Claim: More Taxpayer Climate Cash And Carbon Taxes Would Boost the World Economy by $26 Trillion

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

This remarkable business opportunity will only be realised if it is funded by taxpayers and supported by carbon taxes.

The world economy could grow $26 trillion in a decade if governments and businesses focus on climate change

SEP 5, 2018, 6:56 PM

Bold action on climate change could add more than $US2 trillion a year to the global economy over the next decade, according to a major new report, which seeks to dispel the belief that tackling environmental issues will stifle economic growth.

The report from theGlobal Commission on the Economy and Climate (GCEC) on Wednesday argues that the world’s politicians and decision-makers are “significantly underestimating the benefits of cleaner, climate-smart growth.” It said the global economy could increase in size by $US26 trillion by 2030, if more ambitious steps are taken.

Former heads of government, business leaders, and economists are all part of the GCEC’s team, and have argued that the globe is at a crossroads, whereby it needs to fully commit to sustainable future growth, or see the earth suffer even more.

“There’s still a perception that moving toward a low-carbon path would be costly,” Helen Mountford, the lead author of the report said in an interview with Reuters. “What we are trying to do with this report is once and for all put the nails in the coffin on that idea.

Read more:

From the energy chapter of the main report;

Energy will account for just under a third of total core and primary energy sustainable infrastructure investment to 2030, or around US$1.7 trillion per year. Meeting a 2C scenario requires slightly more investment and large increases in spending on energy efficiency, at double current levels if not more, but this is offset by lower investment requirements for primary energy such as coal and oil. The investment challenge includes providing access to 2.7 billion people for clean cooking and to 1 billion for electricity. Making sure energy infrastructure is sustainable will not cost much more, but it requires shifting the way we invest. This shift requires supportive policies that reveal the value proposition of renewables and energy-efficiency investments and that level the playing field. Policymakers also need to spend better, with the right objectives and with the use of relevant metrics for success in dealing with sustainability. Essential policies include the reforming of fossil fuel subsidies, alignment of taxation and other policies offering financial incentives, raising and allocating public funds to sustainable infrastructure, and the smart use of limited public funds to attract private investment.

Previous analysis conducted for the Global Commission estimates that only half of the infrastructure investment required is currently flowing and about 70% of the spending gap is in emerging and developing economies. Both public and private investment will be needed. Overall, public infrastructure investment appears to be on the rise though it remains well below levels required to meet demand for infrastructure services. In developing countries, roughly 60% of infrastructure investment is from the public sector, while in developing countries it is only about 40%. On the private investment side, although the level of investment required is manageable on a macroeconomic basis, with enough global savings to cover the need, it has historically been a struggle to channel private finance to green energy infrastructure and energy-efficiency investment, especially in developing economies. The levels of returns and investment risks (real or perceived) have been key barriers to increased private investment. To address these common barriers and facilitate commercial investment, the G20 is advancing a ‘Roadmap for Infrastructure as an Asset Class’ which in turn should foster the development of infrastructure as a heterogeneous asset class.

Public investment also needs to shift. In 2014, the public sector accounted for more than half of ongoing investment in coal-fired power, showing the need for more climate-consistent strategies in the power sector. Even with notable progress in phasing out fossil fuel subsidies in some countries, these were estimated to be an estimated US$373 billion in 2015 according to the OECD and International Energy Agency (IEA), well above renewable energy subsidies in 2015. This effectively creates a negative carbon price and disincentivises investment in clean energy alternatives. At the same time, the number of carbon pricing systems is growing, now covering over 70 jurisdictions and about 20% of global GHG emissions (see Section 1.A, Figure 4). Yet over 75% of emissions covered are priced at an effective rate of less than US$10 per tonne,49 far from US$40–80 per tonne by 2020 recommended as a floor price by the 2017 High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices. Absent consistent and sufficiently high carbon pricing, the risk-return proposition for investment in clean energy remains weak, and continued subsidies for fossil fuels raise the risks of stranded assets in the future.

Read more:

If this is such a remarkable business opportunity, why do governments have to get involved? Why does the “risk-return proposition for investment in clean energy remain weak”? Given the alleged falls in the price of solar panels and wind turbines, why are carbon taxes still seen as so essential?

Surely climate enthusiast Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and green Ivy League endowment funds can raise enough cash between them to get the ball rolling.

A string of trillion dollar climate business success stories would sweep aside all skepticism about the benefits of green investment.

197 thoughts on “Claim: More Taxpayer Climate Cash And Carbon Taxes Would Boost the World Economy by $26 Trillion

  1. Taxation is always a drain on the economy. People who claim that more taxes are good for the world economy just talk through their hats.

    • Every dollar the government puts into the economy has to be offset by a dollar that it takes out of the economy.

      • Every dollar the government puts into the economy has to be offset by a dollar ten dollars that it takes out of the economy.

        Fixed it for ya.

        • More like TRANSFER $2T per year in economic gains per year From the U.S. to other countries. People aren’t going for wealth redistribution so now it is Economy Redistribution
          It isn’t economic creation if taking it from someplace else is required.

        • It’s not 10 dollars, but it is more than $1. Government itself represents a bit of friction, so for every dollar spent, some portion is lost in administrative expenses. Assuming there is financing of public debt, the resulting interest will also create a drag but now we’re starting to complicate things.

          • There is also the very high probability that a dollar spent by a bureaucrat won’t be spent as well as it would have been by the person who earned it.

          • Exactly. The so-called “multiplier effect” is actually multiplying by something less than 1, probably significantly less than 1.

          • One of the first rules they teach in Economics 101 is where savings and investments introduces a multiplier by a factor of at least ten in additional increased value.

            That multiplier effect is a major reason why the ‘money supply’ keeps outrunning the Federal Reserve’s targets.

            It’s called:

            Keynes’ Theory of Investment Multiplier

            Part of this multiplier requires that banks, near immediately, put deposits back to work in additional investments.

            Taxes are parasitic! They drain an economy of vigor and strength.
            Especially when taxes are used for arbitrary pork barrel expenditures; like useless renewable scams, anti-science anti-climate research, international boondoggles, etc.

          • That Keynes even exists as a topic in modern economics is proof of just how dismal the “science” is. The idea that consumption drives wealth generation is false on its face. It’s little more than Bastiat’s Broken Window Fallacy, but like Socialism, the idea of a “multiplier” or “stimulus” is evergreen, regardless of pesky reality and its facts.

      • It’s as if they believe that by having government redistribute water from the deep end of the pool to the shallow end, the total volume of the water in the pool will increase.

    • They are just moving money around….take from the few countries that pay….and give to the vast majority of countries that get paid…..they said world economy

    • Taxation is not always a drain on the economy.
      If you build helpful infrastructure, it is a boon to the economy.
      I don’t know where you are – U.S., or some other place.
      Here in the U.S., tax-supported government efforts provide excellent infrastructure that allows us all to carry on with our lives, being productive.

      Some examples:

      I can see potential clients, or get training, in a neighboring state simply by driving along our awesome interstate system. I used the interstates to figure out where I wanted to go to grad school, and to interview, and then to interview for post-docs. This was super-easy. They are safe, partly because of controlled on/off ramps, and few, judiciously placed exits/entrances. This makes it safe to travel quickly from place to place.

      In economics, there is something called “transaction cost.” This is the effort and trouble it takes to find another party with whom you want to carry out an economic transaction, and carry out that transaction. Freeway travel helps out greatly.

      This freeway system is utterly dependent on taxes.

      Clean water. I have traveled U.S. pretty well. While the water quality is not always perfect, I can think of no place I have gone where I could not simply turn on the tap and have water sufficiently clean and acceptable for drinking and bathing. From one end of this great country to another. I don’t have to boil water, or buy bottled water, etc. I simply turn on the tap.

      This ubiquitous on-tap water supply is utterly dependent on taxes. And it makes us very productive in our other endeavors.

      Traffic lights. Court system. Etc. Etc.

      These things will not function without being done by government, and without being paid for by taxes.

      The trick for us is being able to judge when such things are worthwhile or not.

      Throwing money at a harm that is non-existent will be good for some people’s pockets, and for entrenched government to get more power over us, but we, overall, will get no return on this investment. I agree totally that the money is far better off chasing other endeavors.

      But saying that anything done by taxes is a drain on the economy is dumb.

      • TheLastDemocrat,

        All of those fine examples that you listed that was paid for/supported by government collected tax dollars only required the expenditure of $1.00 of the $10.00 that was collected in taxes.

        And $6.00 of the remaining $9.00 is being spent on the government employees themselves, as well as dozens of other “troughfeeder” entities.

        And the remaining $3.00 is being given away under the guise of “foreign aide”.

      • There are some pretty good roads in many places paid for solely by the private sector – most of the “interstate” in France is private for example.

      • taxes ALWAYS reduce potential growth … in some cases it may be considered acceptable … but don’t kid yourself … it NEVER increases the economy … it drags it down in every case but at times its acceptable … for example military spending … at best its a break even but as a country we have decided we need it so its worth the drag on the economy … your tap water example is poor … think about natural gas … everyone that uses it in the home gets it from private suppliers / pipeline etc. … water could as easily be supplied privately its just that the “government” got involved early and took it over … didn’t have too … and in many communities we have to do it for ourselves (I have a well for example) … oh, same with sewage (sand mound) …

        • In countries I have lived in, UK, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland, Belgium etc, I find with these things, like water and roads etc, people say things like “The Govn’t should do something about that.” and hence we have taxes.

      • In economics, there is something called “transaction cost.”

        In economics there is also something called Public Good and Private Good.

        The trick for us is being able to judge when such things are worthwhile or not.

        No, the trick is getting the ruling class to stop spending money on private goods.

        • Believe the trick may lie getting the ruling class to stop—stealing, filching, palming, siphoning—money off taxpayer’s sweat equity under the guise of helping humanity do . . . what? Save the planet? Themselves. Hungry chillern? Polar bears?

          Scribes proffering such appear to be either (a) misinformed, (b) haven’t done their homework, (c) dangle from a puppeteer’s financial strings, or (d) are slick propagandists.

      • Taxation is always a drain on the economy. Always.

        Hopefully the government spends the money on things whose benefit outweighs the drain that it creates. For example, creating an interstate highway system has a greater positive value to society than the negative value of the taxes required to fund it. You also provide some other good example.

        But the fact that the spending can have a positive impact does not eliminate the fact that the taxation has a real-world negative impact.

        You summed it up well with: “The trick for us is being able to judge when such things are worthwhile or not.” If the spending is worthwhile, society benefits. If the spending is not as worthwhile, society is made poorer.

        • The biggest question to be asked about any Government funded project is…Can it be accomplished by the Private Sector Better, Faster and Cheaper than being done by Government?
          If the answer is YES, then any tax dollars being spent on that particular project is money wasted.
          If the answer is NO, then the tax dollars being spent on that project is money well managed.

          • Another good question…
            To me though the best entity for the job, Government or Private, is the one that does the best job for the lowest cost.

          • Standards, subsidies and taxes. The bane of the free market. Standards should only be used to prevent injuries or bad health effects. Subsidies should only be used to prop up a company that produces a domestic product that is key to national security. Taxes should only be used as a government income source. Too often however the government uses standards to interfere in the life of all its citizens. At the same time governments subsidize almost everything. Taxes are collected for all sorts of reasons. Ex: liquor and tobacco taxes, estate or inheritance taxes, gift taxes, company asset taxes, and carbon taxes.

            As for government spending, you are right. Governments should only spend money on infrastructure that will increase economic efficiency in the economy ,that the private sector will not spend on. Of course governments do not have the goal of making money, therein lies the innate achilles heel of government. By design governments are inefficient and have no critical way of measuring their own performance. However they are a sad necessity in the modern age.

            As far as the article goes, they say
            “energy efficiency improvements could contribute the remaining third, according to the Energy Transitions Commission”.

            They make the classical mistake that thinks that energy gets saved on efficiency. It is dollars that get saved and then these dollars are either spent on something else that uses energy or lent out by the banks to others who then spend them on other activities that use energy. Total energy usage only goes down during reecssions or depressions.

            The article also says

            “Carbon pricing offers a significant economic prize. Under a scenario of global energy reform, modelled for this Report using the E3ME model (which introduces carbon pricing in line with the prices recommended in the 2017 High-Level Commission on Carbon Prices, a phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies, and financial support for the introduction of renewables), carbon pricing revenues and fossil fuel savings to reinvest in public priorities could be approximately US$2.8 trillion in 2030.”

            Carbon pricing only prevents CO2 emssions by industrial processes if there is a non carbon fuel to switch to. If there isnt then carbon prices simply raise inflation for no good purpose. In either case inflation is raised. The article makes it seem that the money raised by carbon taxes is free money. Most governments have said they will rebate all the carbon tax money. If it isnt rebated it is just a tax increase for no good purpose if it will reinvested in green technologies because green technologies are a losing proposition.

            The article then goes on to say

            “Nuclear and gas (provided methane leakage are under control) will provide a bridge to a zero-carbon future.”

            A 0 carbon future is impossible. Not everything can be run by electricity. Nuclear will be more than a bridge to the future. It is the future.

            They go on to say

            “In the United States, for example, 151,000 people are employed in fossil fuel power generation, with an additional 887,000 people in extraction (74,000 in coal, 310,000 in gas, and 503,000 in oil).21 Nearly half that number – about 476,00o people – are employed in solar and wind in the United States,22 even though these sectors currently constitute less than 10% of the power mix.23 It is expected that reduced employment in fossil fuels through the transition can be more than offset by a rise in employment in renewables and construction. Under the E3ME global climate action scenario examined for this Report, low-carbon employment is set to rise by 65 million people by 2030, more than offsetting employment reductions in some declining sectors to lead to a net employment gain of 37 million jobs globally by 2030.”

            Again another classic economic mistake. Why would any entity want to increase their wage bill? Somebody has to pay those extra workers. If you can accomplish the same goal with less workers that is the option you will always want. Politicians always make this classic mistake by promising more jobs created under a new technology than under the old. The true goal should be all costs minimized under the project constraints.

            Another classic strawman argument is the following.

            “and the low-cost producers sell out their assets accordingly, then approximately US$12 trillion of financial value could vanish from their balance sheets in the form of stranded assets.”

            Why should low cost producers be driven out of the marketplace? Since global warming is a fraud, any action by governments to drive low cost producers of energy out of the market is economic suicide.

            The authors recognize the world’ poor in the following statement.

            “The investment challenge includes providing access to 2.7 billion people for clean cooking and to 1 billion for electricity.”

            However they provide no convincing case that green energy will do the job. The opposite is true. Only cheap fossil fuel energy will deliver low cost energy to the world’s poor.

            The authors give examples of where jurisdictions have increased their GDP after implementation of carbon taxes. Well as I said above any time the tax is paid no carbon reductions are achieved. As well, the jurisdictions that have done this have all increased their GDP through simple inflation numbers. The society is not better off because everything is now more expensive. As an example, BC which was the 1st province in Canada to introduce carbon taxes ; now has the highest gasoline prices in Canada.

      • Chasing the dragon.

        If you accept an increase in your property tax we will fix the streets.
        The streets don’t get fixed. Five years later…
        If you accept an increase in your property tax we will fix the streets.
        The streets don’t get fixed. Five years later…

      • My well water not always “on tap”. “On tap” is pure coddled urbanite/suburbanite living and beliefs.
        Absolutely zero taxes goes towards my well.
        Of course, if the power goes out for an extended time, I can always open the well cap and use a bucket.
        Without power, cities and suburbs will eventually run out of water.

        Nor is it expensive to build water treatment facilities, piping the water into giant overhead tanks and letting gravity supply the water.
        Somewhat more expensive than water treatment facilities are the sewage treatment facilities they often build in concert with the water treatment facilities.

        Each and every recipient of that “on tap” instant community water is paying fees and taxes for that water. Most communities calculate the sewage fees based on water usage.
        That’s right, water your yard lots, and your sewage fees increase.

        Each and every one of those water treatment plants and sewage treatment plants are constructed via bonds, not taxes.
        Consumers of the water pay those bonds back over long periods of time, thus adding interest costs to the water and sewage fees.

        Taxes on water and sewage are usually spent elsewhere by the local government.

        Why not crow about the massive wastes of funds government puts our taxes to?
        Bridges and roads to nowhere,
        Unnecessary red lights,
        Larger newer government buildings and staff,
        Bogus climate research,
        etc. etc.

        Meanwhile railroad architecture and infrastructure has been ignored for many decades. When a rail bridge starts dropping pieces of concrete, they put up road and sidewalk closed signs…

      • It also provides for Amtrak. Does that make your life better? The $84BB train to nowhere in California? Bike lanes?

        Toll roads fund themselves far, far more efficiently than a government go between.

        There are many private water suppliers in the US. You pay a fee to cover the the cost of the service.

        Is garbage collection cheaper/better when government gets involved or when private contractors handle it? (Hint: Does the VA have waiting lists?)

        Really the only things that government can and should cover are courts, police, defense, and standards. Literally everything else is better handled by the private sector through voluntary transactions.

    • I don’t think that’s always true. There are some things that require taxes and which make us better off – law and order for example, and the protection of private property. Some health initiatives that are pretty hard to do wholly in the private sector. Some infrastructure perhaps.

      There is though a limit, above which tax reduces growth.

    • People who claim more taxes are good for the economy work for the nomenklatura and for companies whose contracts are written by the nomenklatura. Add ’em up, and that’s hundreds of millions of people worldwide. They don’t have to give a damn about consumers most of the time, because many of the costs are hidden, and accountability is minimal.

      Case in point: Enviros often claim that solar panels “create jobs,” the proof being that solar employs 200,000 people in the U.S. (Not counting the manufacturers of the panels, mostly in China). The entire coal industry in the U.S., including the personnel operating coal-fired power plants, employs about 80,000. But here’s the rub: coal generates about 30% of U.S. electricity, all of it baseline, vs. maybe 2% by solar power, none of it baseline. That means 2.5 times more solar people generate 1/15th as much electricity as coal people. 2.5 x 15 = 37.5 — meaning coal-fired electricity is 37 times more efficient than solar-powered. The baseline vs. intermittent multiplies coal’s advantage.

      The solar vs. coal argument is a variation on the Milton Friedman parable from years ago about Chinese laborers digging ditches with picks & shovels. Friedman asked the supervisors why they didn’t use backhoes to make the work go faster. The supervisor said the project was designed to “provide jobs.” Friedman replied, “In that case, instead of shovels, you should have given them spoons.”

      • One of our cities had air quality issues so the government started to do emission testing. Today air quality is much better and emission testing is no longer needed but we still have to take cars in every two years for testing. Why? Because our testers would be out a job. Besides, they are self budgeting through fees, it’s not like they are using our taxes for funding…. Yes, this was from one of our politicians.

        FYI, they no longer even actually test the cars emissions. All they do is hook up a code reader and make sure you don’t have any active codes.

      • so you are fine with giving up more than 2% as long as others are equally deprived?
        why are you not crying out that you also want to pay less than 2%?

  2. “The world economy could grow $26 trillion in a decade if governments and businesses focus on climate change”

    Maybe they are confusing the “UN bureaucracy” with the “world economy”.

      • A recent Fraser Institute report showed that, under the current socialist government in Alberta, government jobs grew by 79,000 while private-sector jobs shrank by 46,000. Another report showed that government workers earn more, work fewer hours, retire earlier, and will have higher (taxpayer-funded) retirement incomes than their private-sector counterparts. Just think of the GDP increases we can create by having everyone work for the government… no unemployment, higher wages, shorter hours. What could possibly go wrong?

        • When the private sector is eliminated, where does the money to pay for the government employees, facilities, and retirement funds come from?

          {rhetorical, as Randy obviously knows there are limits to how large government can become before the whole thing collapses. }

        • Alberta was booming because of the oil sands. It was driving the Canadian economy. Then fracking came along. The oil sands can’t really compete with fracking and jobs started to dry up.

          We can’t blame Alberta’s plight on the NDP or the Conservatives or even Wild Rose. This is also not the first time when Albertans have been blindsided by crashing oil prices. Experience with different governments in different jurisdictions shows us that there is no good way to get around such an economic crash.

          • Canada needs more local Refineries to refine their own Oil rather than the Keystone Pipeline to get it to other refineries… (I like the Keystone Pipeline better though being an American)

    • We seriously started working on renewable energy during the 1970s oil shock. That’s four decades. That was ample time for renewable energy success stories to emerge. They haven’t.

      People have given renewable energy more than a fair trial and it has failed … repeatedly.

      • The supposed green jobs and economic benefits don’t materialize.

        For all the costs of going green — estimated by Ontario’s auditor general to total $170 billion over 30 years—none of the alleged economic and social benefits have materialized. link

        The greenies ignore the failures and keep on with their economic benefits mantra. They think we will keep trying until we get it right. They think we are insane.

        The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. link

      • CB: They’ve given the marxbrothers political economy a century and a half. It’s never worked, it’s killed a couple of hundred million and yet it keeps on renewing itself and caring claiming it’s the only answer for the economy, human rights, a clean sustainable environment…. never achieved by former practitioners.

        It was fashionable several decades ago for certain Canadian urbane pseudo-intellectuals to be Trotskyites. I argued with one on the track record of this politics and he assured me that the USSR and the others of the kind were not good examples of how an enlightened approach would work. I argued that what they hecame is what they become, and usually early on in their development. Think a caring, altruistic Hillary Clinton leading the proles.

        • Yes. The usual explanation offered by snake oil salesmen is that the patient died because he didn’t use it right.

      • Yes, governments do need tax revenue, but not for redistribution of wealth. Very little goes back into the private sector.

        • What does the money do, vanish into thin air?

          Because of deficits, the government puts more money back into the economy than it collects. Sooner rather than later, the money ends up back in the private sector.

          Does out of control government spending lead to the redistribution of wealth? I’m sure that some people end up poorer and some people end up richer. Where taxation and government spending create inefficiencies, the net result will be that more people end up poorer and fewer people will end up richer.

          • “Because of deficits, the government puts more money back into the economy than it collects.”

            Not true.

            There are two ways to finance a deficit.
            The first is to borrow the money. Whether it is taxed or borrowed, money is being taken out of the economy.
            The second is to print it. While this may look at first like you are injecting money into the economy, you aren’t. What you are doing is making all dollars worth less There may be more pieces of paper in circulation, but the total value is still the same.

  3. “raising and allocating public funds to sustainable infrastructure, and the smart use of limited public funds to attract private investment.” Around the world there billionaires, private investment firms, and corporations with billions in cash on the books. If it is such a good idea, sustainable infrastructure, let them risk their funds. We have learned from history, “the smart use of limited public funds to attract private investment”, leads to bail outs and corruption.

    • BTW, anyone know if the banks have paid us all back yet? Or are they still using our money, to replace our money, to repalce our money, to replace OUR flaming money?

      • Alan the Brit

        Fred the shred lost his knighthood but not the money he stole from everyone.

        And the outgoing chief of the TSB after the computer fiasco? £1.5M pay off.

      • In the US, TARP was entirely repaid:

        “TARP recovered funds totalling $441.7 billion from $426.4 billion invested, earning a $15.3 billion profit.”

        • Yet, the U.S. national debt still increases in every year. $21+ Trillion in debt accumulated and still rising… When the government spends less than it takes in, and the debt shrinks in each year for a decade, I might actually listen to proposals for more government involvement in the economy. Until then, when I hear politicians argue for more spending and more taxes, I see a drunken alcoholic asking for another drink.

          • I see a panhandler standing on a corner, asking for money for food, with no intention of spending said donations for food.

            As examples, what percent of fuel taxes go to actually building and maintaining roads? What percent of lottery receipts actually fund schools?

        • basically it was paid by giving the banks near zero loans and holding the overnight fe funds rate way down. Banks got free loans on one end while lending the money out at much higher rates to individuals and companies. Interest rates are still not back to normal even now

    • That’s the PPP pipedream PrivatePublicPartnerships.
      The private banks will say they have paid all back, so please bail us out now again in the current crash. Be sure of one thing – the profits squirreled away offshore are for them – it’s only social to bail them out, poor blokes, right?

  4. And what happens to all the products and jobs destroyed by those taxes? Are these people wilfully stupid?

  5. I love the “would create jobs” argument. If job creation is a desirable goal I have an even easier approach. Get 100 men to dig a big hole in the middle of nowhere. Now hire another 100 men to fill the hole back up. Bingo. 200 jobs created with exercise as a benefit and the manufacture of 200 shovels as economic spinoff.
    We don’t want job creation. We want job destruction and increased leisure time. Our ancestors spent virtually all of their lives working just to survive. Who wants to go back to that?

    • Break out the spoons and start digging…

      Think of how rich we’ll all become!

      ha ha ha ha ha …. hey, wait, this is not funny, it’s stupid. And not just stupid, but dangerously stupid. Effin’ socialists have never understood the concept of adding value in a free market economy. Ergo, in a modern world you still get outcomes like Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. I’d include China and Russia and Eastern Europe in that list, too, except those nations have at least partially pulled their heads out of their asses and let actual market forces work. And yet, we still have idiots wanting to force the US and Western economies into the same hopeless morass.

      Let’s see how this has helped Australia? Formerly reliable coal power is now being turned economically useless and coal plants are shutting down, while wind power subsidies and dispersed, low density, intermittent generation is turning the whole national grid into a fragile basket case, ready to blackout at a moments notice, with the highest prices for all ratepayers, and of course, the attendant shuttering of businesses that depend on cheap reliable electricity. That’s your big opportunity, you idiots! Pull your damn heads out!

      If you absolutely must regulate something, why don’t you pass a law saying fusion power MUST be solved by 2020. Wouldn’t that be great? Oh, and mandate free zero-emission, no fuel required flying cars and personal jet-packs while you’re at it. Mutter, mutter, ‘effin’ idiots. Sorry about the rant,

      • We have nuclear power and Apollo successes only because of national crash programs. The “free” market (what a joke) never could have done any of this. And Why?
        Well von Hayek’s free-market is supposed to spontaneously, but in an unknowable way, spring economic goodness forth (hence the magic of the market) . This unbelievable codswollop is taught as dogma at the LSE, Chicago…
        It’s magic, as Hayek himself acknowledged Mandeville . Too bad Mandeville ran the Hell fire clubs of the British Isles. This stuff makes Marx look sane.

          • Even those that are risky, are merely too risky now. At best, government accelerates what was already happening by a few years.
            At worst it imposes solutions before they are ready.

        • The Apollo program has meant very little. And the nuclear power program was an unexpected, unplanned offshot of the nuclear weapons program.
          If you want to see a superior nuclear program, take a gander at the current molten salt small modular reactor development – almost 100% privately funded development by a dozen companies competing with a variety of designs. Only China and India have provided substantial funding for their programs. I believe that Moltex Energy and Transatomic Power have the edge in this race to develop the world’s future power technology.
          These proposed programs that assume that renewables are the only or best path to a low carbon energy future are unbelievably ignorant and therefore disqualified as serious concepts.

        • it’s you suffering from the ‘magical thinking’ of the pretentious who wish to fake scholarship with no foundation of first hand experience.
          for your information, every innovation is achieved by an individual.
          there is no innovation done without the individual.
          that individual does what he does because he wants to- not because he’s told to.
          your sweeping generalizations ignore the fact that every case of innovation is an individual case – and you credit it to a non-entity of your fantasy.
          ‘free market’ is not a thing that does something spontaneously or otherwise.
          it is a condition which permits free agency of individuals.
          in point of fact, ‘free’ means there is no imposition of will by one on any other.
          Your metaphysics is defective if you imagine it possible to ‘make somebody think’.
          Force and mind are quite opposites.
          your personal hobbyhorse is still marxist drivel for all the lipstick you apply.

        • Yet Hayek has been proven right, time after time after time. You just throw insults around without providing any evidence, theoretical or practical of why he was wrong.

          How did Apollo make us richer?

          • There where numerous spin offs of the technology developments that coincided with the space programs, but people keep making the assumption that those technology developments would not have happened without government pushing the Moon landing programs. Integrated circuits, materials developments, computer developments where all occurring, but they did benefit from government contracts. It’s never as clear cut as advocates of government involvement would like us to believe.

        • I love it when those who worship big government take the fact that government did something as proof that only government can do something.

          If going to the moon was valuable enough, private enterprise could have and would have done it.
          Private enterprise doesn’t waste lots of money on virtue signaling.

          Hayek’s model has been proven over and over again.

          • Private enterprise doesn’t waste lots of money on virtue signaling.

            Historically that has been true. Today, however, there are all too many examples of private enterprise wasting money on virtue signaling. Nike with their Kaepernick ads and Burger King and their “pink tax” ads are just the two recent examples the immediately sprung to mind.

        • it isn’t magic at all. just common sense. individuals free to buy and sell what they really want, and they take the risks of it on both sides free of heavy govt intervention. why is that magic?

    • Trebla

      If governments were in charge of hole digging, it would take 400 men to dig it, 400 men to fill it in, with 100 shovels, and come in at twice the estimated cost. Then it would have to be re dug because they dug it in the wrong place!

        • Plenty of the above noted problems exist in capitalism like insurance companies, banks, utilities (monopolies unless owned by those being serviced) and basically any really large organization. Of course when one digs deeper most times their problems stem from government rules and regulations. Point being organizational size causes and exacerbates disfunction and what’s bigger than government?

          • Insuarance and banking are two of the most heavily regulated industries in existence. It’s complete nonsense to claim that their problems are the result of capitalism.
            Utilities are government regulated monopolies. There is no free market there.
            Monopolies can only exist when created and supported by government.

          • Mark,

            My point was they exist within our capitalistic system and that their disfunction grows with size of organization and I did point out that most of their problems are caused by government regulations. There is no ‘nonsense’ in my comment. I have worked as a bank officer and VP and know of what I speak. For instance, the mortgage debacle was the direct result of government intrusions in the banking system but was greatly enhanced by actions in the financial industry based upon pure greed and lacking the common sense to not lend money to folks who cannot pay it back. And it continues today. Believe me, regulations are necessary but it would be nice if they were not stupid regulaions but then that devolves into not having stupid regulators who take money from those being regulated. Without any regulations you would get screwd, just by different people.

          • Mark,

            Also your comment regarding monopolies is doubtful. Research showed that large corporations with 35% or more market share endup as oligopolies which operate very similar to monopolies in the real world. Utilities which are owned by those they service typically are more responsive to their customer/owners. Monopolies are not created by virtue of the of government but can be allowed to exist and enhanced by government policies, but to prevent them would also require government intervention and so you get back to wishing for smart policies, who will be written by not so smart people who get money from the people they regulate.

          • These large corporations lack the ability to set prices and to keep out competitors.
            Hence, they aren’t a problem, except to those who are jealous of people who have more.

          • Oligopolistic industries operate much like monopolies and I’m not jealous as I own some of their stocks, but it is my money they are getting when I buy their products at monopolistic prices that they then take a skim from to pay me my dividend. Total free market capitalism is not the utopia you may think it is and large corporations, not medium or small businesses, are the second largest threat to freedom and progress behind government. I have worked for them as well as owned my own small businesses and know that of which I speak.

          • These so called “monopolistic policies” exist in your mind only.
            Big business isn’t a threat to anyone.
            I have worked for both small and large companies and I can assure you that are seeing things.

          • I am definitely seeing things you did not. My perspective was from the board room and national level management of national companies and from ownership on my own businesses. And I worked my way up through many levels in the corporate world. From where was your perspective? Because you do not see it does not mean it does not exist. It may just mean you have not experienced enough to see it or refuse to see it like the true believers in the AGW cult because it does not fit your belief system.

          • Oligopolistic industries operate much like monopolies and I’m not jealous as I own some of their stocks, but it is my money they are getting when I buy their products at monopolistic prices that they then take a skim from to pay me my dividend

            In a free market, if they truly are selling their products at “monopolistic prices”, than sooner or later another company will see an opportunity to provide a competing product at a lower price. It’s only when there are barriers to competition (IE governmental interference) that “monopolistic pricing” can survive.

          • I don’t see how utilities can be counted as capitalist. Most are owned or regulated by government. That means no profit motive, which means no incentive to control costs via increased efficiency.

            Electricity power plants can be capitalist only if utilities actually have a fair bidding process for electricity suppliers.

            Government mandated green power is not capitalism


          • Steve,
            Utilities are many/most times owned by stock holders and /or those that they service, not government.

          • Having stockholders does not make a company capitalist. Operating in a free market does. Utilities are protected by government oversight (control) from competition and other free market influences.


          • They may not be owned by the government, but in pretty much every instance the government sets rates and all terms of service.
            The difference between control and ownership is a worthless piece of paper.

          • It might be possible to separate ownership of the wires that bring the power to your house and business from the generation of the power that flows over those wires.

          • Mark,
            “Might” is the key word and so far one reason why the government gets involved aside from governments’ great desire to run eveything.

    • We want wealth creation. Not job creation.

      One tractor and a harvesting machine with one driver and 200l or diesel can harvest a field of potatoes that would have taken 100 men a week of literally backbreaking work.

      Greens want us to go back to that.

    • No, we just want job destruction. Take 100 people doing something, halve it so that you only need 50 people and you have 50 who can produce something else. We are now richer by the value of the labour of those 50 people.

      Having to use more people produce what we currently produce makes us POORER.

    • LSE dogma.
      Growth comes from investment in advanced physical economics. Tariffs when necessary to protect, and a form of national credit over 20 years at low interest. Look at the TVA, NASA, transport, New Deal, Manhattan Project.
      It’s called the American System of Henry Clay, Alexander Hamilton, Matthew Carey, Lincoln, McKinley.
      Trump has openly endorsed this. Just gag at the vicious attacks because of this.

      • tariffs prevent the rational execution of a better trade- so sacrifice good to bad?
        national credit means wholesale imposition of liability for the debts of others – slavery much?
        it’s called the spoils system.
        believe whatever you wish, but don’t steal. leave other people alone.
        you don’t own them. you can not ever own them.
        respect the rights or we have war.

      • “Growth comes from investment in advanced physical economics. ”

        Which is why low taxes are good and government spending is bad.
        Expecting politicians to invest wisely is like expecting a drunk to be a good driver. It will never happen.

        The only thing tariffs do is to protect those with access to politicians from competition. They take money from US consumers and transfer that money to those with political connections.

        Once again, you list things done by government, and then declare without evidence that only government could have done them.

        By the way, the New Deal was a complete disaster, it turned a bad recession into the Great Depression.

        • Close. It was already an economic depression when the New Deal came along. The New Deal turned what was a minor depression into a great one.

  6. It is always about SOMEBODY ELSE’S money, ie Tax Payers.
    They are really good at spending it while making fortunes for themselves.

  7. The German Greens let the cat out of the bag with a new 10-point memorandum by Gerhard Schick.
    The idea is to avoid the next inevitable banking crash with sustainable investment.

    Of course the Gov’t gets involved in a crash – just look at the bailouts from Northern Wreck to Lehman.

    Of course this insane attempt to “save” the system cannot work. Only bank-separation and national credit for real physical economic programs quickly to avoid utter economic collapse.

    Now the von Hayek, London School Economics trolls here will never tolerate National Credit, Glass-Steagal bank separation ala FDR (calling him a socialist – the dumbest thing I ever heard).

    • To be fair, FDR was more properly a fascist. Private ownership was tolerated as long as you did what you were told. But fascists, socialists, and communists are all kissing cousins, just with different accents.

  8. I am assuming the copy is correct. “In developing countries, roughly 60% of infrastructure investment is from the public sector, while in developing countries it is only about 40%. ” Say what?

    • I’m assuming one of the “developing” was meant to be “developed”. the confusing sentence is directly quoted from the source linked below the quote, so the error isn’t with the article here on WUWT.

      After a little digging, I found the following bullet points in “The Sustainable Infrastructure Financing Imperative”:
      “Dependency on public finance is very high in developing countries at around 60 percent of infrastructure investment”
      “In advanced economies the relative breakdown is reversed, with the private sector accounting for 60 percent.”

      so 60% is for developing counties and 40% is for developed (IE advanced economies).

  9. Note to alarmists: Advancing economically illiterate nonsense is not the best way to convince skeptics that you’ve got this “science” thing all buttoned up. Is your climate science as bad as your economic science?

    If the US were to spend $26 Trillion building a useless, giant, concrete blob structure in the middle of the badlands the direct effect on the economy would be a “benefit” of $26 Trillion. Wasteful government spending is included as part of GDP, but that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. We could also spend $26 Trillion on roads, or train tracks, or other endeavors that would actually provide some real benefit.

    • The climate scam is there to push LSE “economics” to save their bubble. Trump allocated a few Trillion for his campaign promise of massive infrastructure. China, the leader there, said 10 Trillion would be the correct USA figure. The bailout Barneys scuttled it with PPP BS. Even NASA’s Bridenstine is on that dead-end. PPP’s never got anyone to the Moon. That flag planted was no Private Equity logo. (What the new Armstrong movie will plant I do not know).

  10. I think I’d be happier if they replaced the word “could” with the word “would”, at least it would imply a level of confidence in their own words!

    • Alan the Brit

      “Could” is the operational term for: “I suggested it but if some idiot does it and it fails, I’m not responsible. On the other hand, if it succeeds well, that’s a different story. I mean, I suggested it in the first place didn’t I? Give me money and a title thank you very much”.

      ~Sigh~. Such an innocent little word.

  11. ….More Taxpayer Climate Cash And Carbon Taxes Would Boost the World Economy by $26 Trillion…

    Currently carbon taxes can hardly be more than 10% of GDP – probably a lot less. Anyway, if taxing us will ‘boost the economy’ by such a lot, why not tax us 100% and boost the economy by $260 Trillion?

    Any flaw in this argument?

  12. One would expect an eonomist to see how opportunity costs, as well as the law of unintended consequences, affect economic activity in ways that are unseen or ignored. It reminds me of Parable of the broken window.

    I wonder if some economist of the future will become famous for his discussion of the Parable of the green boondongle.

      • Steve,
        Kinda, but only if you don’t fear God. Yep, I know that some of us do it for better reasons but many buy the fear line.

        • If you don’t tithe nothing happens, well you could be shunned, do they still do that? or some other action.

          If you don’t pay your taxes, eventually men with guns show up at your door to take your house or cart you off to jail.

          • That does not mean that some preacher won’t guilt you into giving more than you can afford. Plus, the bible says lots of things that are interpreted differently by different denominations. Bottom line, Steve’s got it right, at least in most religions, unlike the government, men with guns will not come to your door if you don’t pay, but you might go to hell or get sick, or not get well, on and on, if you are too stingy with God. So the threat remains.

          • Mark,

            Are you saying that or are you saying that I am saying that? I do not think religion is a danger but simply stating the facts of what happens. Communist style atheism is a danger in that the government gains power which is why it was attempted to be implemented in the USSR only 60 years later it was found that many went right back to their religious practices, which evidently they had maintained on the sly since youger folks had not experienced the old style religion practiced openly.

  13. The surest evidence that the Global Warmists™ are presently living in fear that their Huge Golem has been discovered to be a Little Mouse, is just this. Tax the public (of the World) $26,000,000,000,000 to create an equal amount of economic miracles, and everyone will be happy.

    Marxism — socialism in general — has rarely in history had a more fertile field in which to grow. Take from everyone (taxation), and redistribute to people needing jobs and work. Oh, so fair!

    As Jordan Peterson so eloquently repeats in many of his lectures (yes, I’m a fan), “We’ve tried that! History records that the Marxist Experiment was directly responsible for no fewer than 60 million deaths, and there’s quite a bit of evidence for over one hundred million

    Well, that’s true.
    And that’s sobering.

    We definitely do NOT need the proletariat “rising up” to take power, to tax and harry whom they wish, and in the end doing the abysmal ideologically bankrupt things they think (but do not know or understand) will create their paradise-on-earth. It doesn’t work.

    And that is precisely what this giga-tax is.

    Oddly, being somewhat “trained in economics” (UCBerkeley was a great school!), I tend to side with the taxation-to-modify-behavior idealists. The Great Squeeze in 1973 (Mideast Oil Crisis) gave all of us who lived thru it quite a first-hand lesson in macroeconomic supply-and-demand forces. The tripling of “price at the pump”, and the number of filling stations that had “run dry” was remarkable. You couldn’t sell a big car if your life depended on it. The tiny box from Japan was in. The 400 horse tunaboat was out.

    And the trend lasted well over a decade. People economized because gasoline had skyrocketed.

    The point was obvious: if you WANT to modify public consumption of “X”, then you only need to artifically restrict the availability of “X”, to the point where its price meteorotically rises, and the shock spreads through the population, causing the desired change.

    But “policy makers” also need to be wary: there are hundreds of unintended effects that come with the primary change. People not repairing their old, big cars, becoming nasty pollution sources. Cars left abandoned everywhere. People stealing gasoline in roving gangs of bandits (Happened to me over a dozen times!) Stratospheric (but entirely coöpting and mendacious) rise in the prices of produce, grocery-store goods. “Higher shipping” costs, don’t you know.

    Yet I remain an advocate of using Taxation to change Behavior, if we really need and want to.

    But this? This “tax the world, and it’ll flower” is pure Marxism, repackaged for a world of younger people who have NO IDEA the toxicity of the idea. It sounds (like almost everything socialist) so sweet. Take from the Bad, and give to the Good. Bigly.

    Be wary of this argument.
    Its sexiness defies time.
    And its followers are particularly heartless, when it comes to judgement.
    ANTIFA as an example.

    Just saying,

    • “Yet I remain an advocate of using Taxation to change Behavior, if we really need and want to.”
      if you really desire to rule over people who Do Not Want to.

      so splain what it is you find so sexy about that timeless excuse for stealing?

    • The whole notion that those who run government are knowledgeable and wise enough to decide how people ought to be behaving and that they can design a tax system to gently guide people into this ideal behavior is nonsense on stilts.

    • Taxation exists to fund the government. Anything (ANYTHING!) more than that belongs in a religion just like Pigovian carbon taxes. It’s the liberal conceit of knowledge which is guaranteed to fail.

  14. It’s so obvious! A massive tax on energy is a GREAT thing — best thing since sliced bread. And you can be sure that loot would be used wisely and not squandered by the government. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

  15. Leftists’ economic ignorance is only surpassed by their ignorance of climatology and physics..

    Leftists refuse to understand the economic concepts of price discovery, opportunity costs, supply/demand dynamics, profit motive, marginal utility… well.. pretty much every aspect of economics..

    Alternatives energies will never succeed without governemnt subsidies because they’re too: expensive, inefficient, diffuse, unreliable and intermittent.

    Leftist governments suck at running economies. Misallcating limited land/labor/capital creates exponential economic harm that spirals out of control and eventually leads to economic collapse as we seen throughout history, and what we’re witnessing now in Venezuela.

    Markets are especially adept at adopting new technologies when it economic sense to do so.

    Governemnts need to stick with what they’re good at: blowing stuff up, building infrastructure, arresting/adjudicating criminals, protecting borders/Immigration, passing as few essential laws, tax collecting and that’s about it… Everything else can be supplied by individuals and/or the private sector.

    • Look at posters above, declaring that if something is big, only government can do it and we should be grateful that there is a big and powerful government that is willing to take care of us.

      • The governments ONLY reasons to exist are to protect individual American citizens’ rights to: life, freedom from government oppression, and private property by exercising ONLY the 17 enumerated tasks outlined in Artile 1 Section 8 of the Constitution…

        Whether a task is big or small is irrelevant. If the governemnt doesn’t have the Constitutional power/authority to do something, it is prohibited from doing it…

  16. Level the playing field? If renewables were sustainable and cost effective and reliable the market would jump all over them. No playing field leveling would be needed. Obviously this is not the case.

  17. “I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” – Winston Churchill

    In the history of the world, no nation has ever taxed its way into prosperity, but there are countless examples of taxes destroying a once vibrant economy and leaving the people in misery. The only people in the world who believe that taxation is the way to a thriving economy are people who are being paid through the acquisition of tax dollars.

    Sure enough…this report is from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate. “The Commission comprises former heads of government and finance ministers and leaders in the fields of economics and business, and was commissioned by seven countries – Colombia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Norway, South Korea, Sweden and the United Kingdom – as an independent initiative to report to the international community.”

    So these people have been hired by governments to create a report that basically says how everything will be wonderful if everyone just turns over their wealth and freedom to governments! This has been tried countless times before with an amazing record of complete and sometimes horrific failure! No exceptions! In a world where nothing is perfect, this type of government economic thinking remains unblemished by even a hint of success.

    The world economy is a little worse off just because this commission exists and is being supported by public dollars. Those dollars are now gone with nothing put economic excrement to show for it.

  18. Maybe people should be allowed to put their money where there mouth is. What if the government made funding of Climate Change research voluntary. Annual spending in the U.S. was $3.4 Billion in 2016 divided by 140 million individual tax payers, that comes to nearly $25. So just like that little box you can check ( I never do) for campaign financing, provide a box for an extra $25 to fund Climate Research. And if it falls short of the $3.4 Billion then that’s just too bad. Pay cuts, reduction in grants, eliminating positions etc. would be the order of the day.

    • I’ve always been a proponent of the idea that you get to apportion your tax dollars among the programs as you see fit and they have to deal with the budgetary consequences of that.

  19. Seriously? We get richer from making things more efficient – that’s it, pretty much all our wealth comes from increasing productivity. So does going green make us more efficient? No.

    It does make us less efficient though, which must – MUST – mean it makes us poorer. That’s it. You don’t need pages and pages of analysis or claims or stories. To make us richer, it must make what we do more productive. Or it will not make us richer.

    • Plus consider productive of what? More crops, less time wasted, more widgets, or more paper work and regulations to make others less productive. Government at all levels, has the Midas touch in reverse, the extreme opposite of gold and it literally stinks. Even those things that they do that are necessary, roads, police, fire, military become less efficient with the size of the subject government.

    • Efficient and more intense – for example higher energy density processes , from fire to fusion. From huntergatherer to intense farming. Take away energy density and we will “fall” back down the curve to primate population densities, in other wise genocide on a mass scale. Dr. Schellnhuber CBE calls that “optimal” – see Optimum Population Trust since renamed to something more solon acceptable,
      Thus the Greens show their true color – not red but brown.

  20. The way to goose the economy is to take money from people that earned it and give it to people who buy politicians.


  21. “What we are trying to do with this report is once and for all put the nails in the coffin on that idea.”
    Oooooooooh! Missed it by that much!

  22. What exactly is The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, who pays them, and how well? The Report is totally devoid of any technical specifics. A bunch of parasites, maybe?

    • The ECB and FED wit now QE4 and terrified to trim, are just spewing trillions. Probably outsourced from the UN.

  23. These people really don’t understand even basic economics.
    Taxation constrains creation of value added products and true wealth.

    • Absolutely correct, but taxation empowers those who benefit from taxing others to say otherwise. And there’s the rub!

  24. A Santa Barbara city councilman inadvertently let slip the primary purpose of progressivism in 21st century America.

    The city recently criminalized the use of plastic straws. Speaking to that issue, Councilman Jesse Dominguez said, “Unfortunately, common sense is just not common. We have to regulate every aspect of people’s lives.”

    • As if those creating the regulations will employ common sense!

      I am reminded of the “hanging chad” controversy of the 2000 presidential election in the US. Progressives called for a federal mandate to ensure that all voting was done using mark sense reader technology.

      It was lost on these progressives that when the government chooses a technology, alternatives are frozen out. Had the federal government been in control of all precincts’ method of voting before 2000, ALL voting would have been by punch card. No precincts would have been able to switch to mark sense readers when that technology became available.


  25. Taking money away from the real productive sector by government taxation has never improved the economy. This is precisely why, when the left big costly governments have impoverished the economy, the right gets elected to turnaround double digit real unemployment and recessionary flat or declining growth. How do they accomplish this? By strongly chopping government employment and redundancy and slashing taxes -corporate and personal. It works every time and this lesson, it seems, cannot be learned.

  26. Mony spent or moved without doing work—creating real wealth—does not boost the global economy. One might as well flush it down a toilet.

  27. You create lots of non jobs AND create more destructive climate police jobs which are turning inefficient government from just bad to a basket cases. Add that to wasting the skills and time of expensively trained engineers on worthless projects. That will do what exactly? Create wealth? Advance society?

  28. With all the additionalCO2 in the atmosphere, my money tree is producing extra cash. I will use this to pay for my share of the carbon taxes.

  29. Just another international socialist elite scam for wealth redistribution.

    I often ponder the demand from the Left for the USA to spending trillions of tax dollars going to renewables while at the same time they demand we give trillions to third world countries. Meanwhile, another branch of the elite socialists movement wants worker bees to cough up trillions for universal health care, free college tuition, etc, etc.

    As for those debating here today whether government expenditures economically benefit society, they do but an great inefficiency. For 20 out of thirty plus professional career I managed a government budget. When we attempted to go to “measurable outcomes” and connect those outcomes to cost our state government had significant problems and staff rebellion. First, most had an extremely hard time defining a single measurable outcome for their program. Second, even those that were responsible for their program budget had a hard time defining the total cost to obtain a given outcome once defined.

    To give one a hint of what it cost for government to do its job consider just personnel issues. A individual full time employee with benefits cost our state, some states and the federal government are considerable more, 1.3 times their present salary, which might be as much as three times the base salary for the position. Not included in those benefits are the cost of a personnel disciplinary system, workmen’s compensation, unemployment compensation, training, office space & maintenance, transportation, travel, etc. Note even when travels is restricted to ground transportation it is the second largest cost besides personnel for most agencies. All of which are costs incurred prior to any productive activity, like producing a measurable outcome. Note all these same cost apply to university staff plus additional cost, like laboratory space, classroom, etc.

    I could take any government budget and within 18 months cut the total cost and total personnel by at least 25% and no one would notice any difference in outcome to the public. During the 1990s I did it four years running.

    • Don’t forget the additional $32 Trillion the Left wants to spend for ‘universal health care’ (not counting the illegal immigrants they also want to cover), which provides no actual care.

  30. 2020 is the target date for the global carbon tax push. That global Rahm Emanuel moment will be the revenue Spindletop they have been lusting over for years now. The Waxman-Markey bill was a good omen for the over reach style and the slush fund design aspects. It will be sold as a business-only tax and with many vote-buying features to protect the poor. Get ready. A storm is coming from the west.

  31. Is it just me or do I see bare faced marxism we have always known to be there showing its ugly face in plain sight? Groups of suspicious scientists calling for world government etc. I do not believe in coincidences In this field. Too much bs and double speak for too long. Lord Monkton has pointed the finger at the root cause for a number of years

  32. Powering generators by burning the money directly in the furnace would be more cost efficient that the present generation of solar generators and wind farms, particularly at night in a wind lull.

  33. Is there an example of an economy that has grown with an introduction of a tax on energy and production and a focus solely on climate change?

    What planet do these people live on?

  34. This is similar to the broken window fallacy. Some of the carbon taxes they collect might very well be used to subsidize a low-carbon path (after government siphons off their cut). But they don’t take into account the fact that the taxed individuals and businesses would have spent that money for other things, many of which would be more practical and valuable to the economy than what the government does with the money.

  35. It’s like drilling more holes in your life boat to employ more water bailers… Taxes do not generate real GDP growth. Taxed dollars are taken away from those best equipped to use them in the most efficient way and given to those least equipped.

Comments are closed.