HuffPost Touts "Economic Benefits" of a $2.9 trillion annual tax hike on Fossil Fuels


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Huffington Post has a plan to address the as yet unanswered question of who will foot the bill, for the renewable transformation green advocates want, in the wake of the Paris COP21 agreement. HuffPost’s suggestion is a $2.9 trillion rise in annual taxes on fossil fuels.

How Can We Pay for the New Energy Economy?

Many a great idea has been deflated by a simple question: “That’s nice, but who’s going to pay for it?” That question hovered like a cloud over the international climate conference in Paris a week ago. Simply put, the goal of the agreement at that conference is to build a world in which we achieve and sustain universal prosperity without plummeting into a future of irreversible climate catastrophe. It’s a great goal, but who is going to pay for it?

Fossil Energy Subsidies: Some government subsidies go to energy consumers and some to energy producers. Some are direct – tax breaks, for example – and some are indirect “post tax” subsidies, including the social and environmental costs of using fossil fuels. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), direct and indirect subsidies around the world are expected to total $5.3 trillion this year.

The IMF notes that the benefits of reforming fossil energy subsidies are “potentially enormous”. “Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by $2.9 trillion (3.6% of global GDP), cut global CO2 emissions by more than 20% and cut premature air pollution deaths by more than half,” it says.

In addition, Huffpost thinks we should place an unspecified price on CO2.

Putting a Price on Carbon: The principal reason that climate change has become the world’s biggest market failure is that the energy market’s price signals are broken. Government subsidies keep energy prices artificially low. Moreover, the prices we pay at the pump and electric meter do not include the cost of damages that carbon fuels do to public health, the environment and so on.

The most common argument against carbon pricing is that it would kill jobs and cripple the economy, but actual experience shows this is not necessarily the case. One example is found in the nine U.S. states whose carbon trading I cited above. Between 2009 and 2013, their economies reportedly grew more than 9% compared to 8.8% in the other 41 states, while their combined carbon emissions dropped 14%. The net economic benefit to the region’s economy was $1.3 billion.

Read more:

Taxing our way to prosperity – the green solution to the global climate “crisis”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 20, 2015 4:44 pm

great idea…..start with the “un – developed” countries that give away their fuel to stay in power

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Latitude
December 21, 2015 2:12 am

Good point, Latimer. I listened in to a BBC R4 prog the other day where they were discussing Venezuela – where a full tank of petrol/gas costs the equivalent of ONE PENNY! Why is the green reich not going after that kind of subsidy.

Michael 2
Reply to  Harry Passfield
December 21, 2015 7:28 am

I listened to that also but their English was so thick I could not discern what they were saying. Thank you for revealing it!

Reply to  Latitude
December 21, 2015 6:44 am

so let me see if I have this straight. we should tax people $5.3 trillion for the harm they do to themselves by using fossil fuels. and then what? will will give the $5.3 trillion back to these people to make restitution for the harm that was done them?
or will the $5.3 trillion be used to “teach us a lesson”? to teach us to not use fossil fuels? Because clearly you can’t give the money back to the people, or they might just spend it on fossil fuels, or on needless things created by fossil fuels, like food, clothing and shelter.
So in reality, the $5.3 trillion isn’t going to go back to the people that are harmed by fossil fuels, because they would use the money to create more carbon pollution. The money should instead go to those who know how to spend it wisely, on private jets, designer fashions, sea-side villas, and annual trips to COPXX, where they can save the world from the rest of us.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 7:35 am

I realize now that the acronym “COP” stands for “Coalition of Pirates”. The participants have all agreed to rob people of their energy wealth.
And they’ve conspired 21 times to figure out how to do it, too!

Shanghai Dan
Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 8:09 pm

No, we just tax $2.9 trillion more per year, and Government gets to keep it. There’s nothing about redistribution of the collected taxes back to the masses – just taken from them. And somehow we’ll cut CO2 output by 20%…

December 20, 2015 4:55 pm

…premature air pollution deaths…
Could this notion possibly be more nebulous?

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 20, 2015 6:27 pm

1/2 of 0 deaths is 0 deaths. QED

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 20, 2015 7:01 pm

If you ask the person dying, most deaths are premature….

Reply to  Steve
December 20, 2015 8:11 pm

Many births are too. Must be due to global warming – everything else is.

Reply to  noaaprogrammer
December 20, 2015 8:33 pm

CAGW has caused me to spend alot of time educating myself. Time is money, so NOW I need some grant money to make up for the education that WUWT/CE/JoNova/NotAlot. This phenom is due to global warming or the lead poisoning I no doubt received as a child.
Where do I get a check ?

Reply to  Steve
December 21, 2015 12:39 pm

Or as noted in “Breaker Moran”…” every life ends in a dreadful execution. You, Peter, have the good luck to know when!”

Reply to  Steve
December 21, 2015 3:02 pm

“I hear young people asking who’d want to live to be ninety anyway? Well, probably most of the eighty-nine-year-olds for starters.”
Studs Terkel on turning 90 years old.

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 21, 2015 6:25 am

Over 40 million babies terminated from the procedure called “abortion” and these people are worried about premature air pollution deaths?
Talk about hypocrisy.

Reply to  RockyRoad
December 21, 2015 9:36 am

The 40 million?
That is just a “lifestyle choice”.

Reply to  PiperPaul
December 21, 2015 6:29 am

What is premature air pollution?

Mary Catherine
Reply to  PiperPaul
December 21, 2015 10:09 am

I don’t see how.

December 20, 2015 4:57 pm

And to what end? Money into powerful pockets and nothing ever achieved…

December 20, 2015 4:58 pm

Hi from Oz. So what exactly is a “post-tax” subsidy – it’s not in any of my economics textbooks. The words “including the social and environmental costs of using fossil fuels” imply that they are not subsidies as economists know them, but have simply been labelled as “subsidies” (using a classic dis-information method – re-define a commonly understood word to mean the opposite) to grab headlines when they are just hypothecated “social and environmental costs” that are magically made to add up to a gigantic number intended to scare the bejeesus out of Joe and Jane Sixpack. So from which activist organisation did HuffPost get this magic, scary number? Let me guess…

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 20, 2015 5:26 pm

Nothing the left says is in any textbook,dictionary, or vernacular of any sane individual.

Reply to  Logoswrench
December 20, 2015 11:59 pm

Nothing the left says is in any textbook,dictionary, or vernacular of any sane individual.

I think that is too harsh. Left-wing ideas end up in textbooks, only they don’t often make any sense. Social cost is a typical left-wing idea, which makes sense in a limited scope, but becomes arbitrary and undefined when applied largely.
A power plant producing waste in form of soot is causing some kind of damage, but attributing that to ‘fossil use’ is totally mistaken. It is not the fossil use, you can produce the same damage (and more!) by burning wood for same energy. The error comes from incorrect, or rather, arbitrary attribution of social cost sources. This is not to say there is no room for using wood, just that attribution based of arbitrary property is a misconception.
When the attribution to fossil – not fossil is misleading at best, even worse is the way of assigning price in dollars to things that are more or less priceless (in the meaning they can’t be sold or bought even though they can be valuable).
In short, social cost people say ‘your fossils killed my granny, that’s a million bucks’, when they should say ‘lets start filtering the exhaust or start using nuclear as it has less effect of environment – I’ll pay’. But they won’t because these left-wing people think energy production is not something they need. They think they can live, work and enjoy health care and other modern comforts and it is the other people whose activities cause the pollution. At best they start to recycle plastic bags as if minimal changes in their immediate surroundings has larger effect than the side effects of their pension. Their grasp on what economy is about is stunning. That is why they can be described as left-wing.

Reply to  Logoswrench
December 21, 2015 12:22 am

Sorry about the occasional non-grammatical expressions. It is much easier to type a word correctly than form a sentence correctly. I’m sentenced to be blind on wrong or missing little words.

Ian W
Reply to  Logoswrench
December 21, 2015 4:35 am

Hugs December 20, 2015 at 11:59 pm

In short, social cost people say ‘your fossils killed my granny, that’s a million bucks’, when they should say ‘lets start filtering the exhaust or start using nuclear as it has less effect of environment – I’ll pay’.

Social cost people are, as usual, looking at the wrong side of the equation. Thousands of people a winter month die of cold in energy poverty in a UK winter. So the cure for this is to raise energy prices dramatically? Well the ‘social cost people’ then say with a straight face and complete illogicality, that the energy companies raised the price!
Anyone who uses the term ‘social cost’ should be treated as ignorant of economics and almost certainly innumerate.

Eric Gisin
Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 20, 2015 6:52 pm

““including the social and environmental costs of using fossil fuels””
No explanation of “social costs”. Must be in denial of social benefits.

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 21, 2015 4:29 am

The news media, I mean the looney tunes up here in Montreal are using the extremely warm temperatures expected over Christmas to confirm climate change. However December 27th 1952 my sister and I made the front page of the local news paper. We had just received new ice skates for Christmas. We had them tied around our shoulders with no ice around. Over time I remember skating as early as the last week in November and as late as the end of March. Happy Solstice 11:49 PM .

Reply to  BoyfromTottenham
December 21, 2015 6:34 am

An annual $1.5 Trillion in additional foodstuff production world-wide from the increase in atmospheric CO2 would be one estimated benefit.
Of course, when HuffPo finds that out, they’ll be proposing a tax on it to offset their insane claim of harm.
These people are simply anti-human.

old construction worker.
December 20, 2015 5:01 pm

“some are indirect “post tax” subsidies,” Subsidies are direct money to a companies by the government. There is no such animal as a “post tax” subsidies. It’s called tax deduction.
The IMF as well as other banks will get rich trading CO2 credits paid on the backs of the working poor.

Call A Spade
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 20, 2015 7:07 pm

I wondered what the driver was to the global warming agenda at lest what you have stated gives a reason for the push. I couldn’t understand why the elite would let some green agenda ruin their profits from fossil fuels.
I would appreciate any other forces that may be driving this agenda other than tree huggers getting their way.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  old construction worker.
December 21, 2015 8:04 am

It’s even worse than you think. The tax deductions are included in the direct subsidies calculation. The “post tax” subsidies are based on ‘social cost’. Things like road maintenance, polar bears dying, coral bleaching.

December 20, 2015 5:02 pm

Why stop at 2.9 trillion? Why not double it. You’d double the prosperity!!

Reply to  Trebla
December 20, 2015 6:23 pm

Why how very Keynesian of you.

Reply to  Trebla
December 21, 2015 12:31 am

I was thinking the same. These people don’t have any clue, so they actually could end up in 5.8E12 and it would not make a difference to them.

December 20, 2015 5:03 pm

I think the Huffpuff is happy any time they benefit from spending that will be covered by children yet born. One – they will all be republicans because liberals tend to kill their children before birth, and two – they don’t get to vote on our bad behavior today. All the people alive today are not enough to pay down the deficit. When those people who survive a pro-choice incubation realize what a box of poop we left on their porch they’re going to be pissed. In my lifetime we’ve gone from the greatest generation to the most irresponsible, egregious asshats in the history of the nation.

Reply to  dp
December 20, 2015 5:46 pm

Can you spare us the “prolife” junk?

Juan Slayton
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 20, 2015 6:30 pm

Why? The alarmists are not the only group that can express concern for the next generation.

Reply to  simple-touriste
December 20, 2015 6:49 pm

It is part of the whole alarmist self-loathing world view, so no. I’m actually pro-choice but aware of the disconnect between alarmists and the bleatings they use to justify their hate humanity first agenda.

Michael 2
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 20, 2015 6:54 pm

You are a product of prolife junk. Be happy or fix it.

Reply to  Michael 2
December 20, 2015 7:34 pm

“You are a product of prolife junk”
Are you high?
What does “prolife” have to do with anything?

Michael 2
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 7:08 am

simple-touriste wrote: “Are you high?”
High enough not to worry much about sea level rise.
“What does prolife have to do with anything?”
The writer was critical of prolife junk, yet he is a product of prolife junk, that is to say, he was almost certainly conceived in the normal way, carried to term in a woman’s womb and birthed. It is easy and probably Darwinian to want everyone else to cease to exist to make more room for oneself.

Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 1:14 am

‘You are a product of prolife junk.’
Sex. Totally different thing.
‘Be happy or fix it.’
Reading a bible apparently won’t make people any better.

Michael 2
Reply to  Hugs
December 21, 2015 7:27 am

Hugs wrote: “Sex. Totally different thing.”
Sex without conception did not bring the commenter into existence. Conception and being carried to term and birthed brought the commenter into existence.
“Reading a bible apparently won’t make people any better.”
Got cite? I didn’t think so. What exactly is “better” anyway? Is better defined in the bible? Indeed it is. Without a bible, “better” ceases to have any kind of universal meaning. What it means to you is likely not what it means to me. Now then, read slowly and carefully; just like I write, I have written “a” bible, it does not need to be the King James Version. It just needs to be widely accepted as a source of moral authority.
Now if you believe Huffington Post is that source, notice that it is inconsistent in specifics; trying to glean what the left believes is “better” is largely impossible at Huffington Post because each writer there brings his or her own ideas of “better” which fortunately are often at odds with other writers as otherwise the left would be a lot more dangerous than is already the case.
I have spent years trying to understand the left and I feel no closer to it. It really does seem to be on the intellectual level of a child: I want to be happy and I want it NOW. What exactly it takes to feel happy is extremely variable; perhaps I will be happy giving your money to the poor. A proposed thought process will for some be: “I don’t mean for them to cease to be poor, it just makes me feel good to feel superior to them, and I demonstrate that superiority by giving your money to them.”
How many claim “think of the children!” while having none of their own? I do not know the answer, but hypocrisy seems rampant on the left. Leonardo DiCaprio preaching against sea level rise but building a huge resort about 6 feet above sea level on a sandbar in Belize.
Speaking of bible; it warns against building houses on sandbars. Obviously DiCaprio doesn’t believe that part.
Actually, I do feel a bit closer to understanding the left; it involves a few too many “mirror neurons” and the leftist projects himself into this disaster or that and will do anything to avoid it. They are easily led.

David Smith
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 3:24 am

We really need to leave the pro-life/choice thing out of these discussions.
It’s a debate stirred up by religious zealots who are just as bad as the green zealots.

Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 6:33 am

Liberals hate reality.

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 9:25 am


Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 6:34 am

Believing that killing babies makes you a religious zealot.
Interesting how intolerant liberals can be.

Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 9:26 am

A bunch of cells is not a “baby”.

Michael 2
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 9:38 am

simple-touriste “A bunch of cells is not a baby.”
Whereas a baby is a bunch of cells. Obviously “bunch of cells” denotes a great many things of which “baby” is a particular instance.
You are a bunch of cells, but not probably a baby.

Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 9:31 am

“he is a product of prolife junk”
Nobody is a product of prolife.
You are high, or drunk, or both.

Michael 2
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 9:35 am

simple-touriste wrote “Nobody is a product of prolife.”
Everyone is a product of prolife. Life, summum bonum, emanates from conception.
“You are high, or drunk, or both.”
Maybe, but you are engaging with such because your arguments are weak.

Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 10:16 am

Simple minded, you are nothing but a bunch of cells.

Michael 2
Reply to  dp
December 20, 2015 6:54 pm

A significant number of children of conservatives will turn out to be leftwing; I suspect at the moment a rather high proportion having been raised on Facebook and cellphones. Feed me, make me happy, I’ll vote for you! If NONE of todays Democrats succeeded in having children I suspect you’d still have nearly the proportion of Democrats in future generations.

Reply to  Michael 2
December 20, 2015 11:35 pm

That is the result of a dominant leftist presence in the education system. Been there since my kids were 1st graders (mid-1960s). Hated it then, hate it now. It pains me that you are probably right but that’s the world we live in. It is a really bad thing then the authoritative adults in one’s live are agenda-driven. Kind of insidious in the same way that so-called 97% consensus is insidious but a fiction. The leftist education system is insidious but a reality.

Reply to  dp
December 21, 2015 9:43 am

What is “prolife”?

Michael 2
Reply to  simple-touriste
December 21, 2015 9:50 am

simple-touriste “What is prolife?”
The opposite of death for the species. In common use it speaks to allowing the natural human reproductive process to proceed which includes somewhat variously the social framework for it.
Prochoice is libertarian; choose.
These concepts are not rival; they are orthogonal. You can choose a great many things. I am “prolife” AND “prochoice”.
The important factor to consider is liberty. I have chosen for myself. Whether I allow you to choose for yourself relates to liberty. Since I am libertarian, I allow you to choose for yourself but I will resist you choosing for me.

Reply to  dp
December 21, 2015 5:46 pm

People don’t seem to get the association between pro-choice and climate alarmists so I’ll explain it. You cannot be pro-choice and still wish to base your entire climate agenda on saving the children (future generations, year 2100). It is an example of leftist double-think and highlighting that is a perfectly good way to torment the alarmist motivation. I’m (not uniquely) a pro-choice atheist political conservative so none of the usual barbs about being a anti-abortion religious crank apply. I also don’t believe you can use children as a justification for destroying global economies if you are likely to leave a dead body behind at an abortion clinic. It is a matter of principle. Being a limousine liberal is rife with these dichotomies and they are worth pointing out. They can be very grotesque when they want to be.

Gerry, England
December 20, 2015 5:04 pm

Applying the old ‘if I reduce the level of tax that I have applied to your industry it is a subsidy’ lie I see. Enron accounting at its best. Most of the price of my gallon of petrol or diesel in the UK is made up of tax already. The oil industry already pays high taxes and with the price slump the UK taxes have been reduced to try to keep the wells open and stop job losses. Not been too successful with the continued over-supply in the market.

Reply to  Gerry, England
December 21, 2015 6:24 am

I’m yet to see a company anywhere on the face of the earth pay 1 cent of tax unless their management is incompetent.
Companies always:
1. pass the tax along to their customers.
2. cut back on wages and benefits to employees
3. cut the quality and safety of the product
4. move to a lower tax country
5. liquidate (cash in retained earnings) and go out of business
Very few if any of the above benefit the country in which the tax is applied. In many cases, the social cost of point 2 is very much greater than any taxes raised.
Quite simply, it is very hard to tax the rich, which includes corporations, because they have sufficient disposable income to fight back and thus avoid the tax. Taxes are largely paid by the poor, because they have no extra resources with which to avoid the tax.

Doug Allen
Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 6:52 am

My grandfather used the “If you not a socialist…” line over 60 years ago, only he used 40 for the terminal date. I agree.
I’d add that if you see the socialist/capitalism continuum as black and white when you’re 16, you have no experience and if you see it as black and white when you’re 40, you have no understanding. Lots of straw men and dead horses to beat by both sides who see continuums in black and white.

Reply to  Gerry, England
December 21, 2015 6:29 am

Most of the price of my gallon of petrol or diesel in the UK is made up of tax already
Have a look at all the taxes applied to fuel in Canada:
Federal Excise tax
Carbon Tax
Transit Tax
Provincial Sales Tax
Provincial Fuel Tax

Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 7:13 am


Have a look at all the taxes applied to fuel in Canada:
Federal Excise tax
Carbon Tax
Transit Tax
Provincial Sales Tax
Provincial Fuel Tax

“Hidden” taxes and government-but-let-the-rest-of-us-pay-for-it fees can sneak in other places too: I rented a car at the Kansas City airport. It included a daily “fee” to pay for the downtown pro sports stadium. But, since only businesses and tourists rent cars at the airport rental car lots, local sport attendees didn’t have to pay for “their” stadium.
Transit tax, I assume, is a tax on cars (which are needed by almost all workers, but very, very unpopular with “do-gooders” and city planners in the public “service”) to pay for public transit (which is needed by very few, but is very “popular” with “do-gooders” and their “city planners” employed by the public taxes paid for by everybody else.)
In the US, fuel taxes were originally intended for highway repairs and routine maintenance, but have been steadily diverted more and more towards “public transit” and “city planning” takeovers-by-committee. Same up there?

Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 7:37 am

Here in Ontario, and I suspect elsewhere, the PST and HST are added AFTER the other taxes.
Yes, tax on tax.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 8:12 am

I think that is an old chart. Alberta’s new socialist government recently added a new tax to gas, and is planning a new carbon tax that will also affect fuel prices.

Reply to  ferdberple
December 21, 2015 9:37 am
Reply to  Gerry, England
December 21, 2015 6:35 am

I don’t know if they still do it. But the liberals used to list tax cuts as a form of expenditure.

December 20, 2015 5:05 pm

I am getting malicious software warning for this site.

Reply to  jim
December 20, 2015 5:41 pm

It is one of the ad servers, we are looking to get it removed

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 21, 2015 1:25 am

How much money we needed to run the pages ad-free?
/reaching to one’s pocket/

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 21, 2015 6:19 am

My browser is firefox. My antivirus in Kaspersky. I don’t even see any of these warnings I hear about and I don’t get any ads!
Just so ya know
and thanks for everything you do Anthony

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 21, 2015 9:39 am

“I don’t even see any of these warnings I hear about and I don’t get any ads!”
Maybe you have an adblocker.

Reply to  Anthony Watts
December 21, 2015 10:55 am

Hugs, it cost $30 per year to run ads free on wordpress. I run ads free on my wordpress blog (not climate related) and it makes for much cleaner reading. I’m not sure that Anthony has been able to look into it – he’s much busier than I am and his blog is much bigger. That shouldn’t make a difference, but the size and readership of WUWT might well put him into a different bracket.

Michael 2
Reply to  A.D. Everard
December 21, 2015 11:04 am

It is also possible that your internet service provider or multifamily dwelling owner may be inserting advertisements. In fact, you might even be doing it to yourselves via proxy mechanism, also known as “toolbars”.
You can defeat man-in-the-middle ad injection using https instead of http:
You’ll still get WordPress sponsored ads and you might get your very own toolbar injected ads, but at least you won’t get ISP injected ads.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  jim
December 20, 2015 7:58 pm

I had to block the ads, they were dragging Chrome to a crawl.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 20, 2015 10:22 pm

Me too. Sorry, I would ordinarily allow them from you site, as it is for a good cause, but my CPU went up to 25% with a single tab showing WUWT.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
December 21, 2015 11:01 am

Me too. My monthly allotment was suddenly getting used up in ten days, I had to do something or give up WUWT. Can’t do that! So I took the advice of kindly souls here and installed an ad-blocker on Chrome. Works a treat.
Hivemind, as far as I know, WUWT does not benefit from the ads that run. It’s a way wordpress makes it’s money and fair enough as they allow bloggers a place to be at no cost.

December 20, 2015 5:05 pm

The $5.3 trillion nonsense has been debunked so many times, and so thoroughly, that anyone still pushing this zombie idea can only be an idiot or a liar.
We tried taxing the hell out of fossil fuels here in Europe. We also tried subsidizing electric cars and mass transit and such. Surprise, surprise – combustion cars still command 99% of the market and we still burn a lot of fossil fuels, though obviously less than the US or Australia, for example.
But somehow, we have *more* pollution than SUV-land… unless you call CO2 pollution. We do emit less of that gas.

Gerry, England
Reply to  Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
December 21, 2015 5:42 am

‘…can only be an idiot or a liar.’ Or possibly both.

Reply to  Alberto Zaragoza Comendador
December 21, 2015 9:21 am

“can only be an idiot or a liar”
Or a supercritical idiot-liar (in a state where he is both lying and in error at the same time, and you can’t tell which is which).

December 20, 2015 5:05 pm

And just what would you expect from huffpo? After all, they are one of the MAJOR leftist democrap websites on the internet! Frankly, I would be surprised with anything less from them!
Go Trump Go!

December 20, 2015 5:14 pm

Arianna Huffington knows full well that working stiffs are the ones who will ultimately pay the vast majority of this tax. So much for the leftist concern for the poor and working class.

Reply to  kamikazedave
December 20, 2015 6:26 pm

I am not sure Airhead Huffandpuff knows much of anything.

Reply to  tomwtrevor
December 20, 2015 10:50 pm

She knows how to make a fortune out of the envy and malice of the Left.

Reply to  kamikazedave
December 20, 2015 7:11 pm

Huffington Post now has only a few comments at the site due to making these extremely tiny print size and you can’t enlarge it, it is coded to stay very tiny and barely readable and of course, isn’t allowed at many of the stories, total censorship.
I don’t know why anyone would bother to read it at this point in time. A number of ‘liberal’ publications have nearly or totally eliminated comments.

Reply to  emsnews
December 20, 2015 9:31 pm

Yep, I used to be a regular commenter at HuffPo, making thousands of comments over the years.
I had my account banned for no reason, I was never vulgar, never attacked people. I was an unapologetic conservative, which was enough apparently.
I created a new account, which again survived for a while. But then when they cracked down on “anonymous accounts”, I left and never looked back.
At the very least they should have grandfathered in long-standing anonymous accounts that played by the rules. Anonymity is a valuable thing, and should be granted to everyone who respects the rules of conduct.

Reply to  KTM
December 20, 2015 10:04 pm

She’s the COB of
An upside down world.

December 20, 2015 5:16 pm

I reckon there ought to be a GREEN levy/tax of, say, 20%, on petrol and on coal fired electricity..
only people who think we should be “saving the planet from evil CO2” have to pay that levy. 😉
Also, they should put a 100% carbon surcharge on all travel to the next COP-out conference.

Reply to  AndyG55
December 20, 2015 5:26 pm

That’s my thinking too. Go door to door and collect all the names of the people who think windmills and solar are the way to go and then inform them that they will be the only ones to pay for it and it will be their only source of electricity. They will also not be permitted to buy gasoline, heating oil or natural gas.
When they complain simply inform them that we’re going to make them walk the talk until they decide to come back to the world of the sane.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  AndyG55
December 20, 2015 8:25 pm

That 100% carbon surcharge on all travel to the next COP-out conference would mostly (97% !) come from taxes paid by others. The UN folks and government types don’t pay their own way. In one way or another, tax payers from the developed countries pay for these parties.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  AndyG55
December 21, 2015 5:24 am

I prefer the idea of a “fossil fuel exclusion zone” to completely surround COP22. Once you enter the zone all forms of energy derived from fossil fuels will be banned. Transportation must be by bicycle or wind/solar-powered public transit; hot water for showers must come from solar heaters; all electrical power for the conference must come from 100% RE sources.
No concrete, steel or aliminum can be used in the construction of any structures built for the conference. All banners, posters, etc., must be made from 100% natural fibers. Anyone who displays blatant disregared for the earth’s future by wearing anything containing artificial fibers will be “named and shamed”.
All food served must be 100% locally-sourced, with no fossil fuels used the the preparation. Obviously, no styrofoam food containers or cups. All paper items must be 100% recycled.
A “carbon cost” must be calculated and displayed on everything provided for the conference to help raise awareness of our collective carbon footprint. And the same for transportation to/from the conference, except for the intrepid souls who come by sailing craft (on that note, perhaps a certain whisky company can be induced to sponsor a “row to the COP” team so Al Gore won’t have to spend so much money on carbon credits for his private jet).
These rules will apply to delegates, attendees and reporters.
The carbon cost of this blog post is 0.97 kg
Please recycle it to help save the planet

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 21, 2015 7:39 am

But Alan, since almost all food requires CO2 to form, food could be completely eliminated from these Coalition of Pirate (COP) functions, too! That would be the logical application of their argument.

DD More
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
December 21, 2015 8:42 am

Alan CD-7, please add to the “carbon cost” bill, 100% cost of any and all Climate Model computer runs powered by fossil fuel sources at the monetary rate they propose for “carbon credits”. When it takes a computer rated in MW power months to run these models, they should have to pay “for the good of the Children” and mother earth.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  AndyG55
December 21, 2015 8:17 am

They actually do that here. Most electricity providers have a Green option where you can pay more for ‘green’ electricity. It would be interesting to see how many people actually have signed up for that?

December 20, 2015 5:17 pm

William/Bill Becker from Colorado State U. New Energy Economy/NEE that has been funded by Steyer and a couple of other billionaires.
Oil depletion allowance is the same as depreciation allowances for other business purposes. Not a subsidy, but if you can manage to twist things around you can away with it.

Reply to  Barbara
December 20, 2015 5:40 pm

Linkedin: William Becker
Member of Mikhail Gorbachev’s International Climate Change Task Force.

December 20, 2015 5:30 pm

As Dellers predicted 7 months ago.

Expect to hear this random $5.3 trillion figure take on the status of immutable and established truth over the next weeks and months, in much the same way that equally dodgy factoid – the 97 per cent “consensus” – did. This is the problem: while the flaw with that $5.3 trillion “subsidy” claim is glaringly obvious to anyone with half a brain, that is not going to be how readers of the Guardian or viewers of and listeners to the BBC are going to respond.

December 20, 2015 5:31 pm

Socialist liberals love to spend Other Peoples Money !!!

Reply to  Marcus
December 21, 2015 6:40 am

As Thatcher once said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

December 20, 2015 5:35 pm

I can’t help but reference Josh’s cartoon one more time as it pretty much says it all —
(Add names as you see fit):comment image?dl=0

Reply to  Wayne Delbeke
December 20, 2015 7:24 pm

Awesome eyes … i’ve seen those before in many a desperate leader.

December 20, 2015 5:36 pm

Would that tax apply to the fossil fuel energy required to build/transport/erect a wind turbine and its massive concrete base. How about the energy required to link it to the grid, or the energy needed for load balancing? Or have we come up some magical way of producing and installing these monsters using green energy alone? Thought not.

Reply to  Trebla
December 20, 2015 5:38 pm

The Green Machines will get more tax breaks to make up for any increase they may suffer !!!

George Tetley
Reply to  Trebla
December 21, 2015 3:34 am

Just asking,
is there any provision for “end of life” demolition charges on wind turbines?

December 20, 2015 5:37 pm

What sort of a lunatic believes that they putting up taxes will cause the Earth’s climate, which has continuously changed for around 4,500,000,000 years, to suddenly cease to change?
Ah, don’t tell me, a “Liberal” Lefty!

December 20, 2015 5:39 pm

The same people whose stupidity was leveraged to pass obamacare (according to the architect of obamacare, Jonathan Gruber), are also too stupid to realize that if a price is put on carbon, the following two things are going to result:
1) The higher costs incurred by businesses will be passed on to the consumer.
2) The government could potentially get so much revenue that there would be no need to tax the rich.

December 20, 2015 5:52 pm

For those interested in the real subsidy numbers and who is paying the subsidies, see my post here.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 20, 2015 6:25 pm


Another Ian
Reply to  Latitude
December 21, 2015 12:34 am

Re the W. Connelly contribution to your linked post
“What was the most revised food page on Wikipedia last year?
Stoat in the hole”

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
December 20, 2015 9:37 pm


December 20, 2015 6:07 pm

Economic damage of 2 degrees ~ 0.2% to 2.0% of global income.
Source; IPCC AR5 WGII P663

Cost of staying below 2 degrees ~ 1.7% to 4.8%

What kind of idiot economist spends 4.8% of global income to prevent 2% of economic damage? Not to mention that if the damage of 2 degrees is only 2% (a number I find highly suspect, but itz their number let’s accept it for the moment) how, exactly, is that a catastrophe? In fact, as it turns out, not only is it not a catastrophe, the IPCC explicitly says that OTHER factors are more likely to impact our lives than climate change:
For most economic sectors, the impact of climate change will be small relative to the impacts of other drivers (medium evidence, high agreement). Changes in population, age, income, technology, relative prices, lifestyle, regulation, governance, and many other aspects of socioeconomic development will have an impact on the supply and demand of economic goods and services that is large relative to the impact
of climate change.

Source; IPCC AR5 WGII P662</b

Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 20, 2015 6:14 pm
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 20, 2015 6:26 pm

Cost of NOT doing ANYTHING (of completely relaxing ALL CAGW-fighting economic and political activities) = +4 to +8% increase in all areas of the global economy.
“Penalty” of increasing CO2 from 280 to 480 ppm? +6% to +22% MORE growth in ALL plant life on earth.
“Effect” on global average temperature of an increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 480 ppm? 0.0 degrees.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 20, 2015 6:32 pm

LOL…I love that!

Reply to  RACookPE1978
December 20, 2015 7:20 pm

Let’s spend trillions to mitigate possible random, unspecified disasters happening in unspecified locations at unknown times in the future.

DD More
Reply to  davidmhoffer
December 21, 2015 9:07 am

DMH, there you go talking about money and the economy. That is not the goal.
U.S. House Science Committee – July 9, 2015
ADMINISTRATOR GINA MCCARTHY: “No sir, I don’t agree with you. If you look at the RIA we did, the Regulatory Impact Analysis you would see it’s enormously beneficial.
CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you consider one one-hundredth of a degree to be enormously beneficial?”
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “The value of this rule is not measured in that way. It is measured in showing strong domestic action which can actually trigger global action to address what’s a necessary action to protect…”
CHAIRMAN SMITH: “Do you disagree with my one one-hundredth of a degree figure? Do you disagree with the one one-hundredth of a degree?”
ADMINISTRATOR MCCARTHY: “I’m not disagreeing that this action in and of itself will not make all the difference we need to address climate action, but what I’m saying is that if we don’t take action domestically we will never get started and we’ll never…”

Read more:
Now recalculate using # of Triggers and it will all make sense.

December 20, 2015 6:19 pm

‘Simply put, the goal of the agreement at that conference is to build a world in which we achieve and sustain universal prosperity without plummeting into a future of irreversible climate catastrophe.’
So climate change is about “universal prosperity?” Note that the U.N. has declared war on subsistence farming, declaring it “extreme poverty.” The billion farmers and their families will be shocked to learn of their extreme poverty.
Since universal prosperity is not possible, the end result will be as it always is with communism, universal poverty. But as long as everyone is equally destitute . . . .

December 20, 2015 6:27 pm

What is missing from the Huffington post article is this “inconvenient” fact:
Human life expectancy has increased more in the last 50 years than it did in the previous 200,000 years of human existence. In 1950, life expectancy was 47 years. In 2011, it was 70.
We can all thank fossil fuels for that.

Steve Oregon
December 20, 2015 6:29 pm

Reminds me of the national debt and how some feel it is no big deal because of all the things deficit spending supports.
This small minded premise observes what the borrowed spending pays for while remaining oblivious to what the debt servicing could be buying were it not for the debt.
Of course when we are seeking “to build a world in which we achieve and sustain universal prosperity without plummeting into a future of irreversible climate catastrophe” the adventure is a futile pursuit of an mendacious illusion without any authentic assessment, analysis or judgement necessary or possible.
Feeling is believing.
That is all. Good day.
World Peace

Reply to  Steve Oregon
December 21, 2015 6:43 am

Spending on the debt is already the largest single line item in the budget. I dread to think what is going to happen if interest rates ever return to normal.
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 6:49 am

MarkW says: “Spending on the debt is already the largest single line item in the budget”

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 10:05 am

there will be alot of growing up going on.

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 10:19 am

Health care is dozens of separate programs.

December 20, 2015 6:52 pm

These people have no clue. This nonsense was debunked a couple hundred years ago by a common-sense economist named Frederick Bastiat, who demolished the economic nonsense of the nitwits formenting the French revolution.
One of Bastiat’s better known essays was a short parable called the Broken Window Fallacy. The idea is simple: you cannot increase prosperity by raising taxes.
Bastiat liked to write about ‘things seen and things unseen’. The only things (allowed to be) seen here are the jobs created by confiscating the earnings of millions of taxpayers, and funneling the loot to pals. What is unseen is the hit to the economy because those taxpayers will have less to spend.
If there’s one thing common to every socialist scam, it’s their economic illiteracy. They either have no clue about how the real world works, or worse: they know, but they are essentially thieves, and they’re using underhanded politics like this to re-direct working folks’ hard earned money into their own thieving pockets.
No wonder these ethics-challenged nincompoops refuse to publicly debate stupid carp like this. It couldn’t withstand the simplest questions. So they use media outlets like Huffington to get the head-nodding mouth breathers believing that taxing working people will bring about prosperity.
No wonder the economy is in such a shambles.

Reply to  dbstealey
December 21, 2015 6:48 am

It’s the same with the belief many have that closing the border to imports will somehow improve the economy.
They see the money going overseas every time a foreign product is bought, but they do not see what happens to the money that the consumers saved by buying the foreign product.
The other thing is that when dollars are sent overseas, they have to return eventually. You can’t buy anything in Germany with US dollars. You can’t buy anything in Australia with US dollars. They only place you can spend US dollars is in the US.
The reason for the US balance of trade deficit can be traced to one reason. The budget deficit. Because of the budget deficit those with US dollars now have a choice, they can purchase US treasuries, or they can buy US merchandise. (They can also choose to buy US assets. Back in the 80’s, so many Japanese were buying property in Hawaii, that it drove up land prices.)
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 6:54 am

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 10:20 am

Then what does the person who sold the Euro’s do with the dollars.
Please try to think for just a few seconds before posting.
Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 10:24 am

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on posting 300 comments under the fake “BusterBrown” name is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2015 5:44 am

In other words, you agree that I was correct, the only thing you can do with dollars overseas, is bring them back to the US where they can be used to buy US goods.
Thank you for playing.

Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2015 6:22 pm

(Should’a asked for more time, Buster)

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 25, 2015 7:08 pm

Funny one JK.
Or a shout out to a friend.
Merry Christmas.
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2015 6:26 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2015 6:28 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)
Reply to  MarkW
December 25, 2015 6:32 pm

(Note: “Buster Brown” is the latest fake screen name for ‘David Socrates’, ‘Brian G Valentine’, ‘Joel D. Jackson’, ‘beckleybud’, ‘Edward Richardson’, ‘H Grouse’, and about twenty others. The same person is also an identity thief who has stolen legitimate commenters’ names. Therefore, all the time and effort he spent on his comments is wasted, because I am deleting them wholesale. ~mod.)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2015 3:52 am

Banks charge a fee for international transactions no matter what. In many countries any transaction is converted from originating local currency to US$ first, with a fee and an exchange rate favourable to the Bank, and then in to purchasing local currency, with a fee and an exchange rate favourable to the bank. Online transactions are another story and receiving some “attention”, certainly in Australia (The Govn’t wants 10% GST on any transaction more than AU$1000. Money for jam).
Been working in the banking industry since 1995…and it’s socking they are allowed to continue the practice as such high fee rates given the automation, and integration, in the system.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2015 4:04 am

And there is a move away from signatures to PINs on credit card transactions (Been happening for about 10 years now). So in some countries, if you don’t have a PIN set or forgot it, you are STUCK and can do nothing with your credit card!

Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2015 12:54 pm

(Thanks, Knute . . and back at ya my friend).

Reply to  MarkW
December 26, 2015 1:02 pm

“Crude oil throughout the world is priced in dollars. You can use dollars to buy it anywhere”
How convenient for those shopping for crude oil, Buster ; )

December 20, 2015 6:56 pm

“One example is found in the nine U.S. states whose carbon trading I cited above. Between 2009 and 2013, their economies reportedly grew more than 9% compared to 8.8% in the other 41 states, while their combined carbon emissions dropped 14%.”
From 2010 to 2013, the same nine U.S. states GDP growth rates ranked 50th, 49th, 44th, 37th, 35th, 32nd, 30th, 16th and 15th in the US.
If carbon trading gave those states an economic boost it was fleeting.

Reply to  rovingbroker
December 21, 2015 6:52 am

“One example …”
This is typical of leftwing thinking. They only look at one factor and declare that they have fully examined the problem. First off a difference between 8.8% and 9% in terms of economic growth over 5 years is statistical noise. Secondly, even 9% growth over 5 years is pathetic.
They are claiming that the fact that the growth in these 9 states managed to keep up, even though there were carbon taxes, fails to account for the million and one things that also impact growth rates.

December 20, 2015 7:04 pm

… but actual experience shows this is not necessarily the case.

That’s quite the endorsement. What they’re saying is: “It could possibly, if we’re really lucky and hold our mouths just right and the stars align, yes it could possibly work.”
The idea should be “consigned to the wastebasket as the ‘pipe dream‘ of an opium devotee.”

December 20, 2015 7:04 pm

I’ve got a brilliant innovative idea. And here it is:
Why don’t we just heavily tax all productive industries which have demonstrated their worth through long-term sustained profits in the global marketplace? And then keep taxing them more and more heavily, until they can no longer generate profits and they cease to operate or move abroad?
And then we could give all the money generated by this scheme to idiots who claim to have brilliant innovative (although totally untested and likely worthless) ideas.
i.e. people like me.
I look forward to seeing this plan put into action.
I will certainly enjoy spending all that money, when modern society has collapsed.

December 20, 2015 7:28 pm

If the Puffington Host thinks that there are great “Economic Benefits” from a $2.9 trillion annual tax hike on Fossil Fuels, why not propose a $29 trillion annual tax and get some truly staggering growth in the economy. Really, this is Leftist economics held up to the mirror by its legs and studied by fools.

Reply to  ntesdorf
December 21, 2015 6:53 am

I like to give those who back higher minimum wages a similar argument. If raising the minimum wage does no harm economically, why not raise it to $100/hr.

Chris Hanley
December 20, 2015 7:33 pm

“According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), direct and indirect subsidies around the world are expected to total $5.3 trillion this year …” ( William S. Becker).
That statement links to the Coady, Parry, Sears, Shang Working Paper, which pops up constantly (like the John Cook et al. 97% survey), clearly states at the heading:
“IMF Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to encourage debate. The views expressed in IMF Working Papers are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the IMF, its Executive Board, or IMF management”.
The author also claims that “… the International Energy Agency (IEA) reports that 40 nations, responsible for half of global energy consumption, subsidize what their consumers pay for fossil fuels …” but fails to point out that most of the leading subsidisers referred to in the report are important hydrocarbon producers in the Middle East and North Africa.
Articles like this serve a valuable function because the notion of taxing to prosperity is so self-evidently and utterly preposterous that they are, from the point-of-view of the the writers, counterproductive.

December 20, 2015 7:35 pm

Great comments one and all +100.
I’m establishing a fund accessible for anyone who promotes no justice/no peace.
Just send me lots of money and I will make sure you feel good.
Birken bags for the first 100 lifetime donors (100K).
If you have kids, sorry climate internships are full, but we do have openings in the creative finance department for those who were successful at junk bond or housing loan bundling.
PS I have an in with the Pope if you are a consummate sinner.

December 20, 2015 7:37 pm

Imagine what would happen to energy use if governments could simply agree to place a $100 per tonne tax on carbon based fuels.
Well, actually, there is no need to use your imagination. Because according to this OECD paper from 1991 (link below) all the major western economies had oil duties equivalent to over $100 dollars per tonne CO2. (Except America at $65).
Much more in many major nations. ~$300 dollars per tonne of CO2 in the UK.
And yet we all still drive cars. We drive cars alone. And we drive cars for pleasure.
This massive tax did NOT lead to the development of affordable electric cars.
I’m not sure quite how much the govt. would need to tax fuel to force us all to buy an electric car.
Surely, as the burden of higher energy costs ate into my disposable income and savings then that electric car option would become progressively less and less affordable.
Eventually I would be forced to give up personal transport.
By which time I would be destitute and rendered jobless.

Leon Brozyna
December 20, 2015 7:50 pm

A simple and elegant solution to a most vexing problem … how to rule large uppity populations … tax ’em into abject poverty where electricity will become an unaffordable luxury good, limited in availability only to the ruling elite.

December 20, 2015 8:07 pm

A salesman comes to your door and make the following proposition:
“Why buy 10 kilowatt-hours of electrical energy per dollar,
when we can promise you 5 kilowatt-hours of luxury energy for the same money”.
So we ask, “Well that sounds like a dumb offer. What’s the difference?”
And the seller explains, “the luxury energy is innovative and it creates jobs for technicians”.
Obviously you can then say, “I don’t really care. Any electricity will suit me fine. And I do not regard technicians as persons desperately in need of my charitable interest”.
Of course the salesman then continues, “you see our luxury energy also saves polar bear cubs and Bangladeshi children – and – did ya hear – It stops tornadoes and hurricanes. And …er…Greenland, you see that’s a lot of ice you’ve got right there – now when that goes…”
You interrupt at that point, “What goes? Greenland? What the crap are you talking about? That’s right, run away now…and don’t come back…”
Sadly this conversation will never happen – because our governments are going to buy this dumb pile of poop on our behalf. Using our money.

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 20, 2015 8:28 pm

Diesel vehicles.
Diesel generator.
Thinking about one of these
I’ll be damned if someone rams this nonsense down my throat.
But I’m an independent SOB, so it worries me that so many will have no choice but to succumb.

Reply to  knutesea
December 20, 2015 8:50 pm

Do you pull the heat off your diesel genset? Unfortunately, I’m currently running off an air-cooled lister petter, so I’m conscious that I’m throwing away a lot of useful heat.
I’m 70-80% of the way there with erecting a chinese made turbine – standard HAWT. I’ve even put the foundations in. The turbine cost me about £300 for 1kw peak.
A bargain from eBay. Including two sections of mast, inverter and dump-load unit.
I bought it when everyone believed that peak oil had arrived.
Then I installed the batteries for the turbine and discovered that merely having batteries to charge cut my generator bill in half.
Hopefully, next year I will have the time off work to hoist the turbine up into the wind.
I’ll be doing it for fun and interest now, more than any specific concerns about energy costs.
My proposed turbine should look like this (momentarily, before the first storm destroys it!!!):

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 20, 2015 9:20 pm

How much fun is that … you are way ahead of the game.
Once I got the hang of making my own biodiesel, it’s all kind of easy and mostly I have to be opportunistic when i get stock. I just got the generator a short while ago, so I’ll consider the heat capture. Right now my biggest concern is the noise, but I think i can reduce it to a normal compressor.
The ultimate irony of it all is that I am quite the skeptic, but am probably freer of the “grid” than most of my alarmists aquaintances. The biggest tease I get is that I’m not really off the grid because I’m using “traditional” power sources. I increasingly find otherwise good thinkers buying into some nonsense that their moral righteousness (godliness) is next to how green is their power. (cleanliness is next to godliness has been replaced).

Reply to  knutesea
December 21, 2015 6:37 am

You can do a lot to silence a generator by installing it in a box/shed with about 4inches of compressed rockwool all around it.
Most of the noise comes off the engine head. Once that’s dealt with the exhaust just makes a pfft sound.
But, if it’s air cooled then you also need a large fan driving cool air over it continually.
The cheapest source of reliable, quiet, water cooled diesel generation – is of course – a used eco-diesel vehicle.
Whisper quiet and you could upscale the alternator to a 24V 900watt truck version. (with a bit of messing about)
I currently have a couple of old 1.9l citreons which I occasionally use to run my house, during generator failures and engine strip-downs. But I was thinking of looking out for a scrap 1.0 – 1.2 litre eco-something that’s I could hook up to heating water and charging batteries.
Maybe a small VW – I hear that they have very low emissions!!? Ha ha.
Also a car and it’s fuel are also much less likely to be stolen than a generator + barrels of diesel.
So, this definitely looks like the future for my plans.
If you ever have to buy a sizeable inverter for your house then buy an ex-server UPS made by APC.
I bought mine for 99p from eBay.
It’s 2.4kw pure sine wave. 100% reliable over 8 years of daily use.
I also have a 3.0kw version but the incentive has never been there to switch them over.
Regarding solar P.V. – first I was waiting for the price to fall to a level where they would be “cost effective” – I am off grid – so I can’t tap into the free money bonanza.
And now I’m waiting for the EU to remove their stoopid 70% tax on Chinese Solar PV imports. I mean – WTF?
I’ve never been anti-renewables.
I’m only anti-bullshit.
I’m fundamentally opposed to government intervening to skew the market, through heavy handed taxes and tariffs.
That is the surest route to inefficiency and corruption.
So anyone who ever thought that I was anti-renewables was very wrong!!!

Reply to  indefatigablefrog
December 21, 2015 10:04 am

Thanks Frog
Great info and love the enthusiasm.
Yup, it’s just fundamentally stupid to make shit up in order to push an agenda.
Life is too short for that nonsense.

Reply to  knutesea
December 26, 2015 1:19 pm

” Right now my biggest concern is the noise, but I think i can reduce it to a normal compressor.”
I once routed a noisy generator exhaust into a small hole I dug in the ground, and filled the top of the hole with steel wool. Cut the noise way down . .

Reply to  JohnKnight
December 26, 2015 3:02 pm

Thanks JK
Brilliant in its simplicity.

December 20, 2015 9:23 pm

Keith May 27, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Vis-a-vis the comment above, the IMF has calculated the negative value of all the claimed problems (such as warming, alleged increased in extremes, and so on) and characterised the cost as a subsidy for fossil fuel. It seems the IMF has as little idea as the Guardian as to what constitutes a subsidy. A couple of things that come to mind straight away: what would the cost have been for the vast amount of deforestation that would have occurred if people had turned to burning wood, if fossil fuels had not powered the industrial revolution and the 20th and 21st centuries? What would be the cost of increased disease, death, and suffering if modern medicine had not been facilitated by cheap power via coal, oil and gas?
by Matthew R Marler | October 14, 2014 at 3:53 pm |
In the US, the fuel “subsidies” are tax credits, that is reductions in the amount of tax paid on profits; they are not subsidies that flow in the absence of profit, like the subsidies paid to the solar and wind power industries (e.g. the Solyndra fiasco.)
Reg Nelson August 25, 2014 at 9:38 pm
The “subsidies” you refer to are (almost totally) accelerated amortization of capital expenditures. These are available to to all businesses, up to a certain limit. Google Section 179 IRS code to find out more.
These types of economic incentives were key parts of both TARP and Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package. In the long term they are revenue (tax collection) neutral. They simply shift the deduction for tax purposes forward, but do not reduce or change the amount of tax liability.
“A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.
Oil-company tax deductions aren’t special favors. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.
Oil companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea there is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.”
ferdberple says: August 17, 2014 at 9:05 am
the oil depletion allowance reduces the cost of producing oil, which in a competitive environment reduces the selling price. This lowers the cost of doing business for those people producing glass, aluminum and vinyl, which lowers the cost of producing windows in the US.
Kevin Kilty says: July 3, 2014 at 1:36 pm
Renewable energy people derive great benefit from renewable subsidies, and rationalization being what it is, can convince themselves of the merit of renewables placed anywhere, not just where they make some economic sense; and also convince themselves that oil, gas, and coal are even more greatly subsidized still. Penetrating that shell of rationalization is the entire battle to tame the madness.
Bart says: July 3, 2014 at 2:22 pm
No matter how you slice it, a tax deduction which merely reduces a tax, and still results in a payment to the government, is in no way, shape, or form a “subsidy”. Not anymore than breaking someone’s legs instead of killing him is a form of healthcare.

December 20, 2015 9:27 pm

Is there any evidence that the 9 states that do carbon trading have actually dropped carbon emissions by 14%? I suspect some creative accounting going on here.
Even if the net economic benefit to those 9 states was $1.3 billion, that would amount to roughly $7.2 billion when extrapolated to all 50 states. That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the $2.9 trillion in tax increases they’re proposing. It certainly wouldn’t make up for the huge rise in energy prices that would result from their proposal.

Reply to  Louis
December 20, 2015 9:47 pm

greenliness is next to godliness
and it evidently is priceless

December 20, 2015 9:31 pm

Look at Spain which lost 2.5 jobs when they tried to go to strictly renewables (wind and solar).
If I was president (of the US), I would open up ANWR in Alaska to keep the pipeline flowing. I would, of course, approve the Keystone pipeline. I would get some nuclear power plants under construction, and in the meanwhile allow clean coal plants to be built in the interim. I would scale down the EPA, if not get rid of it (they have done their work). I would allow some new hydroelectric plants in California and elsewhere (new dams if necessary). I would stop subsidies for large solar and wind farms. And that’s just a start. Of course I would just need a pen and a phone for executive orders to do these things. (This is the new presidential power which evades the US constitution.) Anyone want to vote for me?…

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
December 20, 2015 9:55 pm

JP Peterson for President
Do you ever wonder why such common sense decisions don’t get accomplished ?
Well, I’d say about half the voting population feels that way and they are called the silent majority.
I am constantly amazed how local jurisdictions mostly govern well, while States and Feds are increasingly detached from what the locals need and want.
Common sense exists at the local level mostly because it is in touch with day to day living. It has a way of reminding you what matters.
How about you cede much of the authority the feds took over the years and let local jurisdictions figure out how to run their own lives ?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
December 21, 2015 4:58 am

“Clean coal”? That’s a catch-phrase the coal-haters use. The concept is that burning coal releases lots of “dirty” CO2 so employing hideously expensive carbon capture or other technologies “cleans” it, thus making it acceptable to carbonophobes. Of course, it also prices it out of the market, but that’s what they want anyway.

December 20, 2015 9:39 pm

Here are some posts from the past (on WUWT) wrt subsidies:
Fossil Fuel Subsidies: Connie Hedegaard, the EU Commissioner for Climate Action, has an essay demanding that countries stop subsidizing fossil fuels. She states: “According to the IEA, fossil-fuel subsidies rose by almost 30%, to $523 billion, in 2011. Meanwhile, the UN Environment Program reports that global investment in renewable energy totaled only $257 billion in 2011.”
Ms Hedegaard fails to state that the IEA study she cites shows the vast bulk of fossil fuel subsidies occur in developing countries, not in developed Western nations. In descending order, the five countries with the greatest fossil fuel subsidies are: Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, India and China. The omission is all too typical among Western green bureaucrats and Ms. Hedegaard’s logic is far from daunting. Should a western country subsidize expensive, unreliable wind and solar because Iran subsidies gasoline? Please see Article #3 and link under Communicating Better to the Public – Exaggerate, or be Vague?
HaroldW says: June 22, 2010 at 10:33 am
there are some subsidies, but they are actually really small.
1: royalties paid to foreign countries and states are credited for tax purposes…. as it should be.
if you paid for raw material, it has be considered as expense.
2: research credit that is available to ALL INDUSTRIES is available to oil&gas. there is nothing special here.
3: govt pays poor people for heat. that is welfare. not a subsidy to oil&gas. That money can be used for electric heat, even if it is hydro electric or other “renewable” source.
4: investment credits available to everyone is available to oil&gas. where is the subsidy there?
Jeremy says: September 26, 2011 at 12:00 pm
U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”
Firstly, all Oil Companies pay taxes on earnings just like any corporation. According to data found in the Standard & Poor’s Compustat North American Database, the industry’s 2009 net income tax expenses — essentially their effective marginal income tax rate — averaged 41 percent, compared to 26 percent for the S&P Industrial companies. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) concludes that, as an additional part of their tax obligation, the major energy-producing companies paid or incurred over $280 billion of income tax expenses between 2006 and 2008. .
Secondly, according to the ONRR, annual revenues from federal onshore and offshore (OCS) mineral leases are one of the federal government’s largest sources of non-tax revenue. In 2010, Royalty Revenue amounted to around $8 Billion
Luke says: September 26, 2011 at 10:44 am
Most of those $4.0 billion in “subsidies” are not specific to the oil & gas industry. They break down as follows:
$1.7 billion in Domestic Manufacturing Credits: Applies to all production companies equally. A reward for creating/leaving the jobs in the US economy. You can argue whether or not they can move this production from the US, since the oil is located here, but it is clear that they can move the exploration equipment to anywhere in the world and ship the oil in. There is no requirement that oil used domestically must be produced in the US. So given that, what other industries should we strip this credit from?
$1.0 billion in % depletion allowance: Applies specifically to the oil and gas industry as a mechanism for capital recovery. It takes the place of depreciating the assets in the ground. Of course we don’t like to talk about the dark side of this one, which is when oil prices are lower for a sustained period of time, it acts like an anti-subsidy, so this one can cut both ways and at time has. Easy solution is to use capital base instead of income. Over the long haul though, I doubt this equals $1.0 billion a year. Just $1.0 billion a year in the current price environment.
$0.9 billion in foreign tax credit: This one again, applies equally to all. The dodgy part with this is classification of royalty payments as income taxes. Some foreign governments have converted royalty payments to income taxes, allowing for greater deductibility under US tax law. This, however, is not unique to the oil industry. So again, who else would you like to strip this one from?
$0.8 billion in intangible drilling costs: This one is specific to the oil and gas industry. This however is not a subsidy. Period. Exclamation Point! At best, this is a shifting of tax payments to later years. It allows the oil company to deduct their exploration expenses immediately. When this rule was enacted, it actually made sense because 90% of those expenses were written off in the first year anyway because of the abysmal hit rate for new wells, as opposed to the alternative which is adding it to the depreciation base for a new well. Now that the hit rate is much better, maybe it’s time to rethink the break, but it will not provide an $0.8 billion dollar annual windfall. It might provided a short term difference, but after 4-5 years under the new rules, you’d be pretty much back to the same annual number for “tax breaks” resulting from intangible drilling costs.
chris y says: September 26, 2011 at 9:31 am
“U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., is proposing to end what he says are $4 billion a year in tax subsidies to the biggest oil companies.”
That $4B amounts to 1.6 cents per gallon of gasoline.
Did Schumer also propose an end to Federal, state and local gasoline taxes to ‘even the playing field’?
Did Schumer also propose an equivalent tax on solar and wind energy to ‘even the playing field?’
Catcracking says: December 3, 2011 at 7:20 am
One favorites of Pelosi is the reduction in royalities that was set up during the Clinton Administration to give companies an incentive to drill in deep water offshore in the Gulf when oil prices were low. Royalities are still paid but circa 20 % less. It was a good business deal for both sides at the time and improved for the drillers as oil prices rose. So now many of the tax and spend crowd want to change the contract and threaten those who refuse to comply with blackballing them from biding on new leases. How else can they make renewable energy sources look competitive?
Another item frequently referenced is the accelerated write off of capital expenses to encourage investment and boost the economy that is offered to every other business.
A third item is the foreign tax credits offered to all companies that bring foreign earnings back to the US.
Janice says: December 3, 2011 at 7:36 am
There is a hidden subsidy for both solar and wind power, one that could easily be avoided, but never will be because it is not politically expedient. The subsidy is the amount of money it takes to remove solar and wind farms once the parent company abandons them. It usually winds up being public money that is used, since the parent companies usually go bankrupt and are dissolved. It could easily be avoided if the parent companies were forced to post a bond equal to the amount it would take to remove the equipment, and restore the area. And that is a subsidy which coal and oil do not enjoy, because they are forced to remediate their mining and drilling sites.
Roy UK says: December 5, 2012 at 8:33 am
@Alexandre 7.47am
Statement before the Senate Finance Committee
Subcommittee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Infrastructure March 27, 2012
FY2010 Electricity Production Subsidies and Support per megawatt-hour
(year 2010 dollars)
Natural Gas, Petroleum Liquids 0.63
Coal (pulverized) 0.64
Hydroelectric 0.84
Biomass 2.00
Nuclear 3.10
Geothermal 12.50
Wind 52.48
Solar 968.00
So subsidies per MWh to Wind and Solar are 100 – 1500 times the cost of subsidies to the Big oil. You didn’t really think your question through did you?
Steve Keohane says: December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am
Alexandre says:December 5, 2012 at 7:47 am
I’d like to know where the Heartland Institute stands in the issue of fossil fuel subsidies. You know, being non-Big Oil and all…

According to the link you provided $58B was paid globally in so called oil subsidies. In 2004, according to, we in the USA used 140 billion gallons of gasoline, for which $70B in taxes at the pump was collected. And don’t for get the corporate tax on the wholesale sales, and the taxes paid by the oil employees to make the gasoline, etc. So where is the subsidy? Your so-called oil subsidies are smoke and mirrors, nothing more.
John M says: December 5, 2012 at 9:11 am
Steve Keohane says: December 5, 2012 at 8:38 am
Regarding the whining about fossil fuel “subsidies”, it would be interesting to see Alexendre’s opinion on these “subsidies” listed in his source:
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Petroleum) : 336 Million
Fuel-Tax Exemptions for Farmers: 1 Billion (that’s a B)
Strategic Petroleum Reserves: 1 Billion (Hell, the way that one’s been used, it should be charged back to the DNC as a campaign contribution)
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (Nat Gas): 1.7 Billion (that’s a B too)
Credit for Investment in Clean-Coal Facilities: 370 Million
Amortisation of Certain Pollution-Control Facilities: 200 Million
Jeez, maybe they ought to count food stamps as a fossil fuel subsidy too, since they are used to buy food produced by those farmers who get those huge Fossil Fuel tax exemptions, or allow poor people to spend more to fill their tanks.
ralfellis says: March 6, 2014 at 11:09 pm
Another Geologist’s Take says: March 6, 2014 at 11:31 am
The analysis to be fair needs also to consider the generous subsidies that the oil, natural gas and coal industries get from our governments. They are substantial and have been around for decades.
Absolute tosh.
In fact, that is tosh of the century.
Those are not subsidies for the oil industry, they are investments.
In reality, UK government finances depend in a great part on the huge taxes that they levy on oil and gas products. Thus they know that if they INVEST a little money to open a new and difficult oil/gas field, they will get their money back in spades when the product comes on-stream.
With renewables, the government subsidises the infrastructure, and then CONTINUES TO SUBSIDISE the end product (electricity) through the Renewable Obligation Certificates – which are a shadow taxation scheme levied on your electric bills.
In summary, the oil and gas industrues get no net subsidy, because their production pays back taxes that are greater than the subsidy BY SEVERAL ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE. They are net contributors to the government purse. In fact, many governments around the world would be bankrupt within the year, were it not for the huge profits from oil and gas.
Steve from Rockwood says: March 7, 2014 at 6:07 am
The IMF introduces the concept of “corrective taxes” for such things as CO2 emissions ($25/ton). These are a major part of their subsidy estimates. In fairness to the IMF they appear to lay these subsidies at the foot of government while you place them at the door of the oil companies.

December 21, 2015 1:40 am

Question in the mythical golden world , for the greens , of no ‘evil fossil fuels’, how would the governments make up for the 100’s of billion in the shortfall in income caused by the loss on tax on the same ‘evil fossil fuels’?

December 21, 2015 2:14 am

Why is the Left so bad at: math, science, economics and basic logic?….
Yeah, I know… a rhetorical question…
The hilarious “$5.9 trillion” in fictitious fossil fuel “subsidies” is a joke…
What Leftists call “subsidies” are: basic tax breaks provided to ALL corporations, reimbursements from feckless governments that force fossil fuel companies to sell fuel below cost to buy votes, accelerated capital-investment amortization schedules for fossil fuel companies, special licensing kickbacks received from extortive govenmet hacks, in exchange for political “donations”..etc, etc….
Leftist have a REAL problem with the economic problem of opportunity costs…. If $2.9 TRILLION is removed from the private sector to be flushed down the CAGW toilet, that’s $2.9 TRILLION that will never be spent wisely on necessary capital equipment, R&D, hiring more staff, increasing wages, developing new services and products, starting new companies, building new factories, etc…. The money has all been wasted…
What “climate catastrophe” are these Leftists referring to?????
CO2 has perhaps added 0.2C of beneficial warming recovery since the end of the ILLTTLE ICE AGE in 1850, with no discernible global warming trend over the past 20 years, despite 30% of all manmade CO2 emissions since 1750 being made just over the last 20 years….
There hasn’t been ANY increasing trends of severe weather incidence or intensity in 50~100 years, as IPCC’s AR5 report freely admits… NASA also admitted in October of this year that Antarctic land ice has been increasing at 100 billion tons per year, at least since ICESAT data went online in1992, so Leftists’ crazy claim of “unprecedented” Antarctic land ice loss was a scam…
When will people wake up to this Leftist CAGW scam??
I know…. Another rhetorical question…

Reply to  SAMURAI
December 21, 2015 6:58 am

Leftists get offended at the thought of anyone not under their complete control.

December 21, 2015 2:18 am

So removing tax breaks and raising the price of fuel and energy will ‘save the planet’ by pricing fuel and energy out of the reach of ordinary wage earners, the poor and the elderly on fixed incomes. Yes, that should work well, especially in cold northern climates. Should see the death rate soar, reduce the population and problem solved.
Great if you can afford it I suppose. Yet another reason I loathe champagne socialists and wealthy ‘greens’.

December 21, 2015 3:08 am

“Government subsidies keep energy prices artificially low.”
Really? Is that the reason why it costs me about half as much to fill my gas tank as it cost me a year or two back? And here I always thought that that old fashioned market forces caused that. Man, those government subsidies must have increased substantially in recent months!
Who writes this drivel at HuffPost?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Jbird
December 21, 2015 5:08 am

No one. It’s computer-generated Greenie garbage, geared for the mindless leftard sheep.

December 21, 2015 6:01 am

Poor people pay a much larger proportion of their income on energy, thus this is a hugely regressive tax. Only the rich can afford electric cars, solar panels and wind mills. Hmmm, classic – “Steal from the poor and give to the rich.” Robin Hood is rolling in his grave.

Reply to  Andy May
December 21, 2015 6:58 am

Actually, Robin Hood stole from the govt.

Bruce Cobb
December 21, 2015 6:03 am

The Climate Liars are doubling down on their lies. They know they are losing.

December 21, 2015 6:28 am

Like most liberals, they believe that you perfect the world by taking money from people you don’t like, and give it to those who will vote for you.

December 21, 2015 6:30 am

Well, HuffPo wins this week’s Butt-Ugly Stupid Award.
I wonder if any of those people have considered what fills their car’s gas tanks or powers airplanes that jet them across the continent.

December 21, 2015 6:55 am

Another way of looking at this is that it now requires $2.9 Trillion a year for renewables to break even with fossil fuels. It will be a long time before renewables reach parity on their own merit.

Reply to  RockyRoad
December 21, 2015 6:59 am

That’s $2.9Trillion, despite only producing about 5% as much energy.

Reply to  MarkW
December 21, 2015 9:50 pm

So pro-rating that to a full replacement of fossil-fueled energy supplies would require an investment of $58 Trillion! No way the world economy, which has an annual GDP of $70 Trillion, could ever take such a hit and still survive.

Reply to  MarkW
December 22, 2015 5:47 am

Worse than that.
So long as renewables are only a small fraction of the total generation capacity, the ability of fossil and nuclear plants to ramp up and down their output can handle the unreliable nature of renewable power. As you get higher percentages of power from renewables, you have to start including means of storing that electricity so that it is always available when needed.
None of those storage technologies are included in the subsidies that you list.

December 21, 2015 7:40 am

Why is it that those who have the least amount of qualification concerning economics are always the ones with the biggest bullhorns?
This reminds me of what was said of the pre-political Donald Trump: he’ll buy everything you own if you lend him all the money that you have.

December 21, 2015 7:44 am

The parallels between the climate consensus and the behavior of Wall St prior to the 2008 train wreck are striking.

Reply to  hunter
December 21, 2015 10:10 am

+ 100

December 21, 2015 7:51 am

The irony of such an tax is, when the fossil fuels are taxed to death and not used, we’ll have no replacement since there will no way to fund the green projects.

Mike Maguire
December 21, 2015 8:10 am

“Eliminating post-tax subsidies in 2015 could raise government revenue by $2.9 trillion (3.6% of global GDP), cut global CO2 emissions by more than 20% and cut premature air pollution deaths by more than half,” it says.”
Total amount of human deaths from breathing ambient atmospheric levels of CO2 in history…………ZERO.
Total amount of animals(including humans) harmed from breathing ambient levels of CO2……….ZERO.
Total amount projected over the next 100 years……….ZERO.
There is real air pollution and it’s often emitted in tandem with beneficial CO2 and we should spend money to reduce the real pollution…………but let’s stop pretending and misleading that it’s the CO2.

December 21, 2015 8:41 am

The problem with the leftwingers is that they don’t understand the problem and have no understanding of possible solutions. Renewables are primitive and ridiculous.

Reply to  arthur4563
December 21, 2015 10:13 am

Renewables are primitive and ridiculous.

Diesel cars, diesel generator .. make biodiesel.
I’m totally renewable. I must have a carbon footprint the size of a small village.
Since I’m adding to the plant growth in the world, I think you all owe me a check.

December 21, 2015 12:56 pm

“A tax deduction and a government subsidy aren’t the same. When politicians use the terms interchangeably, it misleads many Americans.’
The politicians are in charge of educating Americans. So when politicians use the terms interchangeably, and it misleads many Americans, the politician gets to smile inside.

December 21, 2015 1:11 pm

HuffPo workers toil so hard to be noticed, they need to be unionized for all the savage workload of contrived news and controversy.

December 21, 2015 1:17 pm

heck, import a bunch of muslambs. they’ll pay for it.. this is socialism, right.. lets face it, if the mass migration of mid-easterners to Europe is to offset the decline of the population… well ….scheisse it ain’t my money.
Or is it?

December 21, 2015 2:16 pm

I see they have decided to use “climate disruption” in the huffpost article. They seem to always be changing the words. Now I know I should go ahead and get another solar panel since they plan on proceeding with this big fraud.

Richards Stone
December 21, 2015 5:50 pm

The Illuminati is a defunct secret society formed by a fervent Academic, Adam Weishaupt in Balvaria, 1776. The cult as its name suggests, was a group of intellectuals who came together to instill discipline in themselves, infiltrate government agencies, and create a new world order. However, the original illuminati was disbanded by the government of Bulgaria, when all secret societies were banned, though even before then, strong internal problems were already leading the illuminati cult to termination. That was the 18th century Illuminati. The 21st and 20th centuries also have an illuminati sect which in words you are more likely to understand, is supposed to sign you up , pull you into their chain of command, give you enlightenment, and then, power, as you’ll be playing sinewy roles in the government. This article tries to bring to light, facts about the modern illuminati, and also helps the reader to join, and utilize the opportunities availed by the sect, which are enlightenment, enrichment, and empowerment.
The illuminati make people rich, famous and astoundingly powerful. The illuminati, which means enlightenment, purges your mind of all vestiges of ignorance, backwardness and naivety. It brings you out of the delusions and illusions which you’ve been subjected to by your numerous religious escapades, and when you are relieved of these non-propitious encumbrances, success becomes inevitable. Knowing that many of us do not understand the illuminati as it is, I’ll go ahead to expound on this wonderful phenomenon and am hoping that by the time you get to the last paragraph of this article, you would be on your way to becoming “illuminated”. It would do the reader good to note that the Illuminati of the 18th century is not the same with the modern illuminati. The former was a cult, while the latter is a consciousness. IF YOU WANT TO BE OUR MEMBER YOU CAN CONTACT US WITH THIS EMAIL or call +2348115531558

December 21, 2015 6:07 pm

Emerging Behaviors
Oberlin black students now want to be paid for protesting/organizing.
Honest pay for honest work ?

Reply to  Knute
December 22, 2015 9:36 pm

Since they typically revile any monetary form, it would be dishonest pay for dishonest work. Still, I think they’d take it–even those low-life’s like to eat.

December 21, 2015 6:29 pm

This is awesome. This will fund the rest of the green jobs that Obama wanted. We spent lkke $11,000,000 per job paying $60,000 per year?

Reply to  Justin
December 21, 2015 6:40 pm
%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights