.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?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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 .