The American Petroleum Institute did what? Because climate?

Guest “explaining what the API did” by David Middleton

Note: The primary purpose of this post is simply to lay out what the API has actually endorsed regarding carbon pricing. If you don’t want to know what they proposed, just skip to the comments section and heckle them. The secondary purpose is to explain why I think tax credits for reducing net CO2 emissions are far less economically destructive than a carbon tax. The former is currently in the tax code. The latter is a real possibility in the near future. If you think the greenhouse effect violates some law(s) of thermodynamics, just skip to the comments section and heckle me.

Variations of this headline have been all over the news the past few days…

America’s most powerful oil lobby is changing its tune on a carbon tax

By Matt Egan, CNN Business

Updated 2:49 PM ET, Thu March 25, 2021

New York (CNN Business)The oil industry’s most powerful lobbying group announced Thursday that for the first time it will support setting a price on carbon, a significant shift that underlines intensifying pressure on Washington and business to tackle the climate crisis.

[…]

CNN

The catch-phrase seems to be that the API has endorsed a carbon tax, which is not the case. This is what the API has endorsed:

Industry Action Plan:

  1. Accelerate Technology and Innovation to reduce emissions while meeting growing energy needs
    • Advocate for Federal Funding for Low-Carbon RD&D
    • Fast-track the Commercial Deployment of Carbon Capture, Utilization and Storage (CCUS)
    • Advance Hydrogen Technology, Innovation, and Infrastructure
  2. Further Mitigate Emissions from Operations to advance additional environmental progress
    • Advance Direct Regulation of Methane from New and Existing Sources
    • Develop Methane Detection Technologies
    • Promote Reductions in Refinery GHG Emissions and Mitigate Upstream Flaring Emissions
  3. Endorse a Carbon Price Policy by government to drive economywide, market-based solutions
    • Potential Approach Would Price Carbon Dioxide Emissions Across the Economy
    • Support Policies that Provide Transparency for Consumers
    • Minimize Duplicative Regulations and Help Maintain U.S. Competitiveness
    • Avoid Carbon Leakage and Integrate with Global Carbon Markets, while Focusing on Net Emissions
  4. Advance Cleaner Fuels to provide lower-carbon choices for consumers
    • Develop Markets for Differentiated U.S. Natural Gas
    • Support Policies to Advance Lower-Carbon Electricity
    • Reduce Lifecycle Emissions in the Transportation Sector
  5. Drive Climate Reporting to provide consistency and transparency
    • Expand Use of ESG Reporting Guidance for the Natural Gas & Oil Industry
    • Report Comparable Climate-Related Indicators in New Template
    • Build on the API Compendium of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Methodologies for the Natural Gas and Oil Industry

The outline above is directly quoted from the API statement. It doesn’t really strike me as a significant shift in the API’s position.

The belief that the API has endorsed a carbon tax appears to be based on its endorsement of a “Carbon Price Policy.” This is the only mention of a “carbon tax” in the API statement:

Rather than a patchwork of federal and state regulations and mandates that could ineffectively address the climate challenge, an economywide government carbon price policy is the most impactful and transparent way to achieve meaningful progress. We recognize there are different ways for policymakers to consider carbon pricing – from a cap-and-trade system to a carbon tax – but there are some general parameters to begin the discussion.

API

In my view, the API’s two key carbon price policy parameters are:

Maintain U.S. Competitiveness: The goal of a carbon price policy should be to achieve GHG emissions reductions at the least cost to society, to meet the dual challenge of continued U.S. economic growth and global competitiveness while addressing the risks of climate change.

Focus on Net Emissions: Attention should be given to net GHG emissions such that ongoing voluntary actions are recognized and the trading and use of applicable credits and offsets is allowed.

API

Maintain U.S. Competitiveness

One of the most frequently cited carbon tax proposals is the Baker-Schultz Carbon Dividend Plan. It’s also referred to as a “conservative” or “free market” climate plan. It’s neither. Half of it is straight out of Fantasyland. This plan would impose a tax on CO2 emissions. The revenue generated by this tax would then be rebated to the American people:

All the proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis via dividend checks, direct deposits or contributions to their individual retirement accounts. In the example above, a family of four would receive approximately $2,000 in carbon dividend payments in the first year. This amount would grow over time as the carbon tax rate increases, creating a positive feedback loop: the more the climate is protected, the greater the individual dividend payments to all Americans. The Social Security Administration should administer this program, with eligibility for dividends based on a valid social security number.

Climate Leadership Council

Who actually believes that any tax bill passed by the U.S. Congress would actually rebate any of the proceeds, much less all of them, equally to the American people? The current proposal calls for the tax to start at $43/ton of CO2 and then to escalate 5% per year. Fortunately, this regressive tax plan did not make it into the eleventy gazillion dollar infrastructure plan working its way through Congress. This is what a carbon tax would add to the price of gasoline, natural gas and coal:

 Tax ($/ton of CO2 $      35 $         43 $         65 $       175 $       250
 Gasoline ($/gal)  $   0.31 $     0.38 $      0.58 $      1.54 $      2.20
 Natural Gas ($/mcf)  $   1.86 $     2.26 $      3.45 $      9.30 $    13.30
 Coal ($/short ton)  $ 73.53 $   90.33 $  136.55 $  367.63 $  525.18

Here is the tax as a percentage of recent average U.S. prices:

 Tax ($/ton of CO2)  $      35 $         43 $         65 $       175 $       250
 Gasoline – Retail w/taxes ($2.18/gal) 14%18%26%71%101%
 Natural Gas – Electricity ($3.30/mcf) 56%69%104%282%403%
 Coal ($59.43 /short ton) 124%152%230%619%884%

An average U.S. motorist drives 13,500 miles per year. The average U.S. passenger vehicle gets about 25 miles per gallon. At $43/ton CO2 tax could cost the average driver $167/yr.

 Average U.S. Driver: 13,500 miles/yr, 25 miles/gal 
 Tax ($/ton of CO2 $      35 $         43 $         65 $       175 $       250
 Gasoline tax ($/yr)  $    167 $       208 $       311 $       834 $    1,190

The average U.S. electricity bill in 2019 was $115/month. Fossil fuels account for 60% of U.S. electricity generation (20% coal, 40% natural gas). This is what a CO2 tax could do to the average electricity bill:

 Average Electric Bill ($115/month) 
 Tax ($/ton of CO2)  $      35 $         43 $         65 $       175 $       250
 Electricity tax ($/yr)  $    653 $       798 $    1,211 $    3,264 $    4,664

Even if the hypothetical “family of four” actually received $2,000 in carbon dividends, they would only have $906 left after accounting for higher gas and electricity prices. And this doesn’t even begin to take into account the increased cost of just about everything else that requires to coal, oil or natural gas in manufacturing and transportation. “Maintain U.S. competitiveness” doesn’t seem to fit this ticket.

Focus on Net Emissions

I can’t find any mention of net emissions in the Carbon Dividend plan.

There’s more than one way to price carbon

The API does strongly endorse one method of pricing CO2 that maintains U.S. competitiveness and focuses on net emissions…

Fast-Track The Commercial Deployment Of Carbon Capture, Utilization And Storage (CCUS):

The United States is the world leader in deploying CCUS technology. The U.S. has 12 commercial-scale, operating CCUS facilities, capable of capturing approximately 25 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 annually. In 2018, operators reported capturing more than 13 MMT of CO2 for use with enhanced oil recovery. An additional 22 U.S. carbon capture facilities are being developed. Many are associated with natural gas power generation, though natural gas and oil firms are also partnering with other industrial firms to expand CCUS in heavy industry. API supports federal policies to achieve the “at-scale phase” of CCUS commercial deployment, consistent with the 2019 findings of the National Petroleum Council. This includes extending and expanding the 45Q tax credit and permitting reforms to streamline CO2 infrastructure development.

API
  • CCS: Carbon capture & storage/sequestration.
    • Capture CO2, CH4, CO, etc. from emission point sources.
    • Inject it into depleted oil & gas reservoirs and/or saline aquifer formations.
  • CCUS: Carbon capture, utilization & storage.
    • Capture CO2, CH4, CO, etc. from emission point sources.
    • Utilize the gases for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) and other industrial/agricultural purposes.

The U.S. was already the world leader in CCS/CCUS before the November 2020 coup d’état.

U.S. Carbon Capture Facilities (Operating And Under Development) Source: GCCSI, Global Status of CCS, 2020 API
“The U.S. leads the world in deploying CCUS technology. Commercial-scale facilities can capture about 25 million metric tons of CO2 annually.” Source: GCCSI, Global Status of CCS, 2020 API

Unlike the regressive carbon tax, the 45Q CCS/CCUS tax credit enjoys strong bipartisan support and will likely be enhanced and expanded with the Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Tax Credit Amendments Act.

Why do anything?

I know that most of my fellow climate change skeptics think that the API is just virtue signaling, greenwashing and/or rent seeking and that there is no climate problem to be solved… However, the people who make the laws think otherwise, even many Republicans. Businesses and the trade groups that represent them have to obey the laws and actually have a fiduciary responsibility to encourage government to craft regulatory policies that are as business-friendly as possible.

While I can’t speak for the API, I know that some manner of carbon pricing is inevitable. It’s just a matter of when and how our government inflicts it upon our economy.

My position is to encourage government to take the least economically destructive path in reducing carbon emissions. Furthermore, while I know that the climate is relatively insensitive to CO2 and that the increase in atmospheric CO2 and warming since the 1800’s have been beneficial to mankind and I’m fairly certain that even at 600 ppm, the benefits will still outweigh the costs, my crystal ball gets really fuzzy beyond that. That’s why I support economically sustainable measures to reduce the carbon intensity of energy production, provided these measures do not negatively affect our continued access to affordable, reliable energy. This would mean maintaining a significant coal-fired capacity and expanding natural gas and nuclear power generation, while fast tracking the commercial deployment of CCS/CCUS.

The API’s Industry Action Plan won’t materially protect us from whatever the climate may or may not do in the future; but it could protect us from even worse things that our government is quite capable of doing.

AZ Quotes

The lesser of two evils is still Elvis!

If you insist on “perfect” and you think you can convince the government to end it’s war on CO2 emissions and not impose some manner of carbon pricing…

CCS/CCUS can’t solve the problem… even if it exists

The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that in 2019, the United States emitted 5.1 billion metric tons of energy-related carbon dioxide, while the global emissions of energy-related carbon dioxide totaled 33.1 billion metric tons.

USGS

The Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas estimates that the geological storage capacity in Miocene strata under Texas state waters is 172 Gt CO2.

Texas State Waters CO2 Storage Capacity From Meckel, Treviño & Hovorka, 2019

172 Gt CO2 is equivalent to 34 years of U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions. That’s a small fraction of the rest of the Gulf of Mexico. There is no lack of pore space for CO2 storage in the subsurface.

Lake Nyos!

That’s a big, fat no!

What happened at Lake Nyos?

On August 21, 1986, Lake Nyos in Cameroon “exploded” in a limnic eruption. The eruption released about 1 cubic kilometre of CO2, or about 1 billion cubic metres, killing 1,800 people and 3,000 animals.

Lake Nyos sits inside a volcanic crater. Carbon dioxide, escaping from underground volcanic chimneys, is continuously dissolves and concentrates at the bottom of the lake. In 1986, an earthquake triggered a landslide, which disrupted the stratified layers of water and “overturned” the lake. The CO2-rich water from the bottom rose to the surface and the gas burst out. Heavier than air, it flowed down the sides of the volcano and into adjacent valleys where it asphyxiated all living beings in its path.

Other lakes of this type exist around the world. In most of these cases, preventative degassing of the deeper waters is now underway.

It is important to understand that this scenario would never happen at a geological storage site where CO2 gas is stored at least 800 metres underground and is therefore isolated from the atmosphere.

Groupe de recherche sur les ressources énergétiques des bassins sédimentaires du Québec

The Lake Nyos CO2 was in a concentrated in a layer of water at the bottom of a stratified lake in a volcanic crater. The geological storage window starts at a depth of about 1,000 meters, where CO2 is a supercritical liquid. It would be injected in formations where there was a demonstrable competent top-seal and in the case of depleted oil & gas reservoirs, a structural and/or stratigraphic trap that had successfully stored oil & gas for hundreds of thousands to many millions of years. Unlike volcanic lakes in Cameroon, U,S. geological CCS sites require Class VI permits, requiring extensive monitoring.

Carbon vs. carbon dioxide

I’m fairly certain I’ve used carbon and carbon dioxide/CO2 correctly in this post.

  • Carbon emissions include CO2, CH4, CO and other carbon compound gas emissions.
  • Carbon taxes are often enumerated in U.S. dollars per ton of CO2-equivalent.
  • Carbon cycle includes, but is not limited to:
    • Photosynthetic conversion of atmospheric CO2 into O2 and energy-rich organic compounds.
    • Combustion of hydrocarbon fuels yielding atmospheric CO2 and H2O.

The Greenhouse effect violates some law of thermodynamics

Why did you even read this far? Since you’re already here, go ahead and read this too: Skeptical Arguments that Don’t Hold Water by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

3.9 7 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
124 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Kamakaris
March 29, 2021 2:07 pm

What do the powers that be hope these actions will do for the climate?

Pat from Kerbob
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 2:33 pm

Yes
But its just feeding the crocodile, hoping to be the last to be eaten

TallDave
Reply to  David Middleton
March 30, 2021 7:10 am
  • “When statesmen forsake their own private conscience for the sake of their own public duties they lead their country by a short route to chaos.”
David Kamakaris
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 2:36 pm

“Although I think most of them view it as a way to increase their own power and control over the U.S. economy.”

David, you are spot on. All I now hope for is one of these bleeding hearts to admit it.

Glenn
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 5:09 pm

After seeing how many people voted for some old dude in a basement?
It will be a miracle if we don’t end up pushing off the top railing before 2022.
I almost voted for Hillary hoping if she won that enough people would see the error of their ways and the country could turn around an survive. Now I realize that was foolish to consider.

2hotel9
Reply to  Glenn
March 30, 2021 7:59 am

Stolen Elections Have Consequences.

TallDave
Reply to  David Middleton
March 30, 2021 7:11 am

no worries on that score

elections will just keeping getting better and better

until we starve

BOCA RATON, Fla.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Former US President Jimmy Carter stated “As a matter of fact, of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world” during the kickoff of the Annual Conversations at the Carter Center series. Basing his opinion on the vast experience amassed by the institution observing and monitoring elections around the world, Mr. Carter praised the South American nation for having a voting system that makes verifying results an easy task.

Last edited 11 days ago by TallDave
beng135
Reply to  David Middleton
March 30, 2021 9:27 am

The days of real elections, at least in the US, are gone. Look for other countries to look to the US-lefties’ methods of fixing elections for doing the same in theirs.

Last edited 11 days ago by beng135
Andyhce
Reply to  David Kamakaris
March 29, 2021 10:06 pm

Most don’t realize that they are simply useful idiots, pursuing what they believe to be their goals while, probably generally unbeknowst to them, they are furthering the quite different goals of the greater powers behind them. Eventually they will get their reward, once things have moved too far to pull back.

Reply to  David Kamakaris
March 29, 2021 5:59 pm

GIVE OUR GREEN PLANTS THE FOOD THEY NEED….500 PPM CO2 BY 2100….WE CAN DO IT!

fred250
Reply to  Anti-griff
March 29, 2021 8:02 pm

comment image

Tom Halla
March 29, 2021 2:11 pm

Carbon taxes are just another regressive tax, and claiming part will be rebated is usually a false promise.

Chris Hanley
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 2:31 pm

Also a bloated bureaucracy to administer it.

Patrick healy
Reply to  Tom Halla
March 30, 2021 3:14 am

Tom,
Sorry if you feel I am picking on you, but what the hell is this Karbon you and all on this article keep on about?
It really pisses me off when grown up people keep using the opposition’s lingo.
Do you mean plant food Carbon Dioxide or some type of soot?
Words matter.
End of rant.

PCman999
Reply to  Patrick healy
March 30, 2021 11:03 am

Actually the alarmists should just be honest and call it the cooties – eww you have carbon get away – like little kids running away from the invisible menace, though the kids are smart enough to know it’s not real.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Patrick healy
March 30, 2021 4:41 pm

Yes, words do matter. Very much.

Editor
March 29, 2021 2:12 pm

“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake” – Xi Jinping (quoting Napoleon Bonaparte)

Abolition Man
Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 29, 2021 2:27 pm

Mike,
“Never interrupt your vassal when he is doing just what you told him to!” Xi Jinnping
There, fixed it for you!

ResourceGuy
March 29, 2021 2:18 pm

There will be no carbon tax until such time that there is an omnibus bill that includes farm support, military, and apple pie and it will become a carbon tax on enactment only after that midnight vote that the Congressmen were not supposed to read until later. It will also include a few hundred million additional dollars for the BART system in very small print.

SMC
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 2:44 pm

From the Urban dictionary…the cleanest definition:

A monumental screwup.

According to a saltier definition, it’s more severe than a cluster frack but less severe than FUBAR.

SMC
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 3:06 pm

It makes sense when you think about it. Cluster Frack implies just humans are involved in the messed up situation.

Goat Frack implies other creatures from the Kingdom Animalia are involved, in addition to humans. That’s an additional level of screw up being added to the situation.

Of course, maybe I’ve thought about this too much… 🙂

Kevin kilty
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 3:37 pm

Some things are better left unsaid.

PCman999
Reply to  David Middleton
March 30, 2021 11:04 am

Eww – surely Goat Fracking is not worth thinking about at all!

William Ballinger
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 5:53 pm
  1. OK, there is a hierarchy: cluster < goat < FUBAR. But then come the adjectives: Royal < Giant < Total. For even more options you stack adjectives until you max out at Royal Giant Total FUBAR. The only one above that is Federal Government Management.
PCman999
Reply to  William Ballinger
March 30, 2021 11:06 am

Would it be over complicated to include SNAFU?

George Daddis
March 29, 2021 2:20 pm

It doesn’t matter if both the GOP and the Democrats both feel we have to spend trillions to reduce the spread of 4 leaf clovers across the US in order to forestall their prediction of an impending invasion of Leprechauns!

The invasion of Leprechauns is imaginary just as is the idea that we are in an existential climate emergency. I will not agree to support or “compromise” with such a notion just because of the “madness of crowds”.

Streetcred
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 4:46 pm

Derail it.

old engineer
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 5:12 pm

David-

I fear you are right. Which is why I take comfort in a comment made here a few weeks ago (can’t remember by who): “It’s a good time to be old.”

ResourceGuy
March 29, 2021 2:20 pm

There must be a carbon tax coming if the overheated hype machine that has reached climate industrial complex proportions is any leading indicator.

March 29, 2021 2:21 pm

API virtue signaling is not a good look.
’Go along to get along’ does NOT work with warmunists. As they have shown many times already.
I do not think ‘carbon pricing’ is in the cards in the US despite dementia Joe. It has already failed in the EU. Went nowhere under Obama. What I fear is more wasteful green spending via subsidies. Biden wants a lot more offshore wind by 2030, per today’s reports. EIA says Offshore wind is much more expensive than onshore wind. Using ERCOT grid, a correctly calculated onshore wind LCOE is about $147/MWh. The equivalent CCGT is about $57/MWh. That is wasting a LOT of money BEFORE going offshore.

Frank from NoVA
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 29, 2021 2:40 pm

Correct! In more general terms, appeasement doesn’t work. Paraphrasing Churchill, the API is trying to feed us (the energy consuming public) to the crocodile in the hope that the crocodile doesn’t eat them. It won’t work.

waza
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 29, 2021 5:58 pm

I agree with Rud but from a different perspective.
From the publics point of view a Carbon Tax has a very obvious connection to a reduction of funds in their wallet. While spending huge $$ (also belong to the public) on distant white elephants, the connection is not so in their face, thus more palatable.

Vuk
March 29, 2021 2:26 pm

After the god said ‘Let there be light’, he said ‘Let there be CO2 and let there be life’
http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/CO2/CO2-sf.gif

Pat from Kerbob
March 29, 2021 2:32 pm

The concept of a carbon tax that is returned to taxpayers remains ridiculous. Nobody will make any changes if they get the money back, its a circular motion machine that just creates jobs in the middle for people collecting and sending back checks.

In canada, the supreme court ruled the federal Liberal tax was constitutional but then overstepped by saying its necessary due to “climate emergency”.

since the scientologists refuse public debate, i think this statement should be challenged as the basis of an appeal.
If its ok to overrule the constitution for this, then prove “climate crisis” in court, we know the scientologists absolutely run from public debate of facts.

Anyway, here in AB we now have to impliment the carbon tax or the feds will do it, and based on the requirement to rebate it, just do it at point of sale.
So home heating and electricity bills, gasoline reciepts, show the tax as a line item and then rebate it at the bottom.
Nothing changes hands.
Perfect.

Everything else, manufactured items, everything will have some carbon tax buried in it, do the estimation and rebate monthly, but the majority will be taken care of with instant rebate.

Like winning a scratch and win lottery ticket everytime you buy gas or electricity.

Curious George
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 29, 2021 2:52 pm

You don’t really believe in a perpetuum mobile?

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 29, 2021 3:41 pm

Pat, I don’t think point of sale rebates are the plan, on my natural gas heating bill, the Carbon tax is now almost equal to the gas cost…no rebate anywhere that I can see and the local gas co-op isn’t aware of any rebate effort…they just collect and send it in…..

Streetcred
Reply to  Pat from Kerbob
March 29, 2021 4:49 pm

I’ll just correct one thing … it does create valuable economy building jobs, it creates little bureaucratic syphons.

Streetcred
Reply to  Streetcred
March 29, 2021 4:49 pm

“doesn’t”

RickWill
March 29, 2021 2:53 pm

 If you think the greenhouse effect violates some law(s) of thermodynamics, just skip to the comments section and heckle me.

I do not mind a good fairy tale.

A significant portion of the world spend a fortune in the name of Santa Claus, which has become a fairy tale for children where adults are encouraged to part with their money to provide gifts for their children. The “greenhouse effect” is a fairy tale for adults where said adults are forced to part with their money to enrich those who prosper from the story.

John Garrett
March 29, 2021 2:53 pm

Sorry, Mr. Middleton, but you and I part company on this one.

The “Catastrophic/dangerous, CO2-driven anthropogenic global warming/climate change” CONJECTURE remains just that— a conjecture with a truly astounding and appalling lack of evidence.

It is pseudoscience, at best, and outright fraud, at worst.

I say, “Fight to the last ditch.”

Last edited 11 days ago by John Garrett
Editor
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 4:30 pm

It isn’t conjecture, it’s fr@ud.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 8:41 pm

A thoughtful article Mr M.

John’s post above has a message. While I agree, “do the least harm possible” is often necessary in this world, there is no requirement to do it quietly.

In other words I wish the fossil fuel companies would profoundly say words to the affect of, ” all your plans will do nothing to make a discernable change in the Global average temperature in 2100, and there is ample evidence that CO2 harms are not manifesting, and C02 benefits are manifesting, yet if society says we must, this is the most cost effective way to lower CO2 emissions.

By playing lip service to the scam, they deepen it. And once the Greta’s and AOC of the world gain real power, they may have cooperated to their own, and our own demise.

philincalifornia
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 9:09 pm

In the same vein, I went to the Dr Roy link to re-remind me of what I’ve read before and yes, stuff we all know, but I still remain puzzled by this one:

It doesn’t matter even if the CO2 absorption bands are 100% opaque to the transmission of IR radiation from the surface to the top of the atmosphere…adding more CO2 still causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere (and cooling in the upper atmosphere).
There are two reasons for this. The first is that pressure broadening of the absorption lines leads to the absorption lines influencing much wider ranges of wavelengths, which are not “saturated”, that is, not 100% opaque.”

Am I missing something? Do water vapor absorption lines (or globs in the case of water vapor) not get pressure broadened? … so it’s a wash. We’re talking about out there in the real world above 280 ppm CO2, not in a lab, or in a theory or conjecture.

Can anyone answer this question for me?

RickWill
Reply to  John Garrett
March 29, 2021 4:06 pm

Using the term science as a descriptor in reference to the “greenhouse effect”.gives it credibility well beyond its silliness.

Who can argue that tropical warm pools do not regulate to 30C. Who can argue that sea ice does not form at -2C. Who can argue that ocean water is not well distributed across the globe with water surface at both poles at -2C and many warm pools of the tropical ocean regulating to 30C. Put the three together and you get average surface temperature of 14C or 57F.

Who could ever contemplate that cloud formation is unresponsive to surface temperature and in fact will reduce as the surface temperature rises. Or who would ever think that clouds increase heat uptake rather than reduce heat uptake. To believe there is a “greenhouse effect” requires disbelief in easily observed phenomena.

Look at the amount of water vapour at 250hPa across the tropical oceans. What happens as that cools when it releases OLR to space to deposit as ice particles in the upper atmosphere to produce reflective cloud.

Look at the convective potential well distributed across all the tropical oceans:
 https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/03/29/2200Z/wind/surface/currents/overlay=cape/orthographic=-249.07,-16.75,376/loc=84.451,-2.462
All set to catapult vast quantities of water high into the atmosphere to produce rain that cools the surface and then persistent cloud as the water vapour above 6000m deposits as ice before its slow descent.

It is just laughable that the “greenhouse effect” nonsense has gained such traction in the face of the bleeding obvious. Future generations will giggle at the idea in the same way I giggle at the thought of ships falling off the flat Earth.

Screen Shot 2021-03-30 at 9.55.09 am.png
Last edited 11 days ago by RickWill
philincalifornia
Reply to  RickWill
March 29, 2021 9:33 pm

Nice post, but what you’re missing (or maybe not) is that it’s easy for the climate liars to conflate a radiative effect of CO2 molecules, essentially in the lab., with what actually is happening when you walk out of your front door. I just posted above on even Dr Roy doing it. Very, very prominent head-posters on here do it too.

Forget f-kin 280ppm and below. It’s irrelevant to the climate fraud discussion.

Fred Hubler
March 29, 2021 2:54 pm

“I know that most of my fellow climate change skeptics think that the API is just virtue signaling, greenwashing and/or rent seeking and that there is no climate problem to be solved.”

Absolutely. That and the fact that the API knows that wind and solar will never replace fossil fuels, and that nuclear is the best option to greatly reduce fossil fuel emissions. Only our irrational fear of nuclear power is preventing its adoption.

David A
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 8:47 pm

“and the fact that the API knows that wind and solar will never replace fossil fuels”

Hum? betting against the stupidity of crowds and government. The API may lose that bet.

As mentioned, it’s one thing to say, ” if I must do this foolish action, at least let me do it this way”, it quite another thing to support the very harmful concept.

Andyhce
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 10:18 pm

Not quite. Somebody profits so they promote the fantasy, not unlike all the retailers who push store bought Christmas gift giving above all traditional ideas of the holiday.

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  Fred Hubler
March 29, 2021 3:38 pm

The “Green movement” is not in favor of anything. It is opposed to human life, and anything that furthers it. If there were a way of achieving net-zero CO2 emissions while maintaining human prosperity, the Greenies would find a way to oppose it.

I mention this to preface an observation on carbon dioxide capture and storage, which Mr. Middleton sees as a good way to keep fossil fuels while sequestering CO2 from the biosphere. In particular, he cites the difference between the safety of a deliberately planned storage method and the accidental releases of natural reservoirs like Lake Nyos. I agree with him on the safety aspects (though the economics of capture remain to be seen). But the anti-nuclear crowd used the “hazards” of storing nuclear waste as part of its successful attack on the nuclear power industry. They will be able to use exactly the same strategy – and arguments – to prevent any widespread development of carbon dioxide capture and storage, and their arguments will seem even more reasonable to even technically literate people than when they were applied to nuclear waste storage.

For example, nuclear waste goes away after a while, decaying to stable isotopes (and there isn’t much of it in the first place). Carbon dioxide never goes away. So the “nuclear priesthood” which Ralph Nader opined would be required to keep us all safe from nuclear waste for thousands of years would be replaced with a “carbon dioxide priesthood” overseeing the vastly greater stores of deadly carbon dioxide, and doing so for all eternity.

I’m not heckling anyone here. I just think that any attempt to stop “climate change” which preserves or enhances human well-being is dead on arrival. It’s the human well-being part they want to do away with, not the climate change part.

Andyhce
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 10:22 pm

You seem to be saying “not “dead on arrival” in our government” in regard to “preserves or enhances human well-being is dead on arrival”. There isn’t any evidence for that view.

Frank from NoVA
March 29, 2021 2:55 pm

With friends like the API, who needs enemies?

JCM
March 29, 2021 3:11 pm

I have a new question that might be interesting to explore – how do we plan to know if the world has reached net-zero CO2 emissions? Is the promise that the CO2 curve will stop going up and just flatline? Or will it be by some spreadsheet accounting that it is calculated? I have doubts that the specific goal is defined – and I’m not sure it is possible to do so. I guess once net-zero CO2 is calculated then “drawdown” propaganda will kick in. However, at some point there must necessitate the requirement to acknowledge other “natural” factors. It is difficult to foresee any rational end point.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 10:30 pm

Carbon offsets will be looked after by political types. There will be clearing houses something like banks, where 10 times as many credits can be issued than there really has been put into “savings” for the good of all (haha)…the opportunity for graft and corruption is beyond anything we have seen so far with mere money….API probably feels it’s better if this money moves directly into government coffers rather than via corporate rent seekers, and just want to recommend a way that enables that.

Abolition Man
March 29, 2021 3:21 pm

Just another industry group bowing to the gods of political correctness! Hopefully , in the not too distant future we can bring back stocks for our experts and politicians who make claims unsupported by science, reason and history! Rotten eggs and tomatoes for the leaders at API; but you need to save the good stuff for idiots like Fauxi and our political elites!
On a side note, the Ever Given is now floating freely in the Suez thanks to the super moon, and a super effort from the salvage crew! Crude oil dropped $1/barrel in response.

Kevin kilty
March 29, 2021 3:34 pm

I dunno. I like the idea of experiencing a positive feedback loop. Generally they run the system to one of the rails and it stays right there. I can’t wait.

Carbon capture makes perfectly good sense if you have an economic use for the carbon dioxide. Otherwise it is a sort of advanced potlatch where we spend money to bury available work rather than use it.

Outcome? None as far as global temperature is concerned. There will be subsidies and transfers of income heading in inequitable directions. If all goes according to the standard of unanticipated consequences the amount of work being buried ought to make at least one storage site very dangerous.

Andyhce
Reply to  David Middleton
March 29, 2021 10:24 pm

But do you really think that is the direction it would take?

Zigmaster
March 29, 2021 3:50 pm

I feel quite despairing about the direction of the sceptics arguments. We seem to have abandoned all hope of re educating the population about the real facts on climate, that there is no emergency, that the world isn’t warming dangerously, that climate change is being used to introduce changed political agendas, that the world is greening, that much of the recent rises in temperature have been due arbitrary and unexplained adjustments by weather bureaus described as homogenisation, that wind and solar can never practically provide 24/7 power, that renewables will never be cheaper than fossil fuels, that even if you believe in global warming the measures taken make no difference, that China has no intention of becoming a renewables superpower, except in the sense of being the major manufacturer for the rest of the gullible world, that the money being expensed on green schemes could be spent on health, education and welfare with more profound benefit, that coal power has lifted 3rd world countries out of poverty and rising energy costs inflicts a disproportionate impost on poorer people, that all predictions made in relation to climate change have not materialised and in fact in many instances the opposite is true, a coin toss has a better strike rate.
These are just a smaller number of the propaganda items that need addressing.
Dont think we help our cause by conceding ground and give in to the least extreme alternative. The proverb , give them an inch and they’ll take a mile is so relevant in climate change and any concessions no matter how small will just embolden them to go further and harder.

Reply to  Zigmaster
March 29, 2021 4:32 pm

Z, I see it a bit differently. Of course you are ‘right’.
But wamunists wont hear, let alone understand, us. We are just ‘deniers’.
So the observational situation has to get to a disaster point where we can say ‘told ya so’ and they cannot deny it any more.
Texas ERCOT was close, but no cigar.
Maybe UK blacks out completely, requiring a cold restart taking weeks, and freezes up next winter with a million cold deaths. It will take something on that catastrophic scale to stop the climate nonsense.

lbeyeler
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 30, 2021 9:14 am

But wamunists wont hear, let alone understand, us. We are just ‘deniers’.

That’s true, but I’m not ready to give up on my friends. It’s a uphill battle, though, because, they don’t know the scientific principle, they cite some ‘fact checkers’, the consensus, authority (“the WHO wouldn’t lie”) and stuff like that.

Often, I just don’t know what to say. They’ve won the argument. 🙁

I’d love to have a battery of well rehearsed counters against such arguments.

Last edited 11 days ago by lbeyeler
Tom Abbott
Reply to  lbeyeler
March 30, 2021 4:53 pm

“Often, I just don’t know what to say. They’ve won the argument.”

Tell them to read WUWT. All the Human-caused Climate Change myths get taken apart here.

If you read a scary story about the climate. Then read WUWT and all the scary parts will be explained and you will find it’s not nearly as scary as it was originally made out to be.

That’s what I do. I go where the experts are.

lbeyeler
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 31, 2021 9:19 am

Tell them to read WUWT.”

Yes, WUWT has a lot of good stuff.

But you know how people are. They don’t want to go and read some stuff somewhere.

I believe some good counterarguments would do better in a discussion.

Something like this, for example:
“Ah, fact-checkers, no, I’m disappointed with them. I went to fact check some stuff about HCQ, and what I found, they didn’t know that the Lancet study was retracted. They didn’t do their job.”

Jon R
Reply to  Zigmaster
March 29, 2021 5:32 pm

Excellent concise summary I’m saving that.

Michael S. Kelly
March 29, 2021 3:58 pm

The statistics on average electric bill and miles per year driven by the average “motorist” just don’t seem credible to me. I lived in Southern California from 1980 to 2008, and never drove fewer than 35,000 miles in any given year. After 2008, my house sat unsold for more than a year, and though the main breaker was off virtually the entire time, my electric bill was never less than $110 a month! The most it had been was $1,200 in one month, and it averaged around $450.

I admit that here in Northern Virginia, Novec delivers the cheapest power I’ve gotten since my college days in the late 1970s ($84 in one month is our Virginia record low to date). But I would bet that the average is still over the $115 a month EIA cites.

The distribution functions describing these statistics must be wild, if the averages are true.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
March 29, 2021 5:45 pm

Michael,
When I was young, living in Northern California, I used to drive in excess of 25,000 mile per year. Now that I’m retired and living in Ohio, I’m only driving about 9,000 miles per year. The average is 17,000 miles per year. For people who use public transit, the numbers will be considerably lower.

I have never in my life seen an electric bill of even $450, let alone $1,200! Currently my annual monthly average is about $110.

The numbers seem reasonable to me.

Andyhce
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
March 29, 2021 10:40 pm

Very close to half of my usual monthly electricity bill is for taxes, fees, and fixed system costs. I suspect those would be a smaller percent of total for a big electricity user but I live alone and while I do have (electricity using) toys, I don’t have the big investment in them that many people do. Anyway, your usage could be heavier than average.

Last edited 11 days ago by Andyhce
Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  David Middleton
March 31, 2021 5:38 pm

Yes, I would have thought you would do a lot of driving living in Texas. There are other states, like Florida, where everything is spread out widely, and even not doing much puts the miles on. When I moved from California to Maryland, my mileage dropped to about 20,000 a year. Since moving to Northern Virginia in 2014, I’ve only put about 5,000 miles on my truck. My wife (who works – I’m “retired”) puts more on her car, which we also take on trips to Tennessee, Missouri, and Indiana to visit relatives. As I wrote, the distribution functions must be wild!

PCman999
Reply to  Michael S. Kelly
March 30, 2021 3:34 pm

Sounds like the neighbors knew you were away and ran an extension cord from your house!

Michael S. Kelly
Reply to  PCman999
March 31, 2021 5:28 pm

Now that makes some sense!

meab
March 29, 2021 4:08 pm

It’s so transparently political. 1st raise carbon taxes. Then, surprise, find out that the tax is regressive and has hit the poor disproportionately hard. The poor won’t be able to heat and light their homes and won’t be able to afford to drive to work. So, then a PORTION of the money extorted from the rich and middle classes will be handed out to the poor, making the poor dependent on this new government handout – ensuring that the the poor will vote for the party that handed them money. We all know the party that does that.

Trouble is, it will crash the entire economy and everyone will suffer.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  meab
March 30, 2021 4:57 pm

“Trouble is, it will crash the entire economy and everyone will suffer.”

That’s exactly right. A CO2 tax would trash the whole U.S. economy.

ResourceGuy
March 29, 2021 4:32 pm

“What did you say this room was called again?”

“Sacrificial chamber”

….sophisticated parasites springing at your face.

Robert W Turner
March 29, 2021 4:43 pm

I just figured it was a ploy to increase carbon capture so that it could then be used for enhanced recovery.

As far as the back radiation hypothesis being correct, perhaps you and Dr Roy should read http://web.ihep.su/dbserv/compas/src/einstein17/eng.pdf

Dr Roy’s page is full of red herrings and misunderstandings. I won’t even bother going into details because clearly at this point it is a waste of time. Time will prove the back radiation hypothesis wrong and prove physics based theories correct
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Thermal-Enhancement-on-Planetary-Bodies-and-the-of-Holmes/5d3ecd676b4ad08fe1a054b265eea789a9659dc2?p2df

Curious George
Reply to  Robert W Turner
March 29, 2021 6:36 pm

Bob, there is no “back radiation”. There is only “radiation”. Your reference to Einstein is correct. It establishes that the light (or the infrared radiation etc.) is composed of particle-like photons.

Curious George
Reply to  Curious George
March 29, 2021 6:49 pm

Thanks for a link to an English translation. Back then, German was still one of languages of civilized people.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Curious George
March 29, 2021 10:45 pm

Aaarghh, CG, telling Robert that is like saying there is no left momentum, only right momentum. The radiant heat between 2 objects with different temperatures is
Q= K x (Thot^4 – Tcold^4). For simplicity of description, this is broken into 2 parts, and the K x (-Tcold^4) part is called the “back radiation”. You are right, its only radiation.

Jon R
March 29, 2021 4:56 pm

To hold on to objective reality is too much to ask for most, there are always consequences for getting past the data. I personally hope for severe consequences.

March 29, 2021 4:58 pm

For the record, I am sick of all this cowardly pandering to climate doomsters, who have had the science completely wrong for decades (and they know that – they are not just wrong, they are deliberate fraudsters, wolves stampeding the sheep).

CO2 is not dangerously high, it is dangerously low. Earth is not dangerously warming, and is clearly cooler-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. End of crisis; end of scary story.

The current leadership of the petroleum industry lack two essential qualities:
Brains and Balls.

RickWill
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
March 29, 2021 7:50 pm

who have had the science completely wrong for decades

How could there be any science related to a fairy tale.

The internet has exposed the reality that there are few independent thinkers – those curious enough to make their own observations and draw sound conclusion based on fundamental understanding.

Instead, it is clear “consensus science” is the order of the day; where the majority rule irrespective of how silly their beliefs are. An academic community so polluted by the need to secure funding that they are prostituting scientific endeavour. Epitomised by the stupidity of thinking clouds can be parameterised and are unresponsive to surface conditions.

I wonder how long it will take for the “greenhouse effect” to be condemned to a silent death; maybe not in my lifetime but I will continue to hold a torch to incompetent stupidity.

David A
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
March 29, 2021 8:57 pm

After much thought, and respect for David’s article, I agree. Donald Trump broke all the PC rules on what a politician can say, and fairly won the political games, until he forced them to run a massive cheat, and since they could not out talk him, they have spent billions trying to shut him up.

Glenn
March 29, 2021 5:01 pm

Not sure if this constitutes heckling, but all I’m sure about is as a result of the current global political climate, the price of energy is going to explode in the wrong direction.Shrapnel will follow.

RickWill
Reply to  Glenn
March 29, 2021 8:02 pm

There are competing forces. Considerable effort to regulate fossil fuels demise will impact both supply and demand.

Crunch time will be when one or more of the G20 nations hits a serious speed bump – a step or two past the point that Texas found itself. There are a lot of fragile power grids and they are becoming more unstable. A country going cold in the depths of a freezing winter will be a test for the true believers.

Australian grid regulators are now seeking authority to turn off household solar panels just to keep the grid stable. South Australia was getting more than 100% of its power from rooftops for one lunchtime last spring; possible through the fact that a good deal of the power was being sent to Victoria. There are significant costs involved in grid infrastructure trying to digest solar output from households but without that expenditure staying ahead of uptake, the grid is heading for major outages.

Andyhce
Reply to  RickWill
March 29, 2021 10:47 pm

But AOC already explained Texas: the result of not having the Green New Deal implemented. (if there had been far fewer people, there might have been enough energy to go around)

John Dueker
March 29, 2021 5:10 pm

There are industries that the API does not represent, like many chemical oxidation and amoxidation reactions that make CO2 in the reaction. Are we willing to move those offshore or do without? I’m sure China would love to expand.

S.K.
March 29, 2021 5:54 pm

Virtue signalling is going to destroy our standard of living by needlessly driving up the cost of the most important element to a vibrant economy, ENERGY.

China will benefit at our expense.

Walter Sobchak
March 29, 2021 9:40 pm

I think this post or a version of it belongs in Everything Climate. The tables on what the carbon taxes mean in real economic terms are valuable.

Coach Springer
March 30, 2021 5:05 am

And if I don’t think that the greenhouse effect violates some “some law(s) of thermodynamics,” and am opposed to carbon credits and taxes for a bunch of other reasons?

RelPerm
March 30, 2021 6:31 am

The American Petroleum Institute supporting Carbon Tax is a sly way to accelerate the demise of the coal industry. API is aware that natural gas is the best competitor to coal for generating electricity, not solar/wind/hydro/bio/nuclear. The sooner the coal competition is squashed, the faster growth in the natural gas industry.

The sad fact in this upside down world is that coal is the fuel that should be subsidized. Coal is a reliable, low cost, clean way to produce electricity. CO2 is not evil. It is good. CO2 will not cause catastrophic global warming. CO2 helps green the earth improving plant and animal ecosystems. CO2 will improve efficiency of agriculture and help feed mankind.

We need to subsidize industries doing the most good, like generating the most CO2, and not the ones doing the most damage to our ecosystems (solar, wind, bio…).

TallDave
March 30, 2021 7:08 am

did they factor in a squintillion dollars (not to say civilization itself) saved by preventing the next 20 or so re-glaciations?

IPCC remains adamant that is a real thing

2hotel9
March 30, 2021 8:02 am

So, the “people” running API are simply another set of hucksters and liars. Got it.

Bruce Cobb
March 30, 2021 10:18 am

You can always tell a lukewarmer.
But you can’t tell them much!

Steve Z
March 30, 2021 10:23 am

[QUOTE FROM ARTICLE ON BAKER-SCHULTZ PROGRAM] “All the proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis via dividend checks, direct deposits or contributions to their individual retirement accounts. In the example above, a family of four would receive approximately $2,000 in carbon dividend payments in the first year. This amount would grow over time as the carbon tax rate increases, creating a positive feedback loop: the more the climate is protected, the greater the individual dividend payments to all Americans. The Social Security Administration should administer this program, with eligibility for dividends based on a valid social security number.”

What would be the purpose of this? If a “carbon tax” or CO2 tax was imposed on all emitters, the emitting companies would simply pass the tax on to the consumers–increased prices for gasoline, Diesel fuel, electric power generated from coal or natural gas, etc.

If the proceeds are to be “returned to the American people”, who decides which Americans get how much? Is it based on income, number of children, age, how? How much money would be taken out by the government to administer this program? This wouldn’t really provide any incentive for people to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, since any group that receives more in “dividends” than they pay in carbon taxes would have a perverse incentive to increase their CO2 emissions. This would merely be a government income redistribution program, nothing more, nothing less, particularly if it was administered by the Social Security Administration, home of the empty trust fund.

Regarding Carbon Capture and Storage, if industry currently captures 25 million tons of CO2 per year, but the US emits 5.1 billion tons per year of CO2, the US only captures 0.49% of its own CO2 emissions, and other countries (particularly China) capture an even smaller fraction of their emissions. If there was a “carbon tax” of $35 per ton CO2, some large power generators may be incentivized to get an $875 million tax break (total for all US companies), but it would have a negligible effect on the total world CO2 emissions.

The problem with CO2 sequestration is that the CO2, which is normally generated at low pressure, needs to be compressed to over 1100 psig (above the critical pressure) in order to be safely stored underground. The power required for compression is roughly 20% of the power generated by a natural-gas fired plant, or about 30% of the power generated by a coal-fired plant. This results in less net power generated per ton fuel, or a higher fuel utilization for the same net power generation. The power companies would be consuming more precious resources in order to bury a harmless gas underground.

Carbon dioxide has been used for decades for “enhanced oil recovery” (EOR), by injecting pressurized CO2 into depleted oil formations. The CO2 causes the oil in these formations to expand, which results in additional oil (and some natural gas) coming to the surface, as well as some of the injected CO2. The companies using EOR usually have a separation plant at the surface to separate oil, natural gas, and CO2, with the CO2 compressed and recycled into the ground while the oil and natural gas are processed and sold for fuel. Carbon dioxide is favored for EOR over injection of air, since with CO2 there is no risk of a flammable mixture which could cause an underground explosion.

This process can be profitable for the operating companies even without a “carbon tax”, but the amount of CO2 that remains underground is much less than the CO2 emitted by burning the recovered oil and natural gas. Of course the API would be favorable to Enhanced Oil Recovery (because it enables increased production), but it does not reduce net CO2 emissions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Steve Z
March 30, 2021 5:14 pm

“All the proceeds from this carbon [sic] tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis via dividend checks, direct deposits or contributions to their individual retirement accounts.”

The problem is rebating the increase in fuel prices will only cover one cost of this tax. Since the tax is a transportation tax and makes transportation more expensive, this means that everything a person buys will increase in price, not just gasoline.

They refund you your CO2 taxes, but they don’t refund the increased costs for everything else you buy.

A CO2 tax will ruin the U.S. economy.

Paul Penrose
March 30, 2021 10:25 am

Carbon Dioxide is net beneficial to the environment by a large margin. It is currently at near record lows, in geological terms. If the catastrophists were right, the more recent CO2 high-stands would have destroyed the Earth and we would never have been able to evolve. Any effort to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere is not only misguided, it is detrimental to the well being of the entire planet.

Tom Abbott
March 30, 2021 12:34 pm

From the article: “I’m fairly certain I’ve used carbon and carbon dioxide/CO2 correctly in this post.”

I don’t think you have. The alarmists mean CO2 when they say Carbon. They have no other by-products in mind.

So saying Carbon in this context is equating Carbon with Carbon Dioxide, and they are two different things.

We should be as precise as possible in our writings. Otherwise, the Left bastardizes and confuses the language even more. Global Warming = Climate Change Carbon = Carbon Dioxide.

NO! Call it what it is. We are talking about taxing Carbon Dioxide.

Which by the way, is the worst idea these idiots can have up with so far. Everything we buy needs to be transported somewhere, and If the cost of transportation is raised, then the cost of *everything* in the economy is raised, to the detriment of the poorest in our society. The poor will not escape the price hikes.

Taxing transportation harms the poorest in society the most. The United States would be better off getting money for bridge and road repair from the General Tax Fund rather than from a specific tax on transportation.

Taking money out of the General Tax Fund would not take money out of poor people’s pockets, since most of the poor don’t pay any taxes, or very little. But they can’t escape a carbon dioxide tax, no matter how poor they are. It will hit the poor and everyone else, from all directions, if transportation costs go up.

Fund road and bridge repairs from the General Tax Fund. Leave transportation costs, and those who depend on them, alone.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
April 1, 2021 5:18 am

I think you are just making an excuse to conform to the alamist consensus. Everybody is calling it “carbon” so some people feel compelled to conform, even if it is not correct. And then they go trying to rationalize their choice.

Anytime I post a quote with “carbon” in it, I intend to add “[sic] to designate that it is a mistake faithfully reproduced.

Distorting reality is not good for science or anything else.

Tha alarmists are trying to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere, nothing else. That’s why they are taxing CO2 and nothing else. There is very little carbon, if any, floating around in the atmosphere. If you talk about taxing carbon you are distorting and confusing the picture.

Don’t play the alamists game. Call them out when they incorrectly refer to carbon dioxide as carbon. Show how uninformed they really are by showing they don’t know the difference between the two.

I think we have definitely entered into an Idiocracy in the Western world and the delusions seem to be spreading.

Let’s go along to get along. No, let’s not. Let’s call out errors when we see them, instead of parroting them.

1984.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  David Middleton
April 2, 2021 4:45 am

I think the use of “carbon” in this context is a good example of Groupthink.

It’s laziness. It’s ignorance on the part of some people. It’s “going with the flow” for some people.

The subject is reducing CO2 by taxing it. I will stick to the subject.

Gordon A. Dressler
March 30, 2021 4:13 pm

From the API, as quoted in the above article:
“Rather than a patchwork of federal and state regulations and mandates that could ineffectively address the climate challenge, an economywide government carbon price policy is . . .”

So, API, before we go any further please define, as specifically and as scientifically as you can, what the schist is “the climate challenge”?

As brilliantly noted by Robert M. Pirsig, in his book Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance:
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.”

Last edited 10 days ago by Gordon A. Dressler
eyesonu
March 30, 2021 6:11 pm

Who should I address the yellow and white flag to at the API? White for surrender and yellow for the cowards that are pissing their pants.

Is everyone having horseshit and koolaid for breakfast?

%d bloggers like this: