US Libertarian Presidential Candidate Backs a Carbon "Fee"

carbontax

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

h/t Daily Caller – US Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson wants to impose a government enforced carbon fee to combat climate change.

Climate change and health care

Johnson has been to Alaska several times, including a trip where he summitted Denali. (He’s reached the top of the highest mountain on each continent and is an Ironman triathlete.) He campaigned in Anchorage during his 2012 run for president, holding a rally on the Delaney Park Strip.

“I envy all of you,” he said. “I think it’s the most beautiful state in the country.”

Climate change and a warming world might threaten that.

“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.

To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”

That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.

“We as human beings want to see carbon emissions reduced significantly,” but at the same time, he says the United States is only “16 percent of the (global) load” of carbon, and “I don’t want to do anything that harms jobs.”

“The rest of the world has to catch up with us,” he said.

Read more: http://juneauempire.com/state/2016-08-21/third-party-first-pick-gary-johnson-addresses-alaskan-issues-interview

The alternative to a carbon tax is a carbon market, but as the European experience demonstrates, carbon markets lead to massive corruption and inevitable collapse.

The reason is very simple – with a carbon market, unlike a real market, fraud benefits all the market participants.

Fraud benefits the issuers of fake carbon credits – they get to make money for nothing.

Fraud benefits the purchasers of carbon credits – a flood of fake carbon credits keeps prices down.

Fraud benefits market regulators – they get rich turning a blind eye to the fraud.

The only people carbon fraud doesn’t benefit is anyone silly enough to think that market based carbon pricing can make a long term difference to CO2 emissions.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
225 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Justin Sane
August 22, 2016 10:59 pm

Gary Johnson the LINO (libertarian in name only).

Pieter Steenekamp
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 22, 2016 11:43 pm

In my humble opinion what Gary Johnson says is 100% in agreement with the Libertarian principle of “do not hurt people”. If he believes carbon hurts the world then he should back actions against those causing that hurt. Maybe his wrong in his belief, but that is a different argument.
Take him on for his belief in carbon causing harm, but recognize that he acts according to Libertarian principles.

wws
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 7:50 am

Coming out in favor of a whole new class of taxation in order to make government even bigger and stronger is a gross desecration of every principle that Libertarianism was supposed to be about.
He does not act “according to libertarian principles”, he acts to destroy every one of those principles and make the movement a punchline to a bad joke forever.

Michael 2
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 9:07 am

The simplest libertarian principle is “I choose for me, you choose for you.” He can pay a carbon tax if he wishes and perhaps I won’t.
Imposing a tax or “fee” (not sure what exactly is the difference) on others is not libertarian. It may be expedient or necessary, but it is not libertarian.
I have a doubt such a thing as a legitimately libertarian PARTY can exist. It would have no more force than the “ten suggestions”.
So if not libertarian, what is it? I suggest pre-Orwellian or More-ish.
As Sir Thomas More’ points out in “Utopia”, the easy way for a regime to get money is to tax or license something everyone uses. This quote pertains to a King wishing to reduce his debts, and several ideas are proposed including announcing a fake war, raising money, then announcing success and peace (sounds a bit familiar) but here’s the relevant part:
A fourth proposes the prohibiting of many things under severe penalties, especially such as were against the interest of the people, and then the dispensing with these prohibitions, upon great compositions, to those who might find their advantage in breaking them. This would serve two ends, both of them acceptable to many; for as those whose avarice led them to transgress would be severely fined, so the selling licences dear would look as if a prince were tender of his people, and would not easily, or at low rates, dispense with anything that might be against the public good.
Or in other words, (1) ban something that people want and then (2) sell licenses or (3) issue fines against people that had used the banned thing without a license.

Bryan A
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 9:32 am

Tax or Fee, It is really just another way to subsidize Big Government

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 10:18 am

“Do not hurt people” is NOT the same as “Must force others to help people”.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 2:31 pm

A Government imposed “fee” on carbon is not “free market” nor “libertarian”.
As I said elsewhere, if you want a President Hillarity …er… Hillary, vote third party.
(The “President Hillarity” part was a joke. Maybe a bad one. As she would be.)

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 4:15 pm

This is a play for the Bernie Sanders vote. CO2 is not a pollutant, and I, as a human, want to see “carbon emissions” increased, not reduced.

Eric Hamilton
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 5:07 pm

No. You have to prove that harm was done. Tacking on an artificial price tag to something because of an irrational belief that you have is not a market based solution and is not a libertarian strategy because it requires government to enforce a completely artificial fee structure. A real libertarian would try to find a real market based solution, not just change the language used to describe the already planned government non-solution.

Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 8:07 pm

Hillary Clinton would recognize the motives of the bankers who fund UN green projects and the founders of and investors in carbon credit exchanges and the UN NGOs who buy the rights to the natural resources of Third World nations when they default on loans,and the greed of their heads of state, and the environmental organizations and scientists who chose between support for AWG and starvation, and would pretend to see them as good and support them.
Gary Johnson was a good guy who has put his personal beliefs before politics in advocating for cannabis decriminalization in the past, and I hope he’s ignorant and not stupid, and that he hasn’t gone over to the dark side.

Bill Hunter
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 24, 2016 9:48 am

LOL! Libertarian my eye! One can believe what they want but thats the whole reason there is a libertarian party to provide and alternative to the true believers. Should anybody mention the word “evidence”? In my view the libertarian view is like a jury, when there is no realistic dissent then you act. The libertarian cause was not invented to support the pipe dreams of anybody who happens to be running for office. The anti-libertarians have gone to great extent to minimize disagreement to the point of conspiracies to weed out dissidents.

Steve R
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 24, 2016 12:57 pm

Still, I think Gary Johnston did a commendable job for his role in Team America, World Police.

bh2
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 24, 2016 5:16 pm

[…] the Libertarian principle of “do not hurt people” […]
This is a complete nonsense.
The libertarian principle rests on the Non-Aggression Axiom … the “idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force or fraud, against others.”
Since Johnson is proposing government force (to tax) to compel decisions by others which he believes desirable, it naturally follows that he is not a libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

Bob Boder
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 23, 2016 7:01 am

Libertarianism died 20 years ago.

David
Reply to  Bob Boder
August 23, 2016 8:22 am

More like DOA. It’s done nothing in it’s life span. They couldn’t even get Goldwater elected, but that was probably because he was a Jew.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Bob Boder
August 23, 2016 1:05 pm

I was a Libertarian from the inception of the Party in 1972. Therefore, “David” is talking through his hat, because Goldwater ran in 1964. I was witness on both occasions. And the further crack about Goldwater’s heritage should have been intercepted by the site monitors.

Reply to  Bob Boder
August 23, 2016 8:09 pm

Liberal fascists ate it.

RockyRoad
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 23, 2016 7:06 am

Only an idiot would vote for Gary Johnson.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  RockyRoad
August 23, 2016 8:05 am

He’s got the pothead wing following now that Bernie has indorsed Crooked Hillary.

Reply to  RockyRoad
August 23, 2016 8:10 am

Only an idiot would vote for someone they know is a lying bully with no character or a lying traitor with no core beliefs that sells out their country.
You would have to be an idiot if you think the Ds and Rs have done anything but lie, cheat and steal to protect themselves and their futures.
imo Voting for either of them would be wasting my vote.
Johnson doesn’t lie and he believes in our constitution.
Unlike the current POTUS, Johnson will not ignore our country’s three separate branches of government, he will not write his own laws and he will use his veto power every time congress oversteps their constitutional limits.
Remember, our government is designed to ensure the people’s rights not the government’s control of the people.
When are you going to stand up for a system that puts the people’s rights and freedom first?
nittfagmtcttaotc.

RockyRoad
Reply to  RockyRoad
August 23, 2016 9:54 am

@mikerestin: And yet you support a candidate that aligns himself with the false notion that CO2 causes global warming, which is being pushed extensively by the UN. Yes, it takes an idiot to do that.
But there’s more:
The only thing worse than usurping US government is supporting a primary goal of the UN, which is global control through a carbon tax/fee.
This election isn’t between Ds and Rs–it’s whether we maintain our national identity or become part of a global government, which I guarantee would not recognize your rights as an individual–far from it.
So if you want to even have a government of three branches after this election, beating HRC is absolutely essential, and a vote for Gary Johnson helps her become president–a president that will already be owned by global elites pushing one world government.
The candidate to vote for is the one the globalists hate and are trying to destroy, and that imperfect candidate happens to be Trump.

Reply to  RockyRoad
August 23, 2016 11:13 am

@mikerestin – It would appear from the plethora of ad hominem that you sir are likely more of an Alinskyite Democrat Liberal Leftist than a Libertarian. That could make sense given a vote for the Libertarian candidate appears to hurt the conservative or Republican candidate more than the Democrat Liberal in the majority of cases.
No room for ad hominem here. Go away. Much obliged.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 23, 2016 9:47 am

Right!? How could anyone call themselves a libertarian and believe in Big Government solutions to manufactured problems. I have yet to see a hypothetical cap and trade plan, broad strokes mind you, for what Uncle Sam is going to do with all that newfound wealth that will mitigate climate change. Forget the fact that CC is natural occurring planetary process that they can’t explain.

george e. smith
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 24, 2016 10:14 am

Libertarian and anarchist mean exactly the same thing. Those two words are completely interchangeable.
g

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  george e. smith
August 24, 2016 10:19 am

As a long-time Libertarian, I can say that not all of us subscribe to anarchy–unless, of course, one defines anarchy as limited, rather than no, government. The anarchists have always had some Libertarian advocates, but they are by no means the majority.

notfubar
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 24, 2016 12:32 pm

Fee – a tax by any other name still stinketh. Johnson is not your daddy’s Libertarian.

TRM
Reply to  Justin Sane
August 24, 2016 5:07 pm

Excellent way to put it. No way does a Libertarian put his personal “beliefs” up as justification for a tax.

Leonard Lane
August 22, 2016 11:06 pm

Johnson is indeed a LINO Justin. I believe he is in the race to help elect Clinton.

Reply to  Leonard Lane
August 23, 2016 1:05 am

I think Trumps has that job already. Could be he needs help though, Hillarity is starting to stumble a bit.

Ian H
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 2:16 am

There is nothing wrong with Hillary. She just needs to get a walking frame.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 3:02 am

Literally, ….. “stumble a bit”.
Hillary has a serious “impairing” health issues.

Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 8:17 am

“Ian H August 23, 2016 at 2:16 am
There is nothing wrong with Hillary. She just needs to get a walking frame.”
Except she’s totally anti-American, anti-constitution, a socialist/communist/fascist and a NWO supporter.
She needs a walking frame and a working brain.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 9:38 am

She needs to re-read history. Specifically the histories of Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.
A person who does not learn from history is destined to repeat it.

MarkW
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 11:12 am

It seems that a number of the FBI files on the Vince Foster’s death have disappeared from the National Archive. Has anyone seen Sandy “underpants” Berger?

MarkW
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 11:13 am

BryanA, why do you believe she does not want to repeat history?

Bryan A
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 11:46 am

If anything, history teaches us that people do not want to be ruled over by Dictators, Despots, or Totalitarians
What the Declaration of independence shows us is that trying to reform our government info something resembling Despotism should be immediately dealt with

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Every candidate should refamiliarize themselves with it

Sun Spot
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 1:52 pm

Samuel C Cogar ; and Donald has serious mental and age related issues, I pity your choices but Republicans chose to loose this election , it’s their own fault

PA
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 3:04 pm

Well, if Hillary collapses on stage in a twitching mess during the debates that might be it.

Anne Ominous
August 22, 2016 11:11 pm

Johnson and Weld have been showing almost daily that the Libertarian Party chose the wrong candidates.
Their platform has not been very “Libertarian” at all.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 23, 2016 9:33 am

What platform? Outside of NM, who would recognize him on the street?

TA
Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 23, 2016 11:50 am

The Libertarian candidates are really liberal Republicans.

hanelyp
Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 23, 2016 4:07 pm

The “Libertarian” party is very much in the hands of Libertines.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Anne Ominous
August 23, 2016 4:11 pm

He’s got the cosmo vote all locked up. It’s telling that all his appeals are to bernie bros and is basically telling conservatarians to go johnson themselves.

August 22, 2016 11:19 pm

“scientists” said it .
therefore it must be true.
is that right, gary?
or do you want to take a look under the hood?
it’s a mess.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2827927

Ancient Mariner
August 22, 2016 11:27 pm

He certainly has an impressie athletic record. Pity he doesn’t exercise his brain more.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  Ancient Mariner
August 23, 2016 9:15 am

Although I’m an enthusiastic Johnson/Weld supporter, I don’t agree with their entire platform, especially the plank dealing with climate change. However, it’s likely that he’s in the same boat as is most of the American public. Because of the mass media blackout of contrary data (just like the fact that most people don’t even know he’s running), he probably has no idea of the science that contradicts the global warming/CO2/climate change theory. By the way, I’m trying to send his campaign some helpful links.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Donna K. Becker
August 23, 2016 1:19 pm

I joined the party at its beginning in 1972 and was active up into the 90s, but finally had to move on. By the late 80s, the anarchist wing of the movement had pretty much captured the party leadership posts, which meant that the focus of the party thereafter was to support anything that would impair or eliminate government. As a result, the LP was never “there” on a number of crucial issues, such as the 2nd Amendment. Lots of lip service, but not to raise a finger. Eventually, it became clear to me that the Party did not understand that the crucial issue was Constitutionality (subjecting government to the control of law), and I simply left. It was destined to be a footnote in history, notwithstanding it had some truly sterling people who ran for office.
Now, climate change? It just goes to show how much idiocy can penetrate the top Party leadership. Trust me; there are plenty of technical types in the Party. They should have known better. But they like to pander to the left, because they have cultural objections to the right (atheist prejudice against Christians). For many years (and maybe still), the LP defense policy was basically “roll over and expose your belly, and all will be well.” As a worker in the defense industry, I found this as objectionable as we all find “climate change” today, on the same grounds: absence of rational argument.
I have some history, knew some big people, and had some little fame, but it doesn’t mean anything. Nor does Gary Johnson.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Donna K. Becker
August 23, 2016 4:17 pm

Interesting background, Michael. I’ve noticed that the libertarians seem to only really find their fiscal conservatism when it comes to defense spending. You’ll hear barely a peep out of them on the welfare state. It’s obvious that they’re just trying to starve the defense beast in hopes that that will magically end all these unjust wars. Once that issue is taken off the table it’s all bathrooms and free, i.e. stolen IP.

Richard G
August 22, 2016 11:31 pm

I don’t know why people continue to demonize carbon dioxide when it is necessary for life on this planet and has been shown to have a net benefit at higher concentrations. are they Malthusians?

Reply to  Richard G
August 23, 2016 1:02 am

I think some are Malthusians. The rest are probably just not so bright.

Hlaford
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 1:46 am

As per Hanlon’s razor, when in doubt between stupidity and malice, always pick stupidity. Works 97% of the time.

Jim Berkise
Reply to  Richard G
August 23, 2016 3:11 am

It appears to me that the whole AGW drumbeat began just about the time it became clear that centrally planned economies would never outperform markets. Saving the world from warming became the new “reason” for the old agenda of the left.

Reply to  Richard G
August 23, 2016 3:40 am

The Malthusian option: Food or Ethanol? A Limerick with explanation.
When EPA regulates, they are but slobs;
No thought what effect it will have on our jobs. (1)
You want food? You want fuel?(2)
The one choice is too cruel. (3)
A Malthusian choice, that’s why Mother Earth sobs. (4)
expanding… https://lenbilen.com/2012/02/12/the-malthusian-option-food-or-ethanol-a-limerick-with-explanation/

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  lenbilen
August 23, 2016 9:46 am

Ethanol is not by any means the only source of alternative energy. It was pushed by an agricultural lobby, not by the global warming movement in general.

dp
August 22, 2016 11:35 pm

I propose we meet them half way – Start with carbon tax on self-declared believers, see how that goes, then when success is assured by a downtrend in global warming, hit the rest of us with the same tax. It allows the believers to put their money where their beliefs are and to demonstrate it is on the right track to solve global warming. Win win.

Reply to  dp
August 23, 2016 12:59 am

brilliant.

Hivemind
Reply to  dp
August 23, 2016 6:23 am

That’s a great idea… except for step 2. It would be stupid to tax people that don’t believe in the CAGW religion. Step 2 should, instead, be tax the true believers even more.

Thomas Englert
Reply to  Hivemind
August 23, 2016 4:23 pm

If there is a downtrend in global warming, it won’t be due to step 1.

Lark
Reply to  dp
August 23, 2016 7:06 pm

That would entail spending their own money to benefit others, instead of the converse. I don’t think they know how.

Marcus
August 23, 2016 12:18 am

Renaming a “tax” as a “fee”, is a liberal trick..I thought Libertarians wanted LESS government .

August 23, 2016 1:00 am

Sigh. I’m a libertarian and Johnson was my last and only hope.

gnomish
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 2:19 am

ha ha ha ha ha
now that you’ve run out of options at the quick.trip discount counter of personal decisions what will you do?
submit? bend over? learn to like it?
of course, options of which you are unaware are not options at all- for you.
maybe it’s time to expand the awareness?
if there ever was a free country- what made it so and what are you missing?

Reply to  gnomish
August 23, 2016 3:04 am

I guess if you can’t get a libertarian then your best bet is the least authoritarian of the authoritarians?

MarkW
Reply to  gnomish
August 23, 2016 6:40 am

Is there one?

Michael 2
Reply to  gnomish
August 23, 2016 9:19 am

Gnomish writes: “if there ever was a free country- what made it so”
Acknowledging that “free” is poorly defined; in my lifetime I have experienced the greatest freedom in Iceland. What makes it free is a homogenous culture. Plenty of laws exist; after all, the legislature was hired to make laws so they make plenty. But they are also not closely heeded neither deliberately disobeyed. The simple observation is that a quarter million people, the entire population, has a shared history of about 1100 years and so “law” emanates from the people not the other way round. Law is a reflection of the people and thus not strictly necessary.
Boundaries exist and must exist any time you have people living together; law is a codification or documenting of those boundaries. But if you don’t personally push up against the boundaries you won’t even feel their existence.
As science fiction writer Poul Anderson put it: “Freedom is having a cage larger than you wish to fly in.”
But once you feel the boundary, feel the cage, then you sense that you are no longer free; but in truth, you never were completely free of all boundaries or cages.
A social force greater than law can create a sense of freedom by aligning everyone’s natural sense of right and wrong; aligning personal boundaries. That has historically been a shared religion which is both shaper of culture and shaped by culture.

gnomish
Reply to  gnomish
August 23, 2016 2:03 pm

thnks, michael2, for that reply.
i can totally recreate the landscape of your mind from that.
and i can see the sense of it.
so i won’t quibble over definitions. i got your point.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Bartleby
August 23, 2016 2:47 pm

The Electoral College is a good thing in itself. It is a good attempt at giving individual states and the all the voters of the country a somewhat equal say in the US’s only nationwide election.
But it needs a slight adjustment.
If the candidate for President (or any Federal election) receives less than 50% of the popular vote, then a month later there should be a run off election between the top two vote getters.
Then the top two would have to pay attention to the third party voters to gain their support.
Then a third party vote may not be a wasted vote. Until then, it is.

Johann Wundersamer
August 23, 2016 2:01 am

charismatic Gary Johnson:
“I envy all of you,” he said. “I think it’s the most beautiful state in the country.”
_______________________________________
That’s charming.
_______________________________________
Climate change and a warming world might threaten that.
“I do believe that climate change is occurring. I do believe that it is man-caused,” Johnson said.
To address climate change, Johnson said he believes “that there can be and is a free-market approach to climate change.”
That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.
_______________________________________
That’s Gary Johnson charming people into fees.

mike
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 24, 2016 8:20 am

Many non-libertarian things have been dumped into Libertarian Party politics since 1972.
That’s Gary Johnson charming people into feces.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
August 29, 2016 2:33 am

v’

Peter
August 23, 2016 2:21 am

Tax on carbon? Does that mean each person is taxed based on the carbon content of there body? Or does it mean that food is taxed on the amount of carbon it contains? What about pets – they are made of carbon also, as is what they eat.
I don’t think science is well taught.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Peter
August 23, 2016 5:08 am

Perhaps a tax on fat people wouldn’t be so bad. Oh, sorry let me be more PC…… thin challenged people.

Louis
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 1:07 pm

A fat tax would be discriminatory against taller people, sumo wrestlers, and Eastern cultures like that of traditional China where a chubby person signifies good fortune and wealth. It would also discriminate against me. So yes, it would be bad.
Instead, why don’t we tax people in Florida? If you’re going to buy the global-warming narrative that carbon is bad, then you should also accept that people living in warm climates like Florida are going to be forced to migrate north in a few years. That will put a financial strain on the rest of us. Shouldn’t we tax you guys now to help offset the future costs of helping you when you become climate refugees?

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 3:25 pm

We won’t be moving north. Warmer is better, that’s why we live here.. It is better to tax the people who have not moved to Florida. It would be just like “if you don’t have Obamacare you have to pay a tax”.

Terry Gednalske
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 24, 2016 9:42 am

I’ll be staying in Hawaii until the sea level rise exceeds 800 feet. I don’t expect that any time soon.

August 23, 2016 2:56 am

What a disappointment. Johnson has gone over to the Dark Side. Also supporting TPP.

David in Michigan
Reply to  Rod Martin Jr
August 23, 2016 4:57 am

“Also supporting TPP.”
I believe that would be consistent with Libertarian philosophy. Open borders as well.

jvcstone
Reply to  David in Michigan
August 23, 2016 10:37 am

if TTP was actually about free trade–yes, since it isn’t, but rather gives corporations powers that superseded sovereignty–no. Free trade is what happens on Craig’s list, Ebay, local farmers market etc, not something containing thousands of pages of government/corporation rules, regulations, and penalties. As to the open border question, several articles about that can be found on LRC–a place where honest to goodness libertarians hang out.

August 23, 2016 3:00 am

“That would include a fee — not a tax, he said — placed on carbon. Such a fee would make pollutants bear a market cost.” A fee – not a tax, I think that thin air at high altitudes has zapped your brain. I suppose you think carbon dioxide is a pollutant??? You are no Libertarian, just another “big government” guy.
Obamacare was promoted as a fee, and declared a tax by the supreme court, but that was OK (John Roberts, shame on you).

Tom in Florida
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 23, 2016 5:11 am

Not to get too far off topic but Roberts gave the Republicans in Congress a way to cancel the fee. By declaring it a tax, he also said it was up to the Congress to change tax law not the Supreme Court. Don’t blame Roberts just because the Republicans did nothing with the gift he gave them.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 6:42 am

Would this be the Republicans who don’t have enough votes to over ride an presidential veto?
Interesting way you justify Robert’s attempt to avoid doing his job, by declaring that since he had handed the hot potato off to someone else, he’s ok.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 7:11 am

No Mark, I am saying that Roberts did exactly what a Justice is supposed to do. He ruled but did not make new law. It was up to the Republicans to fix the law if they so desired but apparently they did not desire to do so. It doesn’t matter if they did not have enough votes to override a veto, they needed to make Obama veto it on the public record. I still contend that all, that is ALL, Senators and Congresspeople do not give a crap about anything but staying if office. They all have a sweet ride and do not want to rock the boat.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 11:17 am

Sorry Tom, he re-wrote the law. The law explicitly stated that it was a fee, not a tax. Roberts decided that despite what the law said, he was going to call it a fee.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 7:41 pm

What Roberts actually decided was that Congress has the power under the Constitution to tax. Now because the law in fact would raise revenue and because it is calculated and collected by the IRS as part of the income tax, the Court deemed it a tax and upheld that only Congress has the authority to pass or change a tax law.

Joel Snider
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
August 23, 2016 8:18 am

Uh… no. Declaring it a tax (which was a label only applied when it was convenient and discarded when it wasn’t) means that the entire thing should have been scrapped because the law did not go through the proper procedures of passing a tax – it should have started from scratch, in the House. Roberts TOTALLY shirked his duty.
Gosh, wasn’t he also the deciding vote on Carbon pollution too?

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 23, 2016 4:21 pm

Even worse: If it’s a tax then anti-injunction applies and the SC CAN’T rule on it until the tax is applied. So in order to rule when they did they said anti-injunction did not apply. By definition that means it cannot be a tax. It was one of the most twisted rulings ever.

Frans Franken
August 23, 2016 3:09 am

All suppression of atmospheric CO2 enrichment is a bad idea. The more CO2, the greener the planet.

Pieter Steenekamp
Reply to  Frans Franken
August 23, 2016 3:16 am

Frans, I agree with you and disagree with you. Yes, more CO2 results in a greener planet and that’s good. But, apart from CO2, the fossil fuel industry pollutes (“real” pollutants, not CO2) the atmosphere.
A case in point is the big cities in China where the air pollution, associated with burning of coal, is so bad they sometimes have to almost shut down a city.

JCR
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 7:49 am

However, when the Chinese get richer, they will be able to clean up that pollution, just as the Western industrial countries did.

jvcstone
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 10:40 am

I believe they are already working on that

MarkW
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 11:19 am

Not that old nostrum again.
The reason why Chinese air is so bad is because they chose not to pay for the pollution control equipment that has been available in the west for over 20 years.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Pieter Steenekamp
August 23, 2016 1:25 pm

So, the logic of this “we must control fossil fuel pollution because the Chinese are bad actors,” is on a par with saying “we must eliminate municipal government because Chicago and Detroit are corrupt.” Just become someone is a bad actor doesn’t justify imposing controls on otherwise good actors. “We must put all people in jail because some people commit crimes.”

Michael
August 23, 2016 3:21 am

Should have put quotes around ‘libertarian’ not ‘fee’. The LP is becoming about as libertarian as the liberals are liberal.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Michael
August 23, 2016 1:26 pm

Liberal-tarians?

Lark
Reply to  Michael
August 23, 2016 7:13 pm

I like to distinguish between Libertarians (party members) and libertarians (systematic believers in freedom). This year has just about the lowest overlap ever between them.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Lark
August 24, 2016 2:50 pm

Dear Lark,
Good insight. Within the Party, there was a not-very-miscible mixture of semi-Marxist anarchists, Rothbardian anarchists, traditional fiscal conservatives, constitutionalists, Objectivists/Randians, etc. The major internal split was over the issue of anarchism, and its proponents were distinguished by an “end justifies the means” methodology (“praxis”). That was enough for me to walk carefully around them. Their logic was generally as good as their scruples.
I had a very funny moment in a debate I joined, partnered with Robert Poole, then-Editor of Reason Magazine, against Jeffrey Hummel (now at Univ. Hawaii, I think) and someone else. We were debating how miltiary and foreign policy would be conducted in a government or anarchist context (where the anarchists were anarcho-capitalists, wanting to hire out all government services…including deciding who got shot, but that angle was never brought into the limelight). They were opposed to the position Bob and I were arguing. But I had the wit to point out, when I got to the podium, that military and foreign policy decisions would be according to what Bob and I were arguing, for two simple reasons: (1) If our view prevailed, then naturally persons of our view would form such policy. (2) If their view prevailed, all such matters would be hired out to defense companies…who would be staffed by persons such as ourselves, sharing our views, and our policies would therefore prevail. This created a moment of consternation. Hoist by their own petard, as it were.

afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 3:36 am

JOHNSON ISN’T GOING TO WIN ANYWAY !!!
BESIDES, climate change is largely natural as evidenced by the 30 years cycles of warming/cooling going back to (at least) 1850. PLUS, the atmospheric carbon growth rate has tracked temperature since (at least) the inception of MLO in 1958. Reducing emissions wouldn’t combat climate change even if it was “man-caused”…

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 4:59 am

He’s well aware that he has no chance. The real question is why did the libertarians pick Johnson/Weld?

Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 8:40 am

As far as voting, I don’t want either Trump or Clinton with their lies, half truths and baggage even hanging out in the White House.
Instead, I’ll vote for someone who supports our constitution, freedom and liberty.
Hillary is already all-in for anything that stops fossil fuel use while harming Americans and Trump would change his mind on spending $billions to support renewables whenever he felt like it might help his bottom line or reelection.
Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are up front and honest.
They are both for smaller government and more freedom.
I don’t want Clinton or Trump in my wallet nor do I want them in my bedroom, period.

Reply to  mikerestin
August 23, 2016 3:51 pm

Reading challenged, I see. Gary does want to get into your wallet, to make you pay his carbon “fees.”
Now, I admit he probably won’t be in your bedroom. It’ll be too chilly when you have to turn the thermostat down to 55 in the winter, or too hot when you turn it up to 95 in the summer.
He’ll be busy climbing Mount Denali, anyway. Which is at least cheaper than one trip for Obama – even with the Secret Service having to tag along, he’ll probably only soak the taxpayer (excuse me, “fee payer”) around a quarter mil for each of his vacations.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mikerestin
August 23, 2016 4:26 pm

HAHAHAHAHA. Smaller government in the form of carbon taxes. Smaller government in the form of forced association. Smaller government in the form of “inserting itself into all of our problems.”

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 9:48 am

Mike, if it’s clear that johnson isn’t going to be prez, then doesn’t it make sense to vote for the “least worst” candidate that can actually win?

MarkW
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 11:20 am

It’s an open question as to whether Hillary or Trump are “least worst”. They are both awful, just in different ways.

Eric H
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 1:18 pm

afonz-Depends. I live in Alabama. The state will go overwhelmingly republican so my vote for Johnson isn’t going to effect the electoral votes. Same if I still lived in Washington state, except they are overwhelmingly democrat. Now if I lived in a battleground state I would consider voting for Trump and although he acts like a baffoon he is still better than Clinton. I am voting for Johnson as he is the closest to my world view. I disagree with him on the carbon fee and open borders but he is still more of a Classic Liberal than the other two. I prefer a small unintrusive government, low taxes, low regulation and a balanced budget. The republicans talk a good game but never deliver,

afonzarelli
Reply to  afonzarelli
August 23, 2016 6:34 pm

Valid point, Eric, i live a few doors over in Louisiana and, seeing how it’s a fairly solid red state, i don’t bother voting at all (!) That whole jury duty thing is something i REALLY don’t want to be dealing with…

n.n
August 23, 2016 3:58 am

Libertarian with a capital “L”. A liberal without “benefits” in the far left-far right nexus.
The limited domain of science in both time and space has progressed to liberal extremes. It does, once again, conflate philosophy, fantasy, and faith. People want… no, need to believe.
It seems that scientific mysticism is the secular orthodoxy founded on a pro-choice religion (i.e. selective or arbitrary principles). Their faith is clearly not limited to the fantasy of spontaneous conception, and their religion is not limited to selective or negotiable value. I wonder what else they believe.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  n.n
August 23, 2016 5:14 am

Libertarian and liberal are not synonymous. Libertarian is “liberty from government”. Johnson is just another politician who will sell out to power and money.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 8:50 am

You could check Johnson’s and Weld’s records before you decide to spread your opinions, falsehoods and conjecture.
Both were two term Republican governors in overwhelming Democrat states.
Both reduced spending.
Both support the US Constitution.
Sounds like they’re more non-partisans than sell-outs.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 10:27 am

Yeah, and as soon as they run for a national election they start to pander to who they think will vote for them. That is a sell out in my book.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 11:21 am

Weld has a long history of supporting more regulation and fighting for any form of gun control.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 4:28 pm

NM was spending more after Johnson left than when he started. The state increased 7% p.a. under his administration. Debt was higher during his administration. Yeah, yeah, he vetoed lotsa bills. Yippy. Spending still went up significantly under him. Libertarians talk a good game…

Gamecock
August 23, 2016 4:10 am

Mr. Worrall, your rant on carbon markets is odd. Mr. Johnson supports a tax on carbon; he says nothing of carbon markets.
[???? .mod]

Gamecock
Reply to  Gamecock
August 23, 2016 10:13 am

‘The alternative to a carbon tax is a carbon market, but as the European experience demonstrates, carbon markets lead to massive corruption and inevitable collapse.
The reason is very simple – with a carbon market, unlike a real market, fraud benefits all the market participants.
Fraud benefits the issuers of fake carbon credits – they get to make money for nothing.
Fraud benefits the purchasers of carbon credits – a flood of fake carbon credits keeps prices down.
Fraud benefits market regulators – they get rich turning a blind eye to the fraud.
The only people carbon fraud doesn’t benefit is anyone silly enough to think that market based carbon pricing can make a long term difference to CO2 emissions.’
================================
This has nothing to do with carbon tax. Johnson supports a carbon tax. Then Worrall rants against a carbon market – a different subject. Worrall’s comments are a non sequitur, not related to the post about Johnson.

Neo
August 23, 2016 4:42 am

… a fee — not a tax …
That’s what they said of the cost of not getting your ObamaCare and the SCOTUS said the fee was a tax.

MarkW
Reply to  Neo
August 23, 2016 6:43 am

Interestingly enough, according to the constitution all tax bills must originate in the House. ObamaCare originated in the Senate.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 7:13 am

Yeah, that bird flew out the window long ago. Just another reason to boot them all out, via ballot or with other means.

Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 8:53 am

Not really.
The US Senate gutted an existing bill passed by the House of Representatives and used it for the ACA.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 11:22 am

The fact that such a transparent scam is legally ok is just more evidence of the total corruption of the legal system.

Editor
August 23, 2016 4:44 am

Sigh, the choices are the pothead, the crook and the buffoon. I was leaning pothead, but now I’m leaning stay home.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 5:15 am

If you stay home then do not ever bitch about what you get.

jvcstone
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 10:46 am

Not voting means withdrawing ones support of the system (which is totally broken), Voting for anyone means accepting and supporting the status quo. The system will only change if an overwhelming majority withdraw their support by not voting. As has been attributed to many, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 3:29 pm

No because the outcome is decided by how many actually vote not based on how many eligible voters there are. So not voting doesn’t do anything. If only 50 people voted in Florida and one side received 26 of those votes, all of Florida’s electoral votes would go to that side.

Marcus
Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 5:25 am

..If you stay home..YOU ARE VOTING FOR HILLARY…

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
August 23, 2016 8:18 am

NO, HE ISN’T.

gnomish
Reply to  Marcus
August 23, 2016 6:50 pm

if you vote for hillary you are voting for hillary
if you stay home you are staying home
this is kindergarten simple- try harder.

Phil R
Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 6:29 am

Phil R’s razor:
When in doubt between a pothead, a crook and a buffoon, always pick the buffoon. :>)
If nothing else, it could be yuugely entertaining.

Editor
Reply to  Phil R
August 23, 2016 10:45 am

🙂 It’s a long time until November and we have the debates yet. I hope the pothead is in them, that will be yuugely entertaining.

Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 7:05 am

Vote for the buffoon! At least he says CAGW is a hoax.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Andy May
August 23, 2016 1:34 pm

I have to say that Trump is not a buffoon. He has solid positions on policy and is clear-headed on the primacy of energy as the foundation of our economy. You don’t like his style? Get over it. I am glad he is not like typical polished politicians, who are somewhere between psychopaths and mannequins. Trump is a real person, who builds real things in real places and who hires real workers, who are, by evidence, very loyal to him. I work at (big name company), and our future would be more than 100% improved if we were being run by someone like Trump instead of the visionless cipher that has succeeded our previous visionless cipher.
It is all very well to assume a superiority to Trump by looking down your nose at him, but his actual stature in the world is so great, your own posture tends to the extreme of bending over backward.

MarkW
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
August 23, 2016 1:51 pm

How solid are his positions if he changes them every few weeks?

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
August 23, 2016 4:29 pm

He’s a buffoon.

hanelyp
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
August 23, 2016 4:37 pm

Trump’s positions?
He recognizes that uncontrolled immigration is a problem, even if his solutions are half baked. The Crook, pothead, and I presume the watermellon would all support wide open borders.
He recognizes CAGW as a hoax.
He recognizes that Islam has a terrorism problem.
He recognizes that burdensome taxes are a problem.
Trump may not have the best solutions planned for the ills of the US. But he’d have to go through Congress anyway. And he at least recognizes major problems, unlike his opposition.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Michael J. Dunn
August 24, 2016 2:59 pm

Dear MarkW,
If you want to offer specifics, we might talk, but all this chatter of Trump flip-flopping is a canard. He has been very clear about wanting to renegotiate trade bargains to national advantage, growing the economy, controlling the border (and I like the Wall), limiting Islamic immigration, throwing out the special interests, repealing Obamacare, taking care of our veterans, strengthening our military, having a prudent caution about foreign adventures, and promoting all-out development of our energy industries. Have I left out anything? No matter. None of those things have changed, within the normal allowance of developing a one-sentence position into a full program. I would be willing to bet, in the Secret Casino of Fate, that you don’t know a darn thing about any of his positions, all of which are documented by position papers and statements on his website…or you wouldn’t be making such a vacuous and mistaken objection.
Or should we talk about the aspiring Liar-in-Chief who pimped the State Department for bribes and helped get an Ambassador killed?

JohnKnight
Reply to  Andy May
August 24, 2016 2:25 pm

Not opposing Mr. Clinton is basically admitting you’re ignorant or criminally insane, as far as I’m concerned.

JohnKnight
Reply to  JohnKnight
August 24, 2016 2:26 pm

I meant to write Ms Clinton.

Ryan
August 23, 2016 4:50 am

Another climate religion, religious nut. What is it with human beings and their insistence to fall for these faith based religions? I can see oppressed poor in poor communities or poor countries grasping for gods to help them out in their misery. These so called educated people thought… Either they are over-educated idiots or they are purposely trying to con people with this garbage.

MarkW
Reply to  Ryan
August 23, 2016 6:45 am

I always find it fascinating how some humans insist on using themselves as the measure by which all of humanity must be judged. To your mind, faith based religion makes no sense, so you declare that anyone who believes in such must be a fool.

Michael 2
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 9:26 am

MarkW wrties “some humans insist on using themselves as the measure by which all of humanity must be judged.”
I do not insist on it yet it is so. In what way do you differ?

kramer
August 23, 2016 4:57 am

Anybody who calls a tax a fee shouldn’t be trusted as either an honest politician or a republican or libertarian.
And does Johnson realize that his carbon tax benefits the rich? How so? Because the revenues flowing into the government will result in less need for calls to tax the rich. I’ve read a number of times about how revenues from a carbon tax could be used to pay down the debt, pay for social programs, etc.
Most of the revenues from a carbon tax would be paid by the middle class. Lets not let the collective stupidity that was exploited by the DNC elite to pass obamacare (according to the architect of obamcare, Jonathan Gruber) lead us down another costly and state controlled path to a socialist hell.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  kramer
August 23, 2016 5:20 am

The difference between a fee and a tax is that a fee is paid by those who use something where a tax is SUPPOSED to apply to all. For instance, if you check your cable or phone bill, you will see a bunch of fees. If you do not want to pay the fees, do not use cable or phone. That is why the Obamacare fee was relabeled a tax as it applied to those who did NOT use the system.

kramer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
August 23, 2016 6:20 pm

And in this case, a “fee” on carbon would be paid by all because it would show up in virtually everything we purchased. Using your definition, it’s a tax then.

MarkW
Reply to  kramer
August 23, 2016 6:47 am

The rich already pay over 75% of all income taxes, yet there are some who will always whine that it isn’t enough.
If you want to get any money out of a tax, you have to go after the middle class. That’s always been the case. It’s just that the middle class has the votes necessary to ensure that they don’t have to pay for the welfare they are demanding.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 4:30 pm

^THIS $19TT times.

kramer
Reply to  MarkW
August 23, 2016 6:23 pm

The middle class is demanding welfare? Why and for what?
Makes more sense for the rich to want welfare. For example, how would they get to enjoy their riches if there were riots everywhere? So they push for welfare and make us pay. Screw that, I want them to pay. And I’m a true conservative. Used to be on the side of the rich but not until I realized that they are making us pay for what they want.

Michael 2
Reply to  kramer
August 25, 2016 9:37 am

kramer writes “they are making us pay for what they want.”
There is no “us”. What exactly do you and I have in common?

bobl
August 23, 2016 5:20 am

Australia’s Gillard called it a Price on Carbon (Dioxide) when actually it was one huge electricity and refrigeration tax. We just called it the Carbon Tax, twisty words that were supposed to fool us that her Carbon Price was not the same as the Carbon Tax we were never going to have under a government she led.
Consumate Liar – Calling a tax something else is the mark of someone who is not trustworthy. Over the last 9 years we have had three of the worst PMs ever, Gillard ,Rudd and Turnbull. If it wasn’t for Abbott’s all too brief interlude we’d be even further up the creek than we are now. The Soul of our country is nearly gone, I want it back. I want our freedom to speak back, I want to be able to be non PC, I want the Aussie larrikin back. USA – don’t be fooled by taxes in Price/Fee clothing
Lets hope the Senate keeps them honest this term.

John
August 23, 2016 5:50 am

Johnson just keeps saying things to make himself unelectable. Besides, a tax by any other name is still a tax.

Johnny Cuyana
August 23, 2016 6:04 am

Mr. Worall: definitely, i agree with the sentiment but i would change/re-direct this last statement of yours: “The only people carbon fraud doesn’t benefit is anyone silly enough to think that market based carbon pricing can make a long term difference to CO2 emissions.
my suggestion: any such carbon tax PURPOSELY SCREWS THE CITIZEN/TAXPAYER … because it robs them of their money — by fraudulent means — which they had earned through their works and efforts.
in other words: it further enslaves fraudulently the citizen/taxpayer by taking their earned salaries and thereby reducing their individual freedoms; conversely, further empowering a centralized command and control government. [doncha’ know: here on the plantation, these days, we do “slavery” a little bit different.]
thereby, step by step, piece by piece, we continue on our march toward totalitarianism … and, so it seems, no one is twisting our collective arms.
no siree: this is not our fathers’ socialist-communist party!
ps: madame hillary — johnson ain’t going to win — may we have another?

PaulH
August 23, 2016 6:06 am

I like the way these characters use words. Calling something a “tax” has a rather negative connotation, but a “fee” is slightly less aggressive sounding. Perhaps a carbon “levy” sounds even less negative, at least from the point of view of the the poor schmo who has to pay it. Maybe the next step would be to call it a “contribution” to “fight” “carbon pollution”. Who could be against that?
/snark

JohnWho
August 23, 2016 6:08 am

He thinks he would get more votes going with the “consensus” than he would going against it and he knows better than to use the word “tax”.

Donna K. Becker
Reply to  JohnWho
August 23, 2016 9:23 am

I’ve been thinking the same thing.

August 23, 2016 6:17 am

I had doubts about Johnson before this last atrocity. No more. Instead of just acting in the role of Ross Perot for the Clintons, he now wants to try to be as bad as Hillary Clinton on environmental policy. My doubts about his intelligence are confirmed.

ECB
Reply to  Tom Halla
August 23, 2016 6:32 am

Does this mean that Johnson wants the most left, ie, Bernie’s voters, to come to him. If so, that leaves the minority vote for H Clinton. Not good for her election.

coaldust
August 23, 2016 6:28 am

He’s lost my vote.

Reply to  coaldust
August 23, 2016 9:01 am

You can vote for Trump who will most likely change his mind when it fits him or Clinton who is already pushing to give away tax money and end our freedom.
Johnson is a conservationist not an econut.

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  mikerestin
August 23, 2016 4:31 pm

Libertarians have been whining for decades that conservatives need to earn their vote. Well, they can start trying to earn mine.

Resourceguy
August 23, 2016 6:33 am

It’s now time to require inclusion on the November ballot a place holder for 1) None of the Above and 2) Big Blue computer system, and 3) a short qualifying test with global warming fact checking using satellite and ARGO buoy data.

Jeff Id
August 23, 2016 6:37 am

“The alternative to a carbon tax is a carbon market”
Or we could try NO TAX on something which has in no way been shown to be harmful.
—-
Everyone gets that a tax represses something until it comes to taxing business, then we twist our minds in knots trying to read left-wing economist models which somehow show that taking business (aka the wealthy) money helps businesses do more.
Hmm..

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Id
August 23, 2016 6:49 am

On the whole, CO2 is not just beneficial, but very beneficial.
By the logic used by Johnson, this means it should be subsidized.

Jim Yushchyshyn
Reply to  Jeff Id
August 23, 2016 9:48 am

Shown not to be harmful?

Jeff Id
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 11:17 am

What proof is there that CO2 is harmful. I sure haven’t seen it.

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 11:26 am

Only causes very minor warming, which is not harmful, but in fact beneficial.
Combine this with the fact that more CO2 is good for plants and you get not only “not harmful”, but rather “highly beneficial”.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 1:40 pm

MarkW underplays his point. Without carbon dioxide, this world would be LIFELESS, period. Mars with water. Or Venus without the clouds. It is integral to God’s creation that there might be life.

Reply to  Jim Yushchyshyn
August 23, 2016 2:04 pm

I agree with you guys of course. Its the same old argument, people conflate the fact that warming occurs with proof that there is a problem from that warming. It is so bad that balance of the evidence is not the question, just whether any problem at all exists. If we take it on balance, it looks like the single greatest thing humans have ever done for the environment.
No scientific evidence of an environmental problem whatsoever, just modern soothsayers with chicken bones that have LED lights on them.

August 23, 2016 7:24 am

Having met Johnson ( and some of his climbing buddies who trekked the Tibetan Plateau ) back in 2012 , I find this very distressing . He should know better .
In the LP candidate debates , he acknowledged knowing geologist Harrison Schmitt , one of the last Moon walking astronauts and NM senator , and knowing Schmitt understands what total corrupt BS this demonization of CO2 is .
Johnson has several severe statist brain warps but compared to the outright criminality of the Dems and the untempered egotism of Trump , I not ready to take down my recycled 2012 Gary Johnson Live Free sign from our gate , see https://www.facebook.com/Bob.Armstrong.CoSy , yet .

Marcus
Reply to  Bob Armstrong
August 23, 2016 7:54 am

Bob, you are delusional…Johnson has no chance of winning, but every vote for him is a vote for Hillary…

Reply to  Marcus
August 23, 2016 9:20 am

She and Trump are cut from the same cloth.
Trump just washes his dirty laundry more often.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Marcus
August 23, 2016 9:39 am

Wrong. It’s a half vote for both Hillary and Trump.

MarkW
Reply to  Marcus
August 23, 2016 11:27 am

A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.

Reply to  Marcus
August 24, 2016 6:24 am

I believe it continues to be the case that Johnson+Weld are taking more votes from Hillary than Trump . Certainly a vote for Hillary and the Dems is a vote for outright criminality . I became politically active being disgusted seeing what she did to her employees in the Travel and Telegraph Office : http://cosy.com/views/travlgat.htm .
In any case , I suggest in the unlikely event that anyone gets polled , they respond they are for Johnson+Weld to get over the corrupt 15% threshold the Committee on Presidential Debates has arbitrary set rather than all candidates who have surmounted the Duopoly’s massive hurdles to get on all ballots . The 3rd voice radically changes the dynamics of the conversation : http://cosy.com/Liberty/y2012/OpenLtr2CPD2012.html .

Reply to  Bob Armstrong
August 23, 2016 9:17 am

+100

Frank K.
August 23, 2016 7:35 am

Gary and Bill should just partner with Green Party candidate Jill Stein. They could form a tri-presidency, where each gets to be president for one week, in a three week rotation. They could then disband Congress and the Supreme Court and let everyone “Live Free” on yoga, pot, and organic kale…

MarkW
Reply to  Frank K.
August 23, 2016 11:28 am

Works for me.

RHS
August 23, 2016 8:29 am

I propose the fee shall be a dime a petaton. This way, we can have the fee and ensure it is as useless as not having it, all at the same time!

MarkW
Reply to  RHS
August 23, 2016 11:29 am

The problem is not the tax, but the $100Billion in collection fees.

subtle2
August 23, 2016 9:02 am

Carbon taxes should be called tithes and made voluntary.

TA
Reply to  subtle2
August 24, 2016 4:39 am

That’s funny!

August 23, 2016 9:31 am

global warming
it is not happening
not in Alaska
at any rate
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg

TonyL
Reply to  HenryP
August 23, 2016 10:34 am

What an interesting graph. The blue line purports to be a sine wave, but has straight legs. Mathematically straight. Yet what is graphed is the change in temperature per year. That should be fairly noisy. No noise here.
Where on Earth did you get this graph? I bet the original post this was part of is one of the best nonsense rants to ever hit the internet.

Reply to  TonyL
August 23, 2016 10:51 am

Hi Tony
I did an investigation at the beginning of 2013 and produced this graph myself.
Do you want to know where the data came from?
Looking at the rate of change in K/annum/annum eliminates a lot of error, it does not amplify it!
Clearly the rate of change follows solar activity for the past 100 years or so
http://www.leif.org/research/HenryP-GN.png
especially when you average the SC 19 and 20 which is fair [since there was a double solar pole switch in 1971]
going before 100 years it be comes murky
which has resulted me in becoming a sceptic of any scientific results before 1900.

TonyL
Reply to  TonyL
August 23, 2016 12:00 pm

OK, fair enough.
Rate of change in Solar vs. Temperature.
That is something which is worth a look.
Thanks for the reply.

Bill Powers
August 23, 2016 9:34 am

Well there went my last option for voting. I guess I am just going to have to sit out my first election since eligibility set in.

jvcstone
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2016 10:55 am

I’ll most likely go vote this go round just because of some of the “down ticket” races–county and state offices.
just no vote in the biggie

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  jvcstone
August 23, 2016 4:33 pm

Yup.

MarkW
Reply to  Bill Powers
August 23, 2016 1:53 pm

I would urge to still go out and vote, even if only for local and state contests.

TA
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2016 4:50 am

If you vote Hillary into Office, by not voting in the presidential election, she may just neutralize your local representatives with her extraConstitutional actions. Then where will you be? You will be in the same postion you are in now with *no* representation.
Obama has pretty much neutralized your local representation to date. How effective were they at stopping any of Obama’s agenda? Answer: Completely ineffective.
Hillary will be the same, only worse, because she has decades of experience using the government against her enemies, and she is very good at it, if you hadn’t already noticed. Obama has only had eight years and look at the damage he has done. And you want to take a chance on Hillary? Trump has no history of such corruption or criminality.
You smart guys are going to outsmart yourselves, if you don’t watch out.

AmyHolbrook
August 23, 2016 9:40 am

Let “believers” pay carbon taxes, but don’t make disbelievers the goats and make them pay it. Interesting to see how much money would actually be collected.

August 23, 2016 9:58 am

Disappointing. But, he’s still the only reasonable choice this election. He only has a chance to win if he gets into the debates though. Hillary and Trump are both equally terrible. No way I could vote for either of them.

Reply to  Steele
August 23, 2016 11:09 am

Hillary and Trump equally bad? What is appealing about Hillary? On her climate change policies, she is pandering to the green blob and the rest of the rent-seekers. That alone is enough to vote Trump to keep her out of office, even if one ignores the rest of her policies and personal corruption.

Jeff Id
Reply to  Steele
August 23, 2016 11:19 am

If you can’t parse the pay for play scam which makes watergate look like a bake sale, the equally bad argument ends at the supreme court.

hanelyp
Reply to  Jeff Id
August 23, 2016 4:53 pm

The Supreme Court is ultimately THE biggest issue for the coming election. With a crook in the White House and a solid majority of equally corrupt judges on the Court watching her back, and presuming just enough conspirators remaining in the Senate to block impeachment, it’s Game Over for lawful government and remotely honest elections.

M. J. Wise
August 23, 2016 11:00 am

Any downside to a carbon tax or fee must be weighed against the total elimination of the income tax and payroll taxes which Johnson also proposes, which would be a huge boon for industry. He also has proposed eliminating all federal energy subsidies. That is far, far more than you will ever get from a Trump or a Clinton.
Consider the entire platform – not just hit piece sound bites.

TonyL
Reply to  M. J. Wise
August 23, 2016 12:16 pm

Total elimination of the income tax

“We will put in a modest tax in place of an onerous tax.”
Oh dear, how many times have we heard that one before?
If you are old enough to have ridden around the block on your bicycle, you already know you get stuck with both.
Now, a carbon tax or fee. You are giving the govt. the ability to control energy. That gives govt. a stranglehold, on industry, all business, transportation, food production, everything. Even to the point where govt. decides whether you can keep warm in the winter.
Remember, the powers you grant the govt during one administration get inherited by the next.
Still sound like a good idea?

gnomish
Reply to  TonyL
August 23, 2016 7:07 pm

yeah, really.
http://imgur.com/a/JUwQg

Bruce Cobb
August 23, 2016 12:08 pm

I’ve changed my mind, and probably will vote for Trump after all. I’ll just need an extra-large clothespin.

MarkW
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 23, 2016 1:56 pm

I held my nose and voted for Bush 1, Dole, Bush 2, McCain and Romney.
The Republicans have adopted a strategy that as long as the offer a candidate that isn’t as bad as the Democrat, we have no choice but to vote for them.
So long as we keep voting for the lesser of two evils, that will be the only option we have.

TA
Reply to  MarkW
August 24, 2016 5:18 am

Trump is the only good option you have. Not voting for him won’t change that, and it won’t make Republicans supply you with a better candidate in the future.
The Republican Party will be done if they lose this election. They are already done(the elites), because their supporters now support Trump who is into destroying the [status] quo, not continuing it. It Trump loses, his supporters may form a third party because there is enormous frustration with the Republican elites and their inability/unwillingness to push the conservative agenda.
You have to play the cards you are dealt. There is only one logical choice if you want a better America. And it’s not Hillary. Take the emotion out of your thinking, hold your nose, and vote for Trump.

Michael J. Dunn
Reply to  MarkW
August 25, 2016 1:17 pm

Second to TA: As I like to put it, Trump is making all the right enemies: establishment Republicans, liberal Democrats, and the mainstream media. He draws immense crowds. Hillary has to pay for goon audiences.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
August 23, 2016 3:11 pm

Trump’s not a politician and has never held elected office, so, how do you know he stinks? I mean he can’t be any worse than the POS we’ve had for the last 7+ years and he’s got to be better than what the democraps are offering now!

Zeke
Reply to  Lone Gunman
August 23, 2016 3:56 pm

An added temptation to voting for Donald Trump lies in the fact that he is not the choice of the National Republicans.
We had a majority in the house but Boehner managed to allow the democrats to get the nation into 19 trillion in debt.
Not only that, but if they had had their way, the progressive national Republicans would have nominated Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush!! Jeb Bush is a Common Core/green Republican and he is now donating to the Clinton campaign.
So how shall we punish them? Trump may be just the opportunity we need.
Have a look at his acceptance speech, and if you need to, read the text. If he delivers on lifting energy and tax regulations, and stands for educational freedom, he would be a welcome new-comer to the political process.

August 23, 2016 1:20 pm

Non-condensing ghg such as CO2 have no significant effect on climate. Find out what does at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com (98% match since before 1900).
This might answer Eschenbach’s question at the end of his presentation at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/25/precipitable-water/.
Increasing global average water vapor has a warming effect which is countering the on-going cooling effect of dwindling numbers of sunspots and declining average sea surface temperature (declining temperature phase of the net of ocean cycles).

August 23, 2016 3:06 pm

And lets charge pot smokers DOUBLE! Oh wait, Johnson IS a pot smoker! Typical air head!

Merovign
August 23, 2016 3:42 pm

As someone with a strongly Libertarian background, Johnson and Weld are about as Libertarian as a hair-weaving license.
From religious freedom to taxation and compulsion to guns, they are clearly Northeastern kleptocrats trying to use the LP as a tool to poach Democrat votes.
The LP was in dire straits due to various changes in 2000 and 2001, but it’s pretty much being lowered into the grave now, from an ideological POV.
Mind you, this is not the first time, as “Anarchism” is now communism (and Lysander Spooner tumbles in his grave).

Lark
Reply to  Merovign
August 23, 2016 7:33 pm

I just read an essay on Weld; he got into the race because he despises Trump. And, presumably, the flyover/middle class/Palin/Tea Party/Constitution voters that Trump appeals to.

Zeke
August 23, 2016 4:01 pm

“Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it very, very quickly. We are going to lift the restrictions on the production of American energy. This will produce more than 20 trillion dollars in job creating economic activity over the next four decades.
My opponent on the other hand wants to put the great miners and the great steelworkers of our country, out of work and out of business. That will never happen with Donald J. Trump as president. Our steel workers and our miners are going back to work again.”
At least Trump knows where my purchasing power went. That’s a start!

Tsk Tsk
Reply to  Zeke
August 23, 2016 4:36 pm

Trump doesn’t even know how to put his hairpiece on properly.

Zeke
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 23, 2016 5:15 pm

I tell you what, you and Jeb Bush can go ahead and vote for Clinton’s hair, then. Knock yourselves out.
I am talking about energy,taxes and education here.
And mass migration is a real threat in the EU right now. These are not individual refugees as they are portrayed, but young men from the middle east coming en masse as economic migrants at most. They are not refugees. And Clinton’s state dep’t has been involved in the failed states as well as the policy of increasing Syrian migrants:
“My opponent has called for a radical 550 percent increase in Syrian, think of this, think of this, this is not believable but this is what is happening. A 550 percent increase in Syrian refugees on top of existing massive refugee flows coming into our country already under the leadership of President Obama.
She proposes this despite the fact that there’s no way to screen these refugees in order to find out who they are or where they come from. I only want to admit individuals into our country who will support our values and love our people.”
These were deliberately settled in all 50 states. Maybe some people don’t like NY accents or hair, but he has his numbers in the right place.

TA
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 24, 2016 5:24 am

Well, that comment makes you either seriously uninformed on Trump’s hair, or it makes you a deliberately nasty person.

Zeke
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 24, 2016 6:13 pm

Re: tsk tsk & TA
No, tsk tsk has insightful comments on this thread, and I wish he could be convinced. Obviously he does not base his decisions on mere ad homs about appearances.
Upstream he(?) brought up the welfare checks and that is a huge problem. The number of people collecting welfare in this country has increased greatly under this administration, and I can tell you this is deliberate. The reason I can say that is because the farm bill ties billions in farm subsidies to government food assistance programs in a shocking power grab over agriculture.
At least Donald j Trump has pointed out “Our roads and bridges are falling apart, our airports are Third World condition, and forty-three million Americans are on food stamps.” How did 1 in 8 Americans get on food stamps?! And it appears the feds farm bill prepares the way for more.
Farm bill ref:
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/09/like-hogs-at-the-trough-lobbyists-feast-on-farm-bill-for-subsidies-food-stamps/

TA
Reply to  Tsk Tsk
August 25, 2016 8:37 am

Zeke August 24, 2016 at 6:13 pm wrote:
“Re: tsk tsk & TA,
No, tsk tsk has insightful comments on this thread,”
I agree, tsk tsk does have insightful comments, I just wish tsk tsk would refrain from taking cheap shots at Trump. Hair should not be a consideration in an election, which seemed rather flippant to me, considering the enormous consequences of this election, so I commented.
There are legitimate criticisms to be leveled at Trump, but his hair isn’t one of them, IMO.

August 23, 2016 4:08 pm

Global temperature has risen just over 1 degree since the industrial revolution and on the heels if the little ice age. While most are in agreement that anthropogenic CO2 has been an influence , most do not agree it has been to a significant extent. Certainly there is correlation but that simply doesn’t equal cause and effect .The science simply isn’t there for the claims being brought by political influences. Consensus isn’t science and has no bearing on reality. The climate argument has evolved into a political squabble while hard science has taken a back seat to agenda driven proposals . Data has to be constantly altered and adjusted to validate predetermined results, in order to “fit” the argument. Political science, but not science.

u.k(us)
August 23, 2016 6:58 pm

It is not a market, it is a racket.
Take it from a life-long Chicago resident.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  u.k(us)
August 24, 2016 7:35 am

Brahms 3rd racket?

Resourceguy
Reply to  u.k(us)
August 24, 2016 7:51 am

Chicago eh. Yes, you’re the qualified expert here. I agree.

Not Chicken Little
August 24, 2016 8:30 am

Anyone who thinks CO2 is a pollutant has placed themselves squarely in the “Moron” column.
And using the words “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” interchangeably and demonizing them is not too bright either – you might as well equate “sodium” and “sodium chloride”.

August 24, 2016 1:30 pm

To be fair as I understand it, Gary Johnson was answering a question regarding CO2 control or “carbon pollution” to use the political term for it. Johnson, again as I understand it, said that a Carbon Tax was a preferable quasi-free-market solution to the social cost of CO2 (if any) than a huge regulating totalitarian government aparatus like the EPA. I agree with him up to that point.
Way back in 1980 when I was taking my Oral Exams for my Ph.D. in Mineral Economics, I recognized that a Carbon Tax would be an efficient means of COLLECTING money to offset the social costs to the environment (again, If any), but only if those social costs could be fairly estimated (which is doubtful). Indeed, there are benefits to a rising CO2 (of which agreement will be impossible) and the net cost or benefit will be equally impossible to reach social consensus.
The fatal flaw in the Carbon Tax is that while is a most efficient means of collecting money, that money in the hands of people in government for disbursement for “society’s benefit” will bring out corruption in the form of every human evil. Government is not populated by angles and the results will not be pretty.
The end result will be that the poor will be poorer, the middle-class will be poorer, the rich and powerful be become more rich and powerful, buying the votes of the poor with “revenue neutral” policies.
A carbon tax will simply be our acceptance of carbon-fibber chains stronger than diamond.
(*) carbon-fibber — binding lies about carbon

August 24, 2016 3:24 pm

This was the year for a third party vote that counts. And I can relate in toto with the Libertarian viewpoint.
Unfortunately, after an outburst like Johnson’s on climate change, it looks like he has drunk from the same cup of Kool-Aid as Obama and all the rest.
Who would have ever guessed I could hold my nose long enough to pull the lever for Trump?

Chris Riley
Reply to  John DeFayette
August 24, 2016 9:51 pm

The enemy of your enemy is your friend.

Michael 2
Reply to  Chris Riley
August 25, 2016 9:33 am

The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend; merely useful.

Michael Anderson
August 24, 2016 9:18 pm

Thanks to Jonson we now have a new political acronym: LINO – Libertarian In Name Only.

Chris Riley
August 24, 2016 9:45 pm

The dustbin of history just got a tiny bit heavier.

Avatar941
August 25, 2016 3:15 am

This is one of my big sticking points with Johnson, one of his big “not so Libertarian” positions that he hasn’t articulated well. If I had to choose between him or Clinton “doing something about climat change” though, it would be him in a heartbeat, but he needs to say what he means by a fee, and how he imagines that not being a tax

Michael 2
August 25, 2016 9:35 am

Since libertarians believe in freedom to define “libertarian” it is trivial to co-opt the word and form a Libertarian Party. But a real libertarian party probably could not exist for any length of time.

fred
August 28, 2016 6:14 am

The Feds take 20% of my income. The State takes 6%. of my income and wants 8% sales tax when I buy things. There is already a gasoline tax. My house is taxed. Just how much of a carbon fee is needed to save the planet. Considering that none of the other taxes have stopped me from destroying the planet I would guess that the carbon fee needs to take all the money I have left. However the government supported banking system will gladly give me a 30 year loan at record low interest rates to buy a huge carbon burning house. The government supported banking system will give me $50,000 6 year loan to buy a carbon belching monster truck. Maybe all the government / bank interference in the economy is resulting in inefficient utilization of our resources and a huge excess of carbon emissions. Maybe balancing the government budget through spending cuts would decrease carbon emissions more than a carbon tax.

James Ardmore
August 31, 2016 3:57 pm

Gary Johnson accepts the consensus Science, and the most efficient and effective policy–a carbon tax.

%d bloggers like this: