.jpg){kind=link}
Bloomberg has noticed China isn’t exactly onboard with the idea of carbon taxes and emissions reduction, but they are hoping China will follow the USA’s “moral example”.
Carbon Taxes Won’t Do Enough to Slow Global Warming
They can help, but the real solution is a shift to green energy.By Noah Smith
25 September 2019, 21:30 GMT+10With crowds taking to the streets to call for action on climate change and activists haranguing the United Nations, the issue of global warming is once again front and center. The equivocation of former years seems belatedly to be giving way to a general realization that something must be done. The effort will be sweeping and global, and starting now is better than starting later.
…
Many economists believe they have an elegant and simple way to do this: a carbon tax. Earlier this year, a large group of economists from across the ideological spectrum issued a statement calling for a tax on atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, with the proceeds paid out to all Americans in the form of a dividend. For years, surveys of top economists have foundstrong support for such a policy:
…
Carbon taxes have one more big defect – warming is global, but the taxes are not. The U.S. emits a lot of carbon per person, but in total terms it’s a modest and shrinking slice of global emissions:
Let’s hope developing countries such as China will follow the moral example of the U.S. and implement their own stringent carbon taxes. But there’s no guarantee they will. Developing countries’ top priority is to build middle-class wealth and alleviate poverty, and any tax that threatens their growth will be a non-starter. In a troubling twist, by reducing demand for oil and other internationally traded fossil fuels, a U.S. carbon tax could lower the price of these fuels for China and other countries, slowing their transition to renewables.
…
Read more: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-25/carbon-taxes-won-t-do-enough-to-slow-global-warming
Who actually believes China looks to the USA for moral guidance?
China has done such a magnificent job of following the example of the west in such areas as human rights, (just ask the surviving Uighers) you can be confident they will certainly act against their self interest. And if you need a quick and cheap organ donation, you too could have in done in China, and help the benevolent Chinese government with their oversupply of Uighers.
This is nothing more than a capitulation to the “world is coming to an end because Man is burning fossil fuels” meme. We don’t need china to stop building coal plants we want the Chinese citizens to rise up against communist aggression.
Right now under existing management China is fully capable of doing what the Leftists in the Democrat party dream of, Totalitarian Police State Mandates (or we disappear you).
There is nothing moral about carbon taxes and mandated emissions reductions. In fact, just the opposite. Real People would suffer if those actions were implement by authoritarian rule- read Democratic Party Dictate. That is not to exonerate the Republican Party that seems to move closer towards Central Government Planning every election cycle.
So one could easily make the case that China is exponentially more moral to its citizens than our 2 party politicians intend to be if they get their way.
Bill Powers, are you for real????….. China is exponentially more moral to its citizens because it doesn’t have a “carbon tax”????? Wake up man, people in China are not citizens, they are slaves of a communist elite. The communist government do whatever with them. There is no freedom of speech in China, all the media and internet is controlled and censored, and if you speak against the government they put you in jail for life. ARE YOU CRAZY????…. I do agree that the Democrats are all immoral, but you can’t say that China is “exponentially more moral”…. C’mon…
Sarcasm Tom read the whole comment, not just the last sentence, Its called context. What part of “we want the Chinese citizen to rise up against communist aggression is lost on you?
But add to my hyperbole an understanding that, To date, the Communist Government in China is building more coal fired plants to supply energy for their citizens. Our Demoplicans and some Republicrats are proposing banning coal fire plants completely.
I am as anti-socialist as they come and I understand that the principle reason the Socialists are trying so hard to ban assault weapons or any guns that hold magazines is so that the citizenry will be unarmed when they rise up against the cretins swimming around in the DC swamp.
A useful way to stop “global warming, climate change, late sunsets, or any other oxymoron involving the whole world” is to help the underdeveloped world develop as quickly orderly as possible so the median of the lower 20% of people have an income of around $30,000. That’s including all income, earnings, grants, government healthcare, etc.
At that point everyone will be rich enough to start thinking about honest, moral, practical, effective ways to do what is necessary to maintain the maximum population. That will involve maintaining the environment, developing resources as needed to maintain the population, almost certainly moving into space for raw materials, power, and room to continue growing.
All the rest is fairy dust.
+1000
1. Remove corruption and socialism
2. Provide cheap reliable energy
3. All else will follow
Sounds like a plan!
It would be even better for the U.S. to rediscover and follow the morally sound concept of its own founding: a limited government deriving its authority from the consent of the people, and the protection of individual liberty. The people get to tell the federal government what to think and do about climate claims, not the other way around.
Hold onto that dream with both hands, DD, because AOC and her Squad want to take it away. 2020 will be a wild year, if we even get through 2019. Yikes!
Actually no, you cannot say ‘Up the USA and **** the rest of the world’, because you are not hermetically sealed from the rest of us.
Every nation must consider how their actions affect the rest of the globe.
Imagine the US people saying ‘go and enslave the rest of the world’.
If you think that is acceptable, you need some basic lessons in human responsibility.
Yes the Executive and Legislature should answer to the US people, but not exclusively and not in a way which destroys the pursuit of happiness of non-US citizens.
We have just as much right to pursue happiness as you lot….
Rhys Jaggar,
Then go pursue your happiness, while we pursue ours.
There ARE countries with the philosophy of, “go and enslave the rest of the world.”
Not looking after your country first, with less concern for other nations (I didn’t say ‘no concern’), would be tantamount to committing suicide because you believed the world was overpopulated.
‘Yes the Executive and Legislature should answer to the US people, but not exclusively and not in a way which destroys the pursuit of happiness of non-US citizens.’
So – by that logic, you should be helping us stand against the progressive’s efforts to destroy the pursuit of happiness, not only in our own country, but worldwide.
I’m replying to my own comment in response to this I see from RJ below: “Every nation must consider how their actions affect the rest of the globe.” In the spirit of finding common ground, this one statement in that reply is agreed. U.S. citizens, as a free people exercising the freedoms of speech and of association under the Constitution, are a model to the rest of the globe.
Is warming global?
“Carbon taxes have one more big defect – warming is global”
emissions are global in effect. But warming is not detrimental to all.
That distinction is essential. For example, projected warming for Canada and Russia will be net beneficial as shown by many independent studies.
The Bloomberg writer doesn’t seem to grasp that subtle but vital distinction. He simply allows the reader to believe the falsehood, that is “warmer” = “bad.”
I don’t think warming will be beneficial to either Canada or Russia -for example both are seeing a dramatic increase in wildfires and there are issues of melting permafrost, extreme weather etc.
(Re-emergence of anthrax from previous outbreaks due to melting permafrost is a nasty twist in Russia)
griff,
You know the wildfires have nothing to do with warming.
He’s pretty much demonstrated he’s a willfully ignorant – which basically makes him a deliberate liar – without the slightest speck of shame, I might add – that’s usually the first thing to go with his type.
Griff, you go live in Canada mid winter. And not the pussy Canada close to the border or on the west coast. You could also try Siberia with the musquito’s.
Griff, all the data I have seen show the scale of wild fires across the globe has been declining over the past 100 years. Even the much hyped fires in Brazil this summer are small scale and minor compared to past activities.
If you have any long term data showing wild fires in Russia and Canada have reached a dramatic point/increase please present it.
As for anthrax being caused by supposed global warming via CO2 increase must go down as one of the most bizarre claims yet presented by the climate alarmist advocates.
In griff’s world, if anything is different from last year, it must have been caused by CO2.
The fires of the last few years have been larger than in recent years, but are tiny compared to fires of the past.
Outside of defective climate models, nobody can find this melting permafrost. Not that it would be much of a problem if it did melt.
Extreme weather? Where? Nothing that has happened in the last few decades hasn’t happened before. Many times before.
“Warming” (when we’re talking about the “average” temperature) is not detrimental to anyone. That is the biggest myth they have sold you next to the ridiculous notion that CO2 “drives” the climate/temperature. A warmer climate is a better climate for all life on Earth. The shrinkage of frozen wastelands is a GOOD thing, not a bad one. Longer growing seasons and more land available for food growth and wildlife are GOOD things, not bad.
There’s a reason that historical warm periods are referred to as “climate optimums – and it’s not because warmer climate is worse.
And “warming” won’t be happening everywhere, and will not happen to the same degree (no pun intended) everywhere. That is another “myth by inference” that they have sold you. The supposed effect is a change in the (globally) “averaged” temperature, which hides a multitude of “no big deal” realities (oh gee – you mean Antarctica will ONLY be 65 below zero as opposed to 80 below?! – The horror!) when you realize it doesn’t equate to “every temperature everyplace on Earth is going to go up.”
Less ice in the arctic just means that getting to the resources up there will be easier.
Despite false prophecies, it has not been demonstrated that warming is detrimental to anyone.
giffiepoo’s false allegations have been soundly falsified.
PS Anthrax lies dormant in soils for decades. Warming permafrost has nothing to do with anthrax; just more of your made up alarmisms.
Carbon taxes!!! Just another way for the financial community to game the system and make outrageous amounts of money by speculating on the “price” to be paid for emitting a ton of CO2.
A totally contrived market, trading in a benign byproduct of energy production. Yet, if these people have their way, they will manipulate the CO2 price routinely to make money for themselves while effectively increasing prices for EVERYTHING that needs to be manufactured, shipped or processed, in any way. As usual, ordinary people will end up suffering because of these egregious taxes and the greed of governments and financiers.
And guess who was an early investor in setting up an exchange for Carbon Trading? Here is a hint he made a boat load of money producing and starring in a documentary titled “An Inconvenient Truth”
A Documentary that was mandated viewing in every public school system around the country. Paid for by taxpayers to create little Greta Thunbergs across the land.
The real inconvenient truth was that the proceeds from our tax dollars went towards this Carbon Tax Trading Company to make this once loser politician millions and fund one of his many TaxMansions.
Guess the Flim Flam Man:
A carbon tax HAS to hurt or it will not change human behavior. There is no use in a tax that is not punitive in nature. And, to be effective, it should go up and up to achieve the effects these idiots desire. This is why a carbon tax does not appeal to normal people.
It only appeals to governments, as it offers a huge new unwarranted revenue stream. The idea that any of the taxes would go back to the people is not feasible as it would in part negate the desired hurt it is intended to inflict. Once the revenue stream is created, it would be almost impossible to wean the government of this money tree.
One of the carbon tax bills that has been introduced returns all revenues in equal monthly payments to every American. Everyone in the first three quartiles of the income brackets will receive more in monthly dividends than they pay in carbon taxes. This type of carbon fee and dividend is popular with voters in countries that have established such a system.
This bill, HR763, the Energy Innovation Act, will lower carbon emissions by 50% by 2030 and by 90% by 2050. The bill has 60 House sponsors.
Are you, Lawrence, volunteering to be the unpaid workers collecting the funds, depositing the funds, distributing the funds, checking all balance sheets, chasing bank and transfer errors, chasing carbon tax non-payers, etc. etc. etc.
Lawrence is re-iterating the same logic that Social Security Taxes are 100% returned to citizens every year…
Instead SSA spent $12.599 billion solars paying some 63,000 employees. Technically, SSA pays those employees the equivalent of 77,760 work years. Which includes disability, overtime and annual leave lump sum payments.
SSA is in competition to be the most calcified unresponsive and resistant to change agency of the government.
And you, Lawrence want to create yet another tax collecting agency to collect a fictitious “Carbon Tax”.
You are correct AtheoK, startup overhead would be 7% of revenue for 2-3 years and then overhead would decline to 5%. Collection of the tax would be simple because the tax is charged as the fossil carbon comes out of the ground, whether the coal mine, the oil well, or the gas well. The number of companies is relatively small. The IRS could easily handle collection and distribution of the monthly dividends.
One advantage of the HR763 plan is that there is virtually no opportunity for fraud, which is not true for cap and trade plans. Another advantage is that there is no opportunity for politicians to get their hands on the revenues. A third advantage is that it doesn’t increase the size of the Federal government because the tax collection and dividend distribution can be handled by computers at existing agencies.
Lawrence, are you delusional?
What government agency has ever managed to keep costs to what was projected?
Lawrence let me tell you their strategy.
First promise a dividend to the voter. Then implement a system that boasts that every household and company will be allocated a carbon footprint. A monthly allotment if you will. that will benefit carbon conscious users.
Power companies have already set up for this. You should be getting, with your gas and electric bill, a breakdown of your energy use compared to your neighbors.
Every using location will be provided an allotment of carbon credits. If an entity goes over they have to buy additional carbon credits which will be the “tax. ” If the using location comes in under they will receive a dividend.
There intention is that in the beginning individual households (read voters) will get a generous carbon allotment and businesses will be more restrictive, pound for pound. Most individual households will get a refund, in all likelihood tied to you tax return. Individual voters will love this in the beginning because Uncle Sam will stick it to the big bad businesses. And for the home owner it will be like walking down the street and finding money.
There will be an exchange, probably tied into the stock exchange were carbon credits will be bought and sold and their market price will fluctuate. The elite will control the exchange just like they do the stock market and the politicians on strings that they bought and paid for to get the proper crooks installed into the key bureaucratic positions to guarantee that the rich get richer, the politicians get their kickbacks and the middle class takes it on the chin.
Once this process, whcih they will have sold to the average voter as a potential benefit, becomes entrenched. the household allotment will begin to shrink and the price of carbon credits will rise to the point of becoming painful to buy.
Like sheep to the slaughter we will be funneled into forced reduction of fossil fuel. And the world will not become better place for Greta Thunberg even if she lives to be 100. Everybody will hate their lives more because of forced energy restrictions.
Lawrence, the bill you cite, HR763, the Energy Innovation Act, is just another wonkish legislative scheme for reducing our carbon emissions which has little chance of actually reducing emissions as far and as fast as is being claimed by its sponsors even if were to be enacted into law.
The only possible means of reducing America’s carbon emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary is to use the power of government in ways that will make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.
Here is a plan for reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. The plan is entitled the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP), and it assumes that a climate activist Democrat is elected president in 2020:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/26/bloomberg-climate-funny-lets-hope-china-will-follow-the-moral-example-of-the-u-s/#comment-2806817
The SSCECP employs EPA-administered carbon pollution fines as the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. The plan supplies a powerful incentive for the state governments to participate in directly regulating America’s carbon emissions by assigning them the great bulk of the revenues produced from the EPA’s carbon pollution fines.
In addition, the plan keeps the import, production, and distribution of carbon fuels in private hands. Rather than nationalizing the oil & gas industry, the plan enlists private corporations as contracted agents in managing the government’s energy rationing programs; and it guarantees a steady and healthy rate return from the sale of all carbon fuels produced by those private corporations which choose to participate.
A key point here is that not another word of new legislation is needed to enable this plan. The entire plan is implemented through a series of Executive Orders covered under existing environmental and national security legislation and under constitutionally legal Executive Branch authorities.
Getting back more money than you pay in is always popular, no matter what the excuse for the scam.
It has nothing to do with the merits of the particular excuse.
PS: The only way such a bill can reduce CO2 emissions is by sacrificing economic activity.
30% less CO2 emissions in 2030 means that the economy has shrunk by 30% in absolute (not relative) terms.
90% less CO2 emissions in 2050 means that the economy has shrunk to 10% of the size it is right now.
Of course economic activity at those levels will also mean that somewhere around 90% of the population has died as well. But most environmentalists consider that to be a plus.
A person”s carbon footprint can be used as a proxy for wealth. So, “a tax on atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, with the proceeds paid out to all Americans in the form of a dividend,” would simply be wealth redistribution, with the government taking a piece of the pie for ‘expenses’. Of course, it would not be long before the government kept all of it, and the tax would just be a transfer of wealth from the people to the government.
I don’t know what impact that could possibly have on the climate, but I’m pretty sure it would make the people hotter.
jtom,
My sentiments exactly! Carbon taxes are simply another parasitic burden on humanity used to create jobs for those with no productive abilities (parasites).
Since CO2 is incapable of warming the climate, all of this taxing and reducing emissions is for nothing.
CO2 has three IR absorption bands, equivalent to 800,400, one –80°C blackbody temperatures. The first two could only be accessed by sunlight and not upwelling IR from the surface. A little bit of solar energy might be dissipated during the day, by an undetectably small amount.
The –80°C band, if it emitted this IR downward, it would be reflected by the surface and lost to space, as everything on the surface is warmer than this. A colder body (or radiation) cannot warm a warmer body, simple thermodynamics.
CO2 is a radiative gas that can take air heat energy and convert it to –80°C IR that is lost to space. It cools not warms. Thermophysicists have not been able to get it to warm anything. TO the contrary, they have found that it is the world’s best refrigerant. Mercedes is using it in there newer cars and several new skating rinks are using only CO2 as the refrigerant. Cool. So cheap!
You take thermodynamics too simple. Radiation cannot be rejected because of temperature. Otherwise Penzias and Wilson never had detected the cosmic microwave background radiation as noise with the Holmdel Horn Antenna.
Just a few months ago, the same people were hoping that the US would follow China’s example.
Hard actions are the only thing the Chinese understand and respect. President Trump is taking hard actions against China, to correct their predatory trade practices and confront their militaristic annexation of territory across the South Asian Sea.
‘They’ tell us that renewable energy is competitive with fossil fuels. If that is the case then it’s obvious that China would dive right in.
1 – Maybe ‘they’ are wrong.
2 – Maybe the Chinese are stupid.
Trick question. The Chinese aren’t stupid. When renewable energy becomes viable the Chinese will adopt it. Don’t hold your breath waiting.
economists love taxes
idiots love getting the handouts
so if they hand taxes back why take em to begin with?
just another layer of bureaucracy and powertripping
The words “China” and “moral” in the same sentence will always be a JOKE.
There are sleeze bag Chinese just like there are sleeze bag Americans. Otherwise, Chinese culture is deeply rooted in morality.
Hey, grab a history book and read: China is ruled by a communist dictatorship that would do whatever it takes to stay in power ad eternum, citizens in China do not have any type of rights. USA is a free country, with a well established democracy and every citizen has rights to protect them. Only people with very low IQs can compare the US with China….
Spot on. Big differences. Would live in USA, as a yank. Not China.
They don’t have much concept of intellectual property, or private property….
In the world of the leftist there is two types of property.
What already belongs to them, and property that would have been theirs if only the world was fair.
Tom and commieBob are both right its just that they are takking about two different entities/groups.
Chinese culture ( that practiced by the Chinese people) is one thing but China, the Chinese State as it currently is formed is something else again. The old imperial state was not that much different from the current totalitarian state.
“Hope” is not a sound basis for inflicting trillions of dollars of damage on your own country.
“Carbon taxes have one more big defect – warming is global, but the taxes are not.”
The Carbon Innovation bill, HR 763, which 60 MoC have endorsed, requires a border adjustment on all imports. Exporting countries that have no carbon tax, or a low carbon tax, would pay the equivalent of the US carbon tax on everything imported into the US. Counties such as Sweden that have a carbon tax as large or larger than the US carbon tax, would not pay a border adjustment on their exports to the US.
This border adjustment would require, for example, China to pay the US Treasury the equivalent of the US carbon tax. China does not want to pay this import fee and would instead create their own carbon tax to avoid funding the US Treasury.
Wishful thinking.
There is a certain arrogance in presuming to know what other countries will do. Especially when “they have to” because XYZ. All figured out, all nice and neat.
The government equivalent of an Ivory Tower Egghead may have it all worked out, China will put in a carbon tax “because they have to“. The reality is that China (and others) will simply see the fees as an import tariff and retaliate. What you end up with is “The Mother Of All Trade Wars”. Calling the tariff a “Carbon Tax” and therefor virtuous, and somehow exempt from current trade treaties, will make no difference.
The arrogant presumption that you Know what the other side will do, especially when they Have To, has been to source of some of the worst mistakes in Foreign Relations in US History.
Here we go again.
Voting yourselves poor is not “moral,” nor an example that ambitious countries wish to follow.
China already did that, when it dismantled its oceangoing fleet of ships in the mid-15th century, and handed off global leadership for the next 500 years. Although the magnetic compass was invented in China, it decided oceanic exploration & trade were pointless efforts. After Portugal, then the rest of Western Europe, got a hold of the compass, they decided, “Hey! Now we can cross trackless oceans and make something of ourselves.” The Age of Discovery, rapid economic, technological & intellectual growth soon followed, and Europe led the world until it began to self-destruct in the early 20th century.
China finally learned that self-destruction is not where it’s at, and it has made a concerted effort to re-ascend since the 1980s. If the West self-destructs, you can be sure China is not going to follow us down that rabbit hole this time around.
And the Bloomberg writer puts forth a bald-faced lie with:
”In a troubling twist, by reducing demand for oil and other internationally traded fossil fuels, a U.S. carbon tax could lower the price of these fuels for China and other countries, slowing their transition to renewables.”
Everything about the Watermelons is a “keep it in the ground” approach. That guarantees a rapidly rising price for an internally traded commodity. The dumbass writer wants the reader to think, “oh the US will just keep producing its oil (and Canada for tar sand oil) but send it to China to burn where they won’t have energy poverty inducing, crushing consumption taxes like in the west.”
Which of course exposes what the Climate Scam is really all about.
Unfortunately their idea of “green energy” is better characterized as expensive, stupid and primitive energy technology. They not only exaggerate the problem but make preposterously stupid decisions about solutions. These people are stupid all over.
Bone-head “journalist” comments:
Let’s hope developing countries such as China will follow the moral example of the U.S. and implement their own stringent carbon taxes.
What a waste of words. Like the Obummer infantile “hopey, changey” meme. Oh sure, China will certainly be convinced by this….
“Voting yourself poor…”
Outstanding line.
🙂
Well – if they follow the example of Trump telling the greenies to pound sand, that’s a good start.
It takes a lot of courage and moral fortitude to stand up to the kind of propaganda, lies, and smears that are an hourly part of progressive/greenie rhetoric.
What was the vote on GND again? That needs to be a on bumper stickers.
I “hope” that Bloomberg comes to understand that making China the world’s factory floor has consequences for global emissions accounts and the financial well being of the middle class in many “wealthy” nations targeted by globalists at the UN.
Bloomberg has an institutional bias toward carbon taxing and government subsidies for green schemes of all sorts. The name on the masthead is inseparable from his business interests which include deep involvement in green finance. Green finance only works if government gives it direct aid or favorable tax treatment.
Shouldn’t the Regressive Left be outraged that big finance and billionaires are scheming to cash in on the sweat of the people’s labors. Greed and rank stupidity make for strange bedfellows.
I just heard on the radio, that the ipcc had a meeting about artic ice recently, and the meeting was in Monaco 😐 I wonder how they got there? And who is paying for the hotels 😐
Did it mention arctic sea ice ended the season at second lowest in modern times?
you are perhaps also concerned about that, as well as peoples carbon footprints?
Meanwhile back at the ice continent…
griff,
We are not concerned about carbon at all. Even less about footprints. CO2 has absolutely nothing to do with the changing climate. Also, you know that arctic sea ice has fluctuated since before mankind got it’s start.
Well, after trolling here for years, he apparently STILL didn’t know that C02 is released by the oceans and animal respiration.
That’s some closely guarded ignorance.
IF it is Carbon causing the problem then YES Carbon Footprints of ALL concerned matter heavily regardless of what may or may not be affected. If someone is preaching Global Devastation caused by Carbon then the size of their footprint is Highly Relevant. Do they really believe and practice what they preach??
If however, they travel by high Carbon Intensive means and live High Carbon intensive lifestyles what they may have to say carries very little weight.
Even if true griff, ice levels haven’t fallen over all in almost 10 years.
Sunny, I was curious about these same questions, so I looked into it, for you. Here is what I found.
Travel arrangements depended on the country of origin.
From the Mideast and North Africa:
The Dromedary Camel has long been known as the “Ship Of The Desert”, for their ability to cross vast distances. What is a bit less well known is that these animals are powerful swimmers and serve as “ships” in their own right. Delegates from these areas simply rode their camels to Alexandria or Tripoli and then had their animals swim across the Mediterranean to Monaco. Very Ecological.
From the Nordic countries:
These delegates got on icebergs headed south and easily rode them through the Straights Of Gibraltar, and on to the Riviera.
From North America:
These delegates got a ride to Europe on the racing yacht that brought Greta T. over. They were let off the boat at the Normandy beaches where they waded ashore and battled their way through the German lines. Then they fought mile by mile through the hedgerow country all the way to Paris. From there, they just took the train the rest of the way.
At first, I thought that bit about “battling the Germans at Normandy” might be just a bit of a rhetorical flourish. But then I remembered that many high-profile people have said that the war against Climate Change is just as big a challenge as WWII, so maybe true. I was unaware that Germany would have troops in France, possibly as part of a NATO deployment.
On the other hand, perhaps the delegates mistook some beach vendors for Panzergruppe West.
I checked the prices for the best hotels in Monaco. Sit Down.
$9,600 and $15,200 per night.
Or you could rent a yacht.
$160,500 and $750,000 per week.
I am sure the property owners donated the accommodations for “the cause”.
And that is what happened. Honest.
{Climate Change has devolved into comedy and farce, so I thought I could add some of my own.}
So this is funny – – –
” . . . China will follow the moral example of the U.S. . . .”
…but not as funny as this – – –
“. . . the proceeds paid out to all Americans in the form of a dividend. “
“The equivocation of former years seems belatedly to be giving way to a general realization that something must be done. ”
Fake news. “General realization” same old lie, not a new one.
Let’s hope China will follow the moral example of the US leaving the Paris “Agreement”. It takes great moral and intestinal fortitude to go against the global mob demanding everyone ruin their economies and hand money over to poor countries to “fix” a non-problem.
China has doesn’t have to leave the Paris Accords. They just ignore it and pretend to be “in”.
China firms building coal plants in Asia despite Beijing ‘green’ pledge
http://bit.ly/2lKTja1
Here, here!
What the dolt writing this steaming pile of an “article” doesn’t realize is this – China only pays lip service to the “climate crisis” bullshit because it provides it with an advantage relative to “western” nations. Their “Paris commitments” to do something AFTER they reach their “peak” emissions more than a decade from now will surely be “renegotiated” when the time comes for them to actually “do” anything.
In other words, China is more than happy to watch the US and other “western” nations slit their own economic throats in pursuit of non-solutions to non-problems while they build UP their own economy.
”Historic’ snowstorm may bring blizzard conditions to Montana, several feet of snow to mountains”-U.S.
‘Historic’ storm could dump 50+ cm of snow this weekend, winter watches issued”-Canada
https://www.foxnews.com/us/historic-snow-storm-rockies-blizzard-montana-snow-mountains-weather
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/high-impact-weekend-snow-storm-southern-alberta-southern-saskatchewan-severe-impacts-to-agriculture-travel-blowing-snow-blizzard-conditions
Must be front page news on CNN…….Not !
From the article: “Let’s hope developing countries such as China will follow the moral example of the U.S. and implement their own stringent carbon taxes.”
The “U.S.” has not implemented a Carbon Dioxide Tax. Those American politicians who advocate such a thing are putting their political careers in jeopardy, especially Republicans.
Let’s stop the nonsense of calling China a “developing country”. The UN started that meme to give China (and other non Western countries) a free pass on emissions. The second largest economy on the way to becoming the first in the world is no more developing than the US. All countries continue developing or they are dying. Some are just more developed than others (said the pig).
It is incredibly immoral to divert (i.e. steal) a large % of a Nation’s GDP in a futile, zero efficiency (i.e. totally ineffective and wasteful) , and scientifically unsupportable (and purely politically motivated) “Action” INTO THE HANDS of the enemies of the US Constitution and INTO THE HANDS of sworn enemies of America.
America is the last best hope for individual freedoms in the world…and to where imprisoned individuals and downtrodden indivuduals around the world look to for hope.
Hong Kong freedom fighters carry the American Flag and sing OUR National Anthem!! …not the British Flag…and certainly not the Chinese Flag which our liberals would gladly carry and fight under in some future Socialist Utopia. The Democrat’s unending quest for Central Authoritarian control and their constant unending attacks upon our sacred Constitution is as un-American AND IMMORAL as any Central and Fundamental Long Term Political Ambitions and Plans could possibly be.
The Radical Democrats in the House of Representatives are domestic enemies (as described in the U.S. Constitution) of the Republic.
The House Democrats are abusing their poliical power in an effort to oust Trump. Sane voters should oust the House Democrats at the next election.
We should not allow the delusional Democrats to ruin these United States, and they will if they have the political power. The future of the US depends on taking political power away from the radical Democrats. At the voting booth.
It’s a bust…..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-anniversary-red-widerimage/busts-of-leaders-a-hit-in-chinas-porcelain-capital-ahead-of-key-anniversary-idUSKBN1WA34Z?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+reuters%2FtopNews+%28News+%2F+US+%2F+Top+News%29
The supreme irony of the Climate Liars lecturing about morality is jus so delicious. How delicious?
Thanks for asking! More delicious than fresh-baked apple pie a la mode.
Nobody that I know.
But, as we do know, global warming activists look enviously across the oceans to a place where the lives of +1Billion people are so much dependent on edicts that come down from on high.
Guess now I’m never gonna get a job in China now for saying that. But then, I’m not gonna get a job at Google either.
The only possible means of reducing America’s carbon emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary is to use the power of government in ways that make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.
Here is a plan for reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. The plan is entitled the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP).
The plan uses a series of Executive Orders which combine existing provisions of the Clean Air Act with existing provisions of national security legislation to create an integrated regulatory approach for increasing the cost of all carbon fuels and for systematically restricting their future import, production, and consumption.
In short, the SSCECP uses the power of the federal government to create and enforce an artificial shortage of carbon fuels while directly raising their prices and directly reducing their import, production, and consumption.
Here are the major phases of the plan. The start and end dates listed for each major phase assume a climate activist Democrat is elected president in 2020.
Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating carbon dioxide and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants. (2007-2012. Status complete.)
— File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
— Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s.
— Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts.
Phase II: Expand and extend EPA regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (2021-2022)
— Issue a presidential executive order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
— Publish a CAA Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
— Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
— Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
— Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
— Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.
Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive EPA-managed regulatory framework for carbon. (2023-2025)
— Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
— Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
— Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
— Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
— Research and publish a provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing as a backup to the carbon fine system.
— Defend the EPA’s comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.
Phase IV: Implement the EPA’s carbon pollution regulatory framework. (2026-2050)
— Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
— Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states.
— Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
— Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
— Assess the possible need for invoking the provisional system of direct carbon fuel rationing.
— Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations against emerging lawsuits.
Phase V: Implement the provisional system for direct carbon fuel rationing. (Start and End dates are contingent upon Phase IV progress.)
— Issue a presidential proclamation declaring that Phase IV anti-carbon measures cannot meet the 80% by 2050 target.
— Initiate the provisionally established system for imposing direct government-mandated restrictions on the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
— Apply the Phase IV system of carbon pollution fines in escalating steps as needed to incentivize Phase V compliance.
— Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts.
Phase VI: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or earlier.)
— Assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program beyond 2050.
— Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures continue beyond 2050.
–Remarks:
The SSCECP employs EPA-administered carbon pollution fines as the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. The plan supplies a powerful incentive for the state governments to participate in directly regulating America’s carbon emissions by assigning them the great bulk of the revenues produced from the EPA’s carbon pollution fines.
In addition, the plan keeps the import, production, and distribution of carbon fuels in private hands. Rather than nationalizing the oil & gas industry, the plan enlists private corporations as contracted agents in managing the government’s energy rationing programs; and it guarantees a steady and healthy rate return from the sale of all carbon fuels produced by those private corporations which choose to participate.
A key point here is that not another word of new legislation is needed to enable this plan. The entire plan is implemented through a series of Executive Orders covered under existing environmental and national security legislation and under constitutionally legal Executive Branch authorities.
Phase V, Part II – The people’s rebellion. All politicians supporting phase V are removed from office, peacefully at the polls if the losers admit to defeat, by armed civil uprising if they do not.
We’ve got several hundred years worth of oil left in the ground and at least 1000 years of coal.
The inconvenient truth about carbon fuels is that they are highly energy dense and highly portable, something which makes carbon fuels highly convenient for a variety of energy requirements. Reaching the goal of an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 can only be done through government diktat. Nothing else will work.
Those who are pushing wonkish GHG reduction schemes such as the Carbon Innovation bill, HR 763, are attempting to avoid the toughest of questions — what level of sacrifice are climate activists willing to impose to achieve the carbon reductions they claim are necessary?
You forgot Phase III Part I:
Bury 100,000,000 dead bodies. Starved due to crashing agricultural output because key pieces of the farm equipment is unable to operate without fuel, and some delivery trucks are inoperable for the same reason.
All those rotting bodies would be a health hazard and could also be unpleasant for the elite should any encounter one somehow.
About 12 years ago I attended a conference of the Air and Waste Management Association, where one of the speakers said that the USA needed to “lead” the rest of the world in cutting CO2 emissions, and “if we lead, China will follow”.
China has four times our population, and has been stealing American technology for decades, and we can’t force China to do anything that’s not in their interest. China has been building lots of coal-fired power plants, and any CO2 emissions reduction by the USA or Europe will be erased by the increase in Chinese emissions.
Of course, China’s coal-fired power plants don’t have baghouses to capture ash or scrubbers to capture sulfur dioxide (real pollutants), so Beijing’s air is much more toxic than the air in Los Angeles or Houston, while the USA has regulated those pollutants since 1970 and drastically reduced their emissions. Since China is a dictatorship, the government won’t do anything about pollution unless there is a massive popular revolt in China, and then American companies can sell them baghouses and scrubbers. But we can’t force China to clean up, until the Chinese wake up and smell the acid rain, and decide to do something about it.
Carbon taxes can only have any effect in a capitalist system, China is not capitalist, so the Bloomberg article is daft.
That is before we consider the desirability of CO2.
The idea creating a carbon tax and distributing the revenue is some manner is also stupid and would cost a fortune in administrative costs and well as many other disadvantages.
+10
The Chinese are not swayed by American Gaia Climate religious festivals nor by Swedish child climate action presenters. They can look at their own agricultural production improvement under increased CO2, their reduced water requirement under increased CO2 and check their own ‘unadjusted’ climate record to see where their bread is buttered and what is in their National interest.
If taxing something was a sure-fire method of reducing the ‘something’, nobody would go out and earn a wage or attempt to increase their income.
Income tax/pay-roll tax, etc have not stopped human efforts to earn an income.
People still smoke even though the taxes on tobacco have been increased dramatically in order to stop people smoking.
I dare them to actually BAN fossil fuels to fix the ‘climate emergency’.
So … Japan attacks Pearl Harbor. They sink a bunch of our ships.
But instead of rebuilding, we sink All of our ships and hope they do the same?
Is that the “WW2 effort” the Greens mean?
Many observations demonstrate that CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate. (Section 2, of my blog/analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com)
Since it has been fairly accurately measured worldwide, Jan, 1988, water vapor has increased about 4.3% or about 1.54% per decade. (Section 8, Figure 3)
The water vapor increase is about twice expected from temperature increase alone. (Section 8)
Most (about 86%) of the extra water vapor increase is from irrigation increase. (Section 9)
Both CO2 and water vapor have been fairly accurately measured worldwide since 1988. Over that period, about 5 water vapor molecules have been added for each added CO2 molecule. (Section 2, #9 of my b/a)
Hitran, using Quantum Mechanics, demonstrates that a water vapor molecule is about 5 times more effective than a CO2 molecule at absorb/emit of electromagnetic radiation in the wavelength range associated with earth temperatures. (Section 2, #8 of my b/a)
The increased number of CO2 molecules above the tropopause provides more radiation to space which apparently compensates for the slight increase in absorbers at ground level. http://diyclimateanalysis.blogspot.com (2nd paragraph after Figure 1)
The human contribution to Global Warming is from water vapor increase, not CO2 increase. Water vapor increase is self-limiting; therefore, Global Warming is self-limiting.
China is what Germany would be like if the Nazi’s had won WW II.
Now, in that situation, do you think that Germany would follow our example on climate action?
As they noted in the 1930’s:
Communism is failed Socialism.
Fascism is failed Communism.
China is now a fascist state.
“Earlier this year, a large group of economists from across the ideological spectrum issued a statement calling for a tax on atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions, with the proceeds paid out to all Americans in the form of a dividend”
Exactly how will it help to take money off Americans just so they can get it back?
Are we SURE these ‘economists’ actually got their degrees?
Where can I find accurate neutral figures for Chinese coal consumption and present and future power stations using coal please?
Nothing will prevent global warming or global cooling or anything else–particularly as there is currently no warming going on world-wide.
I can tell you that the ’50s, where I lived, was a LOT hotter than it is now, but that is something called WEATHER.
I believe in global warming and global cooling . Am I still a “denier ” ?
I personally prefer global warming but that’s just me .
I also like the fact the earth is greening thanks to all those Hollywood hypocrites
running around on model boinking expeditions and global warming conferences .
Things could be worse .
Sorry your parents ruined your childhood . Mine were great .