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.
On topic:)
Fox News this morning, is reporting that President Trump will pull the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement.
TA: Fox now confirms from 2nd source. Good news. : > )
I can’t find a thing written about it yet. Just the report from tv, but John Roberts is a pretty solid reporter and I would be surprised if he got it wrong.
Roberts is reporting at this moment that the decision on pulling out may be made today.
Now they’re waffleing. We shall see.
I don’t know it if is waffeling. Roberts reported that one high White House official cautioned him that the decision hadn’t been made yet, but that official may have been on the “stay” side and have an agenda, or he may have been referring to reports that Trump is consulting with his people to find the best way to withdraw, so that might be the decision that is being referred to.
Now Trump tweets he will be announcing his decision over the next day or two.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/05/31/Reports-Trump-plans-to-withdraw-from-Paris-climate-agreement/4911496233564/?utm_source=fp&utm_campaign=ts&utm_medium=2
Reports: Trump plans to withdraw from Paris climate agreement
“May 31 (UPI) — President Donald Trump plans to withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate change agreement, U.S. official sources familiar with the decision said.
The details on how Trump will withdraw the United States from the accord are not yet clear but Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt is working with a small team to determine whether to initiate a formal withdrawal, which could take three years, or to exit from the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, Axios first reported, citing two sources with direct knowledge of the decision.”
end excerpt
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05/31/trump-expected-to-pull-out-paris-climate-agreement.html
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.
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!
Pop! Goes the Climate Change balloon!
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Whenever I’m asked ‘why’ when it comes to motivation for pushing the AGW scare, four trillion dollars is right up there.
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.
Let’s all live in caves. No global warming then
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.
+1
Lord Stern is an utter pillock. That he is still being listened to after his ruinous prognostications in 2006, beggars belief.
We’re all dead already it seems…