IPCC Demands $240/gal Gasoline Tax!

Guest “Just Say No” by David Middleton


11:50 AM 10/08/2018
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

  • A new U.N. report suggests a $240 per gallon gas tax equivalent is needed to fight global warming.
  • The U.N. says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton in the year 2100.
  • If you think that’s unlikely to ever happen, you’re probably right.

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

If you think that’s an unlikely scenario, you’re probably not wrong. However, it’s what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report, released Sunday night, sees as a policy option for reducing emissions enough to keep projected warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.


Daily Caller


From SR15

In summary, new analyses are consistent with the AR5 and show that the price of carbon would need to increase significantly when a higher level of stringency is pursued (high confidence). Values vary substantially across models, scenarios and socio-economic, technology and policy assumptions. While the price of carbon is central to prompt mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5°C-consistent pathways, a complementary mix of stringent policies is required.


104 = 10,000

 Carbon tax per ton of CO2
 Recent price $25.00 $30.00 $27,000
Gasoline per gallon (retail) $2.50 $0.22 $0.27 $240
Natural gas per mcf (residential) $10.91 $1.33 $1.59 $1,434
Propane per gallon (residential) $2.50 $0.14 $0.17 $152
Heating oil per gallon (residenial) $3.07 $0.25 $0.30 $270
Kerosene per gallon (retail) $3.29 $0.24 $0.29 $260
Coal per short ton (Powder River Basin) $12.10 $52.52 $63.02 $56,720

Effects of carbon tax on specific fuels

Just say NO! MAGA!



0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 9, 2018 6:19 am

That’s the end game with carbon taxes. Take away everything people have, and then further increases will result in people turning off the heat in their houses, and not driving to work, say, 1/2 the time so as to cut CO2 emissions in half, or whatever percentage the totalitarians believe is ‘just right’.

ferd berple
Reply to  DougMacKenzie
October 9, 2018 7:39 am

and not driving to work, say, 1/2 the time
already happening in China. In major cities people have 2 cars. One with an odd license number, the other even, so they have 1 car to drive every day.

Nothing to do with CO2. Even with 12 lane highways each direction, stacked 3 and 4 levels deep, and with half the cars off the road, still bumper to bumper 24 hours per day.

And still lots of growth to come, with more people in rural China likely headed for the cities than the entire US population. Chongqing city for example has 30+ million, way more than the entire population of Australia.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ferd berple
October 13, 2018 6:06 am

GB, swell idea:

“already happening in China. In major cities people have 2 cars. One with an odd license number, the other even, so they have 1 car to drive every day.”

and no need for expensive cars – scooters are everybody’s darling.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  ferd berple
October 13, 2018 6:11 am


Kevin Kilty
October 9, 2018 6:19 am

Of course there will be many exemptions, lots of tax credits, but otherwise it is back to the world economy c. 1859.

Reply to  Kevin Kilty
October 9, 2018 7:33 am

Oh no, it’s back to 1859 energy usage but with ten twenty times the population.

What that really means is reducing ( decimating ) the world population to back to pre-industrial levels.

I’m sure we can count on the AGW alarmists who favour this solution to do the right thing.

I suspect the rest of the world will simply say “No means no”.

John Endicott
Reply to  Greg
October 9, 2018 8:30 am

Indeed, wiping out half the population is a desirable goal in their worldview (which makes Thanos the hero of Avengers Infinity war for them).

Reply to  Greg
October 9, 2018 8:47 am

And with everybody knowing what they have lost in terms of wealth, health and liberty.

It’s one thing to live in 1859 an not know any better, another to live like it’s 1859 and know how you could be living.

James Beaver
Reply to  Greg
October 9, 2018 9:09 am

Leftists are already opting to not have children. Too much bother and responsibility…

AGW is not Science
Reply to  James Beaver
October 9, 2018 9:20 am

If only they would, and at the same time, STOP trying to “indoctrinate” everyone else’s.

John Endicott
Reply to  James Beaver
October 9, 2018 9:45 am

Are they really? Some leftists, like Eric Holthaus talk that talk about not having children, but they don’t walk the walk (IE they have children despite all the talk about how they wouldn’t be having children).

And even if all the leftist stop having kids, they’d still be trying to indoctrinate the children of everyone else.

Reply to  James Beaver
October 9, 2018 11:35 am

I fail to see the relevance of your post.

John Endicott
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 11:39 am

fail to or don’t want to?

Reply to  Greg
October 9, 2018 10:22 am

Sorry to be pedantic, but strictly speaking “decimating” would only reduce the population by 1/10.

John Endicott
Reply to  quaesoveritas
October 9, 2018 11:38 am

historically, that is correct. However, language evolves over time, and the word has more recently be used as:

1.kill, destroy, or remove a large percentage or part of.

•drastically reduce the strength or effectiveness of (something).

“plant viruses that can decimate yields”

rather than:

kill one in every ten of (a group of soldiers or others) as a punishment for the whole group

Reply to  John Endicott
October 9, 2018 11:56 am

like organic was a chemical term spawned in 1831 pertaining to molecules containing carbon, but in 1947 it came to mean such vague things as natural, healthy, harmonious, free of ‘chemicals’ ..

I like when specific words retain their original meaning, it helps prevent confusion and prevents the mischievous from claiming things they have no right to .. such as the left claiming liberalism and redefining certain mid-20th century Italian and German socialist practices as ‘right wing’ – you get my drift I’m sure.

but sure, linguists recognize languages have served to both communicate and include, and to to obfuscate and exclude.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
October 9, 2018 12:30 pm

Yeah, it would be nice if words didn’t change their meanings over time. Unfortunately, only dead languages have such static meanings.

Reply to  quaesoveritas
October 15, 2018 2:08 am

So you are saying that because some people use a word incorrectly, we should all use the word incorrectly?

October 9, 2018 6:23 am

It takes just as long to say IPCC as it does the word ‘hypocrisy’, but you can save a bit of time when keyboarding.

October 9, 2018 6:28 am

Does the IPCC even know what a reality check is?

Reply to  HotScot
October 9, 2018 6:38 am

No, of course not.

Reply to  HotScot
October 9, 2018 12:41 pm

that’s the one they get from governments with lots of zeros ..

October 9, 2018 6:31 am

It will require considerable use of fossil fuels to enable this tax to be paid. Do I detect a certain circular glitch here? (sarc.

October 9, 2018 6:35 am

Simply madness.

October 9, 2018 6:37 am

That is almost as funny as watching the two major Parties in Australia trying to dance around the report that says the world should stop using coal by 2050. Labour has promised twice the level of emission target as the Libs but can’t go near the “stop using coal by 2050 policy” because of all the union workers (who they supposedly represent) that work in the coal industry. So it like the above statement would be a political suicide if ever uttered by either party.

I hope the green nutcase media pick it up and hound the politicians about it because it is sheer entertainment value 🙂

Reply to  LdB
October 9, 2018 7:11 am

How about of all the low-income people who might just die from hypothermia or winter -related illnesses when it comes to ‘heat or eat’?

Maybe the two parties (which are joined at the hip) could answer that one.

James Beaver
Reply to  Tim
October 9, 2018 9:10 am

That is a sacrifice they are prepared to make for the sake of Gaia.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Tim
October 9, 2018 9:22 am

Part of the idea, though the Eco-Nazis will never admit it outside of closed doors.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  LdB
October 9, 2018 9:25 am

Yes, I always love a good politician-in-a-corner game! LOL

October 9, 2018 6:41 am

Oh, but the United Nations cares deeply for poor peoples, indigenous peoples, anyone who falls into a self-actuated group that identifies with White European Oppression.

So some of those egregious taxes of course would pay for the Poor not to work, not to progress. They would however have unlimited access to reeducation camps, new blue canvas tents and UN prepaid anonymous cell phones.

Of course.

Bryan A
Reply to  GoatGuy
October 9, 2018 9:56 am

A United Nations special climate report suggests a tax on carbon dioxide emissions would need to be as high as $27,000 per ton at the end of the century to effectively limit global warming.

For Americans, that’s the same as a $240 per gallon tax on gasoline in the year 2100, should such a recommendation be adopted. In 2030, the report says a carbon tax would need to be as high as $5,500 — that’s equivalent to a $49 per gallon gas tax.

Considering human respiration produces about 1/2 ton Carbon per year, perhaps it is time to send an annual bill of $2,750 – $13,500 to every UN delegate and IPCC Panel Member for their contribution to the social cost of carbon.

Reply to  Bryan A
October 9, 2018 11:33 am

$27,000/ton translates to $13.50/gal

Don’t believe anything where the article ends with “MAGA”

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 11:46 am

i’d like to see your math on that please.

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 11:53 am

US units are not my native tongue, but I understand 1 ton is 2000 pounds, so $27K/ton is $13.5/pound of CO2-e. The EIA website tells me 1 gallon of what you call gasoline produces 19.6 pounds of CO2-e, so price per gallon will be $13.5*19.6 = $265 or thereabouts.

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 12:10 pm

In my defence where I live a metric “ton” is spelt tonne. But perhaps in the spirit of MAGA I’ll let you have your way 🙂

John Endicott
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 12:19 pm

Thanks HAS, I was wondering where the burdened math degree holder got his erroneous $13.50 figure from. $13.50 is the per pound of CO2 price not the per gallon price (1 gallon of gas does not equate to 1 pound of CO2).

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 1:03 pm

Even when I ignore your duff maths, I’d say 1 cent extra on a gallon would be too much.
A carbon tax will never be needed. End of.

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 1:24 pm

$27,000/ton translates to $13.50/gal

This reminds me of a joke statement where an author claimed that drinking scotch on the rocks would use more calories raising ice water to body temperature than would be gained from the alcohol in the scotch. Therefore you could lose weight by just drinking scotch on the rocks.

His math was wrong because he used the standard calorie for raising ice water to body temperature and failed to use the large calorie (which is used to measure food energy content) for the scotch. A large calorie is 1000 standard calories.


Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 2:00 pm

I don’t believe anything bizarre little Trump haters say…so far I am 100% accurate to have done so. MAGA.

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 4:07 pm

That’s ton of CO2, not of gasoline.

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 10:43 pm

I note as a curiosity that as I understand it MAGA-land shares pure imperial with only two other counties, Liberia and Myanmar.

Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 10:47 pm

Actually I stand corrected. Myanmar is the only country to still use the Imperial system, USA and Liberia use the “US Customary Units” system.

October 9, 2018 6:41 am

Electric vehicles? Road tax based on cost to produce electricity (fossil) and the mileage driven?
What will that do to the cost of transporting food?
Government also seems to detest “people out of place” – always locatable. Personal transportation makes it nearly impossible to count their little ducklings.

william Johnston
Reply to  fxk
October 9, 2018 7:17 am

But can’t modern cell phones be used to track people?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  william Johnston
October 9, 2018 9:36 am

They’re not satisfied with that; they also want to LIMIT where you can go, the better to enable them to run your life for you as they see fit in their infinite wisdom.

Reply to  william Johnston
October 9, 2018 9:41 am

I have three, does that mess up their census?

October 9, 2018 6:52 am

We live in interesting times.

The truth is that progressive fuel taxes would definitely lead to the “buying public” changing their outlook and expectation as to what fuel is preferred for powering their vehicles, busses, heating their food, houses, recharging their smart phones, computers, and lighting their lights.

And, while $27,000/ton taxation is spectacularly egregious, it highlights a point: when the cost of a product that we dig today from the ground for less than $15 a barrel on the average, is forced to ‘cost’ the industries and consumers using its refined products as much as Sperm Whale oil ($27,000 a barrel), well … guess what. People will definitely use something else.

Even when the price is has fewer “clown zeros”, perhaps more along the lines of $250 to $1,000 a barrel through taxation and the almost inevitable squeezing of its supply through natural means, even then … the real world up charge will cause behavior change.

I’m frequently guilty of recalling the Oil Embargo of what was it, 1973? When OPEC decided they really, really didn’t like Israel winning so handily the war that they had started. The embargo was comprehensive, it was sizable, it was fairly long, and it was utterly politically motivated. And no one — worldwide — could do one dâhmned thing about it.

Here in the US, the price of gasoline rose so fast, so far, that the old gas pumps were unable to be adjusted to the full over-$1.00-a-gallon price. Prominent hand-written pump signs said, “Pump charges half, final price doubled on payment”, or some such.

The net effect though was to give a HUGE shot-in-th-bûtt to the tiny-car industry, and to the propane-retrofit industries to modify existing vehicles to take the WAY cheaper propane and use it effectively. The tiny-car manufacturers couldn’t keep their spiffy tin cans in stock.

The moral of that story was: imposed taxation — in this case an embargo — caused decade-long permanent consumer-product-interest change. You couldn’t sell one of the late 1960s “tuna boats” if you tried.

Just saying,
With fewer clown-zeroes, a progressive and significant tax changes consumer sentiment.
Which… if that’s what we’re trying to do… gets the job done.


ferd berple
Reply to  GoatGuy
October 9, 2018 7:51 am

With fewer clown-zeroes, a progressive and significant tax changes consumer sentiment.
Which… if that’s what we’re trying to do… gets the job done.
The arab oil embargo had HUGE unintended consequences and didn’t accomplish the primary aim.

The oil embargo didn’t help the arabs and hurt Israel. It didn’t bring peace and prosperity to the middle east. Rather, Israel is still there. Much of the arab world is in ruin or living in abject poverty under tyrannical rule despite untold trillions of dollars in oil revenues.

So pretty much you can be sure the one thing a carbon tax will NOT DO is get rid of carbon.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ferd berple
October 9, 2018 8:52 am

It would develop a whole new underground oil/oil economy. One similar to Joseph Kennedy Sr.’s scotch importing business an the myriad other rum-runners and Appalachian bootleggers during the prohibition of the Volstead Act. Some of my kinfolk were the latter.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
October 9, 2018 9:37 am

If the UN thinks they could “impose” such a tax, they have another think coming. The colonists rebelled against George III for a penny tax on tea. The American spirit hasn’t been beaten out that badly, and we have resisted the small arms treaty for a reason. The UN is pushing that piece of work explicitly so they could then impose this kind of balderdash on the world. This is also why gun control is a central plank of ALL “progressive” parties around the world.

UN “Diplomats” have been complaining there is too much violent crime in NY for many years, I wonder how they would like an active armed insurrection targeting them as a replacement!

Reply to  GoatGuy
October 9, 2018 8:14 am

Your post appears to be predicated on the presumption that “the job” needs doing. What if it doesn’t?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  GoatGuy
October 9, 2018 8:35 am

GoatGuy, I think it was around ’73 during the embargo that the EPA imposed it’s first auto emissions requirements here in the US. In order to meet them, since the EPA didn’t have the foggiest idea what they were doing, the auto companies had to cut gas mileage almost in half, burning twice the fuel per mile in order to reduce the specified one or two emissions products. I was in a traveling job at the time and remember that when renting an automobile you were lucky if it made it past the sidewalk and into the street before it quit running. I think I averaged one car out of three or four that I had to return within the first 15 minutes or so. Needless to say, you had to plan ahead for that possibility.

Reply to  GoatGuy
October 9, 2018 8:50 am

Yet the price of gas then came down, even though the oil price did not.

The problem was short term supply, not oil price. The government simply caused a massive panic that led to panic-buying. Most of the problems could have been easily avoided.

Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
Reply to  GoatGuy
October 9, 2018 8:58 am

The OPEC embargo had two lasting, positive consequences. It motivated President Reagan to skip the phase-out of price controls on domestic oil production and do away with them in one fell swoop. That ended the oil “shortage” we had endured through the 70s, permanently. In the process, it served as the most conclusive, irrefutable proof of the disastrous effects of price controls and the salutary effects of eliminating them.

John Endicott
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly LS, BSA Ret.
October 9, 2018 11:42 am


Chris Dynak
October 9, 2018 6:53 am

They’re going to regulate us back to the horse and buggy. So progressive of them. Thank you sir! May I have another?

October 9, 2018 6:56 am

Just say NO!

comment image

Barbara Skolaut
October 9, 2018 7:02 am

“$240 per gallon gas tax equivalent”

Nicht nur nein, aber scheisse nein!

Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
October 9, 2018 8:49 am

Doch kann wir nicht! Das ist ein scheißmal zu viel!

October 9, 2018 7:05 am

This will also pay for the UN to move to their new offices off planet – Elysium

Coach Springer
October 9, 2018 7:21 am

Is that in inflation adjusted dollars? If not, we’re talking $500 per. Are they saying wind and solar aren’t up to the challenge? I think so.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Coach Springer
October 9, 2018 9:34 am

Oh, but it’s worse than we think – those prices don’t take into account the “subsidies” that will be given to lower income classes, which means, accounting for the “transfer payments” plus government wastage, that we’d probably be paying double those numbers BEFORE we consider inflation.

October 9, 2018 7:25 am

The only way that will happen is with a steady inflation of 9-12%. Inflation would knock of 3 or 4 zeros from those numbers.

Expecting double digit inflation is not realistic. The average inflation is historically 2-4%.
comment image

Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2018 7:25 am

Sometimes the Climatist’s claims and behaviors are so bizarre and outlandish that you wonder what planet they are on, or even in what universe they reside. The answer is neither, because congratulations, you’ve just crossed over into the Climate Zone, where nothing is as it appears, or as claimed to be, and where reality is whatever they wish it to be at that particular time and place.

michael hart
October 9, 2018 7:28 am

I love it when they let the cat out of the bag and tell the truth of what it might mean to follow their crazy ideas.

It means making us all poorer, not wealthier. And most of the Greens are OK with this, because they think that it would only be a bit poorer, and “all” doesn’t include them anyway.

October 9, 2018 7:29 am

Such a gigantic tax would be equivalent to outright banning a product and making it illegal. The only people thereafter who would use it would be those who got it on the black market to avoid the tax.

Such a tax would not raise ANY money for anything. No one would buy it, no money would come in from the tax. You might as well make oil illegal to use.

Reply to  TDBraun
October 9, 2018 2:19 pm

“You might as well make oil illegal to use.”

That is the green’s intention.

October 9, 2018 7:33 am

One of the more amusing internet things


Are you getting your share only 17 years to go.

October 9, 2018 7:36 am

Some ‘poor and vulnerable’ people will certainly starve to death. But look on the positive side: there will many times more ‘poor and vulnerable’ for the UNFCCCP to take care of. So they can do much more virtue signally than is currently possible.

kent beuchert
October 9, 2018 7:45 am

For a bunch of people who think that technology is our savior, they sure are ignorant about energy technologies in the near future. They act like they don’t even exist, yet Moltex Energy wil be prototyping their molten salt small modular reactor in a few years and it is as complete and perfect a “solution” to lowering CO2 as their exists. Add the enormous numbers of electric cars that will be rolling down the highways in just a few years ( the world’s automakers have over 300 electric car vehicle models either ready to produce or available within a few years, AND they all , except for laggards Tesla and Nissan, will fast recharge to 80% in 10 minutes, using the defacto standard CCS charging protocol ). So, when battery prices drop below the magical $100 per kWhr, Voila!!!! YOU ARE THERE, STUPID, with no need to tax anyone for anything with regards to energy production/usage. At levelized costs of less than 4 cents per kWhr and the ability to mass produce the Moltex reactors in factories, why is any sane person even talking about subsidies for wind and solar?

ferd berple
Reply to  kent beuchert
October 9, 2018 8:07 am

So, when battery prices drop below the magical $100 per kWhr, Voila!!!!
A 20 gallon gas tank hold 660 kWr of energy, cost $60 (US) to fill, and can be recharged near infinitely.

A 660 kWhr battery would still cost $66000 even at $100 per kWhr, would cost $66 to fill at $ 0.10 per kWhr retail electricity and would only last about 1000 charges.

1000 charges at $66000 per would buy you approximately 22000 gallons of gasoline, which is about 1100 fills for your gas tank.

In other words, the cost of the battery at $100 per Kwr is more than the cost of the gasoline to fill your gas tank for the equivalent energy. And you haven’t yet bought the electricity to fill the battery 1000 times!!

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
Reply to  ferd berple
October 9, 2018 10:24 am

Not quite fair. An IC engine only gets 25-30% of the thermal energy in fuel out as useful work. An electric motor extracts a much higher percentage of the battery’s charge as useful work. IIRC, you should re-do the calculation based on a 220 kWr battery.

ferd berple
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 10, 2018 5:31 am

An IC engine only gets 25-30%
Looking at engine efficiency alone is also misleading. The electric vehicle has a huge weight penalty (battery) as well as charge/discharge in-efficiencies.

A typical small car weighs about 3000 pounds.

A 660 kWhr gas tank when full weighs about 150 lbs full and probably well under 50lbs empty. This is completely practical and should give a range of close to 500 miles.

A 660 kWhr lithium battery weight about 30,000 lbs full or empty. Try this in your 3000 lb car!!! This is why electric cars have such pitiful range and are so expensive to make. You need beefier suspension to carry the extra weight, which itself adds even more weight. It is a vicious cycle, requiring exotic (expensive) materials to solve.

ferd berple
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 10, 2018 5:45 am

re-do the calculation based on a 220 kWr battery.
using tesla’s numbers the 220 kWhr battery should weigh about 5000 lbs. and the 20 gallon gas tank (660 kwhr) might weight as much as 200 lbs.

even in a 5000 lb SUV your 220 kwhr battery will not come anywhere close to replacing the 660 kwhr gas tank, because of the vehicle weight will almost double, requiring double the power and double the suspension strength. you will either need to raise the price or cut the range or both.

Reply to  kent beuchert
October 9, 2018 8:13 am

Electric car production is limited by the availability of lithium at a reasonsable price. Electric cars will never exceed more than a few percent of the total, barring the development of a cheaper battery technology.

Robert W Turner
October 9, 2018 7:47 am

(Insert Dr. Evil asking for one hundred gazillion billion dollars meme here)

October 9, 2018 8:00 am

Everyone working at the UN/IPCC are of course conscious of the fact that if they came up with a ‘nothing to worry about’ scenario they would all be putting their jobs at risk as there would not be a purpose in their existence. It is time this body was done away with as by definition they are always going to put a totally one sided ‘catastrophe’ slant on any international problem that lands on their desks to ensure their jobs are safe, and ready for the next catastrophe. It is time the UN was relieved of its attempt to rule the world and for nations to withdraw their support. Perhaps we can hope that Mr Trump might have this in mind for when he gets elected for his second term The interesting news is the MSM seem to have given the report some but limited coverage and even the biased BBC have dropped the subject from today’s bulletins. I was also pleased to see that the English Daily Telegraph gave the subject only seven column inches on page 15 in Tuesday’s edition.

ferd berple
October 9, 2018 8:14 am

The problem is that if gasoline prices rise to $240 per gallon the price of electricity will rise to about $8 per kWh, because the price of both tends to follow the rule of energy equivalent in a competitive market.

For example, the US market is reasonably competitive. A gallon of gasoline cost about $3 and has 33kWhr of energy. About $0.11 per kWhr. And the retail price of electricity is about $0.10 per kWhr.

So, there is not much difference between gasoline or electricity in price for the equivalent amount of energy. This is in spite of all the taxes that are levied, the market drives the costs, supply and demand up and down until you pay the same abunt for the same amount of energy.

This pretty much guarantees that the carbon tax will not do much more than raise the price of electricity. And if one looks around the world that is pretty much what people are discovering.

Crispin in Waterloo
October 9, 2018 8:29 am

So that is about $60 per litre, give or take a few centimes.

If anyone recalls or read History, during WWII there was very little gasoline available to the ordinary person wanting transport. The solution for two million vehicles was to convert them to wood gas. Modern wood gas conversions are pretty sophisticated. What I have not seen is conversions to coal gas because wood was more available and coal was also rationed.

Now that coal is the enemy I suspect there will emerge a coal gas alternative for vehicles using internal combustion possibly using a mix of biomass and coal powder. This could easily meet the CO2 emission requirements by adjusting the wood component to the available technology of the time.

In the back woods where moonshiners run, an underground coal supply will emerge with smokeless kilns making coke for engine fuel. The term ‘gas’ will take on the non-English meaning which is “gas”.

Effectively banning petroleum products as fuel will stimulate other fuel forms that are more under the control of the local populace. IPCC Revenuers will still be at high personal risk.

PS the typical income of a third world family is in the region of $240 a month so imposing that level of taxation of a US Gallon of fuel amounts to a crime against humanity. Somehow it seems broad support for the international criminal court (ICC) will balloon and include Americans, at least until the appropriate heads roll.

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 9, 2018 10:10 am


“Effectively banning petroleum products as fuel will stimulate other fuel forms that are more under the control of the local populace. IPCC Revenuers will still be at high personal risk.”

Governments would be sued and there would be riots in the streets.

Hmmm……Lets do it!!!!…….Way hey!

Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
October 9, 2018 4:50 pm

To expand on your point, we’d surely see black market dealing in gasoline, and on a massive scale. If the IPCC’s goal is to create multi-trillion dollar criminal fossil fuel enterprises, with the concomitant power to control national governments, they will have succeeded.

I wish these people would take just one (non-socialist) economics course in college.

Andre Lauzon
October 9, 2018 8:38 am

Please, please do not let Trudeau know about this suggestion……..

October 9, 2018 8:41 am

Contrary to most reactions here, this represents real and important progress and its very good news that it is being more or less explicitly stated.

The reason is that for the first time in a publication of this standing, one that is as widely read and paid attention to as this, the real implications of what the alarmists claim to believe are being recognized.

And as some are saying here, the real implication is the total elimination of the ICE and dramatic raises to electricity prices and all energy.

When you consider this seriously, its clear that its not just abolish the ICE vehicle base and carry on as usual. Because in this proposal, electricity also will be priced out of usage.

So the consequence of what they are advocating, claiming to be totally necessary to avoid the collapse of civilization, is large scale movement of people, into new dense energy efficient housing. Its the end of the shopping mall. Its massive price rises for all industrial products as energy prices become a huge part of their costs.

This always was the implication. But you could never get anyone to see it or think about it as long as the scale of the price increases or usage changes was not written down someplace by someone like the IPCC.

But now, there it is in writing. Basically, abolish ICE transport totally and eliminate most consumer goods and much of industry. And then make the rest of the changes that this will require.

As soon as its written down in the form of a proposed carbon tax it becomes impossible to dispute that these really are the implications.

So welcome it. They have really done the world a favor by finally coming clean on what they are advocating. They have finally got consistent, bringing their policy agenda into line with their theories. Well done them.

They have also done another major favor. They have predicted unequivocally that if we carry on with business as usual, we will have a disaster by 2030. Folks, that is close enough most of us will see if its true or not.

This is the crest of the global warming wave. Its downhill all the way from now.

HD Hoese
October 9, 2018 8:43 am

While this sounds off subject, I would submit that it is consistent with what is occurring.

Something like nearly two decades ago I talked to someone researching major human predators. I had worked with fisheries and sharks a little and knew about the politically charged situation about commercial fishing. We understood both that fishing could and was too extensive in places and populations of some sharks were down, but also the politically incorrect view not out as one might say. A view developed that large shark populations were an absolute requirement for the health of the oceans.

This year a warning was issued for New England, and at least one survived attack and one fatal has occurred. A criminal investigation was started on a great white washed up on a California beach. Shark bites are not pretty, I saw a small one once. The excuse that they are rarer than lightning strikes is a common, probably with an appellation, avoidance of problem solving for whatever the true believer holds dear. The conclusion about this not being important because of its rarity may be comparable to other events now in the press.

A number of good biologists, whatever their motivations, became famous, as often discussed here, advocates for saving the world. This was aided with what we commonly see with the press about crises.

As to commercial fishing, in 1991, around when this nonsense started getting serious, an article in MARITIME LIFE AND TRADITIONS, no. 7, 2000, (now defunct), showed a picture of a burning wooden commercial fishing boat in Brittany, among many destroyed in Europe so they could not reenter the fishery.

Burning books and boats (and industries) may not be totally comparable, but scholars in the humanities ought to look into this. At least some of it smells like bigotry. It does make it difficult to correctly evaluate the status of marine populations, but some of us, many now deceased, have been trying with difficulty, sometimes to our detriment.

October 9, 2018 8:51 am

Oddly such extreme ideas are a ‘good thing ‘ because they are political poison and make those claiming them look a bit mad . The more ‘extreme ‘ they get the less chance there is no them making any ground at all.

The IPCC should be actively encouraged to ‘go for it ‘ has the very means to kill them off.

AGW is not Science
October 9, 2018 9:16 am

Ah but you have to remember, that is one of the Eco-Nazis’ big, but unspoken, goals – the “depopulation” (by starvation as economies collapse) so that there will be fewer humans to, you know, “abuse” the planet.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 9, 2018 9:53 am

Hmm. If the IPCC says the world needs a $27,000 / tonne carbon tax, how long will it be before California announces they will impose a $35,000 / tonne tax — in order to “recapture world leadership”?

Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
October 9, 2018 11:38 am

Have you missed what everyone else on your list has missed? $27,000/tone of CO2 is equal to $13.50/gal of gasoline.

I suppose I’m burdened with my undergraduate and graduate degree in Math. 🙂

John Endicott
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 11:58 am

apparently the burden is entirely too much for you.

burning 1 Gallon of gas creates about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide.
since a ton is 2000 pounds, it therefore takes 100 gallons to produce 1 ton of CO2.
at 27,000/ton the price per gallon is $27,000/100 gal or $270/gal not $13.50/gal as you some up miscalculated.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
October 9, 2018 12:11 pm

some *how* miscalculated. I sure do miss the edit button.

I should also note that the “about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide” depends on the “blend” of gasoline being used (the US mandates a different blend in winter than in summer for example). I’ve seen figures ranging from 17 to 20 pounds CO2 per gallon of gas (hence why my back of the envelop calculation of $270 is slightly higher than this articles $240). 20 makes for nice easy calculations that even someone burdened with “undergraduate and graduate degree in Math” should be able to understand, though I expect the $240/gal figure is probably the more accurate.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
October 10, 2018 5:12 am

Re-doing my back of envelop calculation to take into consideration metric tonne instead of imperial ton, at approx. 20 pounds per gallon it takes roughly 110 gal. for a metric tonne (2204 pounds) which makes the $27,000/tonne = $27,000/110 gal. = approx $245/gal. Much closer to the articles $240 and still a long, long ways from chris’s erroneous $13.50

As everyone can see from this thread, no matter how you slice it, whether you go for a rough back of the envelope calculation (like I did) or for more precise calculations (along the lines of what Joel and David did), chris spectacularly failed at math here.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 12:43 pm


Your math is way wrong.

1 US gallon is 3.7854 liters.
hexane density is 0.66 kg/liter
gasoline (hexane) thus is 2.5 kg/USgallon.

separately 1000 kg hexane, if burned completely with O2, produces 3,073 kg CO2.

[calculations for that:
hexane MW = 84 g/mole,
1E+06grams hexane = 11,627 moles hexane
6 carbons/hexane x 11,627 moles hexane = 69,767 moles carbon
CO2 MW= 44 g/mole
69,767 moles x 44 g/mole = 3,070 kg CO2/1,000 kg Hexane.
thus, the conversion ratio of CO2:hexane is 3.07.]
Thus, 3.07 grams of CO2 are produced for every 1 gram of hexane burned.


2.5 kg hexane/gallon x 3.07= 7.675 kg CO2/USgallon of hexane

1000 kg CO2 / (7.675 kg CO2/gallon hexane) = 130.3 gallons hexane

That is, 130.3 gallons of hexane will produce 1 metric tonne CO2.

1 metric tonne = 1,000 kg.

So if 1 metric tonne CO2 costs $27,000 in tax then:
$27,000 / 130.3 gallons gasoline =

$207.23/gallon hexane is your tax rate at $27,000 per metric tonne of CO2 produced.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 9, 2018 12:48 pm

correction: Hexane is 86 g/mole not 84. A typo.
[C6H14: (6 x 12)+(14×1)= 86 g/mole.]
All the calculated numbers shown are correct though.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 9, 2018 12:59 pm


Your math is way wrong.

Indeed it is Joel. the burdened math degree holder simply divided the $27k price tag by the 2k pounds that is a ton and attributed that to a gallon of gas. What he forgot is that calculation only gets you the price per pound of CO2. He failed to then figure out how many pounds of CO2 is emitted from burning a gallon of gas which is the number he needs to multiple that $13.50 per pound in order to get the per gallon number.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  John Endicott
October 9, 2018 1:17 pm

keep in mind: All the carbon tax numbers thrown around are usually in SI units of metric tonne (=1000 kg) of CO2.

Still this is all just 11th grade high school chemistry stuff that Chris can’t seem to figure out. Sad.

John Endicott
Reply to  John Endicott
October 10, 2018 5:02 am

excellent point Joel.
seeing “ton” in the article it is easy to assume it’s the imperial ton (2000 pounds) that was being referred to (which chris’s calculation clearly did despite his misspelling it tone) and not the metric tonne (approx 2204 pounds). Using either ton or tonne, chris still got it way wrong.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 9, 2018 1:44 pm

An alternative using balanced stoichiometry instead of the above calculation for the CO2:hexane ratio could be done as:

2 C6H14 + 19 O2 –> 12 CO2 + 14 H2O

Thus: 12x(MW CO2) / 2x(MW hexane) = 12(44)/2(86) = 3.07 conversion ratio

This says for every 1 gram hexane completely combusted it produces 3.07 grams CO2.

Gasoline isn’t pure hexane as it contains usually 10% EtOH crap, and some other additives, but this is close enough. Which explains the difference between exact hexane and the number Dave M gave.

Andy Wilkins
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 1:18 pm

Oh dear Chris,
You’ve rather shown yourself up maths-wise.
You must be rather embarrassed.
Ho ho!

John Endicott
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
October 11, 2018 7:03 am

Indeed. Notice chris hasn’t been back to defend his maths skills.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  chris
October 9, 2018 1:41 pm

Looks like you should ask for your money back. That is, if you can figure out how much you paid.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 10, 2018 4:51 am

Now we know why he’s so burdened by his Math degrees…. it’s because he pretty bad at math. LOL.

October 9, 2018 9:58 am

So, since most of these people believe in zero base budgeting, they are saying that it will cost somewhere north of 31 Trillion dollars per year (just based on US usage) to prevent catastrophe. I think it would cost less than a couple of year’s worth of US expenditures to build seawall defenses for the entire coastlines of the world. Once again they have shown that adaptation is cheaper than mitigation.

Gary Pearse
October 9, 2018 10:18 am

This is good news! Before, they always couched their proposed action as doable at a few % of GDP. Now that they have come completely out into the light they dont have to pretend. Probably at $240 a gallon, it will still be cheaper than windmills.

October 9, 2018 11:21 am

It must be tempting for the US administration to stop funding the IPCC and UNFCC, immediately.

John Endicott
Reply to  Bob Burban
October 10, 2018 7:02 am

Here’s an idea. add a line to the tax forms such that those who really believe in CAGW can check the box to add oh say 10% to their tax bill (those who don’t check the box add nothing to their tax bill) and *only* the money from that voluntary “CAGW tax” can be used to fund the IPCC, UNFCC, and other climate boondoggles. Let the greens put their tax money where their mouths are.

Joel O'Bryan
October 9, 2018 11:57 am

Well the carbon taxes are just the good intention bricks that pave the Road to Hell.
Oh today, it’s just $30/ton, then in a few years, $40/ton. Then hey “why not $80/ton?” Then $100, then $200.

The socialism steadily takes hold spending OPM. Who gets the money? The Tom Steyer’s and Rockefellers’, that’s who. The elites who tell the masses they are too ignorant to know how to handle their own affairs. It becomes the self-fulling prophecy. It all sounds great until the OPM starts to run out as the society is dis-incentivized to work, to prop up the elites. It comes full circle back to Czar and his inner circle controlling the masses before the revolution.

Capitalism, free-market capitalism, with minimal taxes, is the only economic system ever devised that seems to break that cycle of socialism-revolution-socialism, and it has done so by creating a large, empowered middle class with ownership and liberties the government cannot touch. And it the the socialists, the climate change socialists, who want to break capitalism.

October 9, 2018 12:24 pm

I like breathing. Turns out I emit about 1 Kg per day CO2, or nearly a half tonne per year. With 7.3 Billion people on the planet, that is about 3.5 billion tonnes with all humanity just breathing, and all of humanity CO2 emissions is about 40 Gt per year. So humans just breathing is about 8% of all human emissions. Yes, I know we are just recycling the biosphere, but that is really all we are doing with everything else on vast timescales.

How much is it going to cost me to just keep breathing?

Lucius von Steinkaninchen
October 9, 2018 12:36 pm

Do they realize that even modest increases in fuel prices cause social upheaval, riots and civil war?

For example, the truckers’ strike in Brazil this year paralyzed the country and one of the reasons was that diesel prices at 4 USD/gallon were considered unbearable…


Bruce Cobb
October 9, 2018 1:55 pm

This is definitely a jump-the-shark moment for the ipcc.

October 9, 2018 2:06 pm

I’ve come up with a solution to the problem. Disband the IPCC

October 9, 2018 3:00 pm

Does it matter how much something costs in dollars? It all depends on someone’s income in dollars. And the way they are inflating the dollar it is probable it will cost even much more in dollars.
The question should be how much would it cost in something stable like gold or a liter of whiskey?


October 9, 2018 3:18 pm

By the year 2100 with inflation as it happens. 240 bucks won’t buy you a ham sandwich. See Venezuela. But it’s nice to think that we will still have gasoline powered cars by then. What happened to peak oil?

William Astley
October 9, 2018 4:44 pm

Discussing chaos CAGW policies would be boring, except the Zombies are making some progress in taking over our legal system to force their country (Netherland) to follow a Greenpeace type group’s Zombie CAGW plan.

The CAGW Zombies’ plan is use the legal system force to force a carbon tax, which will be spent on more wind and solar gathering, regardless of engineering facts.

German CO2 emissions have not gone down in 9 years, even though massive amounts have been spent for more wind and sun gathering.

The CAGW Zombies would if they were not Zombies and develop a plan that is based on engineering reality.

Instead of fighting to make us follow the CAGW Zombie plan, they (those people who are pushing the CAGW Zombie cause) would be looking at the next best alternative to forced CAGW economic collapse. We have run out of money to waste, countries are starting to fail.

Yup, it’s a Molten Salt reactor. And the funny thing is this is not an engineering breakthrough in the traditional sense.

There is a molten salt reactor (the reactor in question is the first reactor to reach phase 2, regulatory in Canada approval, expected construction, three sites later this decade, with no push) whose calculated cost of fuel is 1 cent per Kw-hr.

How much energy can you buy for 1 cent?

The CO2 running cost of an optimum molten salt reactor is essentially zero.

If the CAGW threat was really real and/or if the CAGW team was not led by Zombies, the right and the left would have found the problem’s logical common ground.

The CAGW problem needs a safe, high efficient zero carbon energy source that could be mass produced and used in all countries in the world.

Any way back to the Zombies fight to force the legal system to make us follow the Zombies’ plan that does not work.


Dutch court tells government to slash greenhouse gas

The Dutch government on Tuesday lost a legal appeal against a landmark court ruling which ordered it to slash greenhouse gases by at least 25 percent by 2020.

The Hague appeals court upheld a 2015 court victory by environmental rights group Urgenda, which sought to force a national reduction of emissions blamed for global warming.

However despite its environmentally friendly image it remains one of Europe’s biggest carbon dioxide producers. Urgenda said it had only cut emissions by 13 percent since 1990.

The Dutch government had argued that because the lower court that made the 2015 decision “made a policy and political choice” it had overreached its powers.

October 9, 2018 5:37 pm

I demand the elimination of the IPCC, at their cost.

October 9, 2018 6:04 pm

Number’s like this are sure to get people’s attention. It’s also assured to get you ignored by any rational person.

The IPCC needs to read a few more fairy tails and a few less government funded climate reports. They may actually learn something.

October 9, 2018 10:24 pm

Hi David Middleton,
just trying to work this one out.
If a 1 US gallon of gasoline weighs 4.03 kg.
How does it change to 8.89 kg CO2 per gallon of gasoline once used by a car?.

“8.89 kg CO2 per gallon of gasoline
1,000 kg per metric ton
$27,000.00 per metric ton CO2
$27.00 per kg CO2
$240.03 per gallon gasoline”

October 10, 2018 5:05 am

Sounds like a great plan! Lets us slap that tax on all who support it, first, and make it retro active to the year of their birth.

October 10, 2018 8:27 am

Even a $10/ gal carbon tax would cause a civil war in N America.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights