| 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. |
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.
Oop, there it is. Ever’body cabbage patch!
I “respect” neither, they have earned none.
Systemic racism is as much of a problem as Climate Change is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
More fraud….
https://www.stltoday.com/pr/business/ameren-missouris-renewable-energy-standard-fraud/article_58521618-ba58-11ea-bbf9-070dfb2e8446.html
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
Meanwhile China continues to burn more carbon, so net impact on the world is zero, but USA decimates its economy.
That’s the crisis.
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.
“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™.
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.