Select House Members push “Climate Crisis” Action Plan

From the Institute for Energy Research and the department of political sheep herding comes this review of a misguided mess done by a few members of the house who have bought into the “crisis” narrative- Anthony

The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis has released its Climate Crisis Action Plan. Speaking in front of the Capitol on Tuesday, June 30, Representative Kathy Castor of Florida’s 14th congressional district declared the plan a “transformative roadmap” that would build a “100 percent clean energy economy.” The 547-page document includes a wide range of policy planks, among which is a carbon tax.

Let’s take a look at its specifics.

Climate Crisis Action Plan (PDF)

The environmental and societal costs of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are clear, including loss of life and property damage caused by wildfires, stronger hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. When a ton of carbon pollution billows from a smokestack, however, no one pays for that pollution. As a result, industry, investors, and consumers do not internalize the true cost of the choices they are making and have less incentive to choose less-polluting products or technologies. Until the market reflects the true cost of carbon pollution, the U.S. economy will remain biased toward fossil fuel combustion.

One way to correct this market failure is to put a price on each ton of pollution. Congress could design a comprehensive climate plan without a carbon price, but a carbon price “percolates through the entire economy, providing an incentive for all decision makers in the economy to look for ways to reduce emissions.”

IER’s Take
The costs of greenhouse gas emissions are decidedly unclear. Were they clear, we wouldn’t be in the midst of a societal struggle over the value of using fossil fuels. Furthermore, were the costs clear, the committee would be more explicit in its carbon tax recommendation. Instead, the committee buries the carbon pricing section 286 pages into its report.

The committee’s carbon pricing principles follow.

Climate Crisis Action Plan

Carbon pricing can take many forms. The majority staff for the Select Committee offers the following principles for designing an effective and equitable carbon pricing system:

1. Congress should establish a carbon pricing system designed to achieve America’s economywide greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of net-zero by no later than 2050.

2. Congress should consider a carbon price as only one tool to complement a suite of policies to achieve deep pollution reductions and strengthen community resilience to climate impacts. Carbon pricing is not a silver bullet.

3. Congress should ensure that energy-intensive, trade-exposed domestic industries that are working to reduce pollution remain on a level playing field with foreign competitors that use dirtier technologies.

4. Congress should ensure low- and moderate-income households benefit from a national carbon price.

5. Congress should pair a carbon price with policies to achieve measurable air pollution reductions from facilities located in environmental justice (EJ) communities, which face chronic and acute health impacts from a legacy of industrial development in their neighborhoods.

6. Congress should respect states and localities that have led the nation in climate action, ensure that a national carbon price complements and builds on their programs, and apply the lessons learned from their experiences and other international approaches.

7. Congress should not offer liability relief or nullify Clean Air Act authorities or other existing statutory duties to cut pollution in exchange for a carbon price.


IER’s Take
I’ll respond to each point in order.

1. The fact that no dollar figure is presented is telling. To reach net-zero in thirty years implies a massive and climbing carbon tax. As analysis follows the release of this report, I’m sure estimates will begin to emerge. They won’t be pretty.

2. The appeal of a carbon tax is its simplicity. If we indeed have the analytical tools to calculate the degree of negative externality that using fossil fuels generates, then the resulting social cost of carbon (SCC) would enable a carbon tax to be something approximating a silver bullet, rebalancing externalized costs to the responsible actor and pegging risk appropriately. Layering a carbon tax on top of existing and new regulations reveals that our confidence in the SCC and in our implementation of the policy is lacking.

3. In other words, a tariff.

4. The ostensible benefits to which the committee alludes would not be the direct result of a carbon tax, but of the allocation of new revenue. See below.

5. Local air pollution is not the target of a carbon tax.

6. There are many positives to the mindset of federalism, but as described here it sounds like businesses and citizens would face a dizzying tangle of requirements when crossing state lines.

7. The grand bargain we’ve been promised by the Republican carbon tax advocates—trading regulations for a tax—does not appear likely.

Climate Crisis Action Plan

Most, but not all, proposed federal carbon pricing mechanisms generate significant revenue that can be used to invest in communities, research and development, and more. Congress may decide to use some of the revenue to address top priorities, including investing in low-income communities, communities of color, and communities and workers in economic transition; rebuilding America’s infrastructure in a climate-resilient way to support a net-zero economy; financing clean energy and energy efficiency projects to expedite pollution reduction; supporting natural climate solutions and conservation; or funding other recommendations in this report.

IER’s Take
The thorn in the side of carbon taxers is the policy’s notorious regressivity. In recent years we’ve seen a particular revenue-recycling strategy thrust forward in an effort to align the carbon tax with concepts of “climate” or “environmental” justice. That revenue-recycling strategy is the rebate. The tax-and-rebate approach allows taxers to claim with a patina of truth that some people could be made better off if the revenue is redistributed. Since wealthier people use more carbon-intensive energy (like jet fuel), at least on paper many people could get more “back” from the rebate than they would pay in tax.

This plan does not include a rebate, which I find surprising.

Without even granting that nod to working Americans, it will be difficult for Castor’s committee to fend off claims that this new tax would hurt the people who are struggling most in this economically-fraught time.

For a thorough assessment of different revenue strategies, see this 2018 IER paper with analysis conducted by Capital Alpha Partners.

98 thoughts on “Select House Members push “Climate Crisis” Action Plan

  1. Carbon pricing = tax. This is nothing more than an excuse to tax air, about the only thing currently not taxed, for the sole purpose of increasing the government’s slush fun to pay off the members of the swamp at tax payers expense.

    • BTW I am paying into Canada’s air tax and I get a rebate which is supposed to be higher than you pay into the scheme for average Canadians. Of course the way the government figures it does not include anything “extra” like the extra money now tacked onto my grocery bill for the carbon taxes famers, truckers, and retailers have to pay now, which averages to about an extra $400/month by some external calculations free of government calculators. Plus I have to pay extra for everything else in my life, shngles for me roof, the guy who hauls cleans out my septic tank, clothing, you name it. There are even carbon taxes on the delivery of my hydro electricity FFS! I live in a rural area too, with no access to public transport and so I get an extra special rebate for that since I can’t just switch to public transport to avoid it. I get about $300/year in my rebate and my special rural tax break came to $26 this year.

    • And worse yet is that it is based on the claim/assumption that carbon IS pollution, which it is NOT.

        • I suggest “Climate Crisis Crap Plan”. The acronym CCCP will tell you where they want this become.

    • Well at least this person has at least enough shame to not claim you’ll get more back than you pay in with rebates.

      • I’m sure in their pressers they will make exactly that claim, along with all manner of other BS.

    • Yes, more and more, the Republicans (SOME of them, I admit) sound more and more like Democrats, to the point it’s getting hard to tell the difference!

    • Oh, I don’t know, bet it will put a pile-O-cash in the committee members collective pockets.

  2. No nation need pay money and deploy effort for any climate crisis, a non existent problem used as a catch phrase for fools.
    Note the carbon footprints of China, India, Russia and so many more nations.

  3. Yes, let’s punish businesses with machines humming away, producing useful items. Let’s ding them when they use electricity or gas to air condition and heat buildings to make them more comfortable for their workers. Let’s force them to only operate when the sun shines and wind blows so they will sporadically and unpredictably lay off workers.

  4. The IER demonstrates remarkable sitzfleisch in wading through a 547-page congressional emission to find a potential nugget on page 286.

    As usual, the compulsive response of congress is to raise taxes. The methodology is particularly effective with imaginary problems, as it achieves the coveted trifecta. There is more taxpayer money to be squandered; any opposition can be quelled by claiming that they are anti-science, and want to kill people for their profit; and when no ill effects are observed, they claim that their resolute actions avoided a catastrophe.

  5. “The environmental and societal costs of greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are clear, including loss of life and property damage caused by wildfires, stronger hurricanes, and other extreme weather events.”

    Where is the data to support this announcement? Where is the data to support the assumption that reducing fossil fuel use will reduce loss of life or the other claimed dangers? What do the OCO satellites say about sources of CO2? These House members are not addressing a political issue, but a technical issue. They should support it with measured data. If they could, many more might support the cause.

  6. Only a Fool In A Hurry would want to go back to the sticks and stones cultures, probably the last carbon semi-neutral (burning dung!) human episode. Watch an episode of “Naked and Afraid” and think about that life. Still down with the theme? Go on vacation in Africa, take off all your clothes and start walking. Otherwise keep your phony virtue-signaling to yourself. Stay sane (keep your clothes on and don’t try to hit a 3 wood 300 yards) and safe.

  7. Any Republican supporting this nonsense should be considered a Rhino and should be primaried.

    • Beware the RINOs that will come along to denounce this plan by coming up with their own “lite-version” of the same.

      • After the RINO “lite” plan passes, next year the Democrats propose a new “plan” that’s twice as onerous as this years plan. Then the RINOs introduce a “lite” plan that happens to be indistinguishable from this years Democrat plan.

        • You’re scaring the me, MarkW. I may have to self-medicate. Luckily I have the medicine handy.

        • Honestly, I’m beginning to worry less about carbon legislation – all that was no more than a means to an end, anyway – they’re taking more direct methods to take us down now.

          These people are psychopaths across the board – try to imagine Omar or AOC given the reigns to enforce – not just climate action – but Social Justice?

          Because if Biden gets in, they will. Their party isn’t even in power yet, and look what progressives are already doing.

          I’ve been hearing so long that ‘it could never happen here’ – well, it is – and all it took for fascism to become accepted was a new stereotype, and a new ‘scientific’ save-the-world theory – and of course, a Goebbels press on steroids.

          And it’s the same people as last time – leftist progressive socialists.

          At least the Devils second or third greatest trick was convincing the world that the Third Reich was ‘right-wing’.

        • No it isn’t. Kathy Castor is a democrat and the house select committee is in the democrat controlled house, so the majority of it’s members are democrats (look at the PDF, its the “majority staff report” IE the Democrat staff report notice that all 9 members listed on the document have Ds after their names, not a single R in sight). RINOs might support it, but it’s not the RINO version nor was it created by RINOs.

          • And the RINOs went along with it. Perhaps they will go in front of the press and lie about it, that is what RINOs always do, does not change the fact they are part of it. Either way they will get cash out of it as they always do.

          • I don’t doubt the RINOs will go along with it (or at least offer up their own “lite-version”) still doesn’t change the fact that you were wrong when you claimed this was the RINO lite-version. Read the PDF, this is the democrat’s version.

          • It is the RINO lite version, you can lie all you want, it is what it is, written by RINOs. F**k you. They authored it, they pushed it, you suck their c**ks.

          • This isn’t the RINO “lite” plan but it does exist.

            Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.)—is drafting a “Green Real Deal” as a 10-percent-less alternative to Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) is calling for a “Manhattan Project” to force Americans to utilize expensive, unreliable energy sources.
            James Taylor

          • Swear all you want, you are still WRONG. This is not the RINO-lite version because it was *NOT* written by RINOs. Stop being ignorant of the facts and click on the PDF link in the article – it lists all the names of the people involved and they’re all Ds not a single R was involved in the report. Kathy Castor is a democrat, not a RINO. The report is the “majority staff report” (hint, in the house the majority is Ds, Rs – including all the RINOs – are in the minority over there) and was written by the majority members of the committee (All of them are in the D column). You do you self no favors by continuing to be ignorant when the facts are presented to you. But if you wish to insist this is the RINO version, please list all the names of the RINOs who wrote. I bet you can’t even name 1, because there were none (again, look at the PDF of the report, you won’t find a single Republican name listed. no republicans means no RINOs).

          • That sound I hear: crickets. Couldn’t name a single RINO involved in writing the report could you? Did you ever stop to consider why that was? Perhaps you should do so before the next time you wish to erroneously claim this democrat version is the RINO lite-version.

          • You keep listing the Committee members, they are the ones putting NGD forward, none of them oppose it. RINOs hide behind their lies, why do you keep defending them?

          • Still can’t name a single RINO involved. Not a single one. Don’t you ever stop and wonder why before posting more nonsense? No, clearly you don’t

            You keep listing the Committee members, they are the ones putting NGD forward, none of them oppose it.

            Indeed I keep listing the majority Committee members – because they’re the ones who wrote it (contrary to your assertions), it’s *their* report, their names are on it. Whose names are not on the report? the RINOs you claim actually wrote it (yet you can’t name a single solitary one, funny that). And yes none of the democrats who wrote the report and put it forward oppose it, why would you think otherwise?

            RINOs hide behind their lies, why do you keep defending them?

            I’m not defending RINOs I’m pointing out **YOU ARE WRONG** when you call democrats RINOs. Why do you keep lying (you been presented with the facts enough times that your continuing to ignore the facts constitutes lying) and calling a democrat report written by and put forward by democrats as being a RINO report? Name names, who are these RINOs that you claim wrote the report? You can’t name one yet you keep lying your ass off.

            2hotel9 do you know the 1st rule of holes? it’s stop digging. I suggest it long past time you learned to follow that rule.

          • You keep lying, tells us all we need to know about you. (hint: pointing out the facts and showing where you are wrong is not defending anyone, it’s showing you up for the fool that you are. but do keep digging, it only shows everyone how much of an idiot you truely are)

          • Which one of these lie spewing scumbag RINOs did you vote for? Got your panties in a twist defending it, whoever it is.

          • Again, stop with *YOUR* lies. Name a single RINO involved in this report by the democrats that you claim was really written by RINOs. just one. Otherwise you reveal yourself for the damn liar that you are.

            And Again, I defended no one (and you can’t quote a single defense of anyone I’ve made, RINO or otherwise – which again shows you for the liar that you are) – point to where I am doing anything other than showing you for the fool and liar you are for your inability to admit you were *WRONG* when you claimed this democrat written plan was the RINO lite-version of the democrats plan.

            BTW I don’t vote for RINOs. Never have, never will. You probably do, however, since you have show you don’t even know who is and who isn’t a RINO (hint: democrats, bad as they are, are not RINOs). But, again, keep digging, your only making the hole you are in deeper and deeper.

          • You really are deeply invested in these RINO liars. Thats just sad, and totally predictable.

          • Keep lying buddy. If I’m so invested in “these RINOs” then please **NAME THEM**. You’ve been asked a dozen times to name the RINOs you claim wrote this democrat report. Crickets every time. I predicate, based on your evasions so far, you once again won’t name them (because deep down even you have to know they don’t exist outside your inability to admit you were wrong in claiming this democrat report was the RINOs report). Everyone can see you for the lying idiot you are every time you post your nonsense, now that is truly sad and predictable.

    • Being voted out is not a punishment, until we punish the living f**k out of our enemies they will continue to attack us.

  8. Who will stand up for the needs and “rights” of plant life on the planet?

    Plants may not vote in elections, but they certainly vote with reduced productivity when their food supply is constricted.

    “Carbon pollution” is a truly Orwellian turn of phrase – and the biggest lie of all in this huge scam.

    “PLANT LIFE MATTERS”!!

  9. Anthropogenic CO2 is miraculously cornucopic,
    now filling perhaps a billion bellies more than in our previously CO2 depleted atmosphere and our seriously deprived biome.
    Anthropogenic warming is and will continue to be mild and net beneficial.
    Eventually we will pay to enrich the atmosphere with CO2
    because the sun and chlorophyll conspire to nearly irreversibly sequester CO2 in the form of carbonates.
    Our mild warming will oppose natural cooling as we slip out of the Holocene,
    but I’m not optimistic that anthropogenic warming will help much when we fall off the Ten Degree Centigrade cliff into glaciation.
    The greening though will help a lot until a cooling ocean absorbs and a conspiring biome sequesters our pitiful little aliquot of plant food.
    —————-
    —————-

    • Fact is, as they say, we should be paying the providers of this boon at present.

      Reparations should go to those providers now, but the warming and greening benefits have been serendipitic,
      and the benefit of energy has already been put to use, so the argument that the reparations should go to the developed nations weakens a little.
      Still, spread the benefit of cheap fossil fuel energy to the undeveloped nations now.
      That would be true and honest climate justice.
      What are the chances? Very high
      but when even kim doesn’t know.
      ————-
      ————-

  10. And then there is always the Clinton-Gore Climate Change Action Plan (ta-da), now a worthless footnote in history.
    In October 1993, President Clinton and Vice President Gore announced the Climate Change Action Plan, a policy to fulfill the voluntary commitment of the U.S. to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels under Article 4(2) of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
    The experts from the UNFCCC took from 1992-1998 to define the Kyoto protocol that would measure how they had saved the world from greenhouse gases, only by then the climate hoax was understood as a hoax.

  11. Carbon is not a pollutant.
    Neither is carbon dioxide, which I suppose is what they are talking about.

    Paper fails on lack of veracity.

  12. Climate Change does not worry me at all. It is mostly a non-problem, adn the few areas it might be a problem in a hundred years, human ingenuity and and natural adaptations will completely turn them around into positives.

    Climate Change policy on the other hand worries me, greatly.
    Climate change has always been the Trojan Horse foisted by the Left on a naive public to justify a political agenda of socialism writ large. It is an agenda to raw politcal power to be held by the few to benefit the few – a class of power-hungry elitists and their billionaire backers. Any one who doesn’t understand that simply isn’t paying attention.

  13. “When a ton of carbon pollution billows from a smokestack, however, no one pays for that pollution.”
    Words fail at the level of Stupid required to make such a statement.

    • The stupidity of the Left blinds them to the fact they want the manufacturing plant at the bottom of that smokestack to churn-out wind turbines and solar panels that they can then apply crony capitalism methods. A crony capitalism to further enrich the billionaire class able to buy anything they want while impoverishing a once affluent middle class with unaffordable electricity and liquids fuels for personal transportation out of reach due to thier uber-high costs.

  14. I thought this was the problem. You geologists better shape up.
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01883-8
    “Frustrated and exhausted by systemic racism in the science community, Black researchers outline steps for action.” Hmm, in academia? Maybe the academics had better quit calling everybody else RACIST. “My university and its diversity and inclusivety committee have released messages of support for the Black community following the protests in the wake of George Floyd’s death, but it can feel like there’s a lot of silence beyond those messages.”

    • Every time a paper by a black PhD is rejected, the only reason is RACISM. Anyone who disagrees is a racist.

      Black Papers Matter

  15. Climate Crisis Action Plan would be better known as the Climate Rubbish Action Plan or CRAP.

    Stay safe and healthy, all.
    Bob

    • Climate Crisis?
      A plethora of swine, chickens, even human beasties living in proximity?

      Gradual and net beneficial warming is hardly a crisis for the ages; what deranged idealogues thought up this vehicle for their voyage to power?

      Gong! or what?
      ————-
      ————-

    • ResourceGuy, with all of the “Florida Man…” news stories, who wants to go there? It’s more fun to sit back and watch.

      Stay safe and healthy, all.
      Bob

    • I support cancel culture 100%, shut it all down, burn it all down, every single city and state run by Democrat Party c*nts needs to BURN. All. Of. Them. They are enemies of the human race.

      • Only they’re the ones that will do the cancelling in “cancel culture” they’re not the ones meant to be canceled. You and people who think like you are the ones that “cancel culture” is designed to cancel. So support at your own risk.

        • They don’t run me so they can’t cancel me. They are canceling their own TV shows, sports, retailers and colleges. They are burning down their own cities, and I 100% support it.

          • There’s many a person who “they don’t run” who still lost their jobs & livelyhoods (and sometimes even their freedom) because cancel culture didn’t like something they said, or a political view they supported. Keep dreaming if you think it can’t happen to you too.

          • Stay on your knees and beg them for,, well,, anything you need. You seem quite comfortable begging, good luck. I will remain an American. F**k you. Oh, and when they burn your house down I will laugh.

          • What you’ll remain is ignorant, as all your posts In this thread have shown you to be. It’s you who will beg when cancel culture comes for you and your livelihood, your supporting it 100% doesn’t make you immune, it makes you a future target you ignorant jackass.

          • Been a target all my life and yet here I am. You say no RINO supports it? Where is their opposition to it? Why are they taking no actions to stop it? Depending on Senate to stop it, all the while they are lining their pockets. So brave of them.

          • Learn to rad and more importantly comprehend what you read. Where did I say no RINO supports it? no where, because I never claimed that. I specifically said I don’t doubt the RINOs will support it or offer their own lite-version. What I did do was point out the *FACT* that you were *WRONG* to claim that the democrat written majority report version was written by the RINOs. It wasn’t, it isn’t, and it still won’t be the next time you erroneously claim it was (despite having the facts pointed out to you numerous times now).

          • Don’t oppose it means they support it. They are filling their pockets at America’s expense and screwing every citizen, and you keep defending them. Senior members of RNC are now plotting how to lose the Senate because they hate Trump. Going to defend that, too?

          • last post should have been “read” not “rad”. stupid typos. Where’s that edit button when you want it?

          • Don’t oppose it means they support it.

            oppose or support has nothing to do with it. This is a democrat report written by democrats. It was not written by RINOs, contrary to your lying claims. What non-democrats support or oppose has nothing to do with it. It certainly doesn’t somehow mean non-democrats wrote it.

            They are filling their pockets at America’s expense and screwing every citizen, and you keep defending them.

            Nope, I do no such thing. Show me where I’ve defended them (your wild imagination and mischaracterization of what I have said doesn’t count).

            Senior members of RNC are now plotting how to lose the Senate because they hate Trump. Going to defend that, too?

            Why would I defend never-Trumper idiots? That would be as bad as trying to defend your delusional lies about who wrote the report. I’ll leave that kind of nonsense to you, since you shown such an aptitude for it.

          • Not a single press release condemning it, THAT is supporting it. And you keep defending them.

          • Not a single press release condemning the invasion of invisible pink unicorns either. Guess that’s support for invisible pink unicorn invasions! But you are not just trying to distract from the facts. You made a specific claim, not only of support but of authorship. You claimed it was the RINO plan (it isn’t as the facts show) and that the RINOs wrote it (they didn’t as the facts show). Yet you’ve not named one RINO involved in writing the plan (because there are none, as the facts show) and all the names that are associated with the document are democrats (again, as the facts show).

            And again, show me where I”ve defended them? (the voices in your head don’t count) Pointing out the *FACTS* and showing where *YOU* are *WRONG* is not defending anyone. So stop your damn lying.

  16. More King Canute thinking that we can change the force of nature without the slightest idea of what they’re really asking or the impact it will have on society. Another unintended consequences in the making.

  17. A protester shown in that article is holding a sign that says, “Respect black lives like you respect black culture.”

    As much as there are problems of systemic racism, there are problems in black culture that need to be addressed. For example, annually about 200 blacks die from shootings by police. This is a terrible statistic, but over 1000 blacks die each year during shoe robberies committed by other blacks. In black culture, there are many willing to commit murder for a pair of shoes.

    • Sorry, this was meant to be a reply to HD Hoese’s comment on racism in the scientific community.

      • The fact that there are so many blacks who are willing to kill for a pair of shoes just might explain why so many of them get shot by police.

      • If the color of your skin is the only thing that makes your life matter you are a racist. Post that sentence every place you can before real human beings are permanently silenced.

    • When you compare the number of shootings of blacks by police to the number of interactions between black youths and police. You find that this ratio is well below a similar ratio for other races.

      The fact is that police are restrained when interacting with black youth, because they know that a single mistake WILL end their career.

  18. The Group’s tag line should read:

    Unintended Consequences R Us: Our short term gains for appearance are your short, medium, and long run losses

    • An unintended consequence could be that the ‘polluters’ will shut up shop rather than pay an ever-increasing carbon tax.

      These fools never think that people/businesses will change their ways to get the best result for themselves whenever governments change the rules.

  19. “1. Congress should establish a carbon pricing system designed to achieve America’s economywide greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of net-zero by no later than 2050.”

    Now there’s a goal I can support. I should be quite simple to achieve a net reduction of zero in greenhouse gas emissions without any added cost. Why I’d bet we could achieve a pretty significant net increase if we tried.

  20. What we should do is to request that the members of The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis show us how they reached the conclusion that CO2 needs regulation.

    Since there is no evidence that CO2 is, or will do what they say it will do in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to request that they explain their reasoning on CO2 before any further action is taken.

    In other words, the members of this committee should give us the evidence they used to decide that we need to control CO2.

    After they provide what they call evidence, we can tear their arguments apart right here, since there is no evidence of Human-caused climate change worthy of the name.

    Just think where we would be without Trump in the White House. Up a climate change creek without a paddle. There would be no debate on this subject if he was not there.

  21. The Democrats are clueless. CAGW is over. We are waiting until we have the collective imagination to understand what has happened.

    Spending trillions of dollars on ‘green’ stuff that does not work, to make electricity more expensive, was only possible because we rich and happy.

    Covid isolation is not going away. High volume tourism is dead (only one problem) and that is going to bankrupt major tourism cities.

    Masks on subways. Bankrupt restaurants, bankrupt hotels, bankrupt tourist services, bankrupt theatres, and so no.

    Large major ‘tourism’ cities are bankrupt now, due to the end of high-volume tourism which had provided roughly 20%, of a large city’s tax revenues and because many of the high paying jobs that enabled people to live in major cities are gone.

    Large city costs (spending) are up and their revenue is down more than 20%.

    Large cities are now running unsustainable public transit system loses, due to high fixed costs and ridership reduction of roughly 75%.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/business-53247787

    Along with cuts by Airbus, Ryanair and EasyJet, British Airways has announced plans to cut 12,000 of its workforce.

    Meanwhile, engineering giant Rolls-Royce, which makes jet engines, will cut 3,000 jobs across the UK.

    John Lewis has said it will close stores but has not confirmed how many jobs will go. Topshop owner Arcadia and Harrods said they planned a total of 1,180 job cuts. Where are the cuts falling?

    Other lay-offs that have been announced include:
     Up to 5,000 job cuts at Upper Crust owner SSP Group
     Up to 700 jobs at Harrods
     About 600 workers at shirtmaker TM Lewin
     900 cuts at management consulting firm Accenture
     300 staff cuts across Virgin Money, Clydesdale Bank and Yorkshire Bank

  22. Meanwhile China continues to burn more carbon, so net impact on the world is zero, but USA decimates its economy.
    That’s the crisis.

  23. Shouldn’t congress first determine if CO2 is causing any problems?

    Shouldn’t congress determine if CO2 is a pollutant?

    Shouldn’t congress do a cost benefit study to determine what effect this will have on the economy and what would be the cost of not doing anything?

    Just sayin’

    • “Shouldn’t congress first determine if CO2 is causing any problems?”

      Yes, they should.

      Before they go slapping new taxes on people, these congress critters should have to explain themselves to the people they represent. The constituents of these congress members should be writing to them for an explanation.

      If they are so certain CO2 needs regulation then it should be easy for them to explain their reasoning, and what brought them to this point, and taxpayers should insist on it before any more money is spent, or any more taxes are raised.

      If they can’t give us evidence that CO2 is harmful, then the People should insist that they stop what they are doing.

      And we all know they can’t give us any substantiation that CO2 is harmful, so we should make this the focus of our attack on this nonsense. These congressional Alarmists should have their feet held to the fire and be made to prove what they claim. None of this “97 percent” BS, either!

      A Hockey Stick chart is not evidence that CO2 is a danger to humans, it is only evidence of scientific fraud. I’m guessing the members of this committee are leaning hard on the Hockey Stick. We should find out. And then show them the errors of their ways.

      The main line is we have to make them justify their actions through science, not science fiction. People need to know just how unscientific Human-caused Climate Change really is, including these congress critters. Obviously, these congress people don’t know and need to be enlightened.

      The taxpayers can save themselves a lot of money by challenging these false realities congress is basing this tax increase on. Requiring that each member of this committee justify regulating CO2 is a good start. They won’t be able to get past that roadblock.

      Make them prove their case. They can’t do it. It’s just like when Alarmists are challenged on this website to provide evidence for Human-caused climate change and all we get is silence from them because they can’t prove their claims and they know it. We shouldn’t allow the congress critters to remain silent on this subject. We shouldn’t let them run and hide like the Alarmists do here. We should point out that they are running and hiding from the truth. The truth being that there is no evidence for Human-caused climate change. Right, Alarmists? You could prove me wrong, but you can’t, can you. I love taunting alarmists. It’s so easy because they never say anything in reply, because they don’t have anything to say. What can they say? Nothing, of course, and everyone who knows this subject knows that. it’s time to enlighten our elected representatives to this fact.

  24. “Climate Action Plan:
    4. Congress should ensure low- and moderate-income households benefit from a national carbon price.”

    An objective read of that statement means the authors do not want Congress to ensure that above-moderate-income households benefit from a nation carbon price.

    In more direct words words, Congress should enact wealth re-distribution through these United States under the guise of fighting climate change™.

  25. The only crisis I see for Govn’t to fix, via taxation, is revenue streams. The actual, real world, physical climate, is just doing just fine.

Comments are closed.