Billionaire Bill Gates on Proposed Washington State Carbon Tax: “I believe it will be worth it.”

UK International Development Secretary Justine Greening meeting with Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation during his visit to London earlier today. Picture: Russell Watkins/DFID
UK International Development Secretary Justine Greening meeting with Bill Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation during his visit to London earlier today. Picture: Russell Watkins/DFID, source Wikimedia

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Multi-billionaire Bill Gates is apparently OK with the idea of his domestic energy bills rising a little, if Washington State votes to approve a new carbon tax.

The 2018 bill ditches the concept of “revenue neutrality”, an attempt to protect poor people from the impact of energy price hikes. A similar bill in 2016 was defeated because of green left wing opposition to helping the poor.

Washington eyes nation’s first state carbon tax to combat global warming

“It could be a game-changer in the fight against climate change,” the executive director of the Sierra Club said.

Nov. 1, 2018 / 12:15 PM GMT+10
By James Rainey

Initiative 1631 has inspired record spending, feisty debate and the intervention of powerful interests — from oil companies to Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates to former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Two years after Washingtonians rejected a similar measure, an early-October poll showed the new carbon tax standing right at the majority needed for passage. In a Crosscut/Elway Poll completed Oct. 9, Initiative 1631 received support from 50 percent of those surveyed, with 36 percent opposed and 14 percent undecided. Among likely voters, the measure did even better, receiving 57 percent support. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 5 points

The state of Washington last voted on a carbon tax in 2016. But that measure differed in one important way from Initiative 1631. The earlier carbon tax would have been “revenue neutral” — giving residents back money raised with the carbon tax via a 1 percent cut in the sales tax and a tax credit to 460,000 of the poorest households in the state.

By keeping taxes level overall and not expanding government, backers of the 2016 measure — Initiative 732 — hoped to attract conservative voters. But a poll just before that election showed that the carbon tax drew support from only 19 percent of Republicans.

In seeking the middle path, the backers of the carbon tax lost not only conservatives but their more natural allies on the political left. Groups such as labor unions and Native American tribes complained that they felt left out of the planning, and even core environmental groups like Climate Solutions and the Sierra Club declined to back the measure.

Microsoft’s Gates, one of the top donors to the Yes on 1631 campaign, has said that it is not easy to be out in front on an issue. But, in his official endorsement of the measure, he said that leading the nation on taxing carbon pollution will make any sacrifice “worth it.”

The proponents of the measure have said it’s unclear what, if any, of the taxes levied on oil refineries and other polluters will be passed on to the public. A Seattle Times review of the measure found it initially could cost a suburban family with two cars about $240 a year, mostly from an increase in gas prices and in home cooling and heating expenses. The Washington Policy Center, a free-market think tank, found that the cost could climb to as much as $877 a year after 10 years.

Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/washington-eyes-nation-s-first-state-carbon-tax-combat-global-n926416

Click here to see Bill Gates endorsement of the new bill.

From the Gates endorsement text;

It is true that any fee like this may drive up the price of energy. But 1631 specifically requires that 35 percent of revenues from the fee will go back to low-income communities hit hard by pollution. Although that won’t ease the pain for everyone, it is a good step in the right direction.

If 1631 passes, it will create the first fee of its kind in the United States. Going first is never easy, but Washington has a history of pioneering new ideas. And because of all the benefits—shoring up nuclear and hydropower, enhancing the state’s role as a leader in innovation, and most of all accelerating progress on climate-change solutions—I believe it will be worth it. I am going to vote for it and, if you are eligible, hope you will too.

You couldn’t make it up – billionaires and left wing greens spitting the dummy because the 2016 attempt to introduce a punitive regressive energy tax would have used revenue raised from the tax to try to soften the impact on poor people, unlike the current 2018 plan to channel the tax revenue to green special interest groups.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
175 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
MarkW
November 2, 2018 3:58 pm

Yet another reason for those who actually pay taxes to leave WA.

Bryan A
Reply to  MarkW
November 2, 2018 7:24 pm

I wonder, given the product his company is responsible for, and the amount of energy expended utilizing it, how he would feel if the taxes required him giving up 99.999999% of it to wealth redistribution schemes as well as 99% of all future annual profits

tweak
Reply to  Bryan A
November 2, 2018 8:17 pm

It’s Micro $oft, of course he would object. That would cut into his Micro$oft tax scheme. Need money? Throw another coat of polish on the turd and sell it again .

Chris
Reply to  tweak
November 3, 2018 1:46 pm

You’re showing your age, Micro$soft is at least 20 years old. Boring.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 3, 2018 4:45 pm

Little Chrissy is getting it’s panties in a wad because someone dares to criticize it’s religion.
How boring.

John Endicott
Reply to  Chris
November 6, 2018 7:08 am

It may be old, it may be boring, but notice you didn’t say anything about it not being true.

cedarhill
Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2018 4:41 am

And go to California? Seems WA and CA are in a competition to see which State will hit complete bottom with CA currently having the lead in poverty.

Robertvd
Reply to  cedarhill
November 3, 2018 10:51 am

California could be the better of the 2 to live during the next ice age.

Central Washington University geology professor Nick Zentner discusses new research on dating the Ice Age Floods in the Pacific Northwest.

https://youtu.be/3wKOVZKimwg

Chris
Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2018 1:44 pm

You’re clearly not in that category, so your opinion is worthless.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 3, 2018 4:45 pm

Poor Chris, he actually thinks that he knows anything.
Odds are I pay more in a given year than you have in your entire life.
But of course liberals like Chrissy are convinced that they are special, because their mommies told them they are.

beng135
Reply to  MarkW
November 5, 2018 8:15 am

because their mommies told them they are.

They still do, from the stairwell down into the basement.

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2018 7:11 am

Odds are I pay more in a given year than you have in your entire life.

Do you have a job (even if it’s “only” a minimum wage one)? then yep, odds are you are correct.

But of course liberals like Chrissy are convinced that they are special, because their mommies told them they are.

that and they are all about others paying for their “bright” ideas.

Sweet Old Bob
November 2, 2018 3:59 pm

If it is voted in …the fools deserve the results .

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
November 2, 2018 4:25 pm

Those of us who live in the People’s Republic of Washington State don’t think we deserve it. I only have one vote to defeat it. The Democrats apparently get more than one vote each. It’s hard to defeat a Democrat or their stupid initiatives in this state.

Jim

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Jim Masterson
November 2, 2018 5:08 pm

Yes , I know . Have family there .
I tell them they chose to move there … and if it gets too bad …move !
They love the weather , but not the political climate .
You have my sympathy .

Bryan A
Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
November 2, 2018 7:26 pm

The political climate change is definitely affecting them

noaaprogrammer
Reply to  Bryan A
November 2, 2018 8:54 pm

East of the Cascade Mountains, Washingtonians are largely conservative. But Washington State laws are made and passed by liberals that live in the large coastal cities. Let’s see…

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, … requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation…”

Vive la Liberty!

John Tillman
Reply to  Jim Masterson
November 2, 2018 6:32 pm

As in the Gregoire gubernatorial, they keep just finding more ballots until there are enough.

Vote by mail is inherently fraudulent, so now it’s even easier to fake ballots.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
November 2, 2018 6:32 pm

Left out “election”.

Am I the only one who can’t see comments?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John Tillman
November 2, 2018 9:14 pm

Vote by mail is inherently fraudulent, …

Please explain how Washington’s voting is fraudulent?
Are documented cases more common than in polling voting states?
Links please?

Chris
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 3, 2018 1:50 pm

Annddddd – John Tillman goes silent. Another empty suit.

MarkW
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 3, 2018 4:47 pm

In Chrissies world, if you don’t answer a query in a couple of hours, it proves you have admitted you were wrong.
Then again, it’s not like he’s capable of coming up with real world reasons, so he has to invent ever more fanciful reasons.

Chris
Reply to  John Tillman
November 3, 2018 1:48 pm

Gregoire has been out of office for years. Try to keep up.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 3, 2018 4:48 pm

The fact that Grogoire is out of office proves there was no fraud during his election.
And to think, liberals actually tell each other that they are the smart ones.

D. Anderson
Reply to  Jim Masterson
November 3, 2018 7:37 am

I completely emphasize. If Keith Ellison somehow wins I will have to endure weeks of posts asking how can Minnesotans be so stupid.

November 2, 2018 4:10 pm

The data says CO2 has little if any effect on climate. Temperature is now about what it was in 2002. CO2 has increased since 2002 by 40% of the increase 1800 to 2002.comment image

Reply to  Dan Pangburn
November 2, 2018 7:22 pm

Hi Dan,

I wrote this on Bill Gates’ blog about one year ago – apparently it did not have any effect. 🙁

https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/Energy-and-Civilization

Bill wrote:
“The main disagreement I have with Smil is about how quickly we can make the transition to clean energy.”

Bill, I really like your work on malaria and on vaccines – I probably like a lot of other things you are doing too.

But Bill, I have spent my career in energy and have studied global warming alarmism since 1985 – you are an intelligent man, but it appears that you are being ill-advised on climate and energy.

Below is reference to a primer on the subject – take your time, study it, and contact me via my website if you want to discuss.

The term “climate change” is so vague and the definition is so changeable that it is NOT a falsifiable hypothesis. It is therefore unscientific nonsense. The term “catastrophic human-made global warming” is a falsifiable hypothesis, and it was falsified long ago – when CO2 rose sharply after ~1940 while temperature declined from ~1945 to ~1977. As my co-authors and I wrote in 2002, “the alleged global warming crisis DOES NOT EXIST”.

Current forms of clean/green energy are not green and produce little useful (dispatchable) energy. All they do is destabilize the grid and drive up energy costs, which increases Excess Winter Deaths among the elderly and the poor. Sure there may be better forms of energy out there – but current “solutions” are costly fiascos, due primarily to intermittency. My co-authors and I wrote this conclusion in 2002, and since then tens of trillions of dollars of scarce global resources have been squandered on green energy nonsense.

[end of excerpt]

Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.

bruce ryan
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 2, 2018 8:40 pm

Bill is an incredibly sharp guy- when it comes to math. And he does do good things with his money.
The thing that continues to make me grimace is the idea that were he born a few years before or after, he may have been a university professor with no more power than a humanities prof. Talk about coming in with the tide.
I have often wondered about brilliant people being shills for the climate alarmist. I think in part is a lack of time to analyze the issue in depth. And, since they have the utmost belief in their own field they believe other scientists have merit in their field. Sometimes a village dolt knows how the wheels turn better than the professor.

Reply to  bruce ryan
November 3, 2018 12:00 am

There is another explanation: By virtue signalling he doesn’t get a bomb in his letter box.

Some battles are not worth fighting

sycomputing
Reply to  bruce ryan
November 3, 2018 7:06 am

Bill is an incredibly sharp guy- when it comes to math.

And there you are. A lot of guys who are really great at math are dumbfoundingly stupid in other areas, e.g., my cousin, George Soros, William Buffett, the great deal of physicists who buy into CAGW, etc.

Genius means squat when it comes to common sense or the ability to reason.

simple-touriste
Reply to  sycomputing
November 3, 2018 8:51 am

How can someone good at math not see that the central theorem is misapplied when a huge number of imprecise measurements (at different times) are averaged to guess a precise value of an nonphysical “temperature” value?

How can they not know that averaging doesn’t magically cancel bias?

How can they browse SkS or the CDC website and not see horsesh.t?

I think it’s sciencism. Like racism for sciences: these people aren’t like us, these people don’t need to apply real math or good science, but it’s OK.

Steve Heins
Reply to  sycomputing
November 3, 2018 9:00 am

It’s because the people that are good at math see the application of the theorem is being applied correctly to the sampling of a population mean.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  bruce ryan
November 3, 2018 9:28 am

Bill is an incredibly sharp guy- when it comes to math. And he does do good things with his money.

But Bill G is dumb as a box-of-rocks if it involves the science if the natural world.

If multi-billionaire Bill Gates or multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg actually wanted to do “good things” ….. or something worthwhile for the citizens of the US of A, …… one or both should spend 3% to 5% of their acquired wealth to develop and install …. a 100% safe, secure, incorruptible Internet Voting System and associated User Application firmware.

Said system would include a per se, “Master” Server and the State’s voter ID data base, which would be located at and controlled by the Secretary of State of the individual states. And a per se, “County” Server would be located at each County Seat and controlled by the County Clerk’s Office. Each county Voting Precinct , plus the County Clerk’s office, would have 2 or more large screen PC terminals for the casting of votes, ….. that would be immediately “recorded” at the Precinct, ….. on the server at the County Clerk’s office …… and on the “Master” server at the Office of the Secretary of State.

Such a System would permit all duly Registered and/or authorized voters to “cast their vote” at the Precinct where they are registered …….. from anywhere in the world that they have Internet access.

James
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 5, 2018 12:16 am

Electronic voting is technically not far off in the form of blockchain based transactions that can be inspected by anyone and not changed once in the blockchain. Have a look at how Bitcoin Cash works and the uses to which it can be applied.

I used to have respect for Bill Gates. Not so much anymore. It is not that hard to understand how science works and that “Climate Science” is not science.

I wonder what the psychological drive is of these ultra-wealthy types that seem to be blind to the processes that created their wealth and wish to destroy the culture that fostered it? Is it deep seated guilt at becoming so rich or is it just laziness to educate themselves in disciplines outside their interest or maybe a burning desire to be liked and trusted by the ignorant masses?

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Samuel C Cogar
November 5, 2018 1:10 pm

I wonder what the psychological drive is of these ultra-wealthy types that seem to be blind to the processes that created their wealth and wish to destroy the culture that fostered it?

Me thinks it is “ego” driven and afflicts the moderately-wealthy also, such as the “has-been” TV and Hollywood actors and actresses that are desperate for “publicity”.

And the Bill Gates and Michael Bloombergs et ell, are now the “has-beens” of the culture that they fostered and the media pretty much ignores them, …… so, their only recourse is say or do ”something” to attract the media’s attention. Media attention for them produces the “high” effect as crack cocaine does for a drug addict.

Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
November 3, 2018 12:19 am

Oh how I wish I had gone through with my plan to make a quick fortune off of Gates. In The Road Ahead he wrote: `The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers.” (p. 265)

My plan was to sell him my algorithm, validated by several prominent mathematicians under strict non-disclosure agreement, for a one MILLION dollars (or maybe another amount), sight unseen.

Ah, yes…coulda shoulda woulda…

DonM
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly, LS, BSA, Ret.
November 5, 2018 10:42 am

I can usually just skim the comments to either “get it”, or realize it is worth re-reading to try to “get it”, or realize that there is no amount of re-reading that will let me “get it”.

I am glad I went back and re-read this one.

Bill is so much smarter that me (hell, I have a hard time factoring the small ones) … I think he will figure it out.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Dan Pangburn
November 6, 2018 12:36 pm

And that only assumes the amount of increase from 1800 to 2002 to be accurate. In fact, such supposed increase is based on a comparison of proxy-derived levels (1800) to instrument readings (2002), therefore being a scientific incompetence.

November 2, 2018 4:11 pm

He’s one of the guilty left who’s guilt derives from success. He also has so much money that no tax will materially affect him or anyone he knows in any way shape or form, so this is a particularly disingenuous expression of virtue signaling.

william Johnston
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 2, 2018 5:58 pm

Gates should stick with computers.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  william Johnston
November 2, 2018 6:28 pm

software is his core competency. hardware is a is the hook to keep using his OS and office apps.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 9:21 pm

Can you document Bill’s involvement in Microsoft over the last 4 years, other than a technology adviser to management?

What language do you suspect he is coding in?

KaliforniaKook
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
November 3, 2018 10:40 am

You don’t need to code to be a software engineer. That’s like expecting a building architect to be a cabinet maker.
Someone has to have the vision, and help in developing the high level requirements. That person still understands the limitations of code as well as the potential. Others develop the lower level requirements, support testing, etc. Somewhere down there are the coders.
Without the architect, you can still get a product. Just don’t expect it to be sophisticated.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 3, 2018 12:01 am

No, Marketing is. He was never very good at writing software.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 1:48 am

Right from QDOS which I think he bought, he never wrote most of the software that Microsoft used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS

Hugs
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 3:00 am

Like totally.

Let’s say he was in the right place at the right time and risked and succeeded in doing strategic decisions. But he was never a software guy, if you don’t count the fact Linux was partly inspirated by the fact most disk operating systems were closed source at the time of DOS and Windows 3.0

william Johnston
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 7:25 am

I was using the term computers in the aggravate. As opposed to widgets or thing-a-ma-jigs.

accordionsrule
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 9:48 am

Exactly. He didn’t write the code that made him wealthy, he bought it.

Chris
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 1:56 pm

“Exactly. He didn’t write the code that made him wealthy, he bought it.”

This is what losers who have done nothing in their life say. Yes, he bought the rights to DOS. But what made IBM come to MS for an OS was their BASIC compiler, which Gates and Allen wrote themselves years before DOS came along. MS then enhanced DOS, and wrote Win 3.1 and Windows Server.

MarkW
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 4:49 pm

The hero worship is strong with this one.

Donald L. Klipstein
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 3, 2018 5:19 pm

The stupid worship is strong in MarkW

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 4, 2018 10:51 am

It’s my understanding that QDOS was a clone of the CP/M API and there was always a strong suspicion that it was developed from pirated CP/M source code, so much so that IBM eventually started offering CP/M on its PC’s to avoid being sued, but since it was far more expensive, the QDOS version eventually prevailed. The difference in price was effectively to offset the cost of development, which was primarily born by Kildall and CP/M and this higher cost is likely why IBM and Kildall couldn’t come to terms, especially with Gates able to undercut him with the clone.

Reply to  Leo Smith
November 5, 2018 6:45 am

Bill Gates major contribution was the “you don’t own the software, you are buying a license to use it”. Brilliant way to keep people buying more and more.

M Courtney
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 2, 2018 6:15 pm

Left wingers do not support regressive taxation. That’s the definition of left wing.

He may be liberal, but that’s not necessarily left wing. Some extreme right-wingers (who think that established authority makes right) sometimes think that everyone should be free to use their abilities without restraint if it hurts no-one directly.

On this issue you could have an alliance with the political left (and the Church with its bias to the poor) if you are able to be politically realistic.

Mike Smith
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2018 7:00 pm

Not any longer… things have moved on.

The lefties in California are in love with regressive taxes at least on energy.

Of course, they claim to be opposed to regressive taxes on principle. But sticking to their principles is not a liberal strong suit!

So a big regressive tax is just fine if done in the name of saving a few grams of CO2.

MarkW
Reply to  Mike Smith
November 2, 2018 8:40 pm

The left loves control. If regressive taxes are what it takes to get the people to do what the left wants them to do, then that’s what they support.

MarkW
Reply to  M Courtney
November 2, 2018 8:39 pm

Thinking that power makes right is almost the exclusive dominion of the left and has been for decades. The right thinks that less government is better.

The left supports big government and more taxes, regardless of who get hit by it. They may talk about helping the little guy, but they have never governed that way.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2018 4:15 am

MarkW

Capitalism is voluntary sharing via endeavour.

socialism is inequitable wealth distribution by compulsion.

Hugs
Reply to  M Courtney
November 3, 2018 3:13 am

So you support regressive taxation? Everybody to pay the same amount, no welfare since it would break the scheme?

What I’ve found out is that elitist left wing is much for regressive taxes on consumption. Meat? Tax it. Petrol? Tax it. Flying? Tax it. Illegally border-crossing non-citizens? Give them housing, education, pocket money, #believethem, don’t charge them on anything. Feel a good person. Speeding? Tax it. Working? Tax it. Selling property? Tax it. Renting a home as a poor, colorful, woman, or LBTGQI? Subsidise. Owning a house? Tax it. Renting out a home? Tax it.

See the pattern? If it moves, tax it. If it doesn’t, subsidise.

commieBob
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 2, 2018 7:08 pm

His success is largely due to Microsoft’s business practices. He should feel guilty. link

I have my own reasons for hating Microsoft. While I was googling, this example popped up. Microsoft managed to get someone sent to jail because he copied software that it gives away for free. They say that corporations are psychopaths. link Well yeah … in that case for sure.

Greg F
Reply to  commieBob
November 2, 2018 8:59 pm

While I was googling, this example popped up. Microsoft managed to get someone sent to jail because he copied software that it gives away for free.

Not true. There are numerous problems with the article. According to the Court of Appeals document they were copies of Dell reinstallation disks, which is significant. The statement from the article:

The “infringing” item is a disc. The “infringed” item is a license. …
Lundgren did not sell licenses. He sold discs.

Simply not true. Large OEM’s like Dell are given special product keys that can be used on multiple machines. They pay Microsoft for each machine they use that product key on. A Dell reinstallation disk has the key code sysprepped into the disk so the user doesn’t have to type in a license key when they do a reinstall. The OEM disks therefore contain both the OS software and the licensed OEM product key. Using the reinstallation disk on any machine other than the one it shipped with is a clear violation of the licensing agreement.

Although the defense expert testified that discs containing the relevant Microsoft OS software had little or no value when unaccompanied by a product key or license, the district court explicitly stated that it did not find that testimony to be credible.

The district court was correct as the Dell reinstallation disk does contain the product key. The author of the article also failed to point out that you can’t download an ISO image without a valid product key. The article is a pile of misinformation.

commieBob
Reply to  Greg F
November 3, 2018 1:33 am

The comments to the linked article are interesting. None of the comments said that the disks could be used to pirate Windows. None of the comments disagreed that the disks could only be used to restore a system for which the user had a valid license. Several of the comments said that people did indeed download the software for free, even on a Linux machine. Do you have a more credible link?

Greg F
Reply to  commieBob
November 3, 2018 7:27 am

The comments to the linked article are interesting. None of the comments said that the disks could be used to pirate Windows.

I have a pile of Dell reinstallation disks in my office which I have used on occasion to reinstall the OS. I never get a screen asking for the product key. A few interesting quirks about the reinstall disks.
1. They use the product key that Dell uses at the factory. It doesn’t match the product key that is affixed to the machine (those are unique).
2. The disk knows if the machine is a Dell. The installation fails if you try to use it on different vendors machine.
3. The disk will work on a Dell machine that was originally licensed for XP. This I suspect was their target market. The commenters ignorance notwithstanding.
4. If you use a retail OEM version (commonly called system builders) and try to use the factory product key it will fail. You have to use the key from the sticker.
* Disclaimer: I have never used a reinstallation disk that violates the licensing agreement.

Several of the comments said that people did indeed download the software for free, even on a Linux machine.

The OS you happen to be downloading to has nothing to do with whether or not you can download it. If you follow the link you will find that you cannot download the software without a valid product key which needs to be entered first. The product key you enter will determine which version you will be able to download. For example, a product key for the Home version will not work if you try to install using the Pro ISO Pro version. Unlike the Dell reinstallation disk, all the downloaded versions will require you enter the product key to validate the installation. Comparing the download version to the Dell reinstallation disk is just plain ignorant.

Reply to  commieBob
November 3, 2018 1:22 pm

“* Disclaimer: I have never used a reinstallation disk that violates the licensing agreement. ”

I’ve thrown away many copies of windos so I could install a real OS, as it’s hard to buy the latest hardware without a fake OS pre-installed, especially laptops. How about a windos credit, along the lines of carbon credits. For every copy not used, someone gets to pay for the privilege to make a copy for free.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  co2isnotevil
November 6, 2018 12:44 pm

Yup, the uber rich seldom see the evil in raising energy costs, because for them it’s crumbs under the table that only the little people have to worry about.

Stan Sexton
November 2, 2018 4:11 pm

Washington has no income tax but it’s residents must realize that any tax on corporations is just passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Whatever Washington does with the money to reduce climate change is almost worthless unless you reduce the use of fossil fuels in developing countries like India. We in California will probably have this tax soon, but I will leave this state when the Libs like Gates make it unaffordable. Our state will be left with Silicon Valley and Hollywood Liberals, and the overpaid and overpensioned CALPERS and CALSTRS employees. The overtaxed Middle-Class is already voting with their feet.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Stan Sexton
November 6, 2018 12:46 pm

I lived out in Washington back in the mid 90s for a short while, and remember how the natives were complaining about all the people from California moving up/in and driving up traffic and housing costs. Looks like they brought their “political stupidity” baggage as well.

juandos
November 2, 2018 4:20 pm

Bill’s such a dick…

Chris
Reply to  juandos
November 3, 2018 2:00 pm

I’m sure he’s crushed that a nobody like you is criticizing him. Just crushed.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 3, 2018 4:49 pm

It sure seems to bother you.

leowaj
November 2, 2018 4:23 pm

Does the article actually describe where the carbon tax revenue goes? In fact, has any bill proposing a carbon tax ever described where the revenue goes?

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Eric Worrall
November 2, 2018 4:57 pm

Nothing murky about it, they just want to skim all they can.

Juanda
November 2, 2018 4:25 pm

Bill looks ill in that picture. Is he okay?

George
November 2, 2018 4:33 pm

I read Bill Gates support for this initiative. Long on support and short on specifics. We have 50 years and then what? Seldom if ever am I impressed with people like him or others in his class. The elitists dictating to the peons. He like others who support these measures and the promoters of these policies know frankly little about the the subject. You can’t fix stupid.

Chris
Reply to  George
November 3, 2018 2:03 pm

Who cares if you’re impressed with Gates? Nobody.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
November 3, 2018 4:50 pm

You obviously care. What does that say about you?

John Endicott
Reply to  MarkW
November 6, 2018 7:17 am

That he’s a nobody. 😉

Gunga Din
November 2, 2018 4:36 pm

And his carbon tax will be?
What impact will it have on his lifestyle?
How many solar panels and windmills does he have on his property?
How connected is he to real life?
He donates big numbers to chosen charities.
Many “philanthropist” do so. That’s how they get the title.
How do what they give compare to “the widows mite”?
All you leftist billionaires, give your “widows mite” straight to the Government instead of your “causes” that would work to allow the Government to force the rest of us to be taxed our “widows mite” while you keep yours.

Richard Patton
November 2, 2018 4:41 pm

It isn’t going to happen. How many of you remember when many states pledged the money from the Lottery to go to education? It went to education but an equal amount that previously went to education from taxes was diverted to other purposes, so education was not helped at all, basically, it is used for pet projects. The same thing is going to happen to this tax. There is not going to be a reduction in taxes. The only reduction in taxes that ever happens at the state level is if the voters, by initiative, force the reduction.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Richard Patton
November 2, 2018 7:37 pm

Enough people spend money on lottery. If profits of lotteries should not go to gangsters, domestic or foreign, then lottery should be a states monopol.

No other explanation / excuse needed.

MarkW
Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
November 2, 2018 8:42 pm

In your mind, if I can use that term here, the only two options are gangsters or government monopoly?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Richard Patton
November 2, 2018 7:45 pm

By the way – no one knows if Bill Gates in the first years himself brought money to Lotteries.

MarkG
November 2, 2018 4:42 pm

One of the worst things about the IT boom of the last few decades is that it’s funneled so much money to people with so little experience of life in the real world, who’ve then used it to push their political views on the rest of us.

Latitude
November 2, 2018 4:45 pm

‘”. But 1631 specifically requires that 35 percent of revenues from the fee will go back to low-income communities hit hard by pollution. Although that won’t ease the pain for everyone, it is a good step in the right direction.”

..remind me next time I have a cold to just throw money at it…only a third of it though

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Latitude
November 2, 2018 7:03 pm

So the revenues will go to “the community” rather than to individual taxpayers.

The article says the revenue will go to clean up pollution. I assume they are referring to something other than “carbon pollution” since local communities are not “polluted” by carbon.

Bill Gates thinks carbon dioxide is pollution. Another climate clueless smart guy.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Abbott
November 2, 2018 8:44 pm

What they mean is that the money will be siphoned off to companies owned by relatives of politicians to fund make work projects that help no one except those self same politicians.

wallaby Geoff
November 2, 2018 4:48 pm

Bill, stick to selling software and making shirtloads of money doing it. Don’t support causes you have no scientific knowledge of.

n.n
November 2, 2018 4:49 pm

A tax on carbon-based energy extracted from carbon-based life. Pro-Choice progressed.

warren
November 2, 2018 4:52 pm

He’s just like Bono and so many others from lefty upbringings.
While you were partying, Bill was at home behind his computer.
‘Accidental’ success is not always that smart.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  warren
November 2, 2018 11:25 pm

I think his upbringing was fairly conservative, at least his family was rich, which implies it.

He certainly was not at home in front of a computer, the PC was not invented then! He was at school stealing computer time through hacking, because he understood software better than the mainframe developers.

Toto
November 2, 2018 4:55 pm

https://cliffmass.blogspot.com

There are so many serious deficiencies with this initiative, one hardly knows where to begin.

1. How the money will be spent is vague

There are really no clear guidelines on how the money will be spent. 15% should address the “energy burden” of poor households, 10% goes to the Tribes, 35% to environmental justice, $50 million to help displaced fossil-fuel workers, and the rest to vague goals in supporting renewables and clean energy.

Decision authority on how the money will be spent will be given to a 15-member board appointed by the Governor to four-year terms, and would include one tribal representative, one representative of vulnerable populations/health action areas, and the six co-chairs of a collection of panels. So basically a group of liberal activists, appointed by a Democratic governor will make the decisions.

There is no strategic plan, no requirements for technical knowledge, and a guarantee the spending will be highly political. Not only is such a group practically guaranteed to spend the funds unwisely, but such a plan would certainly lose the support of moderates and Republicans.

Most folks are not willing to spend money when they don’t know what they will get. That is the problem of I-1631. Can you imagine if the bill had specified real, tangible benefits? Such as supporting the rapid build out of rail from Seattle to its eastern/northern suburbs?

Latitude
Reply to  Toto
November 2, 2018 5:54 pm

jez….so it’s more liberal money laundering

MarkW
Reply to  Toto
November 2, 2018 8:46 pm

It’s also a guarantee that much of the money will go to groups that promise to support Democrats and other liberal politicians.

MarkG
Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2018 2:10 pm

Bingo. It’s just more ordinary, everyday socialist vote-buying.

Why is it illegal to pay someone $10 to vote for you, but not illegal to promise you’ll give them $10,000 of other people’s money if you’re elected?

Barbara
Reply to  Toto
November 4, 2018 8:07 pm

“35% to environmental justice”. Could this mean 35% to lawyers?

UNEP Document Repository

At least 3 known topics that require separate searches.

Search: enter, environmental law
Search: enter, international environmental law
Search: enter, environmental courts tribunals

https://wedocs.unep.org/discover

There are courts and legal issues that the public might not know about taking place at the international level at the United Nations.

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 5, 2018 11:28 am

UNEP Document Repository

Requires 2 separate searches.

Search enter: environmental justice, yields 494 results
Search enter: environmental law dispute resolution
https://wedocs.unep.org/discover

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 5, 2018 11:57 am

UNFCCC

Articles: about 2,930
Search results: environmental justice law.
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=environmental%20justice%20law

Can just scroll through some of the articles.

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 5, 2018 1:13 pm

UN Environment
UN Environment divisions

Scroll down to: Law Division. Purpose/activities of the UN Law Division.
http://www.unenvironment.org/about-un-environment/why-does-un-environment-matter/un-environment-divisions

Barbara
Reply to  Barbara
November 5, 2018 6:26 pm

United Nations

“United Nations and the Role of Law”

Environmental law overview.
http://www.un.org/roleoflaw/thematic-areas/land-property-environment/environmental-law

Jeff Alberts
November 2, 2018 5:00 pm

Bill thinks spending other people’s money on imaginary things is just fine. Wonderful.

MarkW
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
November 2, 2018 8:46 pm

How does he differ from any other liberal?

Jimmy
November 2, 2018 5:04 pm

Some people have absolutely no brains ns

Killer Marmot
November 2, 2018 5:13 pm

So the prostitute favors celibacy laws.

When Gates sells his 66 thousand square foot home and four private jets, moving into a 1000 square foot townhouse with one smart car that he seldom drives, then I’ll believe him. Till then, he hasn’t the courage of his own convictions.

DonK31
Reply to  Killer Marmot
November 2, 2018 5:53 pm

Kind of like Prohibition where the main allies supporting Prohibition were the bootleggers and Baptists.

The Baptists honestly thought that nobody should be able to drink alcohol. The bootleggers just wanted to eliminate the competition. Which one is Bill Gates? Look at how he lives before you answer that.

ScienceABC123
November 2, 2018 5:26 pm

If Bill Gates truly believes any sacrifice is worth it, he can put his money where his mouth is and pay the tax for everyone.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  ScienceABC123
November 2, 2018 6:54 pm

His carbon footprint is likely the equivalent of 100-200 middle class families.

But whereas asking a middle class family to fork over an extra $2000/yr in carbon tax would measurably impact their disposable income, an extra $400,000/yr in tax to Mr Gates and his family is a not even a rounding error on his tax return.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 11:29 pm

The IRS actually has a completely separate system and team just to manage his personal tax return. True story.

Kvs
November 2, 2018 5:29 pm

My only hope is this crackpot idea gives us a Republican governor in 2022.

mike the morlock
November 2, 2018 5:42 pm

Here is the real question. Who gets to pay this tax? Industries? Where does Washington state get its power. Some from Bonneville. I think most of their CO2 is from vehicles. So it is a gas tax.

michael

nw sage
Reply to  mike the morlock
November 2, 2018 6:51 pm

Seattle gets a large part of its power from Skagit Hydro projects. Puget Sound energy (aka Puget Power) also gets a very large percent of its energy from Bonneville hydro (also about 5% nuke). Washington is probably the LEAST likely state in the nation to be able to gain any CO2 advantage – regardless of the arguments for and against global warming – simply because so little carbon based fuel is used to make their energy.

John H Adams
November 2, 2018 5:48 pm

we passed a cap and tax bill in California. The tax is largely hidden and paid by large corporations who pass the costs on to us. The money is spent on pet projects favored by the governor such as high speed rail!

Rob
November 2, 2018 5:49 pm

As a climate clown said back in the summer on a Calgary radio show, we don’t care how many people we destroy or kill to ram through our agenda. Remember what happened when they didn’t take Hitler seriously.

HD Hoese
November 2, 2018 5:58 pm

I have wondered for along time with good reason and experience with some really bright people, that the term, “idiot savant” while extreme, to varying degrees sometimes applies. I have a good friend who we called that for his brightness in a few areas and what we tease him about otherwise, but he is much less than that. The point is a brilliance in some area that has worked out well from someone before they became educated and learned that wisdom is way down the road. Gradations occur in so many cases, so there should, or may be better and less pejorative, but accurate, terminology, especially important since so many extreme expletives seem standard now. Then again what some do out of their brilliance range is more than not good.

There is an old German saying, loosely translated, that we grow too soon old, too late smart. Not so sure about the smart anymore as so many seem to stay juvenile but (credibly?) brilliant into old age. We need their brilliance but not their lack of wisdom.

Edward A. Katz
November 2, 2018 6:06 pm

Carbon taxes are actually nothing more than “feel-good” taxes because they allow consumers to feel that by paying them they’re left feeling good about helping the environment. These are same people who think they’re doing their bit to fight climate change by screwing in a couple of LED bulbs or utilizing public transit once a month. The reality is that neither such taxes nor cap&trade schemes do much to reduce emissions. They don’t alter consumer behaviour enough to begin with because they’d have to be much higher to do so, and the public would never tolerate such levies. Then when these people hear that the Paris climate agreement’s goals are becoming increasingly illusory since the US has opted out of it, while China and India’s commitments don’t have to begin until 2030—if those countries actually go through with them—they wonder who’s really supposed to benefit from these taxes.

warren
November 2, 2018 6:19 pm

Democrats strategy:
New illegal immigrants mostly vote Democrat.
Climate-change ‘tax’ to be channeled to ideological and political campaigning.
Elite democrats/donors get richer and more powerful.
Average Washingtonian gets to feel good and pay for it all.
What’s not to like?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  warren
November 2, 2018 6:38 pm

illegal immigrants voting?
Hardly.
It’s the dead vote that the Democrats use mostly. Especially where mail-in ballots are used.

Illegals vote at the risk of being deported. Most illegal immigrants know to stay off the radar. Illegally Voting is not worth the personal risk them.

simple-touriste
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 6:51 pm

If illegals can officially practice law, why can’t they vote?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  simple-touriste
November 2, 2018 6:56 pm

Answer: the 14th Amendment to the US constitution.

Gotta be a citizen to vote in Federal elections. Its is actually a felony to illegally vote.

John Endicott
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 6, 2018 7:24 am

You think breaking the law means anything to a person who broke the law to get here in the first place?

MarkW
Reply to  warren
November 2, 2018 8:50 pm

Washington DC is going to let 16 year olds start voting.

HotScot
Reply to  MarkW
November 3, 2018 5:06 am

MarkW

Already happening in Scotland.

As Churchill allegedly said: If you’re not a liberal before 30, you have no heart. I you’re not a Conservative after 30, you have no head.

The young bring lots of ideological ignorance about equality so vote liberal. Granting them any level of trust in life affirming events is ludicrous.

Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 6:25 pm

Said like a true Billionaire looking after his children and grandchildren who will inherit his fortune.

Everyone else’s … meh… let them eat cake.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 2, 2018 11:33 pm

No, his children won’t inherit his fortune. He’s only giving them $10m each, to ensure they have to make their own way.

The poor dears….

eck
November 2, 2018 6:27 pm

Hit hard by pollution!!?? WTF. What “pollution”. He’s gone full retard.

Gamecock
Reply to  eck
November 3, 2018 2:21 pm

‘But 1631 specifically requires that 35 percent of revenues from the fee will go back to low-income communities hit hard by pollution.’

Indeed, eck. It is a colossally stupid thing for him to say.

simple-touriste
November 2, 2018 6:45 pm

Why are these people, whose only claim to fame is based on some software (that became almost monopolistic), regarded as deep thinkers, high priests or world resource experts?

Software is a domain where the hardware needs to do the EXACT same thing rose exponentially.

RockRoad
November 2, 2018 7:18 pm

So we’re back to 1631, huh? That was such a progressive year…

Paul r
November 2, 2018 7:29 pm

If the average person took time to learn and to keep informed about cagw not only virtue signalling bills like this one but the whole cagw debate would’ve been soundly beaten decades ago. If we the people followed the climate change debate like we follow sports then this would’ve ended long ago.

November 2, 2018 7:32 pm

==========
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
❶①❶①❶①❶①
==========

How “special” was the recent slowdown?

Warmists and Alarmists are still fighting the idea, that there was a recent

slowdown. In order to show just how “special” the recent slowdown was, I

have created a new type of graph, which shows the warming rate plotted

against the date range which was used to calculate the warming rate.

That may sound confusing, but when you look at the graph, it will become

clear. The graph is based on very simple principles.

https://agree-to-disagree.com/how-special-was-the-recent-slowdown

u.k.(us)
Reply to  Sheldon Walker
November 2, 2018 7:54 pm

What we really need are science communicators, communicating that we don’t really know anything, so just go for it.

Shuah
November 2, 2018 7:32 pm

I live in WA and voted against this nonsense. The brainwashed “progressive” sheeple in King County/Seattle and Tacoma comprise a massive voter block in the state and dominate elections. I live in a sparsely populated moderate/conservative county, but our votes don’t make a difference. Thanks to the progressives our taxes are already quite high, meanwhile Seattle like San Fran-sicko is infested with an ever growing homeless poplulation, tent cities, feces on the streets and open drug use. The Left destroys everything it touches.

Lance of BC
Reply to  Shuah
November 3, 2018 12:29 am

Shuah, it’s the same way here on Vancouver Island. Traveling activist tent cities, injection sights with Naloxone on stand by when you OD(there are an average of 1 a hr.). People are dying in the streets.
But the re-elected mayors first priority is climate change brown shirts…. a child , a teen, a adult and a elder in EVERY neighbourhood to enforce ICLEI (agenda 21/30). You cant make this sheet up…

Gamecock
Reply to  Shuah
November 3, 2018 2:32 pm

I saw this in Virginia, Shuah. As suburban DC grew, the government camp followers changed VA from conservative to Libtard. Fairfax/Arlington/Alexandria are unlike the rest of the state, but have a powerful influence on state politics.

Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2018 7:40 pm

It ain’t gonna cost him a penny. Taxes are for little people.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Robert of Ottawa
November 2, 2018 7:46 pm

My only question is why he even pretends to give a s##t? He’s certainly not stupid enough to buy into this scam and he’s one of the richest in the world and so he doesn’t have to bow to anyone. So, is this just moral preening, like the mediaeval Italian bankers paying for new church? At least the latter left something that enriched society and future generations, unlike the misanthropy of the green religion.

Wiliam Haas
November 2, 2018 7:45 pm

The problem is that such a carbon tax will have no effect on climate. The climate change we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control even in Washington State. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. But even if we could somehow stop the Earth’s climate form changing as it has for eons, severe weather events as well and sea level rise will continue to happen because they are both part of the current climate.

Robert of Ottawa
Reply to  Wiliam Haas
November 2, 2018 7:49 pm

I agree Hass, but would express it more strongly. The problem is that such a carbon tax will have a deleterous effect upon the poor and human development.

James Beaver
November 2, 2018 8:53 pm

Mr. Bill?

How much with the Washington State Carbon Tax impact the global temperature?

Dean Wormer has the answer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkCa49I6_xw
Zero point zero.

November 2, 2018 9:11 pm

A man notices another man in a railway carriage tearing up newspapers and throwing them out if the window.

“Excuse me, but what are you doing?”

“Oh, I get a government grant: This is to stop climate change”

“But the climate isn’t changing!”

“That shows what remarkable value I and my technique are”.

Michael C. Roberts
November 2, 2018 9:29 pm

I have been avidly speaking out against carbon dioxide equivalent taxation in this once-great State of Washington for many years now. Just last year, there were as many as 4-5 differing bills that went through the legislature – and one actually made it out of committee onto the floor, where it was voted down. I actively contacted my representatives – both D & R – to voice a solid argument against the bill(s) – and was even called back personally by my local representative, who told me that even if/when the bills die or are voted down in legislature, it will be this initiative that would be the real problem, when placed on the ballot for the Sheeple to vote on. Big Carbon (taxation lobbies) obtained qualifying numbers of petition signatures to get I-1631 on the ballot this year, and vast quantities of out-of-state $$$ are flowing in, and we are inundated daily with mail flyers, and most insidiously by telly adverts – one in particular hs a voice over saying something along the lines that by voting for the initiative, it will “force the big polluters to pay for their pollution”, and the visual on the screen depicts yellow-suited HAZMAT workers, cleaning up what appears to be an oil spill along a shoreline! As we know, in earth normal environment, CO2 exists in 2 phases – gas & solid (as dry ice) – so, if this I-1631 is a Carbon Dioxide tax, the HAZMAT crew were cleaning up – a dry ice spill from the ‘polluters’???? I m quite sure this just slides right by the average -intellect of the viewers/voters – who believe the unelected 15-peron panel that would be created would spend the billions on cleaning up oil spill along shorelines or some such. Such bait-and-switch tactics! Also, our Opaque Governor Jay “I’ll Pass a Carbon Tax on my Watch” Inslee has created his own commercial spot (while being paid as governor, I’ll bet on the taxpayers’ dime) that’s splashing across the airwaves right now – where he is touting the tax. Glad you all aren’t in the room when I see this ad…I yell back at the TV, spouting expletives to the point I hear my wife admonishing me from the kitchen. Rest assured, I acted as an Active Player and voted already – btu as others have noted, via mail-in ballot. I can go on-line to verify if my ballot was received….please, wish us much luck here in the PNW for next Tuesday, much is at stake…….there is also a ‘Safe Weapon Storage’ initiative (I-1639) on the ballot..look that boondoggle up!!!!!!

John F. Hultquist
November 2, 2018 9:31 pm

Bill’s a smart person, so I’ll guess he thinks this is the best thing to do to continue the efforts of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and investments of that agency, and his own investments that are many and varied.
Tax or no tax on CO2 in Washington State, the climate doesn’t care.

Prjindigo
November 2, 2018 9:31 pm

Everything in Bill’s life comes from the theft of copyrighted open-source work – even to the point that Microsoft filed lawsuits against anybody who tried to use the same source to build free operating systems.

He needs to shut the hell up.

Reply to  Prjindigo
November 3, 2018 12:07 am

No. He paid for PC DOS IIRC.
And Word Excel and Power Point are all Microsoft.

That is why they are so awful.

John Endicott
Reply to  Leo Smith
November 6, 2018 7:33 am

Yes he paid for Tim Paterson’s QDOS, however QDOS was a rip-off of CP/M (Tim Paterson had bought a CP/M manual and used it as the basis to write his operating system in six weeks)

KAT
November 3, 2018 12:43 am

Bill’s a smart cookie. He knows all there is to know about the future development of computers. ie He stated that no computer would ever require more than 640kb of RAM.
He knows next to nothing about climate issues. He avers that alternative energy is the energy of the future. Why should we not believe him?

Ivor Ward
November 3, 2018 2:55 am

I hear a lot of these elitist politicians and billionaires claiming that we need to “lead the world” in one dumb scheme or another expecting the world to follow their “good” example.

Well I have news for them. The world will take advantage of their stupidity. Nothing more. nothing less

Jeff
November 3, 2018 5:04 am

” A similar bill in 2016 was defeated because of green left wing opposition to helping the poor.”

That seems a bit extreme, the article said

“732 (2016 bill) was not received favorably by groups on the left. From most environmental, labor, low-income, and community of color groups, reaction ranged from tepid to hostile.

The complaints were twofold. First, 732 was developed by a small group of economists and handed to the public like a done deal. “Support this.” Left groups never felt sufficiently consulted or heard by 732 leaders.

Second, they felt the policy itself did not do enough for the communities most likely to be impacted by climate change and/or the transition to clean energy.

So, again, the 1631 campaign went all the way in the other direction, giving up on the chimera of bipartisan cooperation and instead seeking to knit together the fractious left.”

Michael in Dublin
November 3, 2018 5:14 am

Do we automatically accept the credibility of Bill Gates simply because of the billions he has made from computer software? Are his views on climate reliable because of his business acumen? Anyway how can a minnow stand up to a whale?

I read one of Gate’s 2016 political lectures given in a country far from his home and his computer world. I am very familiar with that country and much of what he said was hogwash.

A researcher, who is among the top scientists in his field, explained to me why he is convinced that Bill Gates has wasted millions upon millions of dollars. He had done this by donating his money to areas of science that are the most glamorous but in the history of research the least productive.

At the end of the day a wise person will not waste money arrogantly trying to change climate but rather spend his money adapting to and benefiting from climate changes. But this common sense does not fit the political agenda of climate activists.

Gamecock
November 3, 2018 7:24 am

It’s just another tax.

All the chatter is to get people to accept it.

If they get it, or even if they don’t, they’ll start work on another new tax.

The State believes “all your money are belong to us.” They are in a never ending struggle to get it. With democracy, at least, they need your permission.

Alan Tomalty
November 3, 2018 7:28 am

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 this year.

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 was supposed to cover 75% (165 million tons) of the planned reductions until 2022 with the remaining 25% (55 million tons) being applied 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 37% (amount tracked) * 705 (present day emissions) = 260 million tons is the amount tracked. 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 260 = 47 million tons which is roughly 6.66 % of total emissions of 705 million tons today,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 instead reduce our greenhouse gas footprint by 6.66 % (if all of the top 600 emitters switch to a non carbon fuel;) instead of 30%. That will leave 93.333 % of the target reduction unchanged for the 2030 target.
However you actually have a 0.0666 reduction of 1.5%(Canada’s % of world total) = 0.1% 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. If the taxes get paid there is no reduction in emissions.

But if the promised reductions do occur then you multiply by goal of 1.5C so that you have 0.001 * 1.5 = 0.0015 C
That is a reduction of a little over 1 thousandth 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% = ~ 6.666 % However the difference isnt much because Canada’s emissions have been flat since 2007.

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 0.1% (see above) of world total, that means China’s increase for 1 year is 0.0123/ 0.001 = ~ 12 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). Don’t 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 705 million tons * 37% reporting * 18% effective emmissions subject to tax = 47 million tons . So you have 47 million * $50/ton = 2.35 billion $ Can. However since the carbon tax will start in 2019 at $20 per ton, the yearly taxes will be 2019= 47 million * $20 = $940 million ; 2020= 47 million * $30 = $1.41 billion ; 2021 = 47 million * $40 = $1.88 billion; 2022= 47 million * $50 = $2.35 billion So total cost over 4 year period is $6.58 billion and assuming no other increases, the yearly cost after that will remain at $2.35 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% (% of CO2 BY firms that are tracked) * 18% (effective rate subject to tax) of emissions 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 but only collects 1/3 more of the 1st phase; the additional total will add another 33% (25%/75%) and will be $ 3.1255 billion of tax every year until 2030. However that will not meet the Paris commitment to cut emissions by 30%.It will only reduce Canada’s emissions by 6.66 % + 2.22 % = 8.88 % assuming that none of the top 600 emitting firms pay the tax and all switch to a non carbon fuel.

So we are going to have to either tax $6.58 billion in the 1st phase or have the companies spend more to switch to a non carbon fuel, to save 1 thousandth 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. However a last minute appeal for exemptions to some of the smaller of the 596 largest emitters( because of threat of loss of jobs) has convinced Trudeau to make a 3rd category of emitters. In this 3rd category some of those 596 emitters will be completely exempt. This could lower the effective % requirement to as low as 15% which will reduce the cutback of Canada’s CO2 equivalent emissions in the 1st phase to 6.66 * 0.83333 = 5.5%. However since the government has not released the list of completely exempt firms, I have not changed the rest of the numbers. To further add to the confusion as of October 31, 2018 the news is :

There now appears to be 7 lists of largest CO2 emitters (596 firms emit > 50000 tons CO2) 1st list :firms that pay Carbon tax based on 20 % of emissions. 2nd list : firms that pay Carbon tax based on 10 % of emissions. 3rd list: firms that pay $0.91 per ton(NB coal being prime example) . 4th list Firms that pay $0 per ton despite being one of the top 596 emitters. 5th list natural gas stations face carbon taxes on emissions above 370 tonnes/ gigawatt hour, 6th list : oil on emissions above 550 tonnes/gigawatt hour and 7th list :coal above 800 tonnes/gigawatt hour . It is impossible to keep up with all the changes to this policy. The best that can be said is my numbers are based on a 18% effective emission rate. However it seems the number is around 15% now and dropping every day.

After the 1st phase this will still leave Canada short 173 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 173 million short you divide by 270 million = 64% of the 600 largest emitters in Canada closed down and left the country.

What will this cost each household in Canada per year after the $50/ton price kicks in 2022?
Costs vary from province to province depending on whether there are large hydro resources in the particular province. Estimates are for BC, a low of $603 per household per year to the highest in Nova Scotia at $1120 per year. Minimum of $200 Can/yr and maximum of $475/yr Can for the 1st year. Some estimates are that the carbon tax alone by 2023 of $50/ton could add 1% to the inflation rate. That would mean a minimum of $500 per person or $1500 per household more per year. Since these costs are because of increased inflation; those costs will be borne by everyone every year going forward. Also, the federal government has promised to rebate all the money back to consumers. Well what is wrong, if we get all our money back anyway, you ask? Well, 7 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. 7) Consumers in the 3 provinces with large hydroelectricity resources will end up paying a lot less than consumers in the other provinces. THIS IS NOT FAIR. 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.

Russell Johnson
Reply to  Alan Tomalty
November 3, 2018 8:16 am

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary”. H. L. Mencken

Steve Oregon
November 3, 2018 8:49 am

“A sacrifice that will be worth it.”
“Sacrifice”?
Definition of Sacrifice by Merriam-Webster
“The act of giving up something that you want to keep especially in order to get or do something else or to
help someone”

So Billionaire Gates, who is entirely removed from any pains of fuel or utility costs, promotes a bill that will impose by force a taking from people and he views it as a “sacrifice”.
It’s not sacrificing or giving up. It’s theft by taxation.

“Worth it”?
According to what by whom?
There will never be any honest assessment that anyone but the recipients of the revenue benefits from the taxation.
Many contrived assertions will decree various intrinsic gains in earthly progress as calls for additional funding include fresh doses of propaganda.
Meanwhile the little people,(AKA non billionaires), will be needlessly run through another wringer trying to keep up.
Oh wait I meant they’ll be sacrificing.

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Steve Oregon
November 4, 2018 8:12 am

Maybe Bill Gates could sacrifice personally by turning off the heated driveway at his Yellowstone Club house in Big Sky, Montana. Or maybe he could drive an EV rather than jet to the Yellowstone Club.

Roger Knights
November 3, 2018 9:35 am

Here’s an article by Reason magazine’s Ronald Bailey on this matter:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/11/01/what-would-the-washington-state-carbon-f?utm_medium=email

Toto
Reply to  Roger Knights
November 3, 2018 10:03 am

The bottom line of that article:
“Of course, supporters will say that the journey of a billion tons begins with the first million; but given the earlier history one might be forgiven for thinking that the backers of the current proposal killed a more effective one in 2016 just because they wanted to get their hands on some fee revenues with which to pursue their pet projects and reward their political friends.”

golfsailor
November 3, 2018 9:51 am

One thing is obvious, you do not need to be a genius or even cleaver to be a billionare …

Roger welsh
November 3, 2018 9:55 am

Why do people who have become seriously wealthy think that they know more than experts, i.e. Scientists.
My advice to Mr Gates is to keep his mouth shut and help those who want to help themselves to live a useful life.

Robertvd
Reply to  Roger welsh
November 3, 2018 10:57 am

Mr Gates ‘has been convinced’ that it is better for him to be on the dark side (Big Government).

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Roger welsh
November 3, 2018 6:09 pm

I can’t find the article however, recently here in Australia we had another American billionaire climaing Australia should do more to fight climate change. I am seeing more and more articles like this in the Aussie MSM, sometimes 4 separate articles. Well, we do have an election looming next year hear. I am hoping the US Mid-terms sends sensible signals to the rest of the world.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
November 3, 2018 6:13 pm

I am seeing more and more articles like this in the Aussie MSM, sometimes 4 separate articles.

Should have been “I am seeing more and more articles like this in the Aussie MSM, sometimes 4 separate articles PER DAY”.

Sheri
November 3, 2018 10:08 am

Of course he does. He’s a billionaire. Their mantra is “I have mine, who the heck cares about you”?

Scott
November 3, 2018 11:07 am

Carbon dioxide emissions from power sector have declined 28% since 2005.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37392

Emissions of six major pollutants have declined 73% since 1970.
comment image

That’s right. They want to tax the air even though CO2 emissions have been in declines since 2005 and pollutant emissions have declined 73% from where they were almost five decades – despite having 100 million more people, who drive about 2 TRILLION more vehicle miles per year.

You’re breathing the cleanest air you’ve ever breathed in your life. These frauds are a disgrace.

dmacleo
November 3, 2018 1:33 pm

jeez MS, thru ALL of its iterations, has sucked up more power during an update cycle than most OS uses in a week.
yet he thinks its a good tax now he has no say in MS workings.
ahole…

kramer
November 3, 2018 2:39 pm

1631 specifically requires that 35 percent of revenues from the fee will go back to low-income communities hit hard by pollution. Although that won’t ease the pain for everyone, it is a good step in the right direction.

Of course Gates thinks its worth it, because it’ll end up resulting in the middle class paying the bulk of the money used to support low income people and hence, gets the rich people off the hook to pay more of their wealth.

Stupid, STUPID snowflake Americans are too effing stupid to see this.

kramer
Reply to  kramer
November 3, 2018 2:41 pm

Opps, meant to say: “…and hence, gets the rich people off the hook of taxing them more of their wealth to support low income people.”

KT66
November 3, 2018 4:09 pm

What’s it to him? Get those making 30K per year and putting $50 per week in their gas tanks to get to work and back to pay more.

Kevin Kilty
November 3, 2018 5:20 pm

I see people claiming that Gates is a very smart guy–especially in mathematics. Is there any objective evidence of his even being a mathematician, let alone a very smart one?

R Davis
November 3, 2018 9:01 pm

Why would anyone ask Bill Gates opinion on anything ??
The man is a fraud.
Oh, sorry …. he is a billionaire …. & therefore he is a somebody to ask about that which he has no idea about ??
We do that a lot, don’t we.
The sucker has got money, he must know everything.
They told us that the sucker has got big money & we believe everything we are told.
Begging Bowl Bill Gates was in Australia several years ago.
He came to ask for money.
“Give”
“Give Generously”
” it’s for a good cause”
“Give”
“Give Generously”
The money he begs off others is to fund research which he will capitalise on.
Why doesn’t he invest some of his billions ??
If they really exist – that is.

James Griffin
November 4, 2018 1:48 am

With an an adjoining post showing little or no Sunspots it is clear the start of Global Cooling has arrived and we await the coming Winter with interest.
One notice’s that Carbon Dioxide has long since been referred to as “Carbon” and “Carbon Footprint” just to throw people off the “Trail”.
People are so stupid.
Read up about Carbon Dioxide and look up the many graphs showing we have been much warmer in the past.
Ref “Oxygen Isotope Ratios”.
It is not too late to learn about common sense.

Robertvd
November 4, 2018 2:59 am

Let them eat cake.

Toto
November 4, 2018 11:21 am

The latest in Cliff Mass series of posts about I-1631: The Carbon Fee Initiative.

http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2018/11/a-political-analysis-of-i-1631-carbon.html

To the SJW and the left, it’s Free Money.

“The I-1631 organizers knew that climate change would be a loser in an initiative, so they transformed the initiative into an effort for clean energy, clean water, clean air, healthy communities and jobs! Who could be against that? Global warming? Climate change? Not much talk about that.”

Jake J
November 4, 2018 3:41 pm

The last time Gates got involved in a WA State tax referendum was in 2010 when he endorsed an income tax, which then lost in every county in the state.

Joel Snider
November 5, 2018 10:22 am

Actually, what this is specifically about is to price ‘poor people’ out of personal vehicles, electricity, and heat – they are in the worst position to defend themselves from fascist government dictates – which is why their targeted.

I swear, the next time I hear a greenie tell me they’re not ‘forcing anyone’…

John the Econ
November 5, 2018 1:27 pm

Just another example of the Progressive War on the Middle Class. It won’t affect their lives in any material way, but will be decimating to everyone else’s. You are just collateral for their political vanity.

%d bloggers like this: