EXCLUSIVE: Montana Gov Bullock’s Climate Council’s Leaked Plan Pushes For Carbon Tax

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

CHRIS WHITE
TECH REPORTER
August 26, 2020

A climate council Montana Gov. Steve Bullock established in 2019 suggested that the Democratic governor implement a state carbon tax plan to address climate change in a leaked draft of recommendations obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation

A carbon tax could lower emissions and generate revenue for Montana’s economy, as well as expand the state’s private industry, a document from Montana’s Climate Solution Council reads. The draft document, titled “Montana Climate Solutions Plan” and dated August 2020, has not been signed by Bullock but suggests several ways for the state to tackle climate change.

Four members of the 41-person council dissented to the recommendation to tax carbon emissions.

“A carbon pricing mechanism – if structured thoughtfully and with appropriate stakeholder input – has the ability to both lower emissions (through either a cap on emissions or through a price on carbon) as well as generate revenues that can be invested back into the economy to expand Montana business and/or further reduce Montana [greenhouse gas] emissions,” a section of the draft plan reads.https://2a8af03a31a3ba9e7629c2ced8ee9ce2.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

Bullock, a Democrat, is running in a tight Senate race against incumbent Republican Sen. Steve Daines. (RELATED: Sen. Steve Daines Introduces Bill To Extend President Trump’s 60-Day Immigration Ban).

“Montana should consider both the mechanism for pricing carbon (e.g., fee vs. cap), the efficacy of reducing carbon emissions, and how revenues generated from carbon pricing will be invested back into the economy,” the document said. Such a tax should also consider “any disproportionate impacts to low-income and vulnerable communities,” it adds.

The four dissenting council members raised concerns “regarding the implementation of carbon pricing, its potential disproportionate impacts on Montana businesses and low-income communities, and potential for carbon pricing to compound known challenges facing the state’s fiscal health,” according to the draft document.

The council has not responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment about the climate plan.

“The governor has not formally received the recommendations, which are in draft form, and it would be inaccurate to say the governor supports any of the recommendations in the report at this time,” Erin Loranger, press secretary for Bullock, said in a statement to the DCNF.

The draft noted that there is an “important need for considering the impacts of federal legislation on the state and its economy. The recommendation makes clear that any discussion at the federal level should include Montana stakeholders at the table,” Loranger added.

“This reckless proposal is a gut punch to the over 35,000 oil, gas, and coal jobs in Montana, not to mention the thousands of manufacturing and transportation jobs that would be crippled under such policy,” Daines wrote in a letter to Bullock. “Montanans rely on these jobs to support their families and revenues from these industries support our schools, communities, and essential services.”

The governor announced in February that the Montana Climate Solutions Council rolled out a set of draft recommendations for reducing carbon emissions. The recommendations were issued for public review and comment through March 31, 2020.

“We are excited to share the early recommendations of the Montana Climate Solutions Council with partners and the public to encourage the engagement of all Montanans in the work of the Council as they identify and refine options to prepare our state and our economy for climate impacts,” Bullock said in a statement in February.

Nearly one-third of the nation’s coal reserves are in Montana, and the northern and eastern areas of the state contain deposits of crude oil and natural gas, according to the Energy Information Administration. The United States has dramatically reduced its dependence on coal power, with natural gas and other renewable energies taking the place of coal.

Coal plant closures accelerated under President Donald Trump despite his 2016 presidential campaign promise to end what he called his Democratic predecessor’s war on coal, E&E News reported in June.

There were nearly 48 gigawatts of coal power retired during former President Barack Obama’s eight years in office, with 33 gigawatts going offline in his second term, E&E News reported, citing data from the Energy Information Administration. Roughly 37 gigawatts of coal have been lost during Trump’s term, data show.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
111 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Earthling2
August 26, 2020 10:12 pm

“A carbon tax could lower emissions and generate revenue for Montana’s economy…”

I think the accent should be on generate revenue for the State of Montana.

What I am really opposed to in a carbon tax is that it always get utilized by those in power to perpetuate their reelection. Or special hobby projects, or raises to their pensions and payoffs to their friends and supporters. It has noting to do with supposedly ‘arresting’ and tackling climate change. BTW, I just hate that term every time I hear it…tackling climate change. The phrase doesn’t even make sense. The climate is always changing, usually in short to long term cycles.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Earthling2
August 26, 2020 11:04 pm

Earthling2 August 26, 2020 at 10:12 pm

I think the accent should be on generate revenue for the State of Montana.”

You are correct however, it soon becomes apparent that without an economy there is no revenue, unless you apply fees and taxes on everyone. Oh wait!

Klem
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 2:03 am

We already pay carbon taxes. Fossil fuels are taxed when they are extracted, taxes are paid during processing and transport, and taxes are paid again by the end user. Instead of adding a carbon tax, they can easily increase the sales taxes for the consumer.

So why don’t they simply increase the sales or road taxes? Because a carbon tax can be used by governments for social control, the other taxes can’t.

This about control, folks.

Sara
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 4:56 am

Seriously, I think political animals like this governor and Mitt Romney (see the link embedded in the Daily Caller article) should have to pay a carbon tax every time they speak even one word, because they emit CO2 when they speak.

MarkW
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 8:05 am

Sounds like the governor is one of those Democrats who actually believes that the government can spend your money better than you can.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
August 27, 2020 11:25 am

Is there one that doesn’t?

Adam
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 8:16 pm

This race wasn’t close before the leak. Now, it’s Daines in a blowout. A carbon tax in a cold state where people drive long distances and where much of the economy runs on fossil fuels. Yeah, great idea! Turns out there aren’t enough California refugees to destroy every Western state.

August 26, 2020 11:06 pm

One volcano 🌋 can put more pollution in the atmosphere then man has since the industrial age began. It all gets washed back to the ground. Man made warming is a hoax. A scam by the United Nations to have a global tax !!!! Don’t be conned 🙂

Reply to  Terry Dean Roehrig Sr
August 27, 2020 12:03 am

“Terry Dean Roehrig Sr August 26, 2020 at 11:06 pm
Man made warming is a hoax. A scam by the United Nations to have a global tax !!!! Don’t be conned”

Strongly agree with Terry Dean Roehrig that it is a UN scam. Not well understood but that’s where it comes from. I have a few posts on that issue. Here are three of them.

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/05/13/greta2/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2019/02/25/un/

https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/03/18/the-eco-crisis-ambition-of-the-un/

Jack Dale
Reply to  Terry Dean Roehrig Sr
August 27, 2020 6:18 am

” present-day volcanoes emit
relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as
much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.”

https://volcanoes.usgs.gov/vsc/file_mngr/file-154/Gerlach-2011-EOS_AGU.pdf

Earthling2
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 7:05 am

Terry said pollution, and you said CO2, so it appears you subconsciously equated CO2 with pollution. Which shows your bias. Whether it does or it doesn’t, mankind is still minuscule in CO2 production compared to all natural processes of the CO2 budget. It is cumulative, thank goodness, or we would still be CO2 deprived. What is the ideal ppmv that atmospheric CO2 should be at is a question we will know relatively soon in the scheme of things. My WAG is a doubling of CO2 from preindustrial levels will be very net beneficial. At worst, it is still a 50-50 proposition, 50% good and maybe 50% bad, but I doubt there is even much bad to it. Because civilization equates CO2 with pollution, just like you did. In any event, we are heading to a doubling by the end of the century, so this experiment is happening whether anyone likes it not. I like it…the increase in atmospheric CO2 is the best thing to happen to the good Earth in millions of years. Let’s clean up real pollution which will keep us busy for decades to come.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 8:31 am

The topic at hand is CO2 and carbon taxes.

Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 from re-industrial levels can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

Your WAG is not supported by science.

Earthling2
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 9:53 am

Terry specifically said ‘pollution’ so his topic was about pollution and you brought up CO2. There is no scientific conclusion that CO2 is responsible for any control knob on the climate, other than certain scientists and politicians and irresponsible politically motivated environmental groups trying to use this as an excuse to implement global Marxism via straight up EXTORTION. This is a global shakedown to steal peoples hard earned money trying to limit their use of energy, and then punish all of us all with Socialism/Marxism. Everyone has admitted as much. This is going to end in massive civil war globally if this madness does not stop. You are just a USEFUL IDIOT to their cause.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 10:38 am

So you would rather cite bizarre conspiracy theories rather than science. Got it.

Earthling2
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 11:24 am

Bizarre conspiracy theories? The UN has openly declared that climate change is about wealth distribution though socialist/marxist agendas. As has the entire Green New Deal, which is on the record. And so many other numerous sources, they don’t even need to be repeated. The Democrat Party has openly declared that climate change polices through the GND includes all kinds of things, such as racial justice amongst a host of other issues that have nothing to do with the climate.

If there is any conspiracy theory, it is that some really stoopid and/or evil scientists, politicians, NGO’s and environmental organizations all use this massive conspiracy that CO2 is the control knob for climate. There is absolutely no proof for that, and not only that, we don’t even fully understand Natural Variation, so blaming ’emissions’ for everything winds up being Extortion when it is used to punish people with carbon taxes for utilizing the energy we need. And solar and wind aren’t going to change anything, except make everything worse as we already see in California, Germany and Australia, amongst other places that embark down this dead end road.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Earthling2
August 27, 2020 12:12 pm

Bull do do. Go to your room and repair the foil on your walls.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 11:42 am

Calling something a ‘conspiracy theory’ is a standard leftist tactic to HIDE their conspiracies, while they constantly make up the most ridiculous conspiracy theories out of whole cloth and act like they’re on the level.

Progressive really seem to love preach absolute bullshit, particularly when everybody KNOWS it’s bullshit, and then act like ‘What?”

Remember when Jack Dale tried to sell that Hitler wasn’t socialists because he took out another group of rival socialists? That’s the sort of constant dishonesty – whether by omission or deliberate misrepresentation upon which guys like him start.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 12:43 pm

You really are misinformed. Home schooled?

You certainly could not pass a Grade 12 exam on politics.

http://knechtel.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/5/0/13509246/ss30-pol-econ-ideology-spectrum-3_orig.png

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 12:29 pm

Tin hats. Right.

Pretending not to see the sort of open hate-speech propaganda coming from progressive leftists, means you share it.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 1:31 pm

Now that is too funny. You are being played like a fiddle. Learn some political science, learn some climate science, learn the difference and learn some critical thinking skills. Start with the CRAAP Test.

https://guides.library.duq.edu/informationevaluation/CRAAP

Get out of the WUWT echo chamber and look around.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 1:34 pm

I never thought anyone could dig deeper that the bottom of Graham’s hierarchy, but you did just that.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 12:57 pm

Why don’t you tighten up your Stahlhelm?

Home schooled? We’re you cloned from a semen stain on Goebbels mattress or did your mother take it directly from the tap.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 3:37 pm

I do not engage in discourse vile, vulgar excuses for human beings such as you.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 1:03 pm

Jack – you are the sort of scum a prison rapist usually wipes off with a towel.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 1:32 pm

And by the way – my school district was top three in the country – which meant in the world at the time – and me and most of my classmates consistently scored in the 95-99 percentile range across all subjects.

In the thirty-odd years since, with progressive leadership, we are now down to the bottom three percent.

But I’m sure YOU could pass their Grade 12 exam on politics.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 3:35 pm

How did you get out of primary school without the learning the difference between “I” (subjective pronoun) and “me” (objective pronoun)?

Here is a worksheet to help you:

https://www.k5learning.com/blog/confusing-subject-and-object-pronouns-i-or-me-they-or-them

I am not sure what country you are in, but the US has never scored well on the PISA tests.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programme_for_International_Student_Assessment

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 2:01 pm

‘I never thought anyone could dig deeper that the bottom of Graham’s hierarchy, but you did just that.’

You just sit on your hands, little troll – I’ll make you eat your tongue.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 3:28 pm

QRD.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:26 pm

Jack is one of those liberals who believes that it is impossible for a person to honestly disagree with them.
That’s why he keeps assigning all kinds of weird motives to those who refute his wild claims.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:27 pm

In Jack’s world. Quoting the actual words of the people in question is meaningless. Jack says they never said it, and he has models to prove it.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:28 pm

Actually, home schooled children outperform public schooled children by large margins.
But don’t tell Jack, he’s too busy hating anyone who doesn’t think as he does to be bothered by reality.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:29 pm

Little Jack sure does get his panties in a wad whenever someone dares to disagree with him.
PS: I love the guy who is the first to start throwing insults, claims that he’s too good to exchange insults with someone else.

Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 8:06 pm

The topic at hand is CO2 and carbon taxes.

Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 from re-industrial levels can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

Your WAG is not supported by science.

According to your puppet-masters at Skeptical Science…

The δ13C depletion at Flinders Reef is the anthropogenic “fingerprint”…

What was δ13C doing beforehand?

δ13C is a very useful geochemical proxy for many, often contradictory, phenomena.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/28/dusting-for-fingerprints-in-the-holocene/?utm_source=co2hog

Jack Dale
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 8:35 pm

David Middleton – You forgot about ^14C

Suess effect

QUICK REFERENCE
The change in the ratios of carbon isotopes (specifically, the 14 C: 12 C and 13 C: 12 C ratios) caused by release of carbon from fossil fuels. Such materials essentially lack any 14C, because, during their burial underground, 14C decays radioactively to 14N (nitrogen-14). They are also strongly depleted in 13C because of the preferential uptake of 12C, relative to 13C, by the original bacteria and plants from which fossil fuels later formed. Burning the fuels produces carbon dioxide, whose carbon consists almost entirely of the 12C isotope, and thus subsequently dilutes the ratios in all carbon reservoirs.

https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100540909

BTW – I seldom reference SKS. The only puppet master of whom I am aware is Rick Cina, AKA Kenneth Richard of NTZ. He is one of yours.

William Astley
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 12:59 pm

Everything about CAGW is fake. Fake solutions. And the problems the fake solutions do not solve do not exist.

The recent temperature rise, was not caused by the CO2 rise. And the irony of ironies…. Human CO2 emissions did not cause the rise in atmospheric CO2. And we are not going to run out of hydrocarbons to burn.

There are a dozen different observations in peer reviewed papers that support the assertion that human CO2 emissions are responsible for no more than 15% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.

The observations support the assertion that atmospheric CO2 is tracking planetary temperature, not anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

For that physically to happen, to be true, there must be a very large source of primordial (low C13) CH4 that is continually being pushed into the biosphere.

We know this is true because the ruddy C13 ratio changes in a manner (short term changes) that is not related to anthropogenic CO2. In fact the C13 ratio in the atmosphere changes in advance of El Nino events.

Which makes a ton of physical sense as all over the planet, it has been found, that has been a step increase in mid-ocean earthquake frequency at the locations where something is pushing the ocean plates apart…. The step increase in mid-ocean earthquake, all over the planet, has been found to occur two years before El Nino events.

The amount of CO2 that is assumed to enter the biosphere paradigm (fundamental assumption of the Bern Equation), the fossil fuel paradigm, and the planet’s water paradigm are all based on the recycle water/CO2/hydrocarbon paradigm.

In this paradigm it is assumed that the only ‘new’ source of water and CO2 that enters the biosphere is from volcanic eruptions and magma release on the ocean floor.

The Bern equation assumes zero biological material, particular organic carbon, is being sequestered in the ocean.

This is an overview of the fake ‘science’ that was used to create the IPCC’s Bern equation of CO2 sources and sinks and resident times.

https://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO2.pdf

This recent observation that C14 is making to the deepest ocean with no delay is an observational fact that disproves the CAGW team created absurdly non-physical so-called Bern model of CO2 sinks and sources and resident times.

The Bern model assumes that ocean circulation (with hundreds of years delay) is the only method for deep sequestration of CO2 in the ocean.

The alleged long lifetime of 500 years for carbon diffusing to the deep ocean is of no relevance to the debate on the fate of anthropogenic CO2 and the “Greenhouse Effect”, because POC (particular organic carbon; carbon pool of about 1000 giga-tonnes; some 130% of the atmospheric carbon pool) can sink to the bottom of the ocean in less than a year (Toggweiler, 1990).

https://www.livescience.com/65466-bomb-carbon-deepest-ocean-trenches.html

Bomb C14 Found in Ocean Deepest Trenches

‘Bomb Carbon’ from Cold War Nuclear Tests Found in the Ocean’s Deepest Trenches

Bottom feeders
Organic matter in the amphipods’ guts held carbon-14, but the carbon-14 levels in the amphipods’ bodies were much higher. Over time, a diet rich in carbon-14 likely flooded the amphipods’ tissues with bomb carbon, the scientists concluded.

Ocean circulation alone would take centuries to carry bomb carbon to the deep sea. But thanks to the ocean food chain, bomb carbon arrived at the seafloor far sooner than expected, lead study author Ning Wang, a geochemist at the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Guangzhou, said in a statement.

There is no CAGW, AGW, or ocean acidification as there is hard evidence which supports the assertion that humans caused less than 5% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2.
There are a dozen papers, that use independent observations and analysis techniques, to prove the same point.

http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature
Ole Humlum a,b,⁎, Kjell Stordahl c, Jan-Erik Solheim d

As cause always must precede effect, this observation demonstrates that modern changes in temperatures are generally not induced by changes in atmospheric CO2. Indeed, the sequence of events is seen to be the opposite: temperature changes are taking place before the corresponding CO2 changes occur.
http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/SourcesAndSinks.pdf

SOURCES AND SINKS OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Tom Quirk

Empirical observations indicate that changes in temperature generally are driving changes in atmospheric CO2, and not the other way around.

John in Oz
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:17 pm

Jack Dale – I have to applaud your efficiency in that you get so much return from so little investment.

Jack Dale
Reply to  John in Oz
August 27, 2020 6:23 pm

Quantity versus quality. What I get in return is no value.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 7:53 pm

I agree, the return on your mental effort has no value whatsoevere.

Earthling2
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 7:57 pm

Jack, you offer absolutely ZERO value here.

alexei
August 26, 2020 11:28 pm

They never explain exactly how a carbon tax, however it is spent, will stop the planet from warming.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  alexei
August 27, 2020 12:22 am

Because it is about feeling good about “doing something” (Paying an indulgence) and being “saved”. COVID-19 “govn’t saving people” is the pre-cursor. Who cares about warming, we just turn the aircon up!

George Daddis
Reply to  alexei
August 27, 2020 7:22 am

That is because if they used the IPCC’s most extreme calculations of CO2’s impact on temperature (and thus on “climate” – what ever scary things that term entails) you would not be able to see a difference if the State of Montana went to absolute zero emissions tomorrow.

At worst it is “virture signalling” and at best an attempt to shame the rest of the planet to follow suit. I can see Putin and Xi calling emergency sessions to follow Montana’s lead.

Ken Irwin
August 27, 2020 12:08 am

Worldwide taxation is over the top of the Laffer Curve.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

Further taxation of any kind is counter-productive.
So governments worldwide are looking for “new” sources of tax revenue – there is no such thing of course – it’s just you or me – but that won’t stop them trying.

“Let us never forget this fundamental truth: the State has no source of money other than money which people earn themselves. If the State wishes to spend more it can do so only by borrowing your savings or by taxing you more. It is no good thinking that someone else will pay – that ‘someone else’ is you.
There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money.” Margaret Thatcher.

What they have come up with is “virtuous taxation” – that is taxation that is in pursuit of a just cause or for your own good.

“New” Taxes such as :-

Sugar tax.
Salt tax.
Fat Tax (tax on “excessive fat content).
CO2 tax – Carbon Tax.
Plastic Bag tax.
Obesity Tax (Tax on “unhealthy” foods.)
Incandescent lightbulb tax.

All of which masquerade behind a justifiably “good” intent. (You will note that they never explain how the tax is to be spent to tackle the problem.)

Other forms of stealth taxation which might not at first appear obvious :-

Taxation on fuels.
Toll Roads (we all benefit from roads but the “user pays” idea is just a fig-leaf to justify such a “tax” – collected via an insanely expensive collection process).
Congestion tax.
Tobacco tax (no one ever gave up smoking because of tax).
Alcohol Tax (no one ever gave up drinking because of tax).
Gambling Tax (no one ever gave up gambling because of tax).
Speeding Fines (again a fig-leaf – it’s mostly aimed at revenue generation rather than road safety. Presumably this is why the French “yellow vests” have targeted speed cameras – they recognise them as a form of taxation.)

All the above taxes flow to the fiscus and make us all (the economy) poorer – none of these “Sin Taxes” achieve what they are touted to – they just make us poorer.

To top things off, those countries that have introduced carbon taxes have demonstrated little to no reduction in their “carbon footprint” – like I say – it’s just money flowing to the fiscus and makes us poorer for no valid reason.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421503001514 (Norway – failure)

https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jsda/article/view/80355 (Zimbabwe – failure)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Ken Irwin
August 27, 2020 12:38 am

How long did it take England to abolish the window tax? It’s a serious question.

Mack
Reply to  Patrick MJD
August 27, 2020 1:52 am

Only about a century and a half. Still waiting for Income Tax to be abolished. That was introduced as a ‘temporary’ measure by HM’s government a couple of centuries ago. Not holding my breath for that one to disappear any time soon.

JBW
Reply to  Ken Irwin
August 27, 2020 3:15 am

Not completely true.

My father gave up smoking his pipe when the taxes were raised. (Sometime in the late 60’s I guess).

Tim Gorman
Reply to  JBW
August 27, 2020 4:51 am

Did that raise the government’s tax revenue when he quit?

George Daddis
Reply to  Ken Irwin
August 27, 2020 7:30 am

The unfortunate flaw in your reasoning is that is true only for the collective “us”.
In the US almost half of eligible voters don’t pay a Federal income tax – so in their minds all the virtue signalling and especially promised “entitlements” (housing, college, provided living wage) are free.

(Those same folks do not consider “sin taxes” in their behavior.)

And you have an entire political party who has demonstrated they do not give a fig about the impact of taxes on the US economy.

Rod Evans
August 27, 2020 12:08 am

The whole taxing of carbon dioxide debate by politicians, is centred on their belief, that carbon dioxide controls the climate.
All the evidence built up over decades and ever more clearly refined in recent years, tells us carbon dioxide does not control climate. All the evidence suggests carbon dioxide allows green growth to accelerate and help feed the needs of the planet’s population.
Without the release of CO2 since the last little ice age the planet would have been dangerously close to plant starvation of that essential photosynthesising gas. There would have been a corresponding reduction of food production world wide.
Hunger and worse, is the ultimate outcome of reducing CO2, via taxation or some other means.
The idea of taxing the essential nutrients necessary for life, is a bizarre concept.
If the Politicians are that crazy, and wish to destroy peoples life chances, why not just tax water and air? Go after the essential ingredients of life direct, go to the immediate sources of life, rather than by proxy via CO2?

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 27, 2020 3:33 am

Rod, may I copy your comment for use in replying to Alarmists on TheHill? It is very succinct….

Rod Evans
Reply to  Gregory Woods
August 27, 2020 4:13 am

Gregory
Feel free to use my words wherever. I hope they are seen for what they are. The views of a normal person able to search through the mountains of data to find the reality hidden within.

Erny72
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 27, 2020 3:35 am

Hi Rod;
“The whole taxing of carbon dioxide debate by politicians, is centred on their belief, that carbon dioxide controls the climate.”
Being cynical, I disagree with the foundation tenet of your argument. I honestly do not believe that politicians (or for that matter the CEOs of ‘woke’ companies) actually swallow the ‘CO2 controls the climate’ line from climastrologists or their fan-club of useful idiots.
As far as I can see, politicians see it as a vote winner (because ecotards and social justice worriers make the most noise day to day) and also see green policies as a safe excuse to squeeze more revenue from us all, in the false assumption that the majority of voters are labouring under the false premise that CO2 controls the weather next century, therefore they expect we will agree to having our wallets ‘take one for the team’ to save the planet. There’s not many ways you can blatantly rip people off without expecting an poor outcome, so exploiting people’s consideration for the environment must at first look like a goose that lays golden eggs.
Obviously none of them ever stop to consider the probability that all those employers and tax payers they plan to fleece might take their bat and ball and find a more sensible place to live and do business and take their tax contributions with them. Or that the rent seekers who show up cap in hand to help enable the green utopia will end up costing the state far more than can be raised in virtue taxes.
That cynical conclusion is backed up by how ‘green’ policy makers run the what’s left of their economies despite the ‘green’ virtue signals. So after blighting the country side with a few bird-mincers and imposing some extra taxes, none of them have actually banned the use of oil or gas in their constituencies, none of them ever cut cross-border inter-connectors to take ‘dirty’ electricity from the neighbours when their wind and solar virtue signals are idle, none of them ban dirty ‘luxuries’ like air travel or the use of cement, none of them make putative guilt taxes so high that consumers stop consuming the product that has been deemed ‘bad’ (like reliable energy).
So I do not believe that policy makers really believe in gullible warming, or else they’d act more decisively and more urgently; they’re talking bovine excrement and eyeing up the extra revenue they expect to take from you.
One would think by now there is sufficient evidence that the voting/consuming majority are no longer convinced by the hysterical gullible warming ‘forecasts’ and will vote/buy accordingly when ever a politician or party tries on carbon taxes or other regressive policy proposals that a thinking voter can see will be ruinous to the economy that sustains their lifestyles. For example, witness the exodus from California and how well green election promises worked out for Comrade Corbyn in Blighty, or Juliar Guillard and Bill Short-arse in Australia. And how long is the ‘get woke, go broke’ list of companies now?
On that basis, I would postulate that Steve Bullock is not only a snake-oil salesman, he’s obviously not paying attention to what happens in the real world (to the weather, to elections or to the fiscal health of states and countries and companies) when ”leaders’ plan to virtue signal with other people’s money.
That said, voters get the governments they deserve, so if Montana thought voting for this muppet was a good idea, then they really have themselves to blame for being fleeced by gang-green. Or perhaps George Carlin was right when he observed “this is the best we can do folks”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4YioKf1ygo

Rod Evans
Reply to  Erny72
August 27, 2020 4:44 am

Enry,
I concur with all you say. I was being generous when suggesting politicians actually do things for real reasons as opposed to contrived logic.
The COGS have been making the presence of Marxism impact since the concept of the Long March through the Institutions, was formulated by the Frankfurt School back in the 1930s.
The steady but constant removal of our personal freedoms, along with the growth of state employees all seeking to make their roles relevant, has brought us to where we are today.
Starting a business, to generate wealth for all to share, used to be a simple exercise. You just had to step out of your comfort zone and work hard to progress your products into the market.
Sadly, in today’s world, there are that many authorities that have to be complied with, local, regional, national, cross border international agreement etc. with so many rules prior to even starting a new business, most people simply don’t bother.
Also, finding that other place you mention to head off to, when you have tired of the oppressive authority overreach in your current location, that is getting ever more difficult too. The normal places of retreat to sanity, are fast absorbing the Constantly Offended Green Socialists (COGS) disease/mind set. The world is experiencing a pandemic of flawed ideology. The cure for that, requires people to recognise the early symptoms and fight back. Destruction of common freedoms being one of the key signs all is not well with the body politic.
Vote wisely.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 27, 2020 5:34 am

Quite right. They might just as well tax blood transfusions – it’s as logical.

observa
August 27, 2020 12:22 am

“A carbon pricing mechanism – if structured thoughtfully and with appropriate stakeholder input – has the ability to both lower emissions (through either a cap on emissions or through a price on carbon) as well as generate revenues…”

Well that’s how it works with piling on the Green gravy train. First of all when you’re loaded you have to establish your Green credentials that you’re muchly concerned we’re all gunna drown with global warmening and the Noah’s Ark rerun etc. Not that you’re really too concerned about inundation shelling out $24.5 million for a beachfront shack right on the beach-
https://www.domain.com.au/news/jennifer-hawkins-and-jake-wall-list-20-million-newport-trophy-home-to-move-north-905797/

As The Australian (Aug 27, 2020) reports-

“Billionaire Atlassian co-founder Mike Cannon-Brookes and wife Annie are the mystery buyers of Casa Paloma, the Newport waterfront home of Jennifer Hawkins and Jake Wall.
They paid $24.5m, a record for the Sydney northern beaches playground after a late surge in buyer interest buoyed its pricing through selling agent Ken Jacobs at Christie’s Inter­national. ”

A bit of chump change but there’s nothing like the Green gravy train to get an earn out of places like Singapore that no doubt need some carbon credits/brownie points to boast they’re doing their bit at the next IPCC kneesup-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/nt-solar-export-project-to-create-thousands-of-jobs/ar-BB18pdiT
Yes folks Mike Cannon-Brookes is out there leading from the front helping to save the planet for you all and the planet really needs Moore Mikes.

Lrp
August 27, 2020 1:05 am

Hmmm! The more you tax them the more they expand.

commieBob
August 27, 2020 1:34 am

The idea of a carbon tax is to increase the cost of fossil fuel energy to force people to consume less.

Former Ontario, Canada premier Kathleen Wynne lost the last election partly because of increased electricity costs. I remember lots of news stories about people who could no longer afford to heat their houses.

commieBob
August 27, 2020 1:48 am

Actually, the Democrats should have taken a lesson from the fate of Kathleen Wynne, whose party was absolutely clobbered in the last election.

Jordan Peterson called her a reprehensible ideologue and ‘the most dangerous woman in Canada’. link

“I read the documentation for the social justice tribunals and for the Ontario human rights commission and all of that, they have the right to suspend jurisprudential precedents,” Peterson explained. “Oh really? Oh you do, do you? Okay, what exactly does that mean? Well, I know what it means. It means that English common law is an oppressive patriarchy and when necessary we won’t abide by its dictates because it interferes with our ideological agenda.”

Joel O'Bryan
August 27, 2020 2:08 am

“The truth is, the liberal Democratic leaders never met a tax they didn’t like.”
– President Ronald Reagin, October 23, 1986

Flight Level
August 27, 2020 2:21 am

One more evidence of the undeniable self proving association between green-left and taxes.

Justin Burch
August 27, 2020 5:11 am

The experience of Canadians clearly shows that carbon taxes hit families and individuals very hard because the tax is passed on by businesses and industry. Never mind the killing of oil industry jobs. Everyone has to pay the tax from the farmer growing the food to the truck driving delivering it to the guy running the grocery store. Heating your home costs more. Buying clothing costs more. Fixing your vehicle costs more. Driving to a doctor’s appointment costs more. Everything costs more. In the end, it is the consumers who pay. Food prices have skyrocketed in Canada since the carbon tax was implemented and that was before the the Kung Flu hit. The government assures us we are getting our money back in a piddling little rebate of about $250/family/year to offset that. The government assures us the money is being put back into our community. Yet the average Canadian is paying about $400/month for this carbon tax. Montana, you get what you vote for. Did you vote to be paying $400/month more for everything because that’s what you’re getting.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Justin Burch
August 27, 2020 8:40 am

You posted a fact-free post with no evidence.

Try this:

https://ecofiscal.ca/reports/10-myths-about-carbon-pricing-in-canada/

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 7:54 pm

What’s worse, no evidence or evidence from a propaganda site?

Jack Dale
Reply to  Justin Burch
August 27, 2020 8:43 am

“The average household cost from the federal carbon tax will range from $200 per year in New Brunswick to $400 in Saskatchewan, which relies more on coal to generate electricity.”

Note – per household. Not per capita.

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-for-you

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 9:26 am

That only includes the taxes paid directly.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Justin Burch
August 27, 2020 8:45 am

BTW – “As a result, the average household rebate will vary from $250 in New Brunswick to $600 in Saskatchewan — this is greater than the average costs of the tax. Most taxpayers will get more money back than they will pay in carbon taxes.”

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/heres-what-the-carbon-tax-means-for-you

Drake
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 1:41 pm

So what you are saying is wealth redistribution, The purpose of socialism as a form of government.

BTW, since you are so up on all of this, what is the bureaucratic cut of the taxes? 10%? In business this is called overhead which is, in general, non productive cash flow, but essentially all of the bureaucratic cut of government cash flow is non-productive.

And how much is and will get redirected to other important priorities of politicians, primarily as mentioned in an earlier post above, to buy votes.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Drake
August 27, 2020 3:43 pm

The best example of wealth redistribution is the US economy which has one of the lowest rates of social mobility and one of the highest rates of income inequality on the planet.

http://econintersect.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/great-gatsby-curve.jpg

Gums
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:41 pm

Salute!

Yep, Jack, dat’s why tens of thousands are streaming across the porous border to gain illegal access to the myriad of “benefits” that have been granted to non-citizens and even criminals.

Too many examples of upward social mobility compared to most countries in the world. And you will never have a better, level playing field if you continue to reward lack of effort with a host of programs paid for by those who value hard work and strive to succeed. When those folks fly away, what will the “takers” do? How will they survive when lacking many skills or the sense of satisfaction that comes from doing a good “job”?

Gums sends….

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 7:55 pm

Jack prefers socialist societies, in which the only people who are allowed to get rich are those who run the government and their friends.

MarkW
Reply to  Drake
August 27, 2020 4:31 pm

I love the way socialists define people working to improve their own lives as being a form of wealth distribution.

PS: I love the way he quotes a far left socialist site to prove the wonders of socialism.

Tim Gorman
August 27, 2020 5:13 am

““Montana should consider both the mechanism for pricing carbon (e.g., fee vs. cap), the efficacy of reducing carbon emissions, and how revenues generated from carbon pricing will be invested back into the economy,”

Will the cognitive dissonance of the climate alarmists *ever* disappear.

1. A carbon tax will kill businesses who depend directly on fuel to operate or depend on electricity generated by fossil fuels to operate.
2. Governments *never* help the economy by “investing taxes back into the revenue. Taxes only hurt the economy. Government always scrapes off a portion of the taxes collected for its own purposes. These include funding pensions, hiring more bureaucrats to interfere in your life, and for redistribution of wealth. That tax money would help the economy far more if it were to be left in the economy.

Some taxes are a necessary evil. Taxes meant only to control society and the life choices of free individuals are just plain evil. They are a true manifestation of Big Brother in 1984. The Bureaucratic Hegemony we live under today see themselves as Priest-Kings who know best how we should live and how we should think.

Never, *ever* believe a politician or bureaucrat who say they are going to regulate you or tax you for your own good!

Rich Davis
August 27, 2020 5:32 am

Yes, but please people, have you considered the devastation, the utter catastrophe if winter nights in Montana were 2 degrees warmer? How could any responsible governor fail to act?

Instead of a January average low of -12C (10F), it could be -10C (14F). I’m sure you see the risks to human civilization!

The record low temperature in Helena, Montana of -39.5C (-39.1F) was recorded more than 24 years ago! Every single temperature reading for 295 consecutive months has been HIGHER! Responsible citizens seek to restore the climate to that more natural level.

DHR
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 27, 2020 8:24 am

You’re off by about 30F. The record low temperature for Montana was -70F set at Rogers Pass, north of Helena, in 1954. Its also the record low for any of the lower-48 States.

Rich Davis
Reply to  DHR
August 27, 2020 2:26 pm

Good point! 66 continuous years of manmade global warming has raised temperatures in Jan by 44C (80F)! How much longer will you deniers ignore this emergency?

Hivemind
August 27, 2020 5:35 am

Whenever you read an alarmist saying something like “xxx could yyy”, your should read it as “probably won’t”.

ResourceGuy
August 27, 2020 5:48 am

You mean ex-Governor.

bluecat57
August 27, 2020 6:09 am

When did Montana go Blue? Or was it Californicated?

Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 6:36 am

Easy concept: emit less CO2, pay less tax.

If anyone does not wish to pay their carbon(dioxide) tax I will will pay it for you; on the the condition that you confine all fossil fuel emissions to your home and vehicles. Apparently your plants will love it. All I need to proof that you are doing so and official receipts showing how much you paid.

Meanwhile I will willingly continue to pay my carbon (dioxide) tax.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 8:11 am

Translation: I’ll pay your carbon taxes, but only so long as you promise not to create any CO2.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 11:49 am

I feel absolutely no need to pay carbon taxes OR stop emitting C02 – and I frankly don’t feel I owe you or anybody a goddamn thing.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 12:44 pm

Then quit dumping your CO2 into our environment.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 1:08 pm

No. Quit making demands you have no business to. Fascist.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 1:09 pm

And perhaps you should hold your breath until your own emissions stop.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 2:53 pm

Thank you for raising that point, Jack.

It’s long overdue that the issue of CO2 externalities be addressed with a suitable tax.

People are not paying the real costs and it’s distorting the energy market.

Farmers reap huge benefits from CO2 enrichment, but never pay their fair share.

I suggest a Presidential Commission to calculate an appropriate excise tax on each type of crop based on the amount of growth enhancement. The tax would be used to subsidize the price of fossil fuels.

It’s only fair, don’t you agree?

Jack Dale
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 27, 2020 4:31 pm

Increase crop yields are more correlated to the increased use of fertilizers, irrigation and pesticides, noe of which is sustainable. https://www.grida.no/resources/6825

Higher levels of CO2 result in

Compromised nutritional value in crops. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3

Increased predation by pests. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153544

Then there are the droughts associated with higher temperatures. https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 27, 2020 4:33 pm

Jack is one of those socialists who can’t believe that people are still allowed to disagree with him.

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 27, 2020 7:59 pm

I see Jack is well prepared with propaganda.

Fertilizers and such are very sustainable. That CO2 enhances plant growth is even recognized by NASA.

That so called compromise in nutritional value goes something like this. Crop gets twice as big, but it is 1% lower in density for one or two nutrients.

INcreased predation only happens when eco-nuts prevent proper farming techniques.

There are no droughts associated with higher temperatures in the real world. The biggest droughts measured occurred during the Little Ice Age. The so called big droughts of the modern era aren’t even as big as droughts from 100 years ago.

Grant
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 27, 2020 11:01 pm

Hey, Jack. Why do growers pay for co2 for greenhouses then?

Jack Dale
Reply to  Grant
August 28, 2020 6:14 am

Greenhouses are enclosed. The crops grown in greenhouses are cucumbers, peppers, lettuce, flowers, etc.. The studies to which I referred are in open environments where most crops are grown. Do you propose doming all arable land?

MarkW
Reply to  Rich Davis
August 28, 2020 11:44 am

When behind, Jack does what all socialists do, changes the subject.
Unless you are proposing that CO2 only matters in green houses, what was the purpose of your diversion?

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 4:32 pm

Since CO2 is good for the environment, why should he be forced to quit?

WR2
Reply to  Jack Dale
August 27, 2020 8:24 pm

Tell those damn oceans to stop outgassing CO2 as well. Stupid republican oceans. Little Jackie has his cause and effect mixed up. CO2 is rising because it’s been getting warmer most of the last 2 centuries, not vice versa.

Jack Dale
Reply to  WR2
August 27, 2020 8:38 pm

The oceans absorb more CO2 that they release.

comment image

George Daddis
August 27, 2020 7:43 am

The unfortunate flaw in your reasoning is that is true only for the collective “us”.
In the US almost half of eligible voters don’t pay a Federal income tax – so in their minds all the virtue signalling and especially promised “entitlements” (housing, college, provided living wage) are free.

(Those same folks do not consider “sin taxes” in their behavior.)

And you have an entire political party who has demonstrated they do not give a fig about the impact of taxes on the US economy.

MarkW
August 27, 2020 8:04 am

“generate revenue for Montana’s economy, as well as expand the state’s private industry”

Anyone who thinks taxes are good for the economy is either a total idiot, or lying.

Olen
August 27, 2020 8:11 am

Prepare our state and our economy for climate impacts, So it hasn’t happened and they want a tax to generate revenue and help business. Perhaps lowering taxes might be better to help business rather than cycle the money through the government and whats left back into business.

Politicians usually show a smiley face at election time but does a predator show a smiley face when going in for the kill?

August 27, 2020 9:16 am

How TF did Montana get a Democrat as a Governer?

“A carbon tax could lower emissions and generate revenue for Montana’s economy”. Tax will NEVER generate revenue FOR an economy. It can only generate revenue for the government FROM the economy.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Jeff in Calgary
August 27, 2020 9:40 am

Montana is an interesting place politically. I lived there for a time and wondered at first why it was so different from Wyoming, politically. Here is my analysis. Montana was home to mining and its unions, which were very Irish, very corrupt, and very Democrat. That legacy lives on. Also, agriculture is dominated by grain, and people involved in grain are swayed by ag price support programs, and tend toward Democrat politics. The Democrats originated these programs and tend to them carefully.

opus
Reply to  Kevin kilty
August 27, 2020 12:02 pm

Daines will end Bullock’s run of election wins despite being relatively popular. The Second Amendment and the Pelosialbatross around his neck.

ResourceGuy
Reply to  Kevin kilty
August 27, 2020 12:07 pm

That worked well for them for many decades with coal severance tax revenue to paper over everything. Then they benefited from Bakken shale development on the western side of the Williston Basin. Are they now trying to tax fossil fuel exports with a new label?

exKaliforniaKook
August 27, 2020 9:37 am

I kind of like the idea of this tax. They say the taxes received will be returned as an investment in Montana jobs, resulting overall in more growth. That’s wonderful!

So, lets assume this bill is all for protecting the environment (an implicit element), and not a ploy to raise more money. In that’s the case, include a tax cut in the bill (maybe payroll/property taxes?) equivalent to the taxes raised plus the benefit to the economy. Include the benefits of non-monetary social benefits. The way those are normally figured, Montana could suddenly be tax free (except for these carbon taxes)!

Bruce Cobb
August 27, 2020 10:37 am

I find carbine taxes to be highly offensive and unfair. If they are going to tax carbines, then they should tax all other rifles as well. Fair is fair.

Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 11:24 am

Anybody else getting tired of that stupid, by-rote, toss-off about ‘addressing climate change’.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
August 27, 2020 12:58 pm

Climate change is the Democrat’s go-to alibi for leadership failures. The “dog-ate my homework” excuse they toss out for why their policies are the inevitable failures they always turn out to be.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
August 27, 2020 1:23 pm

Not to mention rewriting history in academia – otherwise Jack Dale would have no links.

opus
August 27, 2020 11:59 am

There is a reason this is under wraps. It will be political suicide for any pol outside of Missoula and maybe Bozeman. Bullock has been a relatively moderate governor, which you have to be here, but he showed his hand running for POTUS and D policies nationally on guns will end his run when Daines beats him. Daines is also a good “bring home the bacon” retail pol,but he doesn’t have the Pelosialbatross hanging around his neck.

AK in VT
August 27, 2020 1:29 pm

Why do you all let the government have “power” over you?

Ayn Rand (Atlas Shrugged — and other titles — author) was born and raised in Russia/Soviet Union. When her father’s dental business was taken over by “the People,” and a sign stating such was put on her father’s business entrance, he did what millions of Russians did — he withdrew. Her father let the Soviets have his business and he slowly worked himself to not working in order to let the whole system eventually collapse. This was purposeful and this was the main reason the Soviet Union is no longer (many thanks to the “Gipper” for helping to tip it over the edge, too).

Why cannot we understand that we need to do the same: WITHDRAW from this system as much as possible and it will collapse. It doesn’t mean we are lazy. It means we produce what we need to live to the greatest extent possible. It means not “buying” their junk. It means withdrawing from Facebook, Twitter, etc…

Taxation does not work if there is very little to nothing to tax. Stop whining about taxes and do something pro-active about it. What are you all willing to give up in order to break the system or do you think you can have your cake and eat it?

I live in a very rural area and need my car to deliver my products. When our governor allows the northeast TCI to pass it will affect me quite a bit. I pretty much have just four options:

1. Lump it
2. Raise my prices
3. Consolidate my trips and reschedule my deliveries in order to lessen my use of taxable fossil fuels
4. Pack up and move out of the northeast

Option 1, I will not do. Option 3, I might try. Option 2 hurts my business, my customers’ pockets and helps fill the government coffers. Option 4 hurts me at first, but hurts the government by losing tax revenue. Option 4 is the best choice most especially when others follow suit even when it means I lose my business, drain my very small savings and have to start all over again.

Is it worth it to constantly have the government burdening you? Stop looking to politicians to “solve” your problems when you have the power to do it yourself — even when it costs you to do so.

Regards

AK in VT
p.s. The Russian dictators eventually learned their lessons and the income tax rate in Russia is less than most of the modern “free” western world.

Tom Abbott
August 27, 2020 1:39 pm

Any carbon dioxide tax will increase the price of everything in the economy because it increases the cost of gasoline. It will not create jobs, it will be the cause of job losses. And poor people will be hurt the most by a carbon dioxide tax, no matter what the politicians say when they claim the poor will be reimbursed. They won’t be reimbursed for the increased costs of everything they buy.

A Carbon Dioxide tax is meant to discourage the creation of carbon dioxide. Since there is no reason to discourage the creation of Carbon dioxide, there is no valid reason for implementing a Carbon Dioxide tax.

KT66
Reply to  Tom Abbott
August 27, 2020 6:53 pm

Exactly right.
We do not need to do anything about co2 emissions at all.
Even if the tax did drive down co2 emissions of any significance, it appears it would have little to no effect on atmospheric concentration.
Increasing atmospheric concentration has had little to no effect on the climate.
The little effect it may have on the climate has not been proven to be detrimental. Indeed it is more likely beneficial.

August 27, 2020 4:45 pm

Shut up, pay your Climate Indulgence Tax, and feel good about “Doing Something”. It is all about “Feeling Good” and not about “Saving the Planet”.

%d bloggers like this: