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.
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.
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
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”.
I’ve been thinking the same thing.
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.
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.
He’s lost my vote.
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.
Libertarians have been whining for decades that conservatives need to earn their vote. Well, they can start trying to earn mine.
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.
“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..
On the whole, CO2 is not just beneficial, but very beneficial.
By the logic used by Johnson, this means it should be subsidized.
Shown not to be harmful?
What proof is there that CO2 is harmful. I sure haven’t seen it.
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”.
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.
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.
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 .
Bob, you are delusional…Johnson has no chance of winning, but every vote for him is a vote for Hillary…
She and Trump are cut from the same cloth.
Trump just washes his dirty laundry more often.
Wrong. It’s a half vote for both Hillary and Trump.
A vote for Trump is a vote for Hillary.
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 .
+100
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…
Works for me.
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!
The problem is not the tax, but the $100Billion in collection fees.
Carbon taxes should be called tithes and made voluntary.
That’s funny!
global warming
it is not happening
not in Alaska
at any rate
http://oi60.tinypic.com/2d7ja79.jpg
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.
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.
OK, fair enough.
Rate of change in Solar vs. Temperature.
That is something which is worth a look.
Thanks for the reply.
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.
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
Yup.
I would urge to still go out and vote, even if only for local and state contests.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
yeah, really.
http://imgur.com/a/JUwQg
I’ve changed my mind, and probably will vote for Trump after all. I’ll just need an extra-large clothespin.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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).
And lets charge pot smokers DOUBLE! Oh wait, Johnson IS a pot smoker! Typical air head!
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).
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.
“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!
Trump doesn’t even know how to put his hairpiece on properly.
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.
Well, that comment makes you either seriously uninformed on Trump’s hair, or it makes you a deliberately nasty person.
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/
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.
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.
It is not a market, it is a racket.
Take it from a life-long Chicago resident.
Brahms 3rd racket?
Chicago eh. Yes, you’re the qualified expert here. I agree.
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”.
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
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?
The enemy of your enemy is your friend.
The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend; merely useful.