Major Bank to Governments: Go on, Give us your Carbon Tax Money…

Lindsey Graham Joins Dems In Calling For A Carbon Tax: http://dailycaller.com/2017/09/19/lindsey-graham-joins-dems-in-calling-for-a-carbon-tax/
Lindsey Graham also is the biggest amnesty sh__l among the GOP other than Ryan. And oddly he’s the name on the latest healthcare attempt. For all we know Graham has traded healthcare for Trump’s amnesty or Trump’s agreement to the Paris Accord.
Trump Admin on the Paris climate deal. We’re out. We’re in! No, we’re out! Maybe https://hotair.com/archives/2017/09/17/paris-climate-deal-no-maybe/

I’m not a professional economist, but when I read “While couching his discussion in the even-handedness of official economists, da Silva argued a “shadow price”, incorporating the social cost of carbon (SCC), would be enough to reduce emissions in a perfect world” – – – the only way I could make sense of the statement was to convert the term “shadow price” to “protection money” and the term “social cost of carbon” to “the highest extortion we can get without risking revolt” …

Well, it all makes more sense to me now. I didn’t understand it before, but now I do.
The object is to make electricity too expensive for the average consumer to use it, which leaves consumers (the cash sources) without power when they need it most, as in when a furnace is required to provide heat or a water heater is needed to heat water for washing dishes and bathing.
Since the consumer can’t afford the cost of this electricity, he’s back to oil lamps and boiling water on the stove or in a kettle in the front yard, using an acetylene torch. Fine in the summertime, but in the winter, not so much. At some point, the consumer finally succumbs to the stupidity of government-run utilities and freezes to death if he hasn’t already starved to death from being unable to store food in a fridge because he can’t afford to pay the cost of running one, and that means no cash for the utilities or the government. And he’s not allowed to hunt for food, either, because WILDLIFE!!!
The overall goal, obviously, is to get rid of the consumer, an unnecessary and inconvenient item in this story, because consumers do nothing but generate higher carbon levels when they breathe, and so far, the government can’t tax people for breathing. But my guess is that a breathing tax is on its way.
This idiotic story is brought to you by Aunty Entity and Mad Max.

surely this is how ‘climate investment’ is being provided? (and look how much of it…)
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/20/record-56-billion-green-bonds-issuance-witnessed-h1-2017/
https://cleantechnica.com/2017/09/20/indias-largest-bank-raise-3-billion-green-bonds/
https://www.climatebonds.net/market/explaining-green-bonds

While couching his discussion in the even-handedness of official economists, da Silva argued a “shadow price”, incorporating the social cost of carbon (SCC), would be enough to reduce emissions in a perfect world.
“In particular, in the cost-benefit analysis of investment projects, (we should) to take into account these negative externalities (eg congestion, pollution, toxic emissions),” he said.
The phrase “social cost of carbon” is very misleading and deceptive, perhaps intentionally so. Carbon, as an element, is present in thousands of chemical compounds in all living organisms, including plants and human beings, and is an absolute necessity for life on earth. It cannot be created or destroyed, but only converted from one chemical compound to another.
Whoever coined this phrase should specify it as “social cost of carbon dioxide emitted”, because any “warming” of the atmosphere will be supposedly due to carbon dioxide emitted. But if someone expresses a “social cost of carbon” as X dollars or Euros per tonne, does that mean tonnes of carbon in the fuel, or tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted? Burning 12 tonnes of carbon in a fuel produces 44 tonnes of carbon dioxide, so this confusion could lead to errors of a factor of 3.67.
Then again, what is the actual “cost” of an extra tonne of CO2 in the air? We just read an article from the warm-mongers themselves saying that the climate models have over-estimated the warming, so that whatever cost would be incurred by a degree of warming would have to be spread over more tonnes of CO2 required to produce that warming, thereby lowering the “social cost” per tonne of CO2.
A mass balance on the atmosphere shows that only about 60% of human CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere, according to the rate at which the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa is increasing. Do we calculate the “social cost” per tonne of CO2 emitted, or per tonne which remains in the atmosphere, which is 40% less?
As to the 40% of human CO2 emissions which are re-absorbed into nature, what is the net BENEFIT of those tonnes of CO2 which are re-converted by plants into useful food for animals and people? Wouldn’t that have to be subtracted from from the “social cost” of carbon dioxide emissions?
Even if it could be proved that extra CO2 in the atmosphere did cause warming, that warming could be beneficial in some areas, such as longer growing seasons in temperate regions where the growing season is limited between the last frost in spring and the first frost in autumn. Can we subtract that from the “social cost” of carbon dioxide emissions?
There are many sources of error in trying to estimate a “social cost” of carbon dioxide emissions, some of them due to lack of knowledge, some of them due to deliberately ignoring beneficial effects of carbon dioxide, and exaggerating the risks. A promoter of a “green” energy project would prefer to use a high value, whereas a more realistic value (or zero) would lead to a more accurate cost-benefit analysis for any project, whether based on renewable or fossil fuel energy.
Mr. Da Silva has also conflated carbon dioxide emissions with “pollution” and “toxic emissions”.
Earth to Da Silva: Carbon dioxide is NOT pollution and is NOT toxic. Period. If you want to stop emitting carbon dioxide, stop breathing.
There are legitimate reasons why a certain project could be rejected as emitting too much “pollution” or “toxic emissions”, such as sulfur oxides, nitrous oxides, and particulates, and one could evaluate the “social cost” of these pollutants. Such an analysis would favor natural gas-fired power plants over coal-fired power plants, and the technology to dramatically reduce emission rates of these pollutants has existed for nearly 50 years.
But these decisions should be made by environmental regulators, not bankers.