Guest essay by Eric Worrall
According to Dana, the wrath of Gaea will strike down Trump voters unless Republican leaders embrace a Carbon Tax.
Global warming will depress economic growth in Trump country
Dana Nuccitelli
Mon 7 May 2018 20.00 AEST
It’s global warming that will hurt the economy in red states, not a carbon tax.
A working paper recently published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond concludes that global warming could significantly slow economic growth in the US.
Specifically, rising summertime temperatures in the hottest states will curb economic growth. And the states with the hottest summertime temperatures are all located in the South: Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Arizona. All of these states voted for Donald Trump in 2016.
…
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise, who represents Louisiana (the second-hottest state), recently introduced a new anti-carbon tax House Resolution. Scalise introduced similar Resolutions in 2013 with 155 co-sponsors (154 Republicans and 1 Democrat) and in 2015 with 82 co-sponsors (all Republicans). The latest version currently only has one co-sponsor, but more will undoubtedly sign on. All three versions of the Resolution include text claiming, “a carbon tax will lead to less economic growth.”
As the economics research shows, failing to curb global warming will certainly lead to less economic growth. Climate policies could hamper economic growth, but legislation can be crafted to address that concern.
…
In short, if Trump, Scalise, and the rest of the Republican Party want to prevent slowed economic growth in red states, they should be trying to craft an optimal carbon tax, not blindly rejecting the idea outright.
The abstract of the study;
Temperature and Growth: A Panel Analysis of the United States
Riccardo Colacito, Bridget Hoffmann, Toan Phan
We document that seasonal temperatures have significant and systematic effects on the U.S. economy, both at the aggregate level and across a wide cross-section of economic sectors. This effect is particularly strong for the summer: a 1oF increase in the average summer temperature is associated with a reduction in the annual growth rate of state-level output of 0.15 to 0.25 percentage points. We combine our estimates with projected increases in seasonal temperatures and find that rising temperatures could reduce U.S. economic growth by up to one-third over the next century.
The study seems to be attempting to infer the impact of climate shifts by studying the impact of temperature anomalies on productivity. In my opinion this is a dubious inference. People who are used to higher temperatures do not suffer the same productivity declines as people who might be less used to such temperatures when they experience abnormally warm weather. Warm states like California and Texas are not at the bottom of US productivity or income bands, which suggests other factors which contribute to the prosperity of different states may be more important than their Summer temperature.
The study authors attempt to address this issue in section 3.4 Stability of the effects through time, but admit that they cannot draw statistically reliable conclusions about people’s ability to adapt to warmer temperatures post 1990 in fall (i.e. when people are back at work).
… We re-run the regression specified in equation (4) but delay the beginning of the sample by one year at a time. We repeat this exercise until the sample starts in 1990; past this year, the sample size becomes very small, thus compromising the power of our estimation. The results, reported in figure 3 show that the summer coefficient remains negative and statistically significant at the 10% level as the sample shrinks; the point- estimate for the summer effect is −0.154 in the full sample and −0.246 in the post-1990 sample. However, the fall coefficient is no longer statistically significant in the post-1990 sample; the point-estimate for the fall effect is 0.102 in the full sample and 0.031 (and indistinguishable from zero) in the post-1990 sample. This finding is consistent with the results of our robustness checks (section 5.3): the summer effect is very robust, but the fall effect is not. …
Read more: Same link as above, page 17
The study author’s exploration of mechanisms by which the warmer temperatures have their alleged long term negative impact on productivity includes gems like the following;
… Our results are in line with other findings in the literature. For example, Cachon et al. (2012) document that heat and snow significantly affect output and productivity in automobile plants. The occurrence of six or more days with temperatures above 90 degrees Farenheit reduces the weekly production of U.S. automobile manufacturing plants by an average of 8 percent. Given that automobile manufacturing largely takes place indoors, the authors argue that this finding suggests there are limitations of air conditioning; it is possible that there are important areas in the production process, such as loading and unloading areas, that are difficult to cool or warm. Bloesch and Gourio (2015) also document that cold weather negatively affects production in various industries. We will return to this discussion in the industry analysis below. …
Read more: Same link as above, page 20
Even if we accept the premise of the study, climate science is far from certain about the extent of future warming; even the IPCC admits climate sensitivity could plausibly be as low as 1C / doubling of CO2. 1C / doubling would produce maybe half a degree of extra warming if we burned all known remaining fossil fuel reserves.
… Estimates of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) based on multiple and partly independent lines of evidence from observed climate change indicate that there is high confidence that ECS is extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C. These assessments are consistent with the overall assessment in Chapter 12, where the inclusion of additional lines of evidence increases confidence in the assessed likely range for ECS. …
Read more: Page 871 WG1 AR5 Chapter 10
The study seems to ignore the qualitative impact of technology advances on productivity, even advances which are obviously in the pipeline. Study authors suggest that some outdoor activities such as agriculture and assembly lines are difficult to air-condition, but its more than obvious even today that robots are completely transforming outdoor work. My trash these days is collected by an operator in an air-conditioned truck who picks up trashcans with a robot arm; the days of groups of men following trucks, picking up trashcans by hand, are long gone.
Predicting economic conditions at the end of the century in terms of today’s society is absurd. By the end of the century our descendants will enjoy technologies and productivity advantages we have no idea will exist. Even if temperatures do rise uncomfortably, it is very unlikely farmers 80 years from now will simply put up with any problems, instead of trying to address them.
Update (EW): Clarified that the statistical insignificance of the post 1990 impact of temperature on productivity applies to fall temperatures rather than Summer temperatures
Once again, these idiots reveal that it’s more about politics and religion than science.
NAggie, by science do you mean that Dana Nut thinks hothouses put CO2 into their atmosphere to minimize growing? Dana Nut isn’t smart enough to understand the enhanced growing environment created inside a hothouse? Maybe his problem is mental?
The chances of our making it more 80 years without a major collapse of the financial system should be considered before assuming “all else remains equal” and doing worthless extrapolations on a chaotic and non linear climate system which we do not understand.
The private debt bubble crisis was fixed by turning it into a national debt ( bond market ) bubble, via QE. They did not fix the problem they just increased it by a few orders of magnitude.
When that bubble bursts there will be no one to pick up the pieces.
“Dana Nut”
Please be respectful and get the fellow’s name right. It’s Dana NuttyNellie.
Greg
Agreed. The financial system, unconstrained by an international framework and common currency, is doomed to a very early ‘retirement’. Banks are more powerful than whole countries, even groups of countries. That is untenable. I will be surprised if it lasts five years from now.
Separately, the secret banking offshore is unsustainable, even if it were vaguely moral, which it isn’t. In future currencies will be gold, silver and energy.
And once again we see that it’s fine for the cult to conflate weather and climate when it fits their agenda. I’ll just leave these here:
http://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/labour_productivity_real_wages_us.png
https://img.purch.com/w/660/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5saXZlc2NpZW5jZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzAwMS8xNDMvb3JpZ2luYWwvMDcwMTA5XzIwMDZfdGVtcHNfMDIuanBn
Maybe lots to do with politics but certainlyy nothing to do with religion.
You would think it would affect poor inner city neighborhoods more…
….but then that would be racist
One thing occurs to me – what is the productivity coefficient of increases in excessive regulation? Have they taken into account that productivity fluctuates with demand, and demand fluctuates inversely to price increases due to increased cost of production? The years during which they gauge production against temperature “increases” are also years during which regulatory burdens increased.
I really don’t want to read boring fiction today, so if anyone has read the whole paper and know whether regulatory burden increase over time was factored in, I’m marginally interested.
The problem is academics in ivory towers. They’re too good to come down and see how the rest of us live. They have no clue about real living and have never had to work in the real world. After all, they’re living off our tax dollars, love their elitist stratum, and they hate anyone and everyone who doesn’t agree with their world view.
I’m sure workers not showing up because it’s beach weather won’t have any effect on productivity.
Does anyone recall that a significant amount of the projected increase in temperatures is warmer nighttime temps? How does a higher night low temperature affect productivity?
Of course the production slowdown must be due to heat and poorly designed A/C systems instead of grid load factor and potential required load curtailment on the hottest days.
Since carbon dioxide almost entirely warms nights,
rather than days, according to the greenhouse theory,
it would have little effect on daytime temperatures.
Slightly warmer nights would have no effect on the beach!
In addition, actual warming in the US since 1975 has been mainly
in the winter and spring — not in the summer and fall,
which I can’t explain, but that trend may apply to other nations too.
The leftist idiots could just as easily could argue that cooling would cause a decrease in productivity. Indeed, that’s exactly what they would be doing if it were the 1970s and they were on their man-made global cooling kick. This is politicized garbage.
Flashback: John Holdren in 1971: ‘New ice age’ likely http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/01/08/flashback-john-holdren-in-1971-new-ice-age-likely/
On cooling decreasing productivity – I was working as an apprentice on the hangar floor in the bitter UK winter of 62-63. Thermal underwear and sweater under my overalls – but I couldn’t wear gloves. I would guess that over those few weeks my productivity dropped by about 80-90%! (And you can’t heat or air-condition an aircraft hangar!)
It also ignores the BIG ELEPHANT in the room. China China has no intention of backing away from coal. They are financing coal plants all over the world because China has lots of coal to sell. Not only have they NOT promised to reduce emissions by 2030, they wont even let any inspectors into the country to even measure their CO2 production. The latest climate talks broke down over this and more. Incredibly China wants the West to pay them CO2 bribe money that the undeveloped countries were promised by Obama and Europe. .
Dana should want the economy in red states to go bad so that the voters will switch their votes to the lefty carbon taxers to bring back their prosperity. — As usual, the left has a poor grasp of anything that involves numbers.
Reminds me of this gem from 2007:
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2007/122407Lindorff.html
“Say what you will about the looming catastrophe facing the world as the pace of global heating and polar melting accelerates. There is a silver lining. Look at a map of the US. The area that will by completely inundated by the rising ocean—and not in a century but in the lifetime of my two cats—are the American southeast, including the most populated area of Texas, almost all of Florida, most of Louisiana, and half of Alabama and Mississippi, as well as goodly portions of eastern Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina…” etc.
Hope his cats are doing okay.
The portions of Texas and Florida that are most likely to be flooded, don’t vote for Republicans anyway.
Assuming his cats are still alive, they are now at least 11 years old. Being generous, they could live another 6-7 years, possibly a bit more. That darned sea level had better hurry the hell up!
And that’s assuming they were newborn kittens at the time he made those idiotic remarks. Most likely they are adult cats them and are either already dead or will be in the next few years, so those rising water have a lot of work to do in a very short period of time.
These are people who are shown where to plug in numbers into a spreadsheet and then pronounce themselves programmers and analysts. They’re also given the numbers to plug in and assume they’re correct.
“If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.”
– Pierre Gallois
Mind you, putting real calculations into a computer is likely to make the ignorant more receptive of your calculations, over a handwritten page. Even though it;s the same figures and the same result! I’ve used this to convince salespeople that the aircraft configuration they were selling wasn’t viable. They would believe the computer, but not me.
So growth rates decline over summer when people take leave. And if its a nice summer, the decline is greater. How unexpected.
Why does “robust” in AGW papers mean comparing against other obscure measures or data subsets when to be truly reliable they should get out of their offices, into the community and look closely at the greatest specific area of decline to find the actual causes.
+1, Tim. I always look for consideration of confounding factors in any analysis.
More junk science. Get a regression equation from somewhere and then manipulate it until it gives the result you want. Bah!
It will either get hotter, or colder. Everything about hotter will be bad. Everything about colder will be good.
Which is why people vacation on the sunny beaches of Northern Alaska.
Dana the crazed chipmonk lives.
It has been so long since he shared his great wisdom with us mere mortals that I figured Gaea had called him on down.
Why bother reporting on Nutzy Nuccitelli, he is pure vapourware.
Even at the most entertaining days of Cook and Nuts he was wrong,spectacularly wrong and just plain nuts.
Nothing has changed.
That is why it is reported in the equally nutty Grauniad.
Reported! No its worse than that. They have basically handed control of the environmental section to him and his pay master. Hence why he spouts endless BS there
I don’t mind that they handed control of the environmental section to him and his Australian doomsday cult. All views should have a platform.
I do mind that they also handed control of the moderation of the environmental section to him and his ilk. They know they can’t defend their ridiculous articles so they refuse to give alternative views a platform.
I pretty much dismiss out of hand as agit-prop. ANYTHING printed in the NYT or Guardian these days. They make the National Enquirier look good.
M Courtney
The unfortunate effect of this is that ONLY the alternative view of the false catastrophe is presented as gospel. What is prevented from publication is Truth.
“I pretty much dismiss out of hand as agit-prop.”
Agit-poop is more like it.
Goldrider how very dare you. That is a very insulting comparison, you should apologize immediately …. to the National Enquirer.
The only unusual weather we have had in Texas recently was a brief cold spell last winter that killed marginally adapted plants. Otherwise, it has been fairly mild (for this part of Texas).
So ….Drill Bit should see a Drill Dr ?
He could surely stand to be sharper …
They stumbled onto one truthful statement:
They spent all their effort trying to obfuscate what is obvious to anyone who understands economic incentives in the economy. This study reeks of self delusion and the fear of public exposure.
The climate refuses to comply with their agenda, and no amount of taxation will remedy that situation.
Here is an update on the carbon tax experiment in BC. It is costly but ineffective.
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/carbon-tax-hypocrisy-bc-for-example/
Costly but ineffective, what’s a bureaucrat not to like.
Canada is seeing a reduction in investment because of increased regulation and carbon taxes.
This is a good point: Glo-bull warming decreases economic growth, so we must implement a carbon tax to reduce economic growth even more. Ahhh, the ultimate tax is to tax the air we breathe.
The “solution” to all the world’s problems somehow always turns out to be the same: more power and resources in politicians’ hands and less in the hands of individuals.
Slower economic growth means lower inflation. Lower inflation means less federal reserve action in curbing economic growth (lower interest rates). Therefore, given monetary policy, modest warming will not/ can not curb economic growth. However, high energy prices can curb economic growth. (and no amount of compensatory action by the fed can help that)…
In the years leading up to the iranian revolution in 1979, inflation was still very high from the fallout of opec and its oil embargo. Oil prices were still high and the inflation rate was nearly 10%. However, real wages flourished under liberal federal reserve policy. When the iranian revolution hit in january 1979, liberal policy was still in place (low interest rates) to spur economic growth. After the revolution, the inflation rate grew to over 10% along with the sky rocketing energy prices. Immediately real wages began to fall, but, more importantly, the economy stalled even before the implementation of conservative monetary policy by president carter before year’s end. So even with a boost from the federal reserve high energy prices were able to slow, even halt economic growth. (quite a cautionary tale)…
Slower economic growth MAY mean lower inflation.. or higher.
On the other hand, lower energy availability (or higher price) is sure to lower growth.
I must say, he’s got blue balls.
(Maybe that’s why he’s out of whack.)
Is that Nuccitelli or Nuticcelli?
Nutella
Vegamite
The leftist criminals want a carbon because that’s how they plan to fill their pockets. With stolen money.
Specifically, rising summertime temperatures in the hottest states will curb economic growth.
Wait. What? Rising temps will only curb economic growth? So there’s not catastrophe after all?
Good to know.
In my recent article here on the slight 18 year cooling trend in the UK I also cited an article by Mueller.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/04/the-rise-and-fall-of-central-england-temperatures-help-needed-to-find-missing-data/
In it he reflects that large parts of America are also cooling as can be seen in figure 4.
I don’t pretend to know America as well as the locals but isn’t that cooling happening in the very states that is being cited as those that are warming?
tony
Even though that is true, people are propagandized to believe the opposite.
Oklahoma had one of the cooler Aprils on record this year.
It looks like things are going to heat up though with a stationary front across the northern third of the nation. That lets things heat up south of the front.
The cool April was unusual, but the May heat is not.
What will cost Republicans votes in those Red States is not less productivity because of hot weather, it will be creating a new tax (carbon tax) that takes money out of their pockets whether it is hot or cold outside.
It’s ridiculous to blame Red State heat on CAGW. The real causes are high pressure systems, especially stalled high pressure systems. Then it really gets hot. Just like in the past.
It’s been warming up in SE Oklahoma but most days in May so far have had moderate cloud cover and appreciable breezes. Keep in the shade and it’s actually pleasant out. My electric bill will be happy that I’ve been able to get away with open windows and a fan so far.
In this part of the globe, Great Britain, it is cold weather that disrupts the economy since everything comes to a standstill in heavy snow.
I read that 48k brits died from the cold this past winter. Dead people don’t produce much of anything.
Yes, and since any warming is going to be at night and predominantly in higher latitudes, it will increase economic growth on balance.
That’s even before we consider the benefits to agricultural productivity from higher available atmospheric CO2.
And, Susan, you know that in London – not on the Yorkshire Moors or on Dartmoor – ‘heavy snow’ is anything over two [2] inches.
Especially at “Rush Hour Chaos”!
And that is if it is the ‘Right Type’ of snow.
The wrong type of snow brings railways to a shuddering halt anywhere within eighty miles or more – unless the rails are operated by SNCF!
Auto
They had snow in France a few days ago. Not in the Alps, that is.
Most unusual. Didn’t happen in decades.
We will have 300K today. Or at least 298K. I’m enjoying inside, no need for A/C yet. They say this is a once for a century event. Well, probably the once-in-a-century cold went to France and you gave us the warm air. Thanks. As long as we don’t need to pay for it.
There is a great deal of hot air between Correlation and Causation.
trigger warning:
The average blue voter that matters, can install solar panels and a Tesla wall on their McMansion. And they can easily commute to the office in their Tesla.
The average red voter needs reliable power when it is either too warm or too cold. In the less dense populated areas, a short trip to the grocery store is one hour at 75 mph.
I believe THAT is why the founding fathers of the United States made it a Republic.
PS. The majority of the blue voters will end up sitting in the dark when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. What do you think the “smart meter” was invented for?
to meter smartness? I say, If you have a smart meter, you’re not.
One rule of Fascism: Create a crisis to put more power to the fereral government.
I think this proves in some way that fascism is a leftist policy.
“It’s global warming that will hurt the economy in red states, not a carbon tax.”
Is the reason it won’t hurt the Dem states because the economy in those states is already tanked? (apart from vagina-suit manufacture of course :D)
“A working paper recently published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond concludes that global warming could significantly slow economic growth in the US”
What? Worse than 8 years of Obama did? At least the USA now HAS an economy to be affected by stuff. 😀 And people have jobs they can slow down on if it’s too hot…
Am I mis-remembering history? I recall that, while temperatures were increasing rapidly from 1983 through 2000, the U.S. economy was growing at a scorching 3-5% clip for most of these two decades (slight recession at the end of the Bush I administration). But starting in 2000, right around the time that the temperatures stopped rising (where the climate scientists infamously referred to the period as the “pause” only to later say “what pause?”) the economy started slowing significantly to between -3% to 2% from the dot-com bust all the way through the Obama administration,
So where are these guys getting their data that warming temperatures are negatively correlated with growth? It seems to me that since they are using data going all the way back to the 1950s, that most of the effect they observed must result from prior to the time that CO2-induced warming ostensibly kicked in.
North America is big. If global warming makes certain regions inhospitable, people will move. Canada, which is sparsely settled, will become more hospitable and people will move there. As an example we have the migration which cushioned the effects of the Great Depression. link
I’ll wait until all those who said they were going to Canada if Trump got elected make their move.
I’m still waiting for all those people who said they would leave the US if Reagan won, to leave.
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/05/indiana-heatwave-of-1936/
Oh well
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/05/12/dana-nuccitelli-support-a-carbon-tax-or-climate-will-punish-trump-voters/
For a carbon tax to reduce global emissions it must be applied globally. The US now has less than 20% of global emissions. That share has been falling for decades and will continue to fall as most countries increase their emissions.
Prof Richard Tol estimated that to be effective, such a tax would need to start at $210/tCO2 in 2020, and be increased by 4-6% a year forever. Any other sort of measure to reduce emissions will be economically less efficient.
I know of no country that has successfully implemented such a tax. In Britain a tax escalator was dropped on gasoline after a few years.
As a carbon tax would cause harms – including increasing inequalities and slowing growth – without including countries like Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China, Brazil, India etc. etc. it will not work in the objective of reducing emissions. But the alarmists are not making any attempt to persuade them. What Dana Nuccitelli is proposing, therefore, is a measure that is both harmful and logically cannot work to alleviate a prospective adverse state of affairs for which there is no robust evidence. How would most people view somebody who tried to peddle medicine based on similar criteria?
Yes, this is quite right. And this complete disconnection between what DN and the like claim to believe, and the measures they propose, is why I have come to the conclusion they don’t believe any of it.
If they really believed that there was a planetary global warming problem, they would be anxious to reduce emissions as quickly and effectively as possible. They would focus on real reductions in tons by the big emitters. Like, for instance, China. They would want China to get down from about 10 billion tons a year to something under 3 billion, and fairly fast, as part of a global program which might see the US go from about 5 billion to about 1 and the UK as a for instance go from 450 million to about 100.
But they do not in fact advocate anything like this. They don’t advocate the wholesale changes in living and working and travelling that it would require. They won’t address the real life problem of the auto industry, and the associated living and working and shopping patterns.
Instead, all they advocate is large reductions by countries that amount to no more than one third of the total global emissions. And then, even within that, they refuse to advocate the measures that it would take to deliver the reductions they claim to want.
For instance, in the UK, the goals of the Climate Change Act can only be delivered by the closure of the auto industry and the abolition of the highway system. Do any of the greens advocate it? Of course not.
So I conclude that the aim is solely to use the climate issue as an organizing tool, to make demands which they do not want to see granted. The object is not the planet at all. The object is to make changes to their own countries and global warming is a convenient excuse to demand them and to organize around them.
Its a political movement, it has nothing to do with science or concerns about global warming. If GW vanishes from view, they will find another, but the demand for de-industrialization of the West will remain, to be justified by other means.
It is the Alinsky playbook, though one doubts many have even heard of Alinsky. Pick something that cannot be granted, demand it with increasing ferocity, and use the inability to get it as the justification for endless accusations, demonstrations, demands. And at all costs avoid demanding things that are, however draconian, possible and necessary means to what you claim to want.
The last thing you want to do is solve the supposed problem. Then you would have to do all the work of finding and organizing around another one!
+97
I have over the past three years looked at the data for emissions in a number of different ways, to get some perspective on the problem. One of the earlier attempts was in January 2015 – “Global Emissions Reductions Targets for COP21 Paris 2015”
When the policy for reducing global emissions to was adopted in the Rio Declaration of 1992 the pattern of emissions was very different from today. The initial target was to maintain emissions at 1990 levels.
The chart below shows the emissions per capita in tCO2 against population in billions.
Quite clearly, a substantial cut in global emissions can be achieved by the rich countries taking on all the burden. The developing countries can join in later.
Forecasting ahead to 2020 for both emissions and population, this is what I believe the picture will look like.
The picture has changed dramatically. Most the change is what has actually happened, rather than my forecasts. Population has increased by 2.4 billion or 45% and emissions by over 80%. Global average emissions per capita have increased from 4.1 to 5.2t/CO2 per capita. Due to the population increase, to return global emissions to 1990 levels would mean reducing average emissions per capita to 2.85t/CO2. Nearly all of the emissions increase per capita has occurred in nations where per capita emissions were below the global average in 1990. In the meantime, the timescale of emissions targets keeps reducing. Even in 1990, it was clear that reducing global emissions would involve stopping developing countries from increasing their emissions in a very short space of time. But none of the experts in 1990 would have predicted that China, the world’s most populous country would have over two decades of near 10% annual economic growth, nor that their emissions would overtake those of the United States. What has happened in China was unprecedented. The alarmists are not being very inclusive in their policy proposals.
Manicbeancounter and michel, you are both so right.
It is no coincidence that there is strong opposition to anything that would actually eliminate the supposed “problem”. If they really believed their agitprop, they would embrace nuclear power and regard fracking as a bridge through lower carbon to no carbon. Instead the push hopelessly inadequate “solutions” such as intermittent wind and solar that require much bigger impacts on land use and wildlife, while opposing any use of nuclear and trying to stop fracking.
I wonder if the tax collectors benefit in any way from a new source of tax revenue? Nah, crazy talk!
Manic,
Instead of Per Capita totals (both China and India have vast numbers of both under and unenergized populations that skew their per capita figures. A truer comparison is one of total annual Gt production
This might be a better representation
Source: Data from the Global Carbon Project, Global Carbon Atlas. Graph by Carbon Brief.
USA…. 5312 MtCO2 in 2016
China.10151 MtCO2 in 2016
China is clearly the largest producer since 2006 when their total output of CO2 exceeded that of the U.S.
Bryan A
There are different ways to look at the data, an all will tell a different story. My very rough graphs show the total emissions by area. Per capita emissions I find useful as it allows for population. It also reminds us that future increases in emissions will come from the poorer nations. India will soon account for more emissions growth than China, whilst later in the century first other SE Asia countries (Pakistan, Bangladesh, Vietnam etc) will account for a large part of global emissions growth, then the combined impact of 50+ African nations will be important.
Whichever way you look at the data, Calfornia and New York targeting US oil companies and penalizing consumers in their own States will do virtually nothing to change the global picture.
We have reached a 99.9997% consensus agreement
The real issue is that water vapor ‘feedback’ to increased heat is not positive causing more heating it is negative so cooling – as Willis has repeatedly shown. Hence, the entire logic of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis causing a runaway catastrophic warming is incorrect.
Also see this at Tallbloke’s Talkshop:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2018/05/12/alan-carlin-both-sides-ignore-the-major-finding-of-recent-climate-research/
Meanwhile back in the real world,summertime temperatures in the Southeast are much lower nowadays than in the 1920s to 1950s:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/regional/time-series/104/tmax/3/8/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
Paul Homewood – 2:21 … summertime temperatures in the Southeast are much lower nowadays than in the 1920s to 1950s
Here’s what that looks like:
http://oi67.tinypic.com/10er3ps.jpg
Most of that blue area has been on the decline since the 19th century.
Interesting map.
There’s also the curiosity that Miami has never recorded a 100F temperature while Denver has had a streak of five days in a row with 100F+ temperatures.
Thomas Homer – 3:19 am
Interesting statistic (-:
I am always amazed how air temperatures know exactly where state borders are.
Tom in Florida – I am always amazed how air temperatures know exactly where state borders are.
First chuckle of the day (-:
+1 Steve Case
Contrived circular reasoning and arm waving….
Warmists rely on fallacies to build their “angels dancing on pinhead” scenarios.
Every bit of the money the Fed, IMF, EU crntral bank, etc. spends on studies like this is money being diverted from useful work.
That a parasitic fear monger like Nucciteli uses a study like this to justify his magical thinking is not surprising.
The only reason anyone voluntarily pays a tax is in expectation of a greater return. Paying a tax to have your garbage picked up is cheaper than hauling it yourself. Since the so called benefits of locals paying a carbon tax would be distributed world wide, the local return would be their fraction of the global benefit. Zilch to none. On a larger scale, this is why no one country will damage itself to benefit the rest. China demanding cash for cooperation is just tit for tat. This is why all climate negotiations must and will fail the more specific they become.
Dana Nut,, Michael Mann, Seb Hensbeth (Bloomberg Finance Renewables) and what was the British guy who wrote/still writes for the Guardian in Oz all co-ordinated /conspired together to drop climate change and renewable propaganda into the media.There are several more that others will name, that in another time would have been hoisted high by the populace for they have done.
Nutticelli has been around for a long time, spewing his global warming nonsense. This is from 2013:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/05/the-self-induced-implosion-of-dana-nuccitelli/#comment-1493151
[excerpt]
There are lots of Nutticelli’s out there – wild people who believe in wild weather – inciters of the Warmist Brown Shirts.
Over a decade ago (circa 2002), I wrote an article in the National Post, saying that Canada should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
I soon received an angry, threatening email from someone who held me personally responsible for the flooding of the Prague.
I replied:
“Dear Sir, you are entirely correct.
I am the One fully responsible for the flooding of Prague.
Now “frac off” or I’ll do it again.”
Allan
Hehehe……..”I’ll do it again”.
Love it.
Hello HotScot my friend,
Yes, only one threat in all these years, now decades of fighting global warming nonsense.
My friend Dr. Tim Ball gets many threats every year – but then he lives in BC – the wacky wet Left Coast as we call here in sunny Alberta. I feel under-appreciated by these warmist thugs. Am I not worthy? 🙂
Mind you, people who make threats are not the real issue. I ran a project in Kazakstan that was later sold for US$4.2 billion. The Russian mafias are a much more serious group, and they rarely make threats – they visit you and make “suggestions” – like “we suggest that you sell us your project for 10 cents on the dollar”. One should take their suggestions seriously. A friend-of-a-friend did not do so – look up Paul Tatum, Moscow for the story.
I had a much easier time in Kaz – just two armed invasions of my facilities in the first two years – I managed them both with no police or army intervention, and everyone got to go home – even the bad guys. Just another day at the office…
UN Environment / Search
UNEP-SBCI (Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative).
5 SBCI topics including the Kyoto Protocol. Click on any topic.
https://www.unenvironment.org/search/node?keys=UNEP+SBCI
business.un.org
Archived content
Partnership Story
‘UNEP-SBCI: Advancing Sustainability in the Building Sector’
Summary
https://business.un.org/en/documents/10372
Webpage has links to more SBCI information.
Never mind that the predictions are based on faulty modelling.
Nah, this is all wrong. If you PAY a carbon tax, you will get pounded by the Egyptian god Shu and his sister Tefnut, their father Atum, and by Uranus, the god of lightning and storms and stuff like that.
That cold front that’s been sitting on my area since March is still sticking around. Just keeping track. The temperature is going up? Not in my kingdom, it isn’t.
Is there any way to put a bee in Nuccatelli’s bonnet?
Sara wrote:
“Is there any way to put a bee in Nuccatelli’s bonnet?”
Suggestion:
Pray to Uranus, Patron Saint of the Prostate, on behalf of Nutticelli.
How can I trust your analysis, Sara, when you don’t know that Thor is the true god of lightning? What other science are you getting wrong?
What’s this about Uranus? I think you’re talking through your, uh, hat. 🙂
rich Davis: Thor is the Viking god of lightning and thunder. Uranus is the Greek varietal. The Lakota refer to him as Haokah.
Surely thunderbolts are the weapons of Zeus?
Zeus gets them from Uranus. (There are soooo many puns here!)
I like bad girls, Sara.
Susan Howard, yes, Zeus throws thunderbolts… and Uranus is the old Greek god of the sky – he was essentially Zeus’ grandfather. Zeus took over Olympus from his father, Cronus, and became god of the sky, thunder, lightning, justice, etc.
Uranus was married to his mother, Gaia, (yes, Greek gods were incestuous) and sired the Titans. Cronus, the youngest Titan, at his mother’s behest, castrated Uranus… (yes, Greek gods were brutal)
Sooo, that means Uranus is all he had left…
Thunder.
I have Viking ancestors, so clearly Thor is the only true one. All the others are made up by people who don’t have credentials, junk science probably paid for by oil interests. The Science is settled. I guess you’re a science d-nier.
It’s an epidemic of dishonesty from the climate scare cabal.
May they implode and find themselves in a quandary because no one is listening to them. No one. Not even ants.
Maybe that’s what Bloomberg was talking about in his commencement speech the other day.
“This effect is particularly strong for the summer: a 1oF increase in the average summer temperature is associated with a reduction in the annual growth rate of state-level output of 0.15 to 0.25 percentage points. We combine our estimates with projected increases in seasonal temperatures and find that rising temperatures could reduce U.S. economic growth by up to one-third over the next century.”
Is this some kind of new math? One degree warmer in the summer is claimed to lead to a 0.25% decrease in annual economic growth. In order to produce a 33% reduction in annual economic growth, over the next century, The summer temperatures would have to rise 132 degrees F, based on this relationship!!!!! Ridiculous! How does he get to a possible 33% reduction in economic growth?
Secondly, what happens to annual economic growth if the one degree of warming is applied throughout the year, and not just in the summer? According to the theory of AGW, the warming should be more prevalent in the winter and at night, which would produce significant economic benefits to the great majority of the country; indeed, the great majority of the world!
jclarke341
The concept of the USA losing 33% of productivity over the next 100 years, whilst population increases, is just insane.
What planet does this idiot live on?
HotScot
Productivity growth has nothing to do with population increase or decrease.
Productivity is an economic measure of output per unit of input.
and the Inputs include labor and capital.
The more specific labor productivity
would be the output of goods & services (GDP)
per worker, or better yet, per hour of work.
The total output of goods and services
is affected by population growth,
assuming populations growth
increases the size of the labor force.
Economics lecture over.
You can wake up now.
Richard Greene
It was an offhand expression of contempt.
However, to imagine that humans will put in one third less effort, consume one third less food, use one third less resources or enjoy one third less of life over the coming 100 years is preposterous.
Man is predisposed to work harder when times get hard. The only imaginable way man, as an individual, would produce one third less of anything is if AI and automation took quantum leaps forward and the individual was compelled to work for 3 only days out of five (roughly speaking) without loss of wealth. Even then, I strongly suspect man would turn his attention to other means of productivity as most people enjoy being productive otherwise, why do they engage in activities on their days off and not just sit on their backsides?
Economic productivity measurements take no account of motivation, opportunity nor desire. They are a convenient, oversimplified metric which appeal to politicians who are invariably unqualified to practise politics because, by its very nature, anyone should have the opportunity to achieve political status. Metrics are therefore boiled down to oversimplified sound bites politicians frequently abuse because they don’t understand them.
He’s using the old tactic of exaggerating the effect of small numbers by talking about a percentage change rather than an absolute change. When something goes from 0.00030 to 0.00041, people tend to yawn and say 0.00011, so what? So instead they create charts scaled to make the rise seem scary steep and they talk about a huge unprecedented 37% rise. (To use CO2 as an example).
The 0.25% figure is supposed to be the absolute change in the annual growth rate from say 3% down to 2.75%. Then he says 0.25/3 = 0.08, an 8% decrease in growth rate. But that’s hardly enough to sound like a problem. So apparently 33% assumes a lower Obamaesque base such as 0.75% annual growth, or a bigger impact from runaway warming such as 1% reduction on a 3% base.
Lies and phantasies in any case.
How could anyone scientfically inclined use a 90% confidence interval? Even a 95% confidence interval is just a rule of thumb that something might be happening. An on regression analysis is evev worse. Did he never learn that a regression can never predict beyond the last data point?
Pure supposition from the first sentence. Don’t they realize that people have been working in difficult condition for thousands of years? There are well-established procedures for handling work in any difficult conditions without harming the employees and minimizing productivity losses.
The precision of the effect on the economy and economic is infinitely better than the best economists while at the same time the climate scientists prediction of climate is less accurate than the typical 3 day weather forecast – The irony
This guy is totally nuts. He believes that “…thermal systems do not contain “memory” of past climate states …“ So how can the climate system 50 years from now know what we are pumping into the system today. And what about peer-review of “scientific” papers? Do we believe in that Mr Nuccitelli?
Give him a break, perhaps he just needed some attention.
Does this mean that people who move from a cold area to a warm area should never be hired since the warmer temperatures could have a negative impact on their production?
Debunked simply by the fact that no Canadian team has won the Stanley Cup since 1993.
What’s the Stanley Cup? 🙂
Trophy awarded to the champion of the National Hockey League. Only teams located south of the Canadian border (that’s the U.S. for all you millennials) have won it since 1993. It is the hardest trophy to win in professional sports.
“It is the hardest trophy to win in professional sports.”
Oh really? I’d like to see those ice-skate-shod mongrels try to make touchdowns in the next Super Bowl.
/s
Especially if they are still wearing those ice skates.
Quoting Eric Worrall ………….
OH, NO, NO, ……nothing dubious about it iffen you’re looking at the “lost productivity” problem through the eyes of the authors of the published study, to wit: Riccardo Colacito, Bridget Hoffmann, Toan Phan
Those three (3) authors surely had their eyeballs focused on the I-90 Corridor that connects Albany to Buffalo, a locale that once was, up until the mid-1980’s, home of a few million high-paying manufacturing, support and service jobs, ….. but is now pretty much a “ghost corridor” of shuttered factory doors and “boarded-up” doors n’ windows of the once thriving wholesale, retail and service sector.
And “YUP”, the demise of the once highly productive I-90 Corridor was directly the fault of “high taxes” and “seasonal temperatures” that resulted in a significant and systematic effects on the Upstate NY economy.
Shur nuff, extremely high taxes on most everything in New York State …… and the mild, to warm, to hot “seasonal temperatures” in the US southeast are the primary reasons for the outmigration of New York’s “productivity” to the southeast US and/or “across the pond” to foreign soil.
Samuel,
I retired from Eastman Kodak a few years before it imploded. I thought it’s fall from being perennially one of the nations top companies to a virtual non entity was the incompetence of management;
….when all along it was Global Warming!
You are right, George,
GE in Syracuse, Utica and Schenectady, ….. Carrier in Syracuse, ….. Chicago-Pneumatic in Utica, ….. Remington Arms in Ilion, …….. MDS, Library Bureau and Standard Furniture in Herkimer are but a few of the many that Global Warming made it “too hot” for them to survive those cold, cold winters.
An economist weighing in on climate change? What next, a phrenologist paper on astrology?
Goes to show that carbon taxes and the like are the end goals, not the means to attain goals. Its is actually a reversal of what is presented. Emissions guilt is the means to attain the taxation and regulations ends.
The real issue is that water vapor ‘feedback’ to increased heat is not positive causing more heating, it is negative causing cooling – as Willis has repeatedly shown. Hence, the entire logic of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis causing a runaway catastrophic warming is incorrect.
Has Nuccitelli ever ventured outside of academia (if you can call it that in his world)? Has he ever developed a product that works and that people want to buy (apart from a few freaks + BBC who buy the Guardian). Perhaps he should try and see if his opinion changes over a decade or two. The biggest threat to productivity is taxation and an expanding bureaucracy hence the opposition to Brexit (etc) by those comfortable with living off growth generated by others.
I think the Morning Star was probably more accurate than the Guardian.
Aren’t these the same guys that believe that the fact that solar and wind need more workers per MW produced is a good thing?
apparently math is hard for economists … a 1/3 reduction in output by the end of the century … 33% … at .25% per degree means they think the temperature could rise 132 degrees …
The American south is for the most part, very humid as well.
Even the IPCC acknowledges that humid areas will see the least impact from more CO2 in the atmosphere.
” … extremely unlikely to be less than 1°C and medium confidence that the ECS is likely to be between 1.5°C and 4.5°C and very unlikely greater than 6°C.”
The scientific truth is that the ECS is absolutely certain to be less than the lower limit of 1.5C suggested by the IPCC, moreover; the ONLY constraint ever applied to this limit by the IPCC was that it had to be large enough to justify the formation, continued existence and agenda of the IPCC/UNFCCC.
Hahahaha, ok then, next wild tale? Humour and funny stories put a smile on my face in the morning.
Is it just natural that the position of A.G. attracts so many psychopaths? These individuals are straight out of a gestopo casting call.
Dana knows bomb throwing. That’s about it.
Ever wonder who builds the bombs for him? None of these people are bright enough to do this on their own…..
No wonder Rep. Scalise was targeted at the ball field. He is trying to stop the nut jobs with legislation.
Hiya Di, any chance you could rustle up some new news? Life’s getting a bit short for some of us.
There’s a good little boy….
I really couldn’t care less what this nutcase says. It’s not even funny anymore.
Meh……. estimates, projections, and statistical flatulence!
And all of this bloviating, to advocate for reducing atmospheric plant food?
To quote WWII General Anthony Clement McAuliffe: “Nuts!”
Dana Nuccitelli writes poorly and irrationally as he does so often such as this barrage of irrational baloney he published a while back:
Here’s what happens when you try to replicate climate contrarian papers
“Those who reject the 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming often invoke Galileo as an example of when the scientific minority overturned the majority view. In reality, climate contrarians have almost nothing in common with Galileo, whose conclusions were based on empirical scientific evidence, supported by many scientific contemporaries, and persecuted by the religious-political establishment. Nevertheless, there’s a slim chance that the 2–3% minority is correct and the 97% climate consensus is wrong.
To evaluate that possibility, a new paper published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology examines a selection of contrarian climate science research and attempts to replicate their results. The idea is that accurate scientific research should be replicable, and through replication we can also identify any methodological flaws in that research. The study also seeks to answer the question, why do these contrarian papers come to a different conclusion than 97% of the climate science literature?
This new study was authored by Rasmus Benestad, myself (Dana Nuccitelli), Stephan Lewandowsky, Katharine Hayhoe, Hans Olav Hygen, Rob van Dorland, and John Cook. Benestad (who did the lion’s share of the work for this paper) created a tool using the R programming language to replicate the results and methods used in a number of frequently-referenced research papers that reject the expert consensus on human-caused global warming. In using this tool, we discovered some common themes among the contrarian research papers.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/aug/25/heres-what-happens-when-you-try-to-replicate-climate-contrarian-papers
See that right of the bat he pushed the irrelevant 97% consensus as if that was a rational argument on how we do science.
The contents of his baloney are a long line of dishonest and stupid arguments, while leaving out the obvious contrary evidence that utterly destroy his whole article.
I made a short and simple reply to Dana’s silly consensus babble:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/extreme-weather-events-that-show-agw.672830/page-3#post-19666637
Some days I think nobody could be so stupid as to believe the kind of things Nuccitelli writes about. He must be under contract as highly paid, if warped, a fiction writer. Do we look for Russian money here too?
“. . . a highly paid, if warped, fiction write. “
“writer.” Got it.
Dr Nutty wrote: ”The results, reported in figure 3 show that the summer coefficient remains negative and statistically significant at the 10% level as the sample shrinks.”
Translation: After we tortured the data the best we could, we got summer significance results down to the p=0.10 level. Good enough for economics to publish.
————————————————————————————————-
On a related note, I can’t help but belly laugh at Dr. Nutty’s ridiculous “Red States will suffer more” assertion. Has anyone told Dr Nutty that middle and upper income folks, along with small and medium size businesses, are fleeing the Blue state havens of California, Illinois, New York, Connecticut?
And where are they headed? Mostly Texas, Florida, Indiana, Ohio — states that went strongly Trump in 2016. Apparently they don’t give a crap about the alarmist fake climate change rants from the Left. They are fleeing precisely because of and to get away from the consequences of the socialist Left’s policy prescriptions of more taxes, more regulations, higher energy prices.
And that’s not some economist’s theoretical prediction. It’s happening, and being documented with hard data every month, month after month — folks who can are fleeing Blue America. And the reason: taxes too high. And every economist who studies this sees it is about to get a whole lot worse for the Blue States due to Congress’s recent tax code revisions.
And because they cannot admit the obvious (that educated workers and retirees are fleeing because of their policies, high taxes, and destruction of affordable living), how are the trying to level the playing field? By writing crap papers like the one here by Dr Nutty to try and get Red States to join them in drinking their Jimmy Jones Klimate Koolaid.
Dr Nutty is most definitely that IYI that Nassim Taleb describes.
Yes what Dana is saying would make a lot of sense to those that want a communal society.
And, those that want to be taken care of by government.
Mostly those that are just too Lazy to fend for themselves.
Here’s a thought: People with low body fat do not get overheated to the extent and for the duration that people with higher body fat do. Global warming, thus, would seem to be a clear motivation to shed those extra pounds to stay a little less heat stressed. Al Gore, are you reading ?
“Specifically, rising summertime temperatures in the hottest states will curb economic growth. And the states with the hottest summertime temperatures are all located in the South: Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Arizona. All of these states voted for Donald Trump in 2016.”
We’ve been able to see the consequences of this effect on world food production recently:
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
Natural vegetation has responded loud and clear………around the globe:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
But instead of looking at what’s actually happening………………let’s believe a simulation of climate going out 100 years, using mathematical equations to represent a speculative(busted) theory and global climate model projections that have been too warm.
The Red states are going to have economic growth precisely because of the Blue states adoption of public policies and higher taxes. Those polices include sanctuary for illegal aliens, encouraging homeless camps and drug use with needle and relaxing drug laws, that are slowly turning the public schools and cities and communities in 3rd world hell holes.
The Red States will grow because they are affordable and offer good quality of living, free from sanctuary lawlessness and homeless camps and the drugs they bring.
The Blue States are going to undergo quite painful loses of tax revenue that they cannot afford due to the high costs of their public unions and out of control social programs. The residents fleeing the Blue States are bringing their money and skills with them to the Red States to buy homes, start businesses, and then pay local taxes there.
I was just reading an explanation of carbon tax at some website dedicated to the whole idea, and I was impressed by how ignorant of CO2 the founders and supporters of the website are. They seem to think that CO2 from fossil-fuel use accumulates into an isolated layer at the top of Earth’s atmosphere, acting like a barrier that traps heat radiating from the planet’s surface.
Passion is based on ignorance, misinformation, flawed assumptions, and unwillingness to examine facts.
Such ignorance is what truly punishes Trump voters.
It punishes the Blue State voters even more fortunately.
Let’s get people to cut back on their use of fossil fuels by taxing them…….make cheap, reliable and abundant fossil fuels more expensive……………that’s how we grow the economy.
Hugh???
Too bad we can’t go back to the 1850 atmosphere, before the industrial revolution. Drop CO2 levels back under 300 ppm and a global temperature 1 Deg. C cooler…………….and have over a billion people starve to death with food prices tripling!!!
They continually tell us that the polar regions will warm faster. In fact, the theory indicates that the tropics will barely warm at all. This whole study is based on false assumptions.
“…Given that automobile manufacturing largely takes place indoors, the authors argue that this finding suggests there are limitations of air conditioning; it is possible that there are important areas in the production process, such as loading and unloading areas, that are difficult to cool or warm….”
Oh how scientific of them. Why not contact some auto manufacturers or facilities and find out instead of guessing? It’s called…um….research.
And duh there are “limitations of air conditioning.” The limitation is in the design and installation of the HVAC system. If you want to operate at cooler temps or on hotter days with loading and unloading bay doors open, you have to design for that. If it instead is more cost-effective to slow or shutter production on a few hot days per year, then that’s the route you take.
You dont need 1000 follow up comments
Just one
ECOBOLLOX.
‘..Predicting economic conditions at the end of the century in terms of today’s society is absurd…’ (above)
Really nothing more needs to be said — that the subject of this discussion kicks up any ‘debate dust’ at all is an embarrassment!
No “debate dust” on MY part. Just entertainment at the expense of ignorance.
If they are so clever they can run comparisons of economic activity against temperature to determine the relationship, why can’t they run CO2 against temperature to deduce the warming and feedback factors from empirical evidence, instead of dubious models?
I will tell you why: the warming effect is so low as to be an embarrassment to the cause.
“…failing to curb global warming will certainly lead to less economic growth.”
“Climate policies could hamper economic growth.”
Dana has that backwards. Climate policies that increase taxes and energy prices WILL CERTAINLY lead to less economic growth. There’s no way around it. Failing to take steps to curb global warming MAY hamper economic growth, buy the jury is still out on that. We still don’t know how much of recent warming is due to natural climate cycles and how much is due to increases in CO2. We also don’t know if continued warming will be harmful or net beneficial to the planet as a whole. Increased growing seasons and crop yields could offset any negative consequences of a few degrees of warming, should they actually occur. Only time will tell. So why should we take the steps Dana proposes, which we know will harm economic growth, rather than wait until we know enough to make an informed decision?
“to prevent slowed economic growth in red states, they should be trying to craft an optimal carbon tax”
An optimal one would fall on blue states only, congress took a step in this direction when they limited the deductibility of state and local taxes.
The idea of a tax deductible tax is absurd on its face (unless both taxes are created by the same body). It amounts to say that democracy is not a thing and that taxes are not a kind of voluntary collective purchase, a price for state services (democracy really is broken everywhere, because politics is swampy – making taxes deductible from taxes makes it swampier).
Dana’s whole argument is flawed. Introducing a carbon tax to slow economic growth because eventually global warming will do it anyway is the same as saying “let’s fix the problem before there even is a problem.” A bad way to conduct oneself in any area of life.
Carbon taxes have not now will they be effective in reducing the use of fossil fuels. For most people, the only thing that they can do in response to the tax is to consume less which puts a damper on economic growth. LIke in my case, I need by car to conduct business and take care of errands. I have no practical alternative. I have to heat my house when it gets cold outside and I have to have electricity of run lights and appliances in my home. Most of the products that I use are transported into the town where I live by truck. I cannot do without food and clothing. So a carbon tax is just another tax that we would have to endure.
The reality is that the climate change we have been 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 sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even if we could stop all use of fossil fuels the climate would continue to change unabated. But even if we could stop the climate changing, extreme weather events and sea level rise would continue unabated because they are part of the current climate so there is no real benefit is stopping the climate from changing. The optimal climate has yet to be identified, let alone discovering how to achieve it.
People may need to work more to offset the carbon tax, and they may need more gasoline if their work involve their car!
“The occurrence of six or more days with temperatures above 90 degrees Farenheit reduces the weekly production of U.S. automobile manufacturing plants by an average of 8 percent.”
It also means that US automakers do their annual model year factory shutdowns in the summer, when they have more workers on vacation because the worker’s kids are out of school.
Complete and utter junk science.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/regional/time-series/104/tmax/3/9/1895-2018?base_prd=true&firstbaseyear=1901&lastbaseyear=2000
blob:null/2c2d190e-aac2-487d-ad7d-e13fff4cd317
From the paper:
These yahoos have associated summer vacations with a decline in “Gross state product”.
Duh!
Nor does their using argumentum ad verecundiam claim about “other literature” buttress their claims; instead it helps reveal weakness.
Gee, I recall being laughed at and ridiculed when I mentioned years ago to folks this was about depopulation through global carbon tax, for ultimate top down control via one world government. It is coming folks, there is no stopping it. Look around you
I never knew climate could work out a carbon tax existed for it’s benefit and would the allow climate to punish those who did not support it. CO2, real clever stuff.
CO2 is a magic molecule after all
Dana the pathological liar, went around facebook climate change page groups pushing the Mann Mears Santer paper that concluded natural variability, Dana was claiming the paper asserted it was problems with models, the bloke is deranged.
I challenged his lies directly and he blocked me
Dana the paid troll. Who cares?
Dana the Big Gas shill.
The reverse is also true.
Drop 2″ or 3″ of snow on Atlanta or LA and watch the city shut down.
Do the same in Calgary Canada or Buffalo NY and they’d welcome the break in the weather.
It doesn’t make sense for many southern cities to invest in a lot of snow removal equipment.
They may see snow, once or twice a year and 2 to three inches is a once in a decade event.
Much cheaper to just shut down the city for a day or so and let nature melt the snow.
True. And safer. The people generally have little or no experience driving in snowy or icy conditions.
When snowplows are computer-driven, they will be able to come from northern states for southern snows, and then return to the northern states when the southern snows are cleared.
“It’s global warming that will hurt the economy in red states.”
I needed a good belly laugh this morning.
Absurd. If an “optimal carbon tax” would prevent the alleged rise in temperature, there might be some mad logic to Dana’s plan — but it certainly would not. US emissions are just a part of world emissions and the rise in summertime maximums he is so worried about (though it’s curiously failed to manifest itself in CONUS during the current warming period) would barely be impacted by the minimal reductions arising from a carbon tax — and the US is the one part of the industrialized world that actually *has* reduced CO2 emissions, and that was done *without* a carbon tax and largely through private profit-seeking. Adam Smith 1, Climate Treaties 0.
Taxing an economic input certainly will damage the economy, there’s no “may” about it. The “benefits” of a carbon tax, if ever realized, would be diffuse throughout the world (and a cost rather than benefit to nations that would benefit from warming); the cost of a carbon tax would be concentrated on the taxing nation. The US is a temperate nation, why consider only the cost of increased summertime highs (the part of the temperature that should be *least* affected) while not considering the economic effect of warmer springs, falls, and winters?
For the United States, I think the best bet for an optimal carbon tax is $0. I’m grateful previous generations of Americans didn’t hamstring their economic growth to avoid the mild warming we’ve experienced in the last 150 years; we would be much, much poorer.
Not only would we be “we would be much, much poorer” but we’d still be pretty much just as warm.
“Specifically, rising summertime temperatures in the hottest states will curb economic growth. And the states with the hottest summertime temperatures are all located in the South: Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Arizona. All of these states voted for Donald Trump in 2016.”
This has more to do with latitude than with attitude. The sun shines at a higher angle in the southern United States than in the north, regardless of how their people voted.
The majority people of Montana, the Dakotas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania also voted for Donald Trump, but their summertime temperatures will be cooler than in the south, and they probably wouldn’t mind a little warming after being buried in snow most of April.
Minnesota and Illinois voted for Hillary, while all the neighboring states voted for Trump. But would an air molecule blown across the river from Missouri to Illinois suddenly cool down just because it crossed from a red state to a blue state? Or would it suddenly heat up again when it crosses from Illinois into Indiana? Doubtful at best!!!
Knuckleheadacelli!
“Predicting economic conditions at the end of the century in terms of today’s society is absurd. By the end of the century our descendants will enjoy technologies and productivity advantages we have no idea will exist.”
30 years ago the cellphone was in its infancy and no one could have predicted what it is today. Robotic fruits and vegetables picking equipment is still very new now…but soon there will be nothing for the illegal aliens to harvest – going by the democrats (socialist undercover and still in the closet) keep saying Americans will not do… maybe they’ll have to be technicians working those machines to get work at lower wages. Keots are replacing waiters and counter help in fast food establishments. So, yeah, no one knows what 20 years from now will really look like.
Climate is going to be anybody’s guess. From all the arguments and semantics on issues, the Sun will do what it will do and there’s nothing we can do about it; except make guesses from past occurrences but, who foresaw how weak it is right now.. A rogue meteor or a volcano going super (who predicted Hawaii was going to blow this hard?), or the ocean floor cracks again enlarging the circumference of the Earth could change everything at any second. (Yes, I realize from past debates a few of you reject the Expanding Earth Theory and still believe Earth has always been this size, because of a few areas have subduction and orogeny that cannot be measured with any accuracy to support Pangea or any other continental drift theories.) And with all the hype of AGW from fossil fuels why are we not swimming in New York City, I mean we passed 400 ppm a long time ago?
Is it a prerequisite to be psychologically unbalanced to be a Democrat (socialist) and a AGW/Climate Change extremist? Frankly it seems to be, when facts, statistics and data do not support what they keep saying.