Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Even funnier, they also suggest the G20 demand that China match this level of carbon austerity.
Five things the G20 must do to tackle climate change
From demanding America change its carbon tax position to collaborative technologies research, progress must be made
…
Consider, by way of example, the latest annual statistical review that emerged on Thursday from the energy group BP, an entity that is one of the first to promise to cut its dependency on fossil fuels. (I moderated a discussion with BP on Thursday as well as an event in Venice).
The review starts by outlining some welcome news (for climate change warriors, if not energy investors): carbon emissions fell more than 5 per cent in 2020, primarily due to collapsing oil consumption.
That is startling. But what is more stunning is that Spencer Dale, BP’s chief economist, reckons that “the rate of decline in carbon emissions observed last year is similar to what the world needs to average each and every year for the next 30 years” in order to hit the Paris climate goals of keeping global warming between 1.5C and 2C. This is crucial if we are to prevent irreversible damage to Venice and everywhere else.
Such a demand would require massive behavioural change, particularly given that last year’s decline only happened because of an enforced pandemic-related lockdown and economic slump. Indeed Dale reckons that the scale of drop was comparable to what would have happened if the world had a “scarily high” carbon price (ie tax) equivalent to $1,400 a tonne ($1,543 a tonne) — as opposed to the $2 a tonne price the IMF estimates was the world average before the pandemic.
…
So what should the G20 do? Ideally, at least five things. First, the finance ministers must collectively embrace a steadily rising carbon price and tax. The EU is doing this. But Joe Biden’s administration is dragging its feet in a shameful way, seemingly because of domestic political concerns. The rest of the G20 should demand that America change its position.
Second, the G20 must also demand China backs away from coal, which provides the majority of its power (the country accounts for more than half of global consumption). The Beijing government has vaguely pledged to do this, and has expanded renewable energy use in an admirable manner. But it must be persuaded to cancel current plans to build yet more domestic coal plants — and stop financing those in its Belt and Road Initiative.
…
Read more: https://www.ft.com/content/0e416145-7ce3-4cee-8fe0-2586c18689dc
Resources.org provides a handy carbon tax calculator, but it only goes up to $50. If we take resources.org’s calculation of $0.44 / gallon gasoline price rise for a $50 carbon tax, and scale it up to $1543, we get 0.44 / 50 x 1543 = $13.57 / gallon of gasoline price rise. Given Biden’s policies have already driven gasoline up to around $4 / gallon in some places, with no end to price rises in sight, if the recommended carbon taxes are imposed, you could be looking at $17 / gallon of gasoline and rising.
FT also suggests consumers should be “mobilised” to demand these gasoline price rises (or demand the carbon taxes which trigger the price rises), and other climate policies.
Shame on you Biden, for dragging your feet imposing $17 / gallon gasoline on the American people, because of “domestic political concerns”. And of course, this scale of price rise would also apply to natural gas, electricity, food transport, pretty much everything which depends on fossil fuel.
FT does not provide an explanation for why such draconian taxes are required to drive the adoption of renewables, given that organisations like the Aussie CSIRO claim renewables are the cheapest source of energy.
No doubt China will cave in to G20 pressure, and announce they are now charging $17 / gallon pump price for gasoline. Any day now.
Update (EW): Bob Tisdale pointed out I didn’t mention “FT” stands for the London based “Financial Times“, probably not what you were thinking…
We need to tax rain, not CO2 … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_bhHnGq1d0
We need to tax demrats….put a 100% tax on Joey “Big Guy” Biden and his crooked son Hunter…..and that old hag…old bag….Piglosi.
Eric, not once in your post do you state what “FT” stands for. My assumption of that it’s “Financial Times” but you do not state that.
And for those who don’t know that “Financial Times” is a London based rag, here’s a link to the Wikipedia page for them:
Financial Times – Wikipedia
Regards,
Bob
Bob, I had a couple other suggestions, but yours is probably more fit for print. Cheers.
Financial ‘tarded
Or something… 🙂
Thanks Bob. In this context FT means whatever you want it to mean 😉 – I figured people could click the link if they really want to know. But point taken.
Yeah, I’ll pass on the link. You need a subscription to see the article. My blood pressure is high enough without paying for the privilege of sending it into the stratosphere.
Bob
Come on. You knew perfectly well Eric meant the Financial Times as Eric, Willis, yourself, myself plus Anthony Watts et al have made such a fortune writing our articles that Big Oil/coal is continually shuffling loads of money our way which we need to invest, so the FT is daily required reading to check our investments.
Thanks, tonyb. That made me laugh.
Regards,
Bob
The FT is as bad as the narrative driven media gets.
Financial Times Names George Soros ‘Person of the Year’
At least the print edition remains true. – It’s pink.
Even the web version
What a fantastic science! $1543, not $1542 or $1544. The planet has been saved!
Please note a simple error: $1,400/tonne is equivalent to $1,543/ton. Tricky these two units…
Probably the other way around as tonne =1000 kilos or about 2200 lbs, whereas ton – 2000 lbs
Excuse me!, a proper ton is 2240 lbs, little tons or “short tons” is a peculiarly American measure. 🙂
Hmphf. I’ll bet you complained about getting shorted during the Lend/Lease program.
Wouldn’t it be 2,205 lbs (rounded)? The conversion is 2.2046226218488 lbs to the kilo (approx).
Imperial ton is 20 hundredweight (cwt) , which is confusingly 112 pounds. A ton is therefore as Rod says 2240 lbs. A metric ton is 1000kg which as you say is slightly different.
What impresses me is they are able to calculate the exact amount, with 4 digits of accuracy.
I’m surprised they didn’t include the pennies.
Just like they can tell us to the hundredth of a degree the amount of “global warming” we experienced, while using instruments with no better than +/- 1 degree accuracy. In my engineering classes and practice, that would never fly.
Makes sense Ken. Either way, equally ridiculous.
Where does all this tax money go? Anyone done the sums on inflicted poverty? I’d like to deprive these pampered metropolitans of their battery wristwatch, laptop, mobile phone, car keys, home electrical supply and street lighting. Only for a couple of months.
What was it Hillary once said when asked how businesses were going to afford all the the cost of nationalized health care?
“I can’t worry about every undercapitalized business”
As far as they are concerned, if you can’t afford their new taxes, that’s your problem, not theirs.
https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2015/06/16/draft-n2012995
Only rich people and big corporations should be able to run businesses, right?
But only if they also contribute to the Democrat party in general, and the Clinton’s in particular.
Or else they get arkancided.
The carbon tax revenue would eventually reach zero if it was successful.
When they do these anti-social cost of carbon calculations we all know they calculate only the deficits, and never calculate the benefits of carbon. Let me offer, if the proposal will subtract from the standard of living of all, regardless of their income, then that makes the dollar value of the benefit of carbon infinite. Right? I use a circular proof for this, if some proposal makes a particular item cost more, but I can maintain the same lifestyle by just adjusting here and there, that puts the cost (benefit) of carbon within a dollar value. But if the proposal will negatively affect the way I live, regardless what I do with my spending habits, then that has proven the benefit of carbon is infinite. So, enough talk about taxing carbon, especially when we already know there’s no need for it.
A carbon tax is a tax on everything we use. You are right it is all inclusive.
Don’t forget to propose this with the Taliban and invite them to beach conference.
I’m sure the Taliban could get on board with a plan to destroy western society.
The Taliban DID see an opportunity. Osama Bin Laden wanted to recruit eco-crazies.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/01/terrorist-plan-to-destabilise-america-using-the-climate-issue/
Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases (noaa.gov) June 2020 416.6ppm June 2021 418.94ppm. Emissions from fossil fuels might have fallen 5% but residual atmospheric Co2 continued to rise so maybe fossil fuel emissions are insufficient to make any difference whatsoever so why all of the fuss?
A drop of 5% just means that the rate of increase has decreased by 5%, over a single year, that’s not enough to be noticeable.
You can roll through this site and see where the big boy carbon dioxide emissions come from.
https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volcano/news.html
“The review starts by outlining some welcome news (for climate change warriors, if not energy investors): carbon emissions fell more than 5 per cent in 2020, primarily due to collapsing oil consumption..”
Whilst man made co2 fell, surely overall co2 continued its remorseless rise as Nature supplies the overwhelming majority and doesn’t notice our efforts?
Global Monitoring Laboratory – Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases (noaa.gov)
tonyb
That is misleadingly correct. Total carbon still increased. So cutting human emission does nothing
tonyb, welcome news for the climate worriers would be if all that cold water in the world oceans starts pulling more CO2 out of the atmosphere in concert with their BS CO2 control knob theory.
We’ve just had 6 years of cooling. Recall the frosty vineyards in France this past spring (three long cold winters in Europe have depleted stored gas reserves). Lay in your wine supplies as chances are good for another frosty spring. We’ve had record cool for much of Canada and much of USA this year – several recent days in Eastern Ontario have had highs of 16-18°C, over 10°C below normal. We haven’t had anything like this in the 50years I’ve lived here. It’s our “year without summer”.
FT is the organ of the City of London, the real power in the UK. BoJo serves that master, who’s representative sits beside the Speaker of the House.
The Economist publishes the marching orders for that quaint institution. Global Britain, BoJo’s dream is to revive its Empire. Putin reminded people recently that the time of a small group of nations dictating policy is over, and Peskov chuckled about the ex-ruler of the waves. So they order the G20 to do it’s bidding, as G7 mumbles incomprehensibly. It seems they are panicking. Even the usually subservient USA is bucking. Oh dear, what to do now?
Get popcorn ready – it is going to get amusing (if they don’t incinerate the planet).
You really do have some vivid fantasies.
BoJo is trying to revive the British empire? Just what portion of your fevered imagination comes up with this stuff?
“Amusing”? No offense intended, but for rhetorical purposes, are you a sadist or masochist?
One has to wonder about the Financial Times. They make their money off of GOOD predictions and advice. This is going to ruin them in the long run. Bloomberg as well. Makes me believe in “invasion of the body snatchers”
Can someone please explain to me, in simple terms, how carbon-based life forms like these twits can be so afraid of carbon that they do this?
Do they have any idea that they ARE carbon-based life forms?
Would they react by screaming “heretic” and making other hysterical sounds?
Just trying to understand here. There has to be a way to end this madness without shutting down the Sun, which it is perfectly capable of doing on its own.
Yep. The question is ‘Are they scammers, or are they really that thick?’.
It’s amazing to me that so called experts throw around such economy crushing numbers without any context of the damage. Fossil fuel is regarded as a total negative without consideration for what it has done to lift civilization
Carbon tax will turn out the biggest fraud scheme this world has ever seen.
That’s why so many financial groups like Blackrock and wealthy individuals like Soros, Gates, Branson, Gore are all into it.
It is a concerted effort by people who consider themselves very smart, to direct and control a larger share of the economy.
Didn’t the “Mob” scam this scam for multi-millions a few years ago?
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/the-forest-mafia-how-scammers-steal-millions-through-carbon-markets/280419/
There must be conflict of interest in the push for green energy for them to push so hard for a reason not proven.
“Surveys show a large majority of Europeans support the EU’s ambitious emissions-cutting goals. But even those who support tackling climate change are reluctant to pay for it directly.
A poll last month found that 75% of Germans rejected fuel price hikes as a way of addressing climate change.”
Analysis: Europe’s carbon push stokes backlash fears (msn.com)
But somehow Americans will be different? The watermelons know the punters won’t cop direct price increases on the basics so they opt for back door controls and snouts in the taxpayer trough for the subsidy miners.
Up against that in Germany are those that “believe it can be done without preaching abstinence or proscription.”
Joint CO2 targets must not diminish German industry, CDU leader warns EU (msn.com)
So it’s a pincer movement against you lefties. The reason being you’re selling snake oil that you can change the climate by deleting fossil fuel use and we can all carry on with our standard of living in the new Utopia.
A “fat is fabulous” tax. Also, a baby bounty. Plan, accordingly.
Remember, all the prior taxation ever imposed anywhere in the world solved all the prior problems everywhere in the world.
That’s why taxation is so good for you. It solves all your problems without ever having to think about them and allows you to live in utopia unimpeded.
Amazing that paying more tax will fix the weather…
I’m holding out for an authoritative statement from the Economist.
And is that even visible in MLO measurements ? NO.
So that gives us a pretty good idea of the kind life we are going to be living if we try to cut by 45% by 2030.
The is an order of magnitude greater than what we just went through. Meanwhile China is giggling at our stupidity in their corner.
From the above article’s text quoted as coming from https://www.ft.com: “The rest of the G20 should demand that America change its position.”
As a proud US citizen (aka American) I have this to say to the “rest of the G20” nations: I am extending three fingers while showing you the back of my hand . . . please read between the lines.
I kinda like that… If the one fingered salute is “f*** you”, then doing it the way you describe is “go f*** yourself”. Right?
My question is this: Why is the arbitrary standard for stopping man-made Climate Change of 1.5C such a sacred cow to the Climate “Experts”? First and foremost if is an arbitrary number that has no connection to reality. Second, it is not a measurable outcome given the multiple natural factors affecting climate and Third I always thought Scientists were required to conduct robust testing of their theories before making conclusions. Given the current state of “Climate Science”, none of this seems relevant. Climate Change is just a platform for incompetent fools to push their ridiculous theories about for power and profit with no danger of anyone proving them wrong…
Eric,
The reason why the Paris Accord and the “settled science” of the UN IPCC must ultimately fail as an economic force is that we live in a world where the financial welfare of all nations is governed almost entirely by access to cheap energy.
The 165 plus developing countries realise this and fossil fuels will be employed by them to achieve the wealth experienced by the 28 developed countries.
As well,there will be no net zero or zero emissions by 2030,2050,2060 or any other date because no one will pay for that outcome.
The cost estimates are all in the trillions of dollars.
As Professor Garth Paltridge explains in “The Climate Caper”, there is “a fair amount of reasonable science (reasonable being relative) behind the global warming debate but in general…never has quite so much rubbish been espoused by so many on so little evidence.”
As a realist,Professor Paltridge concludes-
“Why is it that the scientific community has become so one-eyed in its public support for the disaster theory of climate change?
Why is the scientific community taking such an enormous risk with its reputation?
In fact the short term risk to its reputation is not that great.
In view of all the uncertainty inevitably associated with argument on either side of the fence,it is not likely that anyone will be able in the near future to prove absolutely that any particular forecast of climate change is nonsense.”
Further,it is unlikely that any individual or national institution will be able to produce a single scientific result powerful enough to blow the idea of disastrous global warming out of the water.
It is even less likely that a national government would risk the anger of its scientific establishment by creating a research institution to perform a large scale critical audit of the scientific basis of the forecasts of climatic doom.
So there it is.
Eric,the good news is that you have a job for life editing and Anthony has a job for life producing WUWT!
I don’t get paid for this Herbert.
I think part of the problem is politicians are mostly not engineers, at least in the West. So far they are falling for the line that renewable energy is affordable, but demands for a $1543 carbon tax to drive adoption of “cheaper” renewables – surely the credibility of renewables proponents has a breaking point.
As for the scientists, history suggests they will have no problem re-inventing themselves. Look at Stephen Schneider. He appeared on Leonard Nimoy’s ice age flick, calling for nuclear reactors to be deployed to melt the polar ice caps, before they cover North America in a new ice age, only to pop up a few years later demanding we curb global warming.
Sadly most people have short memories when it comes to ridiculous scientific backflips.
They would still not be happy even if gas was $100 gallon and electric $100 kw because the plebs are eating meat to stay alive and energy for walking and cycling .
Chinese are laughing into their rice puddings .
The Canadian $30/tonne CO2 tax adds about $40 per month to my home heating bill. At $1400 per tonne, I can just put in a wood stove and burn dollar bills…..
Quickest way to eliminate Canadian forests. Carbon Tax of 1400 a tonne. Oh bonus less forest fires. For you youngins that’s a wildfire.
At least they’ve considered including China in climate measures. It is a leap forward of a kind.
Do you believe the Chinese government will implement a domestic carbon tax when they already control the economy?
In Switzerland we were already paying around 96$/Metric won, which is by far among the highest carbon taxes in the world. The proposed new energy law was rejected by the Swiss people mid-June despite massive propaganda with a 52% majority, so the Government will not be allowed to raise it indefinitely. But our Socialist Energy Minister decided to immediately increase the tax to 120$/Metric ton which is the maximal amount the current law allows, completely ignoring the popular vote. It’s not a carbon tax increase, that’s a revenge tax…
It is interesting how the tax is passed via a democratic process, however what it is spent on is nebulous. Clim/Enviro/Emissions taxes are a government bureaucrats dream for expanding their department…..
I suggest that FT go fork themselves.
$17 / gallon of gasoline
============
Won’t be long before people discover that cars run just as well on 50/50 paint thinner mix.
Molecule per molecule, H2O is a stronger IR absorber than is CO2 so it would make more sense to have a hydrogen tax instead of a carbon tax. The combustion of fossil fuels produces not only CO2 but H2O as well.
A carbon tax benefits the rich simply because there are way more middle class people than rich so the majority of the tax revenue flowing into governments would come from the middle class.
This would result in the rich being off the hook from higher taxes to fund social programs and such. That is why I think most rich support a carbon tax.
$1,543 / tonne paid to whom? Who would collect these taxes, and what would be done with the money?
Global man-made CO2 emissions were about 33 gigatonnes in 2019. If this was “taxed” at $1,543 per tonne, this would result in a tax of nearly $51 TRILLION a year, which is about 2.5 times the GDP of the United States ($20.9T in 2020), and about 60% of the GDP of the entire world ($84.7T in 2020).
Whoever collected this tax would essentially control the economy of the entire world, with 40% of GDP left to share among the non-elite slaves of the Great Climate Change Warriors. Which is probably the true goal of the global warm-mongers–control the world economy and force everyone into poverty, and who cares whether the weather gets 2 degrees warmer.