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.
@Ric Werme – 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
——————————–
Thanks for the link.
If Dana’s plan is anything like Hansen’s it will fail. Hansen wants to tax the fossil-fuel companies upon the first sale at the mine, wellhead or port of entry. Then…
The money collected via this fee would be distributed to the public as a monthly “dividend” or “green check.” Distributing all of the revenue equitably to households will ensure that families can afford the energy they need during the transition to a clean energy future, and it should help win public support for a rising carbon fee.
1. The fossil-fuel companies will pass the cost on to the customers.
2. The transition period to a clean energy future will take decades or longer.
3. The “dividend” or “green check” won’t cover the cost.
I wish Hansen & those who support these schemes would have to live on green energy for 3 months. Green electric, green cars, buy products produced using only green enegry, work place is green powered..etc Then ask them how they liked it.
“Revenue neutral” means that the amount collected in tax will be returned to taxpayers, either in the form of rebates or by abolishing other taxes. Either way, it is another form of income redistribution, since there is no point in taxing people and then giving them all back exactly what they paid. And, as others have pointed out, “revenue neutral” does not mean cost free. As well as overheads, there is the drag effect on the economy of punishing the sectors that pay the bulk of the tax.
Mind you, anyone who believes that politicians will keep their grubby mitts off a big pot of new money should contact me about a bridge I have for sale …
Revenue Neutral
The liberal definition of revenue neutral is — all the money taken in is spent. You start in debt, increase taxes and increase spending and end up still in debt — therefore revenue from new taxes is always neutral. It never effects indebtedness.
Eugene WR Gallun
Money is best spent by those that know how to spend it.
How it is acquired, is best left to those with no oversight.
The story of King Canute keeps on giving.
When the British Parliament passed the Climate Change Bill, a slow motion suicide note for the economy, it was at almost the exact spot that Canute got his feet wet.
Eventually this fact will be commented on in every article written about the madness of crowds which afflicted Western society in the late 20th century.
JF
Elizabeth said “Gillard is going to get such a beating for this Carbon Tax …”
True, but I’ll wager the party that replaces her will keep the tax. They will simply make up an excuse, and over time the public gets used to the tax and simply forgets about it.This exact scenario happens regularly in Canada, its astonishing and sad.
Jimbo says:
June 5, 2013 at 12:44 pm
The hidden agenda for most Warmists is nothing to do with global warming. It’s all about shutting down the fossil fuel infrastructure. They just haven’t thought through the unintended consequences yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes they have. It is called Problem – Reaction – Solution (Where the problem is intentionally manufactured)
This quote from Pascal Lamy Director General of the World Trade Organization lays out the actual thought and motivations behind the orchestrated economic collapse and CAGW scare.
In short the ‘Vision’ of world leaders like Pascal Lamy, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Al Gore is “a new international order” where there is no national sovereignty, (Lamy points to the EU as a template) and nations are ‘interdependent’
Interdependence is the key concept we at WUWT are overlooking
The Interdependence Movement – Citizens without Borders
From a Stanford University site: Message from Global Models about an Interdependent World – John M. Richardson, Jr.
Preparing Students for an Interdependent World: Role of Cooperation and Social Interdependence Theory. Karl A. Smith. Purdue University…
The IMF on Convergence, Interdependence, and Divergence – Finance & Development September 2012
NOTE: the real winners are the top 1 percent whose $$$ has tripled over the last three years.(Economic down turn? What economic down turn…)
If you read nothing else I link to read: “Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade Expectations” …Does economic interdependence increase or decrease the probability of war among states?
This concept of ‘Interdependence’ explains why it is ‘EVIL’ for the EU, USA, and Australia to have coal and produce goods and why it is ‘GOOD’ for China, Brazil and India to fire up coal burning plants to support new manufacturing plants. World Bank funding for coal power stations has soared 40-fold over the last five years to hit a record high of $4.4 billion in 2010, new figures reveal. and graph
Some of Al Gore’s thoughts on the emergence of a deeply interconnected global economy.
Cnut actually did the wave thing to prove his doting courtiers wrong. He wasn’t so daft to think he was that powerful to hold back the tides.
Steven Mosher says:
June 5, 2013 at 9:28 pm
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.
============================================
I need some help here.
What are the “subsidies” for fossil fuels?
Perhaps it is told differently in the US or Australia, but the King Cnut (Canute) analogy works very badly for many UK readers. When I was at school, the fable was taught as the King being a very modest, wise, ruler who was teaching his fawning courtiers the limits of his power.
“You-know-who” and “that website” receive more of your time than they merit.
Rather unfair to Canute (Cnut).
He staged the commanding of the tide to demonstrate that though a King, he was a mere mortal, with no God like powers. A rather wise King in fact.
Ruler of the waves[edit]Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”.[95] This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.[96]
“klem says:
June 6, 2013 at 1:03 am”
When has a politician, going in to an election, ever kept their word? In all my memory, none have. Whoever wins in Aus in Sept, which given the result in 2010 is no guarantee that it won’t be an ALP/Green/Independent coalition, I am pretty sure the revenue stream will remain. The Aussie budget deficit is at it’s highest ever in modern politics, the Govn’t *IS* broke!
Matthew W – I am also wondering about the subsidies for fossil fuels that Mosher refers to. I assume, also, that he would offset them against the massive taxes that are imposed on them by every jurisdiction that has the opportunity to do so.
They keep talking about these carbon taxes. They never say exactly where all this money is going to go or how they are going to eliminate the dreaded CO2 monster. I guess they figure everything will be so expensive that no one will buy any carbon-based fuel… maybe we can sit around remembering campfires and sing Kum-bi-ya…
johanna says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am
Matthew W – I am also wondering about the subsidies for fossil fuels that Mosher refers to. I assume, also, that he would offset them against the massive taxes that are imposed on them by every jurisdiction that has the opportunity to do so.
============================================================
There no (substantial) subsidies for fossil fuels.
Just Leftist claptrap.
“TimO says:
June 6, 2013 at 6:46 am”
10% of the Aussie carbon tax goes to the UN climate fund. Thanks Minister Combet, like some of your colleagues, have you cleared out your office yet? Maybe you should follow their lead?
“Matthew W says:
June 6, 2013 at 7:28 am”
Apparently there is going to be an investigation into why fuel (Gas/diesel etc) prices are so high in the UK. Apparently, it’s the oil companies that are gouging prices. Really? What about the ~80% component in the price of a litre of petrol that is tax/duty/vat?
Patrick says:
June 6, 2013 at 8:10 am
“Matthew W says:
June 6, 2013 at 7:28 am”
Apparently there is going to be an investigation into why fuel (Gas/diesel etc) prices are so high in the UK. Apparently, it’s the oil companies that are gouging prices. Really? What about the ~80% component in the price of a litre of petrol that is tax/duty/vat.
===========================================================
I have no idea as to what your point may be.
Do you think that the VAT is a subsidy?
Got news for you , BIG OIL ain’t collecting that tax.
johanna says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am
“Matthew W – I am also wondering about the subsidies for fossil fuels that Mosher refers to. I assume, also, that he would offset them against the massive taxes that are imposed on them by every jurisdiction that has the opportunity to do so.”
All I can think of is the oil depletion allowance, http://www.answers.com/topic/depletion-allowance:
“In tax law, the deductions from gross income allowed investors in exhaustible commodities (such as minerals, oil, or gas) for the depletion of the deposits. The depletion allowance is intended as an incentive to stimulate investment in this high-risk industry, though critics argue that mineral deposits are valuable enough to justify high levels of investment even without tax incentives.”
And:
“The U.S. tax code provides so-called depletion allowances for mineral deposits and standing timber used in the creation of income. These allowances were instituted by the Revenue Act of 1913 and derive from the Sixteenth Amendment, which allows the federal government to tax income, but not capital. The Revenue Act of 1926 allows owners or operators of mineral properties to calculate depletion as a percentage of gross income. As of 2001, the depletion allowance on mineral deposits may be calculated on either a cost or a percentage basis. Since 1975, however, integrated producers have not been allowed to calculate oil and gas depletion on a percentage basis. Timber depletion must be calculated on a cost basis.”
It looks to me like Richard Tol has been playing tricks on Anthony. First Richard tweets this:
https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/342328680556679169
Anthony seems to have picked this up, thus explaining his reply above. Richard Tol then comes here to comment that there are two different Danas. But Richard already knew that about 10 hours earlier than the tweet above:
https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/342179256173985792
I could be wrong though.
REPLY: I don’t think Dr. Tol is playing any tricks, and I wasn’t aware of a second Dana until comments in this thread. – Anthony
“REPLY: I don’t think Dr. Tol is playing any tricks, and I wasn’t aware of a second Dana until comments in this thread. – Anthony”
No, you weren’t, but Richard Tol knew that there was a second Dana when he responded to your tweet announcing this blog post.
JPeden says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:31 am
johanna says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am
===================================
Yes, but that ain’t a “subsidy.”
Item: There is no such thing as a “revenue-neutral” tax. Even if the proceeds are fully refunded to taxpayers, there is still the cost of administering it – paying all those new zillions of bureaucrats – which will come out of the taxpayers’ hide somewhere else. And as with other so-called revenue-neutral schemes, wealth will be redistributed from poorer to richer.
Item: At least 125,000 jobs were lost and 10,000 companies were put out of business in Australia by the carbon tax. (The US equivalent would be 150,000 businesses closed and 1,875,000 jobs lost.)
Item: As many as 36,000 people died of hypothermia or related causes because of carbon taxes in Europe during the last three years.
Matthew W says:
June 6, 2013 at 11:31 am
JPeden says:
June 6, 2013 at 9:31 am
johanna says:
June 6, 2013 at 5:47 am
===================================
Yes, but that ain’t a “subsidy.”
————
Exactly! Other than what any business might get as a deduction, I have no idea what the Progressives are calling a “subsidy”. The depletion allowance was all I could think of that might be somewhat unique to Big Oil….which now has even “subsidized” Algore.