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.
…
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.
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?
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.
If illegals can officially practice law, why can’t they vote?
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.
You think breaking the law means anything to a person who broke the law to get here in the first place?
Washington DC is going to let 16 year olds start voting.
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.
Said like a true Billionaire looking after his children and grandchildren who will inherit his fortune.
Everyone else’s … meh… let them eat cake.
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….
Hit hard by pollution!!?? WTF. What “pollution”. He’s gone full retard.
‘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.
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.
So we’re back to 1631, huh? That was such a progressive year…
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.
==========
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
What we really need are science communicators, communicating that we don’t really know anything, so just go for it.
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.
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…
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.
It ain’t gonna cost him a penny. Taxes are for little people.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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!!!!!!
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.
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.
No. He paid for PC DOS IIRC.
And Word Excel and Power Point are all Microsoft.
That is why they are so awful.
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)
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?
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
” 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.”
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.
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.
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.
“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
“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.
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.
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
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.”