Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Lord Stern, author of the Stern Review (2006), a government report which was used as the basis of UK climate policy, now says we need a four trillion dollar per annum carbon tax to save the world from CO2.
Climate change: $4 trillion carbon tax is needed to save humanity from global warming, say economists
World Bank-backed report says revenue could be used in a number of ways, such as paying out household rebates, alleviating poverty and fostering low-carbon infrastructure
Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent
Tuesday 30 May 2017 14:56 BST
A global carbon tax that would raise trillions of dollars if applied across the world should be introduced if the world is to avoid dangerous climate change, 13 leading economists have said in a new report.
Led by Professor Nicholas Stern, who produced the groundbreaking Stern Report in 2006, and Professor Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize for economics in 2001, the experts suggested a price for a tonne of carbon dioxide of $50 to $100 (£39-78) by 2030.
If implemented all over the world, the top price would raise about $4 trillion – more than the UK’s and Germany’s gross domestic products, but less than Japan’s – although the report suggested poorer countries might charge less.
Currently about 85 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions are not subject to a tax – while the fossil fuel sector receives subsidies of up to an estimated $5.3 trillion. The world’s largest carbon pricing scheme is in the EU, but it only charges about $6.70.
…
The full report, sponsored by the World Bank, is available here.
So much for claims that renewables are “free energy”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bullshit !!!
Call it what it is. It’s a $4 trillion a year wealth redistribution plan and it’s predictable that many billions will disappear before any gets to being used for the stated purposes. Imagine these governments getting used to such a massive revenue stream, and they will always want more—that’s a given.
I’ve always wondered where all that money was supposed to go…
Does Mother Nature bank with Goldman Sachs?
“The full report, sponsored by the World Bank, is available here.”
So the World Bank has published are report saying we need a $4 TRILLION slush fund. And who will be administering the distribution of these funds ??? Oh, wait, it’s the World Bank and its economic hit men.
“And who will be administering the distribution of these funds ??? Oh, wait, it’s the World Bank and its economic hit men.” Global Tax leads to global governance by unelected elites. No Cap and Trade, No Global Tax.
World Bank-backed report says revenue could be used in a number of ways,…
Propping up the EU, bailing out Greece………..
Reason # 142 – Leftists, This is Why you got Trump.
I agree
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
+4,000,000,000,000
Dont Worry – Angela Merkle has got payment sorted already! ;
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
4 X 10^12 / 8 X 10^9 = 500 dollars per person. What’s the problem? I just bought a new driver. It cost me $600 for a stick with a blob of metal on the end.
Well, Trebla, if it is no problem then keep sending me some money.
The problem is you spent YOUR money the way YOU want but you have no right to demand that I spend MY money the way YOU want.
I drive a 1997 Civic in New Orleans. I can’t afford the $300 to fix my windshield wipers at this time. Luckily they are stuck in the on position and I can (with some effort in an uncomfortable position) remove the fuse and only put it in when it is raining harder than a drizzle. It rains a lot here. I could never spend $600 on a single golf club. So, a $500 tax is not nothing.
Global GDP is estimated at less than $70 Trillion annually, Trebla. Roughly 1.3 billion people are living in poverty and can contribute zero. That’s assuming roll-on costs from the squandering of so much human wealth and effort doesn’t do further damage to the economy.
To compare, the total military spending of the planet annually is $1.8 trillion each year. All healthcare spending is roughly $5 trillion annually.
All of this, directed by and to the pockets of people that have openly and repeatedly demonstrated themselves to be corrupt. How could this possibly end well?
Trebla
May 31, 2017 at 3:42 am
How much did you pay for the dishwasher?
Trebla,
Good luck getting all the poor to pay their $500. For many, that’s a huge amount of money. But go ahead an send YOUR money to a bunch of unelected, corrupt, wealthy, collectivists if you wish. Just don’t insist that everybody else do the same. Idiot.
“Bullshit !!!”
More specifically, that $5.3 Trillion “subsidy” is an accounting fraud and has been known about for a long time. Only in the socialist green philosophy could that be allowed to go uncorrected.
As if they needed a reason to raise taxes.
They don’t need a genuine reason, but they do need some kind of rationale to market the increase–e.g. for the children.
If you’re going to lie and steal… go big!
It will be very easy once they go cashless. Just a few keystrokes.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/nicholas-stern-warming-guru-in-hot-water/news-story/849344a2ced21428e05a6d74b4af6822
Oh boy! How much more can I give you to save me? Considering how little has been done so far after $Trillions invested and taxes collected maybe you’re aiming too low. Reconsider and ask again.
Hey , they’ll rebate it and only take a 100 basis point administration fee .
Yes, now its time to fleece the flock with a world mandated tithe. Where on earth is safe?
We should all feel guilty of playing our part in the destruction of the planet paying a tax should help alleviate our guilt (sarc)
This is all it is… indulgences all over again.
Contacted for his response to the Stern estimate, John Cook—who founded and runs the world’s leading anti-skeptic blog for non-scientists, SkepticalScience—said it just provides “more ammunition” for ridiculing those who continue to dispute the science.
“That’s four trillion reasons—trillion with a ‘TR’—right there why so-called skeptics should be producing their long-awaited single paper that refutes the science,” said Dr Cook.
“A Nobel Prize awaits them if they can overturn all of modern science, plus large chunks of radiative physics. The governments of the world would flood them [sic] with gratitude! Because if there’s one thing governments hate, it’s having to collect taxes.”
Governments Hate Taxes…RIIIIGHT
Oh please people do check if comment looks like sarcasm. Or satire, for that matter.
“A Nobel Prize awaits them if they can overturn all of modern science, plus large chunks of radiative physics …’.
========================
That’s a straw man argument, here’s a picture:
http://comps.canstockphoto.com.br/can-stock-photo_csp2639924.jpg
Please put a rope around its neck
Would you have expected anything sensible from Cook? The reputation of Nobel prizes has been damaged in recent years with its politically motivated awards. And we await a government who doesn’t take every opportunity to steal money from its people and waste it on vanity projects.
Brad Keyes is the master of subtle sarcasm…………….
The reputation of the entirety of science and the once prestigious societies and journals – all of it lies face down in the gutter.
“Contacted for his response to the Stern estimate, John Cook”
I started laughing right about here!
If I could get 0.1% of the annual booty, I too would be a full throated supporter of the scheme. Come’on it’s just a mere 1/1000 th, nobody will notice, and you have my utmost support.
/s/ The Elites.
I’d be happy with 400 parts per million.
+ Lots.
Like it!
Auto
The plants will be happier at 500 ppm.
OT, but…
Anyone else see this gem?
Wondering if this is another hoax paper?
It seems, incredibly, maybe not:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448102/quantum-physics-oppressive-marginalized-people?utm_source=social&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=timpf&utm_content=physics
Thanks for the article.
Here is something I just saw:
Pelosium:
A major research institution has just announced the discovery of the
densest element yet known to science. The new element has been named
Pelosium. Pelosium has one neutron, 12 assistant neutrons, 75 deputy
neutrons, and 224 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass
of 311.
These particles are held together by dark forces called morons, which are
surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.
The symbol of Pelosium is PU. pee-yew
Pelosium’s mass actually increases over time, as morons randomly interact with
various elements in the atmosphere and become assistant deputy neutrons
within the Pelosium molecule, leading to the formation of isodopes.
This characteristic of moron-promotion leads some scientists to believe that
Pelosium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in
concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as Critical
Morass.
When catalyzed with money, Pelosium activates CNNadnausium, an element that
radiates orders of magnitude more energy, albeit as incoherent noise,
since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons as Pelosium.
Very clever!
Three gold stars at least.
And the morons are known to act as very destructive free radicals.
Isn’t Pelosium a daughter element of Californium (Cf)?
And I could be wrong, but I think Pelosium is only found in the mineral Proglodite (sometimes spelled Proglodyte).. Please correct me if this is not correct.
Ok, That is just a very slight rewrite of a 1989 article in The Physics Teacher New Chemical Element Discovered by William DeBuvitz, only in his piece the element was tentatively named “administerium” and was a snarky way to address the uselessness of most academic administrations.
It is still funny to this day and is posted on the wall of my office for all administrators to read as they walk by. So far none have figured out the joke is on them. (I am still employed!)
Owen,
I have also seen – probably in the last ten years only, so not original – as ‘Governmentium’ – symbol G$.
Auto
Oh that is so hilarious! Love it!
Follow the links back via https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/32830/
to https://lgbt.arizona.edu/somatechnics-researcher/whitney-stark, a feminist researcher from the University of Utrecht, currently visiting at the Institute for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies at the University of Arizona, It’s no joke! Check out their Research and Initiatives link……….
Arizona U also has a thriving climate institute, co-founded by Jonathan Overpeck and former Oxford Environment Institute’s head, Diana Liverman. You can currently watch a video of Katherine Hayhoe “Talking Climate”.
Hey ho….
Forgot the link: http://www.environment.arizona.edu
You have got to be kidding. What a load of horse biscuits. I just wasted 1.5 minutes reading that drivel, and now I can’t think straight. Where did this author learn to write garbage like this?
At university I’d guess
Everything about reality is oppressive to freeloading, mentally ill narcissists.
They’re mad.
Yes, and I am angry at the greedy b@ur momisugly$+@ur momisuglyrd$.
Not mad, …. just money-hungry, greedy and looking for a new “government trough” to feed out of.
Excerpted from quoted commentary authored by — Ian Johnston Environment Correspondent
And the “subsidies” that the fossil fuel sector received from the government in 2015 are, to wit:
Given the above, it is obvious to me that all Americans who are employed and being paid wages …… are also being “subsidized” by the federal government to the “tune of” about $69.3 trillion per each fiscal year simply because the “money hungry” tax-n’-spend Democrats have not increased the Income Tax Rate to 99% and eliminated all deductions, exemptions, etc.
Everyone is being subsidized for not paying a tax on their personal carbon emissions, particularly exhalations.
I just watched the “Climate Hustle” tonight for 4 bucks on Amazon Prime. Worth a watch and fits the narrative in this post.
https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Hustle/dp/B01DYQ6AJQ
I should add, it was the fullmovie, not a trailer as in that cencored link. I had to search for it on Amazon. Ya think there is some censorship going on there like facebook or twitter or google? Ya Think?
The guy is lucky to be living in these times. There were times when his issues would have been solved with a sharp axe ……
Why give these pikers just $4 Trillion? Why not $40 Trillion? Certainly the Earth is worth $40 Trillion (considering that’s just over half the world’s GDP of $70 Trillion).
1. The world does not need saving from global warming. If it were to happen, humans would simply take advantage of the changes by adapting. Adaptation is one of our strong points, and we have never been more capable of it than right now, thanks in large part to the wonderful things we do with fossil fuels.
2. The science indicates that the warming will be modest, and that natural variability will likely be dominate.
3. The chances that the majority of the collected founds would go to “…paying out household rebates, alleviating poverty and fostering low-carbon infrastructure…”, or any other noble cause are slim. Most of it would go to bureaucracy, opportunistic companies that have bankruptcy as their secret business plan, politicians and money changers.
4. The increase in energy costs will cause much more human suffering and deaths, especially among the poorest people. You know, the people who were supposed to get the 4 trillion dollars, but somehow got overlooked.
5. Oil companies do not get subsidies! They pay taxes. The big oil companies pay more taxes than any other companies. There are tax breaks written into the tax code that oil companies take advantage of. These are tax breaks, not subsidies. There’s a difference. If you have $30 dollars in your wallet and a mugger only takes $20, he is not subsidizing you $10.
6. What mickeldoo said in the first place!
” Oil companies do not get subsidies! They pay taxes. The big oil companies pay more taxes than any other companies. There are tax breaks written into the tax code that oil companies take advantage of. These are tax breaks, not subsidies. There’s a difference.”
The net result is identical, and that is what matters. If my non oil company makes $5B in profits and pays $1.75B in taxes (35% rate) and your oil company pays $1B in taxes on the same profits (effective rate of 20%), then your company has an advantage over mine. It doesn’t matter whether you call it tax breaks or subsidies, the net result is the same.
It does matter, words have set definitions. Definitions have meaning.
If we are all just going to decide to change definitions randomly without actually making a pointed reason as to why, then why even bother speaking to you people whom advocate such ridiculous notions.
You know what you call people whom have no defined spoken or written language?
Savages and barbarians.
You know what Civilized societies do to savages and barbarians? If not I would suggest you start reading up on your history. The people that cry about persecution today were once those that were called savages and barbarians, because they though they didn’t believe in having rules either. They like to use language loosely and rape and pillage.
I only know about the UK, Chris.
But North Sea oil has always paid MORE tax then normal companies.
On top of that, we have fuel duty which brings another £30bn a year into govt coffers.
Chris, there actually is a difference. Suppose my oil company paid a lower tax rate than other businesses, while your solar panel company got a subsidy and then went bankrupt. My company would have fed the public coffers and provided consumers with a product, while your company took from the public coffers and provided no products to consumers. Which company benefited society more?
Even if your solar panel company didn’t go bankrupt there is a difference. I got my company going by convincing people to invest their own money in my company. People tend to be careful with their own money. You got your company going by convincing a politician to invest other peoples money. They were not asked their opinion on the matter. Was that fair? What did you offer that politician in order to get that subsidy?
Finally, look at the results of lower taxes verses subsidies. Lowered taxes result in price drops, because lowering costs allows a company to lower prices. This results in higher sales, bringing in more profits than simply pocketing the initial gain from lower taxes would have. That is why companies in a free market do this. The company grows. The whole economy benefits. Tax revenues increase.
Subsidies are not as simple because there are different types. In general they tend to not result in lower prices because there is no incentive to lower prices. Any economic gain is balanced by cost of the subsidy to taxpayers. No benefit to the general economy.
SR
As Ludwig Von Mises said, a tax break only keeps money within one company. Subsidies give money to your competition.
Chris, perhaps you need a better accountant.
Chris,
Most of the things that were called subsidies above are nebulous things like the “pollution subsidy”. There is no dollar value on air pollution that can be nailed down. That is one of the problems with applying the techniques of the field of epidemiology beyond its natural boundaries – you get this false equivalence going when the techniques are only really good at identifying potential clusters to correlate. Causation (which is often claimed in the relevant studies) is impossible with their correlation techniques because it is almost impossible to eliminate unseen factors. It is very good for informing a researcher of where to look for a problem. The other problem is that it describes an x% to a baseline that may be minuscule to begin with and is all based on linear regression – no threshold analysis which is almost universally wrong.
The other so-called subsidies are the scheduled equipment write-downs that every business has available to them. Oil is a very capital heavy business. Refineries are in constant need of costly maintenance that is written off the tax base. Pipelines are continuously worked on – also written off. All the trucks used to fairy men and equipment to the sites get beat to pieces and written down. In short, they use the tax code the same way EVERY OTHER BUSINESS DOES. They just happen to do extremely large volumes of business. In fact, governments make more money off each gallon of gasoline and diesel fuel sold than the oil companies do.
Chris, except those tax breaks are available to all industries. Let’s compare a few.
Exxon paid $31 billion in income taxes on $78 billion in profit. A 39% tax rate.
Chevron paid $20 billion in 46.3 billion in profit. A 43% tax rate.
To compare, Walmart spent $8 billion on $25.7 billion in profits, a 31% tax rate
Apple paid $13.1 billion on $50.2 billion in profit, $26% tax rate.
Source: 2013 data
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/01/08/companies-paying-the-most-taxes/
What matters is the end result, and we can say definitively that oil companies aren’t massively underpaying their taxes.Note: this is income tax alone. It does not count the oil-specific and gasoline-specific taxes that are paid directly in addition to standard income tax.
The net result is NOT the same. This argument is socialist thinking (obviously), an assumption that anything the government allows you to keep is a “subsidy”. That’s ridiculous.
We COULD tax you 30 percent, but choose to tax you 20 percent, does that mean you get a 10 percent subsidy? No. the “could” part is hypothetical. [Actually, I think you would call it a 33 percent subsidy since the 10 percent is 1/3 of the presumptive rate].
Suppose this “subsidy” did not exist; would it increase government revenue? Not necessarily. Without this tax break the oil companies would probably not drill for oil and government revenue would therefore be ZERO. You cannot just tax a revenue stream without impacting the flow.
Subsidies can be measured. When someone writes “estimated subsidy” it is not being measured, it is imputed, a fantasy, a fiction.
I’m already ‘tapped out’ on taxes so….. shove off!
The bloody damn gall of these blood sucking parasites is beyond the pale….
Who will be the 21st century Martin Luther to lead us away from this corrupt indulgence scam? It’s nothing less than history repeating itself–selling “indulgences” to the masses as the sellers live high on the hog.
My odds are with me..
https://de.scribd.com/document/348761444/Its-the-Ocean-Stupid
“If it exhales, it emits CO2 and must be taxed!” says the tax-and-spend bureaucrat!
“All have exhaled CO2 and fallen short of zero emissions glory!” says the high priest of environmentalism!
The perfect union of the New State and New Religion. Ugh!
Basically a post-modern form of a poll tax.
My ex and I went to buy a house in in Princeton NJ. The first thing that struck me at the sales center was that we were the only Americans there. I also knew that I made more money than nearly 98% of all Americans. From one of the the poorest countries on earth, and the charity people have no qualms about asking for money, the asking price was way above what I was willing or able to pay, this woman from Haiti, says ” oh, that’s cheap “, whips out her checkbook and buys it for cash. 4 Trillion ? It’s a matter of perspective and whose paying for it. Why do I think I’ll be paying for it and she won’t?
Hey, maybe rich people are being imported from poor countries as new immigrants. Nothing wrong with that except it keeps the already ridiculously inflated house prices artificially high. When a working couple with good jobs cannot afford to live in a single family dwelling you know you have a problem.
What’s really happening is that they KNOW that reality is heading into a COOLING trend.
They are ABSOLUTELY DESPERATE to get this funding, even a fraction of it, locked in before the whole planet realises that they have been badly CONNED !!
Gee, I wonder if the Romans thought of a Global Warming tax during their time? I guess they were invading Gallia, Britannia and Germania to get away from the Mediterranean heat.
The Romans had something like a carbon tax but they didn’t use it much.
Until Christianity, most societies used human sacrifice to ensure that the gods would help them. The belief that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) is real and can be prevented is a throwback to those primitive times. link
And taxing sunlight will stop solar eclipses.
The reality is that the climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. There is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. And even if we could stop the Earth’s climate from changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise are part of our current climate and would continue. So we will not get anything for our money.
Eventually fossil fuels will run out so before they run out we must be able to survife on alternate energy sources but we most likely have hundreds of years before the fuel runs out. We do not need a huge special tax to build new sources of energy when it becomes economical to do so.
Curious about the 5.3$T in subsidies for fossil fuels I clicked on the link. Ooooh, now I get it. Those are the externalities estimated by the same economists who want to extort the new tax! There is nothing more than smoke and mirrors in any part of Stern’s racket.
It is said “Ignorance is bliss” but in reality “Ignorance is Stern”
Malfeasance dressed up as ignorance is still as evil.