Claim: Four TRILLION Dollar Per Annum Carbon Tax Required to Save the World

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.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-carbon-tax-4-trillion-save-humanity-global-warming-economists-nicholas-stern-joseph-a7763376.html

The full report, sponsored by the World Bank, is available here.

So much for claims that renewables are “free energy”.

Advertisements

166 thoughts on “Claim: Four TRILLION Dollar Per Annum Carbon Tax Required to Save the World

    • 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………..

      • 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.

      • 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,
        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.

    • It will be very easy once they go cashless. Just a few keystrokes.

  1. 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.

  2. Yes, now its time to fleece the flock with a world mandated tithe. Where on earth is safe?

  3. We should all feel guilty of playing our part in the destruction of the planet paying a tax should help alleviate our guilt (sarc)

  4. 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.”

    • “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:

    • 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.

    • “Contacted for his response to the Stern estimate, John Cook”

      I started laughing right about here!

  5. 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.

    • 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.

      • 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

    • 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….

    • 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?

    • Everything about reality is oppressive to freeloading, mentally ill narcissists.

    • 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

      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.

      And the “subsidies” that the fossil fuel sector received from the government in 2015 are, to wit:

      Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%.
      Read more @ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X16304867

      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 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?

  6. The guy is lucky to be living in these times. There were times when his issues would have been solved with a sharp axe ……

  7. 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).

  8. 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

      • 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.

  9. I’m already ‘tapped out’ on taxes so….. shove off!
    The bloody damn gall of these blood sucking parasites is beyond the pale….

  10. 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.

  11. “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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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 !!

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. That’s a lot of redistributive change, but is it enough to cover the progressive debt that forces recurring catastrophic anthropogenic economic recession?

  18. Wait, what???

    The fossil fuel sector receives subsidies of up to an estimated $5.3 trillion???

    Yeah, I can invent estimated numbers too.

    • Better check the link….

      Ah, here it is:
      “Mispricing from a domestic perspective accounts for the bulk of the subsidy.”

      Riiiiight. If a government doesn’t charge enough in rents and royalties and the like, as greenie thinks they should, then it is counted as a subsidy.

      As opposed to green energy subsidies which are actual cash payouts to green companies. Funded by those insufficient fossil fuel royalties.

  19. Hurrreeeyy. . . hurrreeeyy. . . hurrreeeyy! Step right up to the climate midway again folks! See millions, billions, trillions traded for pigs, pokes, and lies . . . starving polar bears straight from the sands of a sinking arctic . . . snarling snow leopards swept away by melting glaciers . . . gasping Gurkhas in search of water. . . coastal residents on stilts . . . climate grifters juggling semi-intelligent humans . . . grim reapers galloping the streets . . . massive throngs wandering aimlessly with spoon and bowl in search of gruel and something to buy it with . . . You there in the back! Why are you wearing that parka?! Hurrreeeeyy . . . hurrreeeyy folks! . . . see Guinness records for limos and Lear jets parked at annual climate conferences . . . hear tragic tales of carbon destruction from Nobel laureates . . . You there on the right! Can you spare us a few trillion? That’s it! Step right up and empty your pockets on stage . . . our global banking brethren will assist you . . . hurrrreeeyy. . . hurrrreeeeyy. . . hurrrreeeyy . . . folks! Alternate energy is on the way! Please . . . please be patient! . . . a few more dollars will complete the work . . . the sun’s gonna shine . . . the wind’s gonna blow . . . hurrreeeyy . . . hurrre. . .

    (Updated)

  20. This really is the nerve that hurts the skeptic team more than any other isn’t it? The thought that someone or some thieving organisation is going to “tax” you… It distorts your thinking, your perception of the world and leads you down a path that has you denying the reality of the situation.

    If there was no monetary consequence for the scientific reality that increased CO2 is causing warming, that will probably result in harm to the environment and to life on this planet, then this website would not exist.

    Here folks, we have the motivation for the denial, the minimising, the distorting, the twisting of facts, the cherry picking, the head burying. Mention the word tax here and you have the town folk reaching for the pitch forks and the shot guns. No word sends a chill down the pine more than the “T” word. Just saying.

    [????? .mod]

    • Simon

      Here folks, we have the motivation for the denial, the minimising, the distorting, the twisting of facts, the cherry picking, the head burying. Mention the word tax here and you have the town folk reaching for the pitch forks and the shot guns. No word sends a chill down the pine more than the “T” word. Just saying.

      Rather,
      Here folks, we have the motivation for the denial, the minimising, the distorting, the twisting of facts, the cherry picking, the head burying, the exaggerations, the propaganda, the screaming and ranting. Mention the word tax “freedom” or “growth” there and you have the town folk socialists and thieves and communists reaching for the pitch forks and the shot guns. No word sends a chill down the pine spine of eco-illogists more than the “freedom” word. Except growth, better lives, and increased comfort for billions.

      • Simon

        Mmm….. freedom doesn’t have to mean freedom to shit on our neighbour.

        No. Economic freedom, and a moral culture (compared to a socialist’s deadly, immoral cultural of instant gratification of the elites and slavery of the masses) means MY freedom and MY ABILITY to build and operate and run the sewage treatment systems that permit me to drink pure clean water in my own house and process the sewage so MY NEIGHBORS DOWNSTREAM CAN drink pure clean water in their own houses and process the sewage so THEIR NEIGHBORS DOWNSTREAM CAN drink pure clean water in their own houses and process the sewage so so THEIR NEIGHBORS DOWNSTREAM CAN drink pure clean water in their own houses and process the sewage so the clean water goes into a cleaner environment.

        In your socialist Russian, Chinese, Venezuelan, Congo, Angola, and (etc) areas, the rich do shit on their neighbors. And the solar cell factories do dump unprocessed chemical wastes in their neighbors fields and drinking water. And the wind turbine plants do beat the slaves in 16 hour days of labor and no care. Europe? A little better. Because socialist Europe is using the systems capitalism built and financed.

      • RACookPE1978
        Apart from some of your personal assumptions about my politics (which are mostly wrong), I don’t disagree with a lot of what you have written. I’m absolutely for freedom of people to explore ways to be prosperous. Some may even call me a wealthy man. Can I say I have done that all myself by making good choices and hard work. But I fail to see what that has to do with my point that this site is fuelled by the fear of being taxed.

      • Simon, I can’t speak for Anthony, but you are nearly right as far as I am concerned.

        If global-warmers weren’t trying to use the half-baked “science” as leverage to gain control over the lives of others, then I for one would be quite happy to let them get on with spouting their drivel ad infinitum.

        That wouldn’t make them right, of course, but the global-warmers were widely ignored for years before they gained any political traction. Along with many people, I have better things to do with my life than point out the errors of global-warmers. I certainly don’t apologise for saying they ought to be ignored a lot more. When the subject returns to being an obscure academic backwater, then the need for a site like WUWT will certainly be less.

      • this site is fuelled by the fear of being taxed

        It’s more fuelled by a refusal to allow rent-seekers using manipulation and fear tactics to con citizens into accepting yet more government control (and conveniently, money, status and power for the rent-seekers).

      • “this site is fuelled by the fear of being taxed”

        Actually, let me quote Michael Crichton, “It’s an invitation to totalitarianism”.

    • “Here folks, we have the motivation for the denial, the minimising, the distorting, the twisting of facts, the cherry picking, the head burying.”

      Imagine that . . ; )

    • ‘… the scientific reality that increased CO2 is causing warming ….’.
      ==============================
      CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all other things being equal would cause ~1C for every doubling in concentration; to get to the 3C that the IPCC speculates by 2100 the concentration would have to reach ~ 3200 ppm or eight times the current concentration in theory.
      That’s ‘the science’ as I understand it.
      There is no way of identifying or isolating the causes of the warming since the LIA.
      Practically, trying to limit the use of fossil fuels is futile and potentially socially disastrous, so-called ‘renewables’ (wind and solar) are useless.
      Is it even seriously plausible that the ‘renewables’ can possibly substitute for the rest, excluding nuclear?:

    • Simon May 30, 2017 at 10:43 pm
      If there was no monetary consequence for the scientific reality that increased CO2 is causing warming, that will probably result in harm to the environment and to life on this planet, then this website would not exist.
      ===============================================
      Simon, you have made multiple assumptions in this one sentence:
      1.That increased CO2 is causing warming that will probably result in harm…-Neither the IPCC, nor anyone, has yet to show this to be fact. Why should carbon emitters be charged if carbon emissions do no harm? I imagine you would object to being ticketed for reckless endangerment and fined $500.00 for driving 25 MPH in a 25 MPH zone – that is, committing no foul.
      2. If there was no monetary consequence…- You assume skeptics are unwilling to pay any environmental mitigation fees. Have you seen anyone here griping about sewage treatment fees? You sound like you think I throw my garbage over the fence into my neighbor’s yard rather than pay for garbage pick up.
      3. If there was no monetary consequence…-implicit in this phrase is the assumption that a couple of trillion $ is a minuscule fee. Even if it was, skeptics object to paying any tax that will not accomplish the claimed purpose. Do you know of any evidence that reducing carbon emissions will put the climate back to the supposed perfection of 1850? 1880? Any year?

      SR

    • What is your evidence that our perceptions have been distorted Simon? To date the main impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the climate is the Earth has measurably greened – the Earth is now a more benign place for life than a few decades ago.

      Predictions of disaster are the product of deeply flawed computer models.

      Four Trillion dollars is a lot of money – it could do a lot of good, simply by being left in the pockets of the people who earned it.

      • Eric,

        Hard to believe but $4 trillion is a decrease of $2 trillion from the $6 trillion/year “investment” the World Bank (and UN and IMF) declared was needed back in 2015 for the next 15 years. Clearly, the World Bank has recognized some significant potential efficiencies in the intervening two years.

        Har, har.

    • So they are going to move to embargo and sanction the US for not going along with their climate madness. And of course Soros, convicted financial criminal and uber rich manipulator, is behind it. It is long past time for that truly evil ancient monster to receive justice.

    • Simon, “reality” has nothing to do with a belief that $4 trillion per year is going to “fix” the climate. You are so deluded you think that money can control the climate. You can’t even accept the facts that Stern has run a transparently corrupt scam to justify impoverishment if the world. The point that brings together people to be skeptical is that people like you are out of your minds and in your delusional state think that you can suspend rational thinking when the topic is climate.

      • You are so deluded you think that money can control the climate

        And worse, he apparently also thinks “private” sector companies managed and funded by government would function efficiently and effectively. There’s no way these companies would turn into phoney job creation entities, cash slush pits, targets for fr*audsters, etc.

    • Hooray for Simon declaring the obvious. Yes, you are absolutely correct, if there was not 4 trillion dollars at stake few people would care about your hobby. But there is and so I do (care about your hobby).

      As to whether this website would exist; how can you be so smug and sure? It would likely still have Willis E’s sailing adventures, discussion of ENSO, things like that of interest to a meteorologist.

  21. Eric Worrall:

    You say

    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.

    Stern has a ‘track record’ that indicates the credibility which should be afforded to his ‘work, and an understanding of his new assertions is helped by knowledge of the origin and nature of the Stern Review.

    On 21 June 2005 the UK Parliaments’ House of Lord’s Select Committee on Economic Affairs published its Report of its assessment of the economic implications of anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW). That Report can be read from here and its ‘Conclusions and Recommendations” can be read here.

    That Select Committee Report rejected the then UK government’s energy and energy taxation policies. Importantly, it concluded

    149. Whatever the validity of temperature projections, the science of measuring impacts remains speculative. Many of the adverse effects of warming can be offset by adaptation and we believe that the economic and social returns from investing in adaptation should be properly weighed against the cost of mitigation (para 27).

    And

    157. The issue of adaptation verses mitigation is clearly one of balance. Most adaptation expenditures would be local, while mitigation requires action on a global scale. Few would suggest doing nothing by way of mitigation, and few would suggest no adaptation expenditures at all. But the policy literature seems to us to be overly focussed on mitigation. We therefore urge the Government to ensure that greater efforts are made to understand the relative costs and benefits of adaptation compared to those of mitigation (para 47).

    In effect, this was a rejection of the government’s policies of subsidising ‘renewables’ and taxing fossil fuel usage in attempt to promote ‘decarbonistation’.

    A government is required to respond to a Select Committee Report but is not required to adopt recommendations of a Select Committee. The then UK government of Tony Blair decided to respond to the Report of the Lord’s Committee on Economic Affairs by commissioning Stern to assess the maximum possible costs of putative AGW. This Stern did, and his assessment was further biased by adoption of silly depreciation assumptions.

    Simply, the Stern Review was commissioned to be – and was – a grossly biased report that deliberately exaggerated the economic risks of AGW and which the UK Government could cite (i.e. hide behind) whenever there was mention of the Report from the Lord’s Select Committee on Economic Affairs.

    Thus the Stern Review fulfilled its purpose despite its methods repeatedly being shredded in the economic literature.

    Richard

  22. If you give the accreditation near the start of the article, we can tell straight away that we don’t need to read it if it’s from the Grauniad or Independent because they just feed out the same nonsense over and over again.

  23. May I quote former V-P Joe Biden.
    No,not that quote,” Is this a joke?”
    I was thinking of his response to President Obama, ” This is a big F***ing Deal”.
    This story should set combatting climate change back a few decades.
    But of course it won’t be on the evening news.

  24. The whole Stern Report was dodgy from the start.
    No problems though – a bit of Quantitative Easing will do the trick!
    That won’t cost anyone anything of course Oh except maybe a couple of decades of stagnation or stagflation,

  25. USD 4 trillion over 7 billion is about $600 for every person on this planet, to be spent every year. As one of the stated aims is ‘poverty alleviation’, it probably means that less than 20% of the world will need to come up with the goods and hand it over to ‘administrators’ who will distribute a small portion of this amongst the ‘poor’, the rest going on ‘administrative expenses’. Just another socialist agenda, doomed for failure

  26. Both Stiglitz and Stern are previous Chief Economists at the World Bank, which, whilst it pretends otherwise, is a UN body.

    Joe Stiglitz, Columbia University, Socialist International:
    https://usefulstooges.com/2015/10/20/joe-stiglitz-soros-point-man/

    Nick Stern, London School of Economics:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3863462/Exposed-university-helped-secure-9million-money-passing-rivals-research-bankroll-climate-change-agenda.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523726/Web-green-politicians-tycoons-power-brokers-help-benefit-billions-raised-bills.html#ixzz2nV84KSiQ

    Nick Stern: Carbon Trading Consultant
    http://sppiblog.org/news/a-nest-of-carbon-vipers

    “United Socialist Nations” – http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/un-progress-governance-via-climate-change:

    “Joseph Stiglitz said (January 17th 2011) that he thinks any global agreement fighting climate change will involve trade sanctions for those who refuse to sign up to a global deal to reduce CO2 emissions.
    This is the idea of the moment, because both Lord Stern and German economist Ottmar Edenhofer, have proposed the same thing.

    In November 2010, Stern said that countries that were taking strong action on emissions, could in the future move against US exports, if the US failed to impose restrictions on CO2 emissions.

    Edenhofer, Deputy Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, wrote a paper with colleagues in 2009 about the effects of tariffs in gaining consensus on global warming.

    “High Level Climate Finance”
    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/science-papers/originals/high-level-climate-finance

    George Soros – Jan. 15 2010 (Bloomberg)
    “A U.S. law to curb carbon emissions would spur billions of dollars of spending on green-energy projects in developing countries, billionaire George Soros said.

    “If you had the legislation in the United States you would have a market for carbon emissions and for offsetting credits provided to clean-energy projects in the developing world”, Soros said at a conference yesterday in New York. “Right now you don’t even have that. The United States is the laggard.”

    “Without a cap on carbon dioxide emissions that puts a penalty on pollution, low-carbon investments won’t be profitable”, Soros, founder of $25 billion hedge-fund firm Soros Fund Management LLC, said at the Investor Summit on Climate Risk at the United Nations.”

    George Soros is in Brussels today, meeting with the EU Commissioners for Migration and Borders, Humanitarian Aid and Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs.

    I wonder why?

    • So they are going to move to embargo and sanction the US for not going along with their climate madness. And of course Soros, convicted financial criminal and uber rich manipulator, is behind it. It is long past time for that truly evil ancient monster to receive justice.

    • Why would they want to start a world war with the world’s largest super power?

      That embargo would lead to the destruction of probably 3/4 of the world’s economy in very short order! Though after all the smoldering was done, carbon emissions would be practically nonexistent.

  27. Why would an economist like Stern have any confidence in climate models when he must know that the models of his own field of presumed expertise are crap? Or perhaps he doesn’t know that either.

  28. A few commenters have queried the $5 trillion in fossil fuel subsidies.

    This is what the paper linked to by Eric actually says:

    This paper estimates fossil fuel subsidies and the economic and environmental benefits from reforming them, focusing mostly on a broad notion of subsidies arising when consumer prices are below supply costs plus environmental costs and general consumption taxes.

    Estimated subsidies are $4.9 trillion worldwide in 2013 and $5.3 trillion in 2015 (6.5% of global GDP in both years). Undercharging for global warming accounts for 22% of the subsidy in 2013, air pollution 46%, broader vehicle externalities 13%, supply costs 11%, and general consumer taxes 8%. China was the biggest subsidizer in 2013 ($1.8 trillion), followed by the United States ($0.6 trillion), and Russia, the European Union, and India (each with about $0.3 trillion). Eliminating subsidies would have reduced global carbon emissions in 2013 by 21% and fossil fuel air pollution deaths 55%, while raising revenue of 4%, and social welfare by 2.2%, of global GDP.

    In other words:

    1) Most of the $5 trillion is not subsidy at all.
    2) Most comes from China

    The idea that western taxpayers are shelling out trillions to Big Oil is ludicrous

    • Those “environmental externalities” are the crack-cocaine of ‘green-economists’. Rather like the aerosol-forcing so beloved of climate modellers, it is something which is unknown, probably unknowable, yet allows the dishonest to produce any result they want from their shoddy calculations.

    • Fossil fuel subsidies = all the money that isn’t yet extracted by governments from private sector ‘fossil fuel’ companies.

  29. ” Moreover, there are second-order impacts, including the freeing of public resources for alternative uses, and positive macroeconomic impacts (such as growth and higher employment) associated with climate-related investments” (Page 16 of the report). I guess if you take $4 billion from someone you will have some resources for doing other things. These folks are living in an alternative universe.

  30. I’ve scanned to the end. The whole report is about taking from the rich and giving to the poor – nothing else. How wonderful it must be to get paid to write reports about spending other people’s money and confirming your virtue at the same time.

  31. This is great. The Left is out to extort even more money in their usual deceitful way then go out and build windmills which they’ll use to disperse the ashes of all the money they’re burning to keep warm and jet around the world. The justification will be that the money is beneficial since the ash it produces will block the Sun’s rays by reflecting them back into space and thus save the Planet from the knuckle scraping scum they extort.
    Perfect.

  32. I am reminded of the final chapters in The Lord of The Rings: The Hobbits return home to The Shire, only to find it overun with gangs of bullying thugs called “gatherers and sharers” who do a lot more gathering than they do sharing.

  33. Stern should be stripped of his title. The group that wrote this should be, if we lived in rational times, the butt of many jokes.
    But we live in insane times where “leaders” would rather worry about the weather than the health and safety of their people. “Climate change” is a transparently corrupt money grab. We are living in an Austin Powers movie. It is long past time to stop the climate madness.

    • We are living in an Austin Powers movie

      But the ransom isn’t a measly ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

  34. The lies they tell are truly astounding. Here’s just one beaut: “climate policies, if well designed and implemented, are consistent with growth, development, and poverty reduction”. Laughably false. The exact opposite is true. Attacking fossil fuels strikes at the heart of the economic engine of Western nations. Think Great Recession of ’08 was bad? Their “solution” to a non-problem would be way worse. And advancing and poor countries would also suffer. China would make out like a bandit though.

  35. Their only problem is that CO2 does Not cause global warming. The trillions of dollars they’re stealing from the average folks will do absolutely nothing to “save the world”.

    • CO2 does Not cause global warming

      Here we go again. Yes, some people here do say so. I’m not convinced there is no uncertainty on how much.

  36. Sadly, Stern is a hooker paid for by Jeremy Grantham. Jeremy honestly means well, but he does not know anything about physics, weather, climate, biology, or a lot of other such things. One day, for laughs, I would like to see an analysis of what happens when it is shown they are dead wrong and they have misallocated tons of money for the wrong things as the global temperatures drop significantly.

    • Stern is the only star that Trump will soon kick in the ass. Look and wait! The face of Merkel on the G7 summit and the obvious distance to Trump speak for themselves in our climate chancellor of “PIK” (Potsdam-
      Institut für Klimafolgenforschung ) case. Soon there will be something for skeptics to celebrate: the all-encompassing doctrine of the world around the anthropogenic guilt of climate change becomes a mardi gras funeral. Lets spend for the trumpeter and drummer at this funeral.

  37. If you’re going to go in go large. This is a commendable double-down just in time for Trump withdrawing the US from the absurd Paris thing. What a bunch of grasping snakes these people are.

  38. On topic:)

    Fox News this morning, is reporting that President Trump will pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement.

  39. Give them the tax with the proviso that if they don’t save the world within 2 years they are all to be executed.
    See how many sign up for that.

  40. About 20 minutes ago:
    “Trump to Pull out of Paris Agreement”
    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/31/trump-paris-climate-change-agreement-238974
    “Since then [does it matter when?] climate scientists say, the problem has grown only more dire, with precious few years left for nations to act if they want to avoid the droughts, floods, famines, mass migrations and worsening storms that a changing climate would bring.”
    Yeah, right. Rave on, loonies.
    Out with the champaign. Here’s to Don The Magnificent and modern history’s glorious moment!

      • Yeah, he ( the balloon) does not make loud noises when he bursts. And again the investors will turn to other profitable investment forms for their money. Too bad, the attempt was nice and almost it would have worked with sucking the global society with state aid.

  41. 4 Trillion?!? Isn’t there a single professional con artist among them? There’s a difference between the big con and a desperation Hail Mary by the losing team.

    \How could they not know that throwing around numbers like that is guaranteed to raise uncomfortable questions?

  42. Hurry in and you get a 10 percent discount if you act today. This is backed up with an extreme marketing rush campaign with dire warnings at every marketing contact point with the huddled gullible masses. Of the course the marketing contracts come standard with message management components too.

  43. Even worse than wasting $4T by failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate might be failing to realize what actually does. The still-rising water vapor is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone and has increased about 8% since 1960. This increases the risk of catastrophe from precipitation related flooding.

  44. The cost of capital can be reduced by classical fiscal and monetary policies, better investment
    climates and rule of law, or specific de-risking instruments such as guarantees, thereby reducing
    the carbon price needed to make some technology competitive.

    Counting on the “rule of law” is a fools errand.

  45. “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.”
    DR? Cook Ive never heard of a PHD in cartooning.

  46. Whenever I’m asked ‘why’ when it comes to motivation for pushing the AGW scare, four trillion dollars is right up there.

  47. The line “Mispricing from a domestic perspective accounts for the bulk of the subsidy.” from the paper “How Large Are Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies?” (linked through the phrase ‘up to an estimated $5.3 trillion’) caught my attention.
    ‘Mispricing’ implies a value judgement on what the market value of a commodity should be, in someone’s opinion. Mispricing can be readily corrected by removing restraints on the market imposed by regulatory agencies and by monopolies.
    ‘Subsidies ‘ imply actual money handed from a government to a producer. Money handed to ‘entrepreneurs’ of ‘alternative energy’ by a government may be called ‘subsidies, although ‘graft’ is a more apt term.

  48. How does “alleviating poverty” save humanity from global warming? When people are no longer poor, they want what everyone else has, which includes cars, air conditioning, and leisure travel. How does that reduce carbon emissions?

    Maybe their real plan is to make everyone poor by taxing them into the poor house. That could reduce emissions by turning the world into North Korea where only government elites like them have any wealth at all. Only they could afford conveniences like electricity. I have a feeling government elites would welcome such a plan. Now all they have to do is convince the rest of us that enormously high taxes are necessary to save the planet.

  49. Lord Stern is an utter pillock. That he is still being listened to after his ruinous prognostications in 2006, beggars belief.

Comments are closed.