The Economist adopts Tesla’s ‘Ludicrous Mode’

About a year ago, there was another attempt in the legislature of the State of Washington, USA where the ‘carbon equivalency’ value of fuels were to be taxed (there was another attempt during this just-finished 2019 session to float a Carbon (dioxide) Tax, but thankfully that attempt did not make it out of committee). At that time, our Illustrious Gubnor, Jay ‘I’ll Pass a Carbon Tax on my Watch’ Inslee (now attempting to run as a Democratic Presidential candidate) presented in televised commercial spots, his support for the latest attempts to tax carbon-based fuels in the State. He quoted as support University of Washington research, presented as conclusive evidence for Ocean Acidification. I researched those UW documents, and sent to my District Legislators the following at that time:

Should bill be enacted: What is the plan when scientific evidence proves that carbon dioxide is not the driver of catastrophic climate change? The science is not settled on this point, and enacting such punitive taxation based upon non-conclusive evidence (in fact there is no evidence of anomalous climate catastrophe in the observable weather record – such catastrophe exists in model projections only) is disingenuous and not in the best service of the constituency of the State of Washington. Washington’s output of Carbon Dioxide to the overall globe is miniscule, and these rules will merely be punitive to industry and more importantly each individual user of any and all fuels purchased in the State.

GOV Inslee’s UW Research Found Lacking for Human-Caused CO2 Attribution

Recently, I have reviewed the back-up documentation presented by GOV Jay Inslee that purports to substantiate the need for such taxation (https://www.governor.wa.gov/issues/issues/energy-environment; https://environment.uw.edu/research/major-initiatives/ocean-acidification/washington-ocean-acidification-center/) and have found the initial attribution of increased global atmospheric CO2 is based solely upon the finding documented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Recently, the IPCC has back-tracked on their dire prediction for future carbon-dioxide caused ‘global temperature increase’, as real-world observations have not tracked with IPCC temperature projections (see: https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-projections-of.html; https://judithcurry.com/2015/12/17/climate-models-versus-climate-reality/, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/01/ipcc-silently-slashes-its-global-warming-predictions-in-the-ar5-final-draft/, and: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/09/26/study-lowers-range-for-future-global-warming-but-does-it-matter/?utm_term=.a18d4d31fde8; http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/01/23/catastrophic-global-warming-less-likely-study-says.html).

Of note is the ambiguity in the UW research in this area, in a footnote found in the document found in the above appended URL and titled:
“Ocean Acidification in Pacific Northwest coastal waters: what do we know?” which concludes (Bolded emphasis mine):
“28. Published summaries of datasets from diverse national and global locations have shown substantial differences in the variation of pH or CO2 concentration of marine waters (Hoffmann et al 2011 (see below
for full reference); Waldbusser and Salisbury, 2013). What is equally clear in Washington coastal waters is that ocean acidification differs between locations in ways that reflect local drivers. Data collected at regional scales reveal substantial spatial and temporal variability (Scientific Summary on Ocean Acidification, 2012). Over time, we see seasonal and daily variations in pH and aragonite saturation state, hence a single value does not and cannot describe the ocean acidification status of a system. Diurnal changes in production and respiration, tidal intrusions interacting with river plumes, and seasonality in phytoplankton growth and respiration processes all contribute to the ocean acidification signal, and all vary over different scales of time and space.”

Talk about ‘settled science’. Looks like local conditions of tides, upwelling, and the seasons have a greater influence on ‘ocean acidification’ than atmospheric carbon dioxide?? This is the Governor’s reasoning to impose huge amounts of taxation on fuels purchased in the State?

To conclude, to stumble into punitive and regressive taxation by placing a ‘YES’ vote for SB 6335, 6203 based upon inconclusive, partial scientific evidence is not what a member of our State Senate should like to see as part of their life’s legacy, looking back over a lifetime from that eventual rocking chair on the front porch. The attributions for causation are correlated but causation is not conclusively restricted to man-produced atmospheric carbon dioxide releases from a modern lifestyle. Please, consider a ‘NAY’ or ‘NO’ vote for SB 6335, 6203, or for any other future attempt to create revenue from a beneficial and from all scientific evidence, relatively innocuous trace gas. We have elected and placed our trust in you to weigh the evidence and vote on our behalf. Please, consider what you are about to asked to do, and to vote “No” for any and all Carbon Dioxide Taxation measures.

Thanks,

Mike Roberts

Needless to say I was contacted by both of my District Representatives. I guess I posted this, to say you can have an influence on the governmental process, and it is not all that hard. Also thought it may be appropriate to post this here given Mr. Archibald’s’ mention of Ocean Acidification.

Regards,

MCR

The risks of proceeding at ludicrous speed: (hope the link works)

Figure 2 has the co2 levels falling until all the plants die. But would this happen? The carbon cycle posits some sort of equilibrium between plants turning water and co2 into hydrocarbons and oxygen and animals turning them back into co2 and water. All life sequesters carbon, hence over time the decline in figure 2 and this will push the equilbrium to reduce plant activity (the reverse of what we are seeing with increasing co2). So the rate of absorbtion of co2 will reduce. If some trees and animals die as a consequence they might rot and return sequestered co2 to the atmosphere. So we have the elements of a self balancing system albeit on very long time cycles.