about the so called 97% scientific consensus, Nuccitelli beams:
One of the most effective solutions – a revenue-neutral carbon tax
The only thing a Carbon Tax will command in California, is a mass exodus of business.
After Obamacare hits business owners hard in 2014 with expected increases up to 146%, many will be stretched to the breaking point. A Carbon Tax would be the final impetus for many to leave the state. That would include my own small business. While we are quoting fables in the context of California business and tax revenue, Dana would do well to read the The Goose With the Golden Egg
ONE day a countryman going to the nest of his Goose found there an egg all yellow and glittering. When he took it up it was as heavy as lead and he was going to throw it away, because he thought a trick had been played upon him. But he took it home on second thoughts, and soon found to his delight that it was an egg of pure gold. Every morning the same thing occurred, and he soon became rich by selling his eggs. As he grew rich he grew greedy; and thinking to get at once all the gold the Goose could give, he killed it and opened it only to find,—nothing.
“GREED OFT O’ERREACHES ITSELF.”
California, once the “golden state” now faces routine economic exodus.
And in the face of world CO2 production, particularly China, what possible difference could a California Carbon Tax make in the face of these numbers?
Source: CDIAC and Harvard, from this WUWT essay: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/06/co2-emissions-china-is-the-big-hockey-stick-in-the-room/
Note, the drop in the green line. It’s the economy, stupid.
California has already reduced emissions due to its own economic decline, with drops over three straight years, with 2011 dropping 22%, but apparently that isn’t fast enough for King Canucitelli.
But sure, let’s imagine we can tax the Carbon Dioxide right out of the air. With workable ideas like this, I predict Governor “moonbeam” Jerry Brown will soon tap King Canucitelli to head up a new program to tax that CO2 right out of the air, and business tax revenue right out of the state.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Sacramento Bee op-ed by Dana Nuccitelli and Mark Reynolds (who you did not acknowledge as coauthor) is really just pointing to the agruments made by two conservatives from the Hoover Institution in the WSJ. That column can be found here:
Why We Support a Revenue-Neutral Carbon Tax
by George P. Shultz (Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow; Chair, Energy Policy Task Force; and member of the Working Group on Economic Policy) and Gary S. Becker (Rose-Marie and Jack R. Anderson Senior Fellow; member of the Working Group on Economic Policy; and member of the Task Force on Energy Policy)
http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/144046
Why are you attacking Nuccitelli and not them?
MS says:
June 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
If the Hoover Institution had the same idea then they are as bad as Dana.
Thomas L. Friedman has argued for a revenue-positive carbon tax as a means of reducing carbon emissions, paying for infrastructure upgrades, and paying down the national debt.
Suppose the Democrats recapture the House of Representatives in 2014. Would any kind of carbon tax, revenue neutral or otherwise, have any real chance of being enacted into law in 2015 if the Democrats regain full control the Congress?
Suppose the Democrats regain control of the House in 2014, but then in 2015 balk at imposing a direct carbon tax through legislation. (They are politicians first and Democrats second, after all.)
In that case, would there be pressure on President Obama to impose a system of stiff carbon pollution fines levied by the EPA on carbon emitters, a system of fines that was the functional equivalent of a tax on carbon emissions?
Yeesh, this is a terrible post. As Brian H. pointed out, Canute was a role model for how to apply evidence to evaluate a theory, so you are complimenting Nuccitelli by comparing him. And you screwed up the religion thing. And the apocalyptic stuff about the economy is no more credible than the worst claims of CAGW. Can’t you just pull the entire post and comments and apologize to US for letting things get so sloppy?
I wouldn’t go as far Matt, but King Canute was mocking hubris, not practicing it. And like a few others, I do worry that you are raising Nutty’s profile more than you are discrediting him (and besides, to anyone with brain-1 he is self-discrediting, so why bother?).
The fine State of California obviously has to pass a law to tax all Chinese CO2 emissions, then find a way to enforce it. Now, that’s what I would call a challenge.
I thought that Canute said “I’ll make this sea retreat even if it takes me 6 hours”
MS says:
June 5, 2013 at 1:37 pm
“http://www.hoover.org/news/daily-report/144046
Why are you attacking Nuccitelli and not them?”
“Americans like to compete on a level playing field. All the players should have an equal opportunity to win based on their competitive merits, not on some artificial imbalance that gives someone or some group a special advantage.
We think this idea should be applied to energy producers. They all should bear the full costs of the use of the energy they provide. Most of these costs are included in what it takes to produce the energy in the first place, but they vary greatly in the price imposed on society by the pollution they emit and its impact on human health and well-being, the air we breathe and the climate we create. We should identify these costs and see that they are attributed to the form of energy that causes them.
At the same time, we should seek out the many forms of subsidy that run through the entire energy enterprise and eliminate them. In their place we propose a measure that could go a long way toward leveling the playing field: a revenue-neutral tax on carbon, a major pollutant.”
Glad to oblige! This tripe from the dopes…er gentlemen at the Hoover Institute, whose work( not these two but the Institute itself) I generally tend to agree with, is proof that even if you argue from sound principles, if you start from a fallacious premise i.e. carbon is a major pollutant, you have no chance of arriving at a correct conclusion.
A carbon tax is one of those things that can be made to sound reasonable and attractive when discussed in the abstract, but will never be reasonable and attractive if and when the politicians finally succeed in enacting one. Whatever form that it takes, it will decidedly NOT be revenue neutral and, if not from the very beginning, it will eventually evolve into a tax on everything.
Brian H said on June 5, 2013 at 1:15 pm:
The Legend of King Canute has a long-established popular interpretation, as used by Watts. You wish to skewer him for using it? Are there any other popular viewpoints you wish to complain about now, like young pop stars behaving as privileged brats who drive recklessly and illegally imbibe, but you find them to be misunderstood artistic geniuses worthy of emulation?
But I agree, Anthony should accept Canute as a role model. So King Watts should immediately order the executions of those within his realm he suspects of being willing to undermine his reign, sanction the slaughtering by associates of potential opposition elsewhere, and support the assassinations of those who attempt to flee his righteous wrath.
Good choice for a hero, Brian. BTW, ask not for whom the door is knocked, it is knocked for thee.
===
Matt Skaggs said on June 5, 2013 at 2:40 pm:
So Anthony should just “pull a SkepSci”, and delete embarrassing stuff? Maybe keep the comments nice and tidy as well? And should delete derogatory comments, like yours, or edit them into something more pleasing to the management?
Interesting proposal.
Oh, and Anthony should apologize to US, to YOU? Wow. I am so sorry you are dissatisfied with your WUWT experience. As a contributor to this site, I feel, you know, a little sorry about your disappointment.
I’ll tell you what I can do. I’ll speak with Anthony about returning your site subscription fee. You are unhappy. The customer is always right even when wrong. I’ll ask Anthony, on your behalf, to return every cent you paid to the site to read this poor article that so badly fell short of your expectations. You really do deserve to have everything you paid for. Shall I do that for you, Matt?
Clyde says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:03 pm
I went looking for a James Hansen reference to this tax scheme, as I heard about it from him first. I don’t have to look closely, but I found
http://www.carbontax.org/blogarchives/2010/04/25/scientist-james-hansen-proposes-%E2%80%9Cpeople%E2%80%99s-climate-stewardship-act%E2%80%9D-a-simple-carbon-fee-with-revenue-returned-to-americans/
and it goes to
http://www.carbontax.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/The-Carbon-Fee-and-Dividend-Act-of-201011.doc
Oops – dinner time.
You have to wonder if the left will ever figure out what happened to their jobs.
Berényi Péter says:
June 5, 2013 at 3:09 pm
The fine State of California obviously has to pass a law to tax all Chinese CO2 emissions, then find a way to enforce it. Now, that’s what I would call a challenge.
===========================================
EASY !!!
California Democrats will tax California citizens for the Chinese CO2.
(Makes as much sense as most Democrat economic/environmental ideas)
To the tune of a well-known song:
I’m gonna wash that gas right outta my air!
Don’t even know what is going on here for sure.
But, I do know stupid mistakes can remind oneself of fallibility.
I always took (my hated and embarrassing) mistakes as a wake-up call.
But, how many mistakes were not caught ?
Are mistakes even permitted, let alone made anymore, in this political atmosphere.
Or is the pressure just too crushing.
If there are two Dana Nucitellis, it is clearly not a unique name. “Unique” means “the only one’. It is an absolute term. Expressions of qualification, such as “very unique”, are simply demonstrations of ignorance.
“Unique” does not mean “strange”. My DNA structure is probably unique, but probably not strange. The reverse is probably true of my mental processes.
Beta Blocker says:
June 5, 2013 at 2:33 pm
They are politicians first and Democrats second, after all
####
They are Marxists first and Democrats second, after all
@ur momisugly u.k.(us)
“Are mistakes even permitted”
No. You have to be perfect, like me.
His climate-salvation busyness looks like self-promotion for the simple joy of celebrity. It’s probably more appealing than swallowing live goldfish in front of an audience of dozens.
Dana Nuccitelli and Kevin Sanker were married on August 25, 2012!
They have a wedding website.
http://nuccitelliandsanker.ourwedding.com/
Dana Nuccitelli (dananuccitelli) is on Pintrest!
http://pinterest.com/dananuccitelli/
Well, don’t know how I feel about a woman named Kevin, but clearly Dana sure married up. I suppose they can do whatever they want as allegedly responsible consenting adults, but offhand I’m sure she could have done better.
Bob Tisdale – Climate Observations……
He has something to say about Nuccitelli’s new “Blog” at the UK Guardian,
he has been given, to write with the “shill” John Abrahams ( yes the very same)
This is the Abrahams that ranted at and analysed a speech of Christopher Monckton’s
for two years and more, “nit picking” from Abraham, and ill conceived at that,
and as Monckton proved in a series of video reposts, without foundation.
Now he has teamed up with Nuccitelli, for presumably Twice the Hilarity,
and of course twice the money. The “Greenian” is well known for inviting
aboard controversial crackpotterii because it does sell newspapers rather well.
Still The Bob Tisdale analysis is worth reading here :
bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/dana-nuccitelli-misleads-and-misinforms-in-his-first-blog-post-at-the-guardian/
See The Entire Monckton / Abraham Video Battle Saga
at the special page devoted to that, at the Fraudulent Climate
website – Click the name Axel abobe and select the entry …
“Monckton & Abraham” from the Quick Page Menu Button.
Kim Moore said on June 5, 2013 at 6:24 pm:
Swallowing live goldfish is easy. Having them come out alive on the other end, that’s worthy of a BBC Science special. Maybe Richard Black could host.
The Greenian, Grauniad, Guardian isn’t all bad though …
This surreal entry from another page at the Guardian illustrates the controversial reporting style of other bloggers like Charlie Skelton, for instance, as he rails against the Bilderberg Attendees.
“What this whole thing boils down to,” boomed the councillor, “is this: are you, or are you not, setting a precedent for vehicles parking on the verge of the Old Hempstead Road?”
Thus began an hour-long (hour-and-a-half-long?) discussion about whether or not cars and press vehicles should be allowed to park on a strip of grass running parallel to the A41, just opposite the Grove hotel. It was like a weird, dystopian episode of “Keeping Up Appearances” [ a British TV Show based upon the mirth of pointless trivialities]. Never mind that our Ministers are meeting in secret with the heads of Shell, BP, Google and Amazon – what about the verge!
There was an audible gasp when, under intense questioning, Chief Inspector Rhodes was forced to admit, citing a “bylaw”, that the no-parking signs on the verge were actually fraudulent: no such law existed.. One lady, almost beside herself, gestured to the audience. “There are media here! This story is going to get out!”
guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/05/bilderberg-2013-goldman-sachs-watford
If the government of California is really looking at the purported merits of a carbon tax, for your consideration, here are 2 words to ponder: Julia Gillard.
Hmm,
Prior to employing a revenue neutral tax, I would think the first thing to do is to remove the subsidies that fossil fuels get. And then because I’m a libertarian I have to object to the huge defense expenditures we have protecting our interests in foreign oil supply. I mean seriously, if extract gas here in the US the cost of building and protecting your pipelines is a part of the product cost.
But if you import Oil from the middle east your supply is protected by the taxpayer who funds the military. freeloaders piss me off.
RoHa says:
June 5, 2013 at 5:47 pm
@ur momisugly u.k.(us)
“Are mistakes even permitted”
No. You have to be perfect, like me.
——————
Dang, out of the woodwork they come.