Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Mike Maguire – The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a government body led by Republican appointee Heath Tarbert, has just recommended imposition of a carbon tax.
Climate change is huge risk for the American financial system, a major new bipartisan report says
Last Updated: Sept. 12, 2020 at 11:34 a.m. ETFirst Published: Sept. 9, 2020 at 2:34 p.m. ETBy
Rachel Koning Beals
A carbon tax features in CFTC report that aims to unite disparate federal efforts
The U.S. financial system, including banks, agricultural and oil interests, as well as regulators and investors, requires a unified front in accounting for climate-change risk, says the first comprehensive government report on such efforts.
Notably, the report released Tuesday by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and an affiliated panel representing several sectors revives a call for taxing carbon pollution.
…
“As we’ve seen in the past few weeks alone, extreme weather events continue to sweep the nation from the severe wildfires of the West to the devastating Midwest derecho and damaging Gulf Coast hurricanes. This trend — which is increasingly becoming our new normal — will likely continue to worsen in frequency and intensity as a result of a changing climate,” said CFTC Commissioner Rostin Behnam, one of two Democrats on the five-member body.
“Beyond their physical devastation and tragic loss of human life and livelihood, escalating weather events also pose significant challenges to our financial system and our ability to sustain long-term economic growth,” he said. While wildfires and hurricanes occur for myriad reasons, their frequency and intensity has factored into the climate-change discussion.
…
Read more: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cftcs-groundbreaking-climate-change-report-sounds-a-bipartisan-alarm-on-costly-risks-for-u-s-financial-system-11599676452
The commission report, MANAGING CLIMATE RISK IN THE U.S. FINANCIAL SYSTEM, is available here.
From the report;
…
This report begins with a fundamental finding—financial markets will only be able to channel resources efficiently to activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions if an economy-wide price on carbon is in place at a level that reflects the true social cost of those emissions. Addressing climate change will require policy frameworks that incentivize the fair and effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of such a price, financial markets will operate suboptimally, and capital will continue to flow in the wrong direction, rather than toward accelerating the transition to a net-zero emissions economy. At the same time, policymakers must be sensitive to the distributional impacts of carbon pricing and other policies and ensure that the burden does not fall on low-to-moderate income households and on historically marginalized communities. This report recognizes that pricing carbon is beyond the remit of financial regulators; it is the job of Congress.
…
In addition to the absence of an economy-wide carbon pricing regime in the United States, other barriers are holding back capital from flowing to sustainable, low-carbon activities. One involves the misperception among mainstream investors that sustainable or ESG (environmental, social, and governance) investments necessarily involve trading off financial returns relative to traditional investment strategies. Another is that the market for products widely considered to be “green” or “sustainable” remains small relative to the needs of institutional investors. In addition, lack of trust in the market over concerns of potential “greenwashing” (misleading claims about the extent to which a financial product or service is truly climate-friendly or environmentally sustainable) may be holding back the market. And policy uncertainty also remains a barrier, including in areas such as regulation affecting the financial products that U.S. companies may offer their employees through their employer-provided retirement plans.
These barriers can be addressed through a variety of initiatives. For example, a wide range of government efforts—through credit guarantees and other means of attracting private capital by reducing the risks of low-carbon investments—catalyze capital flows toward innovation and deployment of net-zero emissions technologies. A new, unified federal umbrella could help coordinate and expand these government programs and leverage institutional capital to maximize impact and align the various federal programs. Climate finance labs, regulatory sandboxes, and other regulatory initiatives can also drive innovation by improving dialogue and learning for both regulators and market innovators, as well as via business accelerators, grants, and competitions providing awards in specific areas of need. In addition, clarifying existing regulations on fiduciary duty, including for example, those concerning retirement and pension plans, to confirm the appropriateness of making investment decisions using climate-related factors—and more broadly, ESG factors that impact risk-return—can help unlock the flow of capital to sustainable activities and investments.
…
Read more: MANAGING CLIMATE RISK IN THE U.S. FINANCIAL SYSTEM
Climate risk backed by a carbon tax would be a dream product for commodity traders, because the underlying problem doesn’t actually exist. Profitable companies could be hit with an endless series of terrifying shakedowns, from risk traders in smart suits offering protection from SEC demands for more disclosure of climate risk exposure. Traders could bundle and sell subprime climate audit risk insurance products to pension funds. The products could be financed indirectly with soft loans, which are also part of the commission recommendation. No end of fun.
The only people who would suffer from this brutal climate rent seeking proposal would be ordinary people, who would shoulder the ultimate cost burden of all these expensive new risk products through higher prices and poorer quality of life.
The pressure on politicians standing in the path of this gigantic bipartisan money printing scheme must be utterly immense. Billions of dollars for the taking. All they need is for one man, or one small group of people, to say “yes”.
Sooner or later, a climate activist Democrat president will occupy the Oval Office. When this happens, everything Donald Trump ever did while he was president will be quickly and completely erased.
Suppose, for purposes of argument, Joe Biden becomes that climate activist Democrat president.
If Biden wants to achieve an 80% reduction in America’s carbon emissions by 2050 — President Obama’s original goal — then massive spending on Green New Deal projects combined with a carbon pricing scheme cannot and will not get the job done.
Fossil fuels are just too convenient as an energy resource and too demand-inelastic for America to reach the 80% reduction target within thirty years using the plan the Democrats are now proposing.
If Biden is serious about an 80% reduction by 2050 — a.k.a. ‘net zero’ because it is really the same thing — then he must impose a government-managed system of carbon fuel rationing which directly limits the quantities of fossil fuels that Americans can import, produce, refine, distribute, and consume.
The only possible means of reducing America’s carbon emissions as quickly as climate activists say is necessary is to use the power of government in ways that make all carbon fuels as scarce and expensive today as they will be in a hundred years time.
How could this be done?
Here is an alternative plan for reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. The plan is entitled the Supply Side Carbon Emission Control Plan (SSCECP).
The plan uses a series of Executive Orders which combine existing provisions of the Clean Air Act with existing provisions of national security legislation to create an integrated regulatory approach for increasing the cost of all carbon fuels and for systematically restricting their future availability.
In short, the SSCECP uses the power of the federal government to create and enforce an artificial shortage of carbon fuels while directly raising their prices and directly reducing their import, production, distribution, and consumption.
The SSCECP employs EPA-administered carbon pollution fines as the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon. The plan supplies a powerful incentive for the state governments to participate in directly regulating America’s carbon emissions by assigning them the great bulk of the revenues produced from the EPA’s carbon pollution fines.
A joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) is established to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
In addition, the plan keeps the import, production, and distribution of carbon fuels in private hands. Rather than nationalizing the oil and gas industry, the plan enlists private corporations as contracted agents in managing the government’s energy rationing programs. The government also guarantees a steady and healthy rate return from the sale of all carbon fuels produced by those private corporations which choose to participate.
Here are the major phases of the plan. The start and end dates listed for each major phase assume a climate activist Democrat is elected president in 2020.
SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — Major Phases:
Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.)
Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021)
Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022)
Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049)
Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.)
Here are the details of the plan:
SUPPLY SIDE CARBON EMISSION CONTROL PLAN (SSCECP) — Detailed Description:.
Phase I: Establish a legal basis for regulating all of America’s carbon emissions. (2007-2020. Status complete.)
— File and win lawsuits to allow regulation of CO2 and other carbon GHG’s as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. (2007)
— Publish a CAA Section 202 Endangerment Finding as a prototype test case for regulation of carbon GHG’s. (2009)
— Defend the Section 202 Endangerment Finding in the courts. (2010-2012)
— Establish a recent precedent, the COVID-19 pandemic, for taking strong government action in response to a declared national emergency. (2020)
Phase II: Expand and extend regulation of carbon GHG’s to all major sources of America’s carbon emissions. (01/22/2021 – 12/31/2021)
II.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase II
II.A.1 — Issue an Executive Order declaring a carbon pollution emergency.
II.A.2 — Assign a joint task force of the US Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA), the US Department of Homeland Security (US-DHS), and the US Department of Energy (US-DOE) to manage the declared emergency.
II.A.3 — Create a joint interagency Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) to manage a phased systematic reduction in the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
II.A.4 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to define and implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
II.A.5 — Establish a public relations outreach program to explain and defend the actions being taken.
II.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase II
II.B.1 — Publish a Clean Air Act Section 108 Endangerment Finding which complements 2009’s Section 202 finding.
II.B.2 — Declare carbon emissions as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under CAA Section 112.
II.B.3 — Establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for carbon pollution.
II.B.4 — Use the NAAQS for carbon pollution as America’s tie-in to international climate change agreements.
II.B.5 — Defend the Section 108 Endangerment Finding, the NAAQS, and the Section 112 HAP Declaration in the courts.
II.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase II
II.C.1 — Research and publish a provisional system for government-enforced carbon fuel rationing.
II.C.2 — Defend the provisional system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.
Phase III: Establish a fully comprehensive regulatory framework for carbon. (01/01/2022 – 12/31/2022)
III.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase III
III.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
III.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency.
III.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.
III.A.4 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program needed to explain and defend the anti-carbon actions being taken.
III.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase III
III.B.1 — Publish a regulatory framework for carbon pollution under Clean Air Act sections 108, 111, 112, 202, and other CAA sections as applicable.
III.B.2 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
III.B.3 — Establish a system of carbon pollution fines which is the functional equivalent of a legislated tax on carbon.
III.B.4 — Establish the legal basis for assigning all revenues collected from these carbon pollution fines to the states.
III.B.5 — Defend the comprehensive system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.
III.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase III
III.C.1 — Establish cooperative agreements with the states to enforce the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
III.C.2 — Establish a time-phased, hard-target schedule for reducing the production and distribution of all carbon fuels.
III.C.3 — Establish production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
III.C.4 — Establish a guaranteed profit schedule for the carbon fuels industry in return for production & distribution cutbacks.
III.C.5 — Defend the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing in the courts.
Phase IV: Implement the carbon pollution regulatory framework. (Year 2023 through the Year 2049)
IV.A: – Presidential Actions, Phase IV
IV.A.1 — Issue a series of Executive Orders as needed to further define and further implement America’s carbon emissions regulatory framework.
IV.A.2 — Monitor and coordinate the activities the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE in response to the carbon pollution emergency.
IV.A.3 — Monitor the activities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in enforcing carbon emission regulations.
IV.A.4 — Monitor the activities of the Carbon Fuels Control Board (CFCB) in reducing the import, production, and distribution of all carbon fuels.
IV.A.5 — Maintain and expand the public relations outreach program as needed to further explain and further defend the anti-carbon actions being taken.
IV.B: – EPA Actions (Carbon Emission Regulation), Phase IV
IV.B.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations.
IV.B.2 — Commence the collection of carbon pollution fines and the distribution of fine revenues to the states.
IV.B.3 — Monitor the effectiveness of the EPA’s carbon regulatory framework in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
IV.B.4 — Monitor the effectiveness of renewable energy projects in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
IV.B.5 — Monitor the effectiveness of energy conservation programs in reducing America’s GHG emissions.
IV.B.6 — Adjust the schedule of carbon pollution fines upward if progress in reducing America’s GHG emissions lags.
IV.B.7 — Defend the EPA’s system of carbon pollution regulations in the courts.
IV.C: – CFCB Actions (Carbon Fuel Rationing), Phase IV
IV.C.1 — Commence operation of prior agreements with the states for enforcement of the government’s system of carbon fuel rationing.
IV.C.2 — Commence operation of production control agreements with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors.
IV.C.3 — Monitor the compliance of fossil fuel producers and distributors with their CFCB production control agreements.
IV.C.4 — Monitor the profit levels of fossil fuel producers and distributors for conformance with the CFCB’s guaranteed profit schedule.
IV.C.5 — Defend the government-mandated carbon fuel rationing program in the courts.
Phase V: Declare success in reducing America’s carbon emissions 80% by 2050. (If complete by 2050 or some earlier date.)
— The President issues a proclamation that the target of an 80% reduction has been achieved.
— The President, the US-EPA, the US-DHS, and the US-DOE assess the need for continuing the EPA’s anti-carbon regulations and the US Government’s mandatory fuel rationing program as necessary to maintain the 80% goal.
— If a determination is reached that the government’s system of carbon control measures must continue beyond 2050, existing agreements with the states and with private sector fossil fuel producers and distributors are extended with appropriate modifications.
— Defend the government’s anti-carbon measures against emerging lawsuits if these measures must continue beyond 2050.
Remarks:
Once again, a key point here is that not another word of new legislation is needed to enable this plan. The entire plan is implemented through a series of Executive Orders covered under existing environmental and national security legislation and under constitutionally legal Executive Branch authorities.
However, the elephant in the room is this …. Would the voting public accept the personal and economic sacrifices which go with imposing government-mandated, strictly-enforced anti-carbon measures?
If the Democrats are truly serious about greatly reducing America’s carbon emissions by 2050, they must acknowledge that it can’t be done without using the full power of the federal government in coercively forcing those emission reductions.
So you are saying Americans will have to go black market with our energy industry? Cool! Look how well Prohibition worked out for the control freaks.
A major point I’m making here is that if an aggressive approach to enforcing anti-carbon measures is structured to both maximize state and federal government incomes and also to guarantee the oil industry high profits in the face of declining fossil fuel production — then the prospects are good that both the state governments and the oil industry itself would have great incentive to come on board with implementing an exceptionally aggressive carbon control plan.
The other advantage for the oil industry is that climate change lawsuits being brought against them no longer have standing, because the industry would be producing carbon fuels under a tightly managed production control agreement with the federal and state governments where production volumes are already being systematically reduced.
Moreover, it would be hard for climate change activists to criticize the oil companies for being greedy capitalist environmental destroyers if those private companies are making their high profits under the contractual supervision and control of the federal and state governments; and if the oil companies are already paying what could be thought of as restitution for alleged past environmental damage through the EPA’s system of carbon pollution fines.
Sooner or later, a climate activist Democrat president will occupy the Oval Office. When this happens, everything Donald Trump ever did while he was president will be quickly and completely erased.
Not everything. Pardons can’t be erased, for example. and EOs can’t erase his judicial appointments. But yes, just like Obama’s “Pen and Phone” actions, Trumps EOs can be erased. As would the EOs of your hypothetical (hopefully to remain that way) climate activist Democrat president when the next sane president is elected. Biden is no Climate Activist ideologue. Unfortunately, should he get elected, Biden is also in no condition to remain in office for very long and the people running him are.
John Endicott, please see my reply to 2hotel9 above. The SSCECP is structured in a way that supplies great financial incentives for the fifty state governments and for the oil industry itself to come on board with enforcing a highly aggressive regulatory approach to reducing America’s carbon emissions.
The way the plan is structured, the only means for the average American consumer to reduce the ever-growing burden of their ever-increasing carbon fuel energy bill would be to systematically reduce their fossil fuel consumption. The financial consequences for any individual person or for any privately owned business for not reducing their fossil fuel consumption would be huge.
In any case, the revenue income streams for the fifty states and for the oil industry produced by the SSCECP could be of such a magnitude that regardless of what public opinion might be in the four or eight years following the election of the climate activist president who implemented the plan, neither the states nor the oil companies would oppose ending it.
Beta Blocker, you own point against Trump is against your plan. Anything that is implemented through “pen and phone” can be taken down by “Pen and Phone” as Obama has since learned. As for “oppose ending it”, Trump has faced nothing *but* opposition to every “pen and phone” move of Obama’s that he’s ended, hasn’t stopped him from doing it though.
John Endicott, the SSCECP would never see the light of day except under a Democrat climate activist president. And even then, for any president to take such a course of action would be to engender the risk of substantial political blowback.
Historically, the EPA and the Executive Branch have been assigned the difficult and complex task of reducing widespread emissions of pollutants while also balancing the upfront costs and risks of aggressive near term action versus the long-term value of the benefits and rewards to be gained.
If rising CO2 concentrations are truly as dangerous as climate activists say they are, and if the courts have already ruled that the EPA can legally regulate CO2 as a pollutant, then why would, and why should, the task of reducing America’s carbon emissions be handled any differently than any other pollution control program the EPA has implemented in the past?
As long as a highly aggressive carbon reduction plan such as the SSCECP is equitably applied with equal force across all sectors of the American economy, and with equally distributed impacts against all major sources of America’s carbon emissions, then the plan can withstand any challenges being made to it in the courts.
At any rate, had Barack Obama done all the things he was allowed to do under current environmental and national security legislation, then after his reelection in 2012, he could have used executive orders to enforce a highly aggressive carbon emission reduction plan similar in size, scope, and effect to the SSCECP.
By the beginning of 2013, a strong legal framework was in place to support just such an aggressive GHG reduction plan. But President Obama and the EPA never moved forward with one. Nor was Obama ever called to account by climate activists for not doing all that he could have done to reduce America’s GHG emissions.
So the question becomes, if Joe Biden is elected president in 2020, are we likely to see history repeat itself? Will he, or will he not, take actions which are fully consistent with his claim that GHG emissions are dangerous and must be quickly reduced?
The GOP is a feckless lot. But some are worse than others.
Fortunately, the only glue holding this party together (Trump) doesn’t buy into the mass marketing and isn’t afraid to say so. He seems to have had some influence, as the GOP’s pre-election platform makes no mention of “climate” or “carbon”.
https://republicanleader.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CTA-OnePager-Final.pdf
It’s sure preferable to the alternative!
“Sooner or later, a climate activist Democrat president will occupy the Oval Office.”
Let’s hope that we at least get 4 more years of President DJT and he gets 2 more appointments to the SCOTUS, and numerous more lower appointments to the Federal Courts. That is is the only possible longer term check and balance on future carbon initiatives that may be decreed by Executive Order. Although there could be a lot of damage to the industry and economy while the EO’s stand that might make any future reversals a moot point.
Or even better, let’s hope we get 4 more years of DJT, and then 8 more years of President Pence. He hasn’t so much as even been accused of harming a fly and is completely scandal free and a steady hand on the tiller with the full backing of the religious right which is a huge demographic. If the next 4 years can be turned into prosperous stability, law and order, and the Democrats splinter into their leftist and centrist separate parties, then there is a hope that we could survive 12 more years before the socialist/marxist hordes are at the gate. By then, we will have more climate data which will explain things better, and better technologies that will naturally progress. One can hope.
Well, that, and there is always claymores and drums of fuogasse along side those gates. People are getting a real good look at what the leftists want to do to them and it is not going to end well for the leftists.
Or even better, let’s hope we get 4 more years of DJT, and then 8 more years of President Pence. He hasn’t so much as even been accused of harming a fly and is completely scandal free
That would of course change the second he throws his hat in the ring. All the crap the left has tried to pull on Trump & Kavanaugh & anyone else they feel threatened by would immediately start to be pulled on Pence. And this crap will continue as long as the American people let them get away with it by continuing to vote Dems into any kind of position of power.
They should instead impose a “Hydrogen Tax” so that they can tax anything containing hydrogen. Water gets double the tax, and fossil fuels are taxed into oblivion – only natural gas with a 4x tax might survive.
Next would be an “Oxygen Tax” so they can tax the air we breath and raise the taxes on water (again). This would cover CO2 but at twice the tax rate.
I really wish they would create a “Stupidity Tax”, but then the government would go broke trying to pay for itself.
This is akin to those sacrifices used to appease the Gods, of yesteryears. In this case it the satanic CO2 God that controls the temperatures which needs appeasement.
I suppose a carbon tax is better ethically than a virgin or two; but equally useless.
According to the first boxed quotes given in the above article, CFTC Commissioner Rostin Behnam (DEMOCRAT) is arguing that a tax is necessary on things that “. . .pose significant challenges to our financial system and our ability to sustain long-term economic growth”, in this specific instance it’s “climate change”.
WOW, you just can’t more obvious in publicizing your self-serving position to tax, tax, tax.
Coming soon, using this criterion and logic:
— a pandemic tax
— a dollar devaluation tax
— a recession/depression tax
— a Government entitlements tax
— another tax for Social Security
— another tax for medical care in the US
— a tax on the tax needed to fund any GND
— a tax for overtaxation.
It’s also interesting that Rachel Koning Beals states “A carbon tax features in CFTC report that aims to unite disparate federal efforts.” So, by logical extension, taxation is a basic way of unifying “disparate federal efforts.” Who knew?
Lord help us, with these sorts running amok.
Instead of a “carbon” tax, I propose an Unaffordable Unreliables tax, for the harm they do to the grid, and for forcing electricity prices up. Fair is fair.
Bet you they failed,once again,to define this “Climate Change”.
While they seek to impose ever more restrictions and up their rate of theft.
Funny how no matter what the “Coming Doom” is the solution is always the same.
The phrase “conflict of interest” rattles around in my suspicious mind.
How about a commission to determine if man made CO2 is a problem? How about a commission to determine if a commission is needed to determine whether commissions are ever right about anything? Do we need more taxes…more debt….more government….more socialism….more communism….more commissions?
“How about a commission to determine if man made CO2 is a problem?”
There we go! That’s just what we need.
The CFTC is putting the cart before the horse. They are trying to fix a problem that has not been shown to be a problem. First things first!
Carbon taxes, Goldman Sachs, Al Gore and I’ve expressed my opposition to this unscientific proposal.
Any full analysis of the social cost of carbon (dioxide) would find more positive outcomes than negative.
Without fossil fuels over the past century I doubt there would be a tree left for the tree-huggers to hug.
Here is what I would like to see. Do away with U.S. income tax system (which is paid for by the consumer) and replace it with a national sale tax (POS and open to sun shine).
Do away with U.S. income tax system (which is paid for by the consumer)
correction:
paid for by the working citizen. You can be a consumer but not an income tax payer.
and replace it with a national sale tax (POS and open to sun shine)
That has the benefit of making everyone pay (rich and poor, citizen and non-citizen alike) and eliminates “loopholes” that can lower peoples taxes to zero or even negative (there’s no loophole to a sales tax – you buy something that is taxable you pay the tax, period).
The left, however, will howl. sales taxes are “regressive”. But they’re also completely fair in that they treat everyone equally, they don’t care who you are or how much or how little you make. You want to buy X you pay Y in tax. They’re also completely voluntary in that if you don’t want to pay Y in tax, you simply choose not to buy X. (you find a cheaper alternative, or do without. not everyone needs the latest and greatest iPhone, a cheaper older model or a cheaper android model or just plain keeping with your current one and not getting a new one at all will do for most people for example).
From the article: ““As we’ve seen in the past few weeks alone, extreme weather events continue to sweep the nation from the severe wildfires of the West to the devastating Midwest derecho and damaging Gulf Coast hurricanes. This trend — which is increasingly becoming our new normal”
No, this is the *old* normal. All these things and worse have happened in the past when CO2 was not considered a factor.
CO2 should not be considered a factor at any time, now or in the past, seeing as how there is no evidence that CO2 causes the Earth’s climate to change in any way. Making such claims just shows the ignorance of that person.
From the article: “The pressure on politicians standing in the path of this gigantic bipartisan money printing scheme must be utterly immense. Billions of dollars for the taking. All they need is for one man, or one small group of people, to say “yes”.”
Somebody ought to ask President Trump what he thinks about a Carbon Dioxide tax. Before Republicans start getting on board this train, they should ascertain what their leader thinks about it.
My guess is Trump would be deadset against a Carbon Dioxide tax. Only a fool would be in favor of it.
The article talks about how they want to keep the Carbon Dioxide tax from harming poor people but there’s no way they can accomplish that if they raise taxes on fossil fuels, which is what a Carbon Dioxide tax will do.
If you raise the cost of transportation, then you raise the cost of *everything* in the economy and those price increases affect poor people more than anyone else. The government is not going to reimburse poor people for their total out-of-pocket costs, so the poor people will suffer.
The only people a Carbon Dioxide tax will benefit are governments and bureaucrats. They love spending Other People’s Money.
HEY! American REPUBLICANS! AUSTRALIA! National referendum on CAGW. nuff said.