Rex Murphy on the IPCC: you can’t have plural doomsdays – you only get one

Rex did a very sharp report about Climategate back in the day. He was right then and he’s still right now. IPCC are overpromoted activists afforded more respect than their claims deserve. Meanwhile absolutely nothing unusual happens in our climate.

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.

It is this last one that irks me the most. Carbon taxes are ridiculous. One of 3 things can happen. 1) The company can refuse to pay them and move out of the country or threaten to move out before they are enacted. In this case everybody loses. 2) The company can pay them and then raise their prices so that with business as usual no emission reduction of CO2 occurs. In this case only the company loses if it also exports its product. The consumers don’t lose because the carbon taxes are supposed to be given back to the public at large. However the general price level of all carbon related goods goes up so that inflation goes up. However since no decrease in CO2 emissions occurs, there was no reason to have the tax in the 1st place. 3) The company can change its source of fuel to a lower carbon entity at a higher cost and pass on its necessary price increase to its customers. The customers have no choice because all the competitors have to do the same thing. In that case there is a reduction in CO2 emissions but since the atmosphere needs more CO2 NOT less, everybody loses.

It is this third scenario that factors into my main point. Even if you believe in AGW(human caused global warming/climate change) , here are the stark facts of trying to do anything about it. PM Trudeau in Canada plans on introducing a tax on the emission of CO2 and all greenhouse gases except water vapour, starting January 1, 2019. B.C. and Alberta are at present, the only provinces that have a carbon tax. The federal price on carbon will harmonize with those and will be forced on any other province that does not implement one by that date.

Canada puts out 1.5 % of world total of CO2 and its level of CO2 emissions is as low as it was 20 years ago. Canada signed on to the Paris agreement on limitation of non condensing greenhouse gas emissions(CO2,methane,…etc) to a cut of 30% from its’ 2005 level of 732 million tons(CO2 equivalent) by the year 2030. That amounts to a promise to cut its’ emissions by ~220 million tons. China puts out 31% of the world total and increased their output 4.1% in 2017 and is on track for an equal 4% increase after the 1st quarter of 2018.

In 1991 Norway was the 1st country along with Sweden to introduce a carbon tax, and they have found that their tax was responsible for reducing their increases of emissions by only 2.32% compared to a 0 rate on carbon. However Norway’s CO2 emissions still went up. To top it all off Norway found that the carbon taxes reduced their GDP by 0.06%.

In the Norwegian scheme there were so many exemptions that the effective coverage of the carbon taxes was only 64% of industrial production. The Norwegian price for carbon is around $25 Can per ton. Trudeau has promised to introduce Canada’s carbon tax or CO2 equivalent tax at $20 per ton in 2019 and increase it $10 per ton every year until $50 per ton by the end of 2022. The government of Canada website says that there are ~ 600 industrial reporting facilities that report their CO2 emissions to the government. However they account for only 37% of all CO2 emissions in Canada. The others dont have to report because they are under the legal requirement of 50000 tons per year.
However the differing prices between Norway and Canada will not have any significant effect on the results because there is very little opportunity for any company in Canada in at least 7 of the provinces, to switch to a non CO2 producing fuel because those 7(except Manitoba,B.C. and Quebec) do not have significant hydro power; so the companies will simply pay the tax to stay in business. Theoretically this should not amount to any significant reduction in CO2 because Canada is different from Norway in a fundamental way. In Norway any firm has access to hydro elecricity.

In this 1st phase which will cover 75%(165 million tons) of the planned reductions until 2022 with the remaining 25% (55 million tons) being apllied after that until 2030 and beyond. However since only 37% of total greenhouse gas emissions in Canada are generated by the large greenhouse gas emitters; and only the large ones are required to report them to the Government of Canada; that is only 75% of 37% = 27.75 % (61 million tons). That means that only 27.75% (61 million tons) of the emissions will be targeted for reduction for the 1st phase of the planned reduction of Canada’s contribution to the 2030 target. However as a result of industry pressure, the rules have been again changed so that companies will be required to pay tax on only 20% of their emissions with some companies like in the cement and steel industries being required to pay tax on only 10% of their emissions. So let us assume the net overall % will be a 18% requirement. So you have to take 18% of 27.75% which is roughly 5% of total emissions subject to tax for the 1st phase. For comparison purposes Ireland achieved a decrease in emissions only after 4 straight years of increased emissions despite a carbon tax. British Columbia despite having a carbon tax since 2008 has not achieved any decrease in CO2 emissions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has said that that the average climate computer model forecasts an increase in temperature of 3C by the end of the century (82 years from now) if the world doesn’t reduce its carbon footprint. The said reduction of temperature goal is 1.5 C by end of century in order to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 C.

Canada has committed to reduce greenhouse gas emmissions per Paris agreement by 2030 of 30%. 30% of 1.5 % = 0.45% of world total

In the 1st phase of reductions which will culminate by 2023, this will reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 5% of 30% = ~ 1.5% with the other 25% for the 2030 target being 25% of 37%(reporting emmitters) = 9 % * 30% = 2.775% * effective subject to tax of 19% = 0.05 % being part of a revised carbon pricing scheme between 2023 and 2030.
5% (total targeted emissions) = 0.05 and 0.45% (of world total) = .0045
So you have 0.05 * .0045 = 0.000225 which will be Canada’s contribution to world total reduction. Don’t forget that carbon trading and a carbon price dont actually guarantee that any reductions will ever occur.

But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.000225 * 1.5 = 0.0003375 C
That is a reduction of a less than 4 ten-thousandths of a degree C at the end of the next 82 years. And the actual reduction in temperature will be negligble because most emitters will simply pay the tax. It is also a function of how many exemptions and what discount carbon tax %’s are actually determined in the future besides the already announded ones. Even so, since this is the 1st phase only, Canada’s goal in this phase is to cut 75% of 30% of its emissions which = 22.5% . However since only 37% industrial emitters have to report and the effective emissions subject to tax is only 18%; the real number is 18% * 37% * 30% = ~ 2 % This is awfully similar to Norway’s initial result of 2.32 % reduction. However Canada’s emissions have been flat since 2007.

Since China’s increase last year as per the above is .3 * .041 = 0.0123 or 1.23% of world total
Since Canada’s reduction will be 0.0225% (see above) of world total, that means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.000225 = ~ 54.6 times the amount of Canada’s (total 4 year reduction) for each year if the emissions go lower in Canada to the same degree as the increased price effect after 4 years(assuming that no Canadian emitters actually pay the tax and instead substitute a 0 carbon fuel in their manufacturing process). Dont forget that Canada’s reduction is only at a maximum effect by 2022 because of the increasing price of $10 per ton per year. In the 1st year 2019 or any other year, the reduction could be the whole amount or any amount depending on how many firms simply pay the tax vs the number that switch to a non carbon or lower carbon fuel source. China has refused to decrease its output and only promised to try to limit their increases by 2030. China is not a developing country because it has 45% of the world’s skyscrapers.

What will all of this cost Canadian companies if all pay the tax?

Price of carbon by 2022 will be $50 per ton by 2022 and at 732 million tons * 37% reporting * 18% effective emmissions subject to tax * 75% = 36.56 million tons . So you have 36.56 million * $50/ton = 1.828 billion $ Can. However since the carbon tax will start in 2019 at $20 per ton, the yearly taxes will be 2019= 36.56 million * $20 = $731.2 million ; 2020= 36.56 million * $30 = $1.0968 billion ; 2021 = 36.56 million * $40 = $1.4624 billion; 2022= 36.56 million * $50 = $1.828 billion So total cost over 4 year period is $5.1184 billion and assuming no other increases, the yearly cost after that will remain at $1.828 billion per year until the 2nd phase starts before 2030. Of course all this assumes that there won’t be further exemptions to the 37% * 19% (effective rate subject to tax) of emmissions that are reported as of now. However the amount of tax will be less than that because some emitters will switch fuels. Assuming the 2nd phase has the same rules; the additional total will add another 33% (25%/75%) and will be $6.896172 billion of tax by 2030. However that will not meet the Paris commitment to cut emissions by 30%.

So we are going to have to either tax $5.1184 billion in the 1st phase or have the companies spend more to switch to a non carbon fuel, to save 4 ten- thousandths of 1 degree C of world temperature as of the year 2100. The stupid part is that the higher the actual tax collected the more carbon dioxide emissions occur and the less the temperature gets reduced. So in the end , part of industry will pay the tax because switching to a non carbon fuel is impossible ( Ex: industrial kiln) and the rest will switch to a lower carbon source. Either way it raises inflation on all carbon source industries which then insidiously seeps into the prices of everything else in the country.

After the 1st phase this will still leave Canada short 183 million tons of its Paris commitment to cut by 2030 and Trudeau has said that Canada will meet its commitment by 2030. Well the only way that would happen is if 37% 0f 732 million = 270 million tons and being 183 million short you divide by 270 million = 67% of the 600 largest emitters in Canada closed down and left the country.

What will this cost each household in Canada per year?
Minimum of $200 Can/yr and maximum of $475/yr Can. Since these costs are because of increased inflation; those costs will be borne by everyone every year going forward. Also, most provinces have promised to rebate all the money back to consumers. Well what is wrong, if we get all our money back anyway, you ask? Well, 6 things are wrong. 1) You have created a federal carbon tax bureaucracy which will never go away. 2) the carbon part of the economy will have been price inflated, thus inflating the whole economy 3) you have given free money to those people that were not using carbon based sources of energy because when you give the money back you have to give it to everybody. 4) As well as everyone getting the same rebate cheque, that cheque will not cover the costs of the increased inflation to those people that are buying and using products from the carbon based side of the economy. The reason is; because of No.3 above, that the people who are not buying and using products from the carbon side of the economy are getting some of that money that would have gone to those that were using products from the carbon side of the economy. 5) extra costs for each company affected in accounting for the taxes or in switching to a new fuel. 6) If the company is an exporter the export price will either have to be raised, or obtain an exemption on that % of the company product exported, or a new government subsidy created to cover the company’s extra export price. The other huge consideration is that since the global warming/climate change subject is a big hoax anyway, the whole exercise will have been a worse than useless activity.

THIS IS ABSOLUTE MADNESS.

We need a new group investigation IPCCC , International Panel on Climate Change Criminals .
As Rex Murphy lays out you only get one swing at the bat to predict climate Armageddon.
After that you are done . Al Gore is so pathetic and now alt left commies like Democrat Cortez
are singing the climate doom tune . It’s called mining for donations . The climate fear industry needs a stupid new face to pitch their crap and the new face needs cash bad . Yeah shut down ALL fossil fuel . Pure genius .
The Democrats need to grow up and get off their self destruction path of representing the pretend
green virtue signalers .

In biblical times, if a prophet was wrong ONCE, they were taken out and stoned to death as a false prophet.

Rex Murphy though, is a national treasure.