From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Ian Magness
This is an excellent article:
Human beings are an adaptable species – which is fortunate, given that modern-day politicians incessantly foist new laws, rules and regulations on us.
In few areas of public policy is this more exhaustive than net zero. So we’ve grown accustomed to paying 50p for a plastic bag in some supermarkets. Driving in many cities now brings an array of charges, and that’s before bewildered motorists accidentally stray into a new bus or cycle lane, yet still we just shrug.
As of October this year, single-use plastic straws, bowls, trays and cutlery have been banned, but seldom do we complain.
And the wider green drive is paying dividends, of sorts. This week it was reported Britain has become the first major economy to halve its carbon emissions. Curiously, the news has not been widely shared nor lauded by the nation’s usually noisy eco-fanatics. Perhaps it doesn’t fit their common refrain that the Government “isn’t doing anything” about climate change.
Some people may think this reduction has been painless, but they’d be wrong. While the minor inconveniences can be downplayed, the costs should not be.
Green levies now make up a significant proportion of energy bills. Restrictions on new North Sea developments and a windfall tax are likely to have combined to drive up energy bills further at a time when the post-Covid rebound and war in Ukraine had already sent them soaring.
Progress on environmental aims may have been aided by the failure of successive governments to build homes and lockdowns, but those policies have themselves wrought enormous harm on the UK economy.
It has, however, been relatively straightforward. The decarbonisation of power and offshoring of heavy industry, for instance, accelerated an existing trend. The consumption of intermittent renewables was able to increase because fossil fuels could be relied on to provide baseload power.
The next half will be much more difficult, clobbering the economy and imposing massive costs on the consumer. Conscious that the public’s patience may begin to wear thin, the Prime Minister earlier this year promised a more “pragmatic, proportionate and realistic approach” to net zero. This primarily involved pushing back the deadline for the end of new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers – but even the new 2035 date will be a stretch.
Despite the subsidies and the exemptions from resident parking permits or congestion charges, only a small proportion of vehicles in the UK are currently electric.
The charging infrastructure is hopelessly inadequate and battery duration is prohibitive for many. Meanwhile, the Government is shovelling money towards homeowners to boost heat pump uptake, yet is falling far short of its annual installation targets.
The bigger problem is that Rishi Sunak has far less wriggle room than he might have voters believe.
If the 2050 net zero target – the most consequential economic policy decision for generations, made by a piece of secondary legislation without a proper parliamentary debate – wasn’t restrictive enough, the Government is obliged to set binding, five-year carbon budgets which cap the maximum amount of emissions allowed during each period. Ministers face legal action if they fail to do enough to reach them, as judged in part by the apparatchiks on the Climate Change Committee (CCC) quango.
We are currently on the fourth (2023-27) carbon budget, which requires a 52pc fall in emissions compared with 1990. This might be achievable, but the fifth and sixth (involving a 77pc fall by 2037) surely won’t be, at least not without a walloping blow to our economy, freedoms and living standards.
In its sixth Carbon Budget Paper, the CCC, which ostensibly provides advice to the Government but often acts more like an eco-activist NGO, advises homeowners to turn on their heating in the afternoon, so that they can turn it off again in the evening when demand for electricity is higher. Rishi Sunak was ridiculed when, in September, he announced there will be no tax on meat nor new levies on aviation, as though such ideas were preposterous.
And yet they’re right there in this document, which says that around 10pc of emissions saving will come from “changes that reduce the demand for carbon-intensive activity” – particularly “an accelerated shift in diets away from meat and dairy products… slower growth in flights, and reductions in travel demand”. Will the public tolerate such radical changes to their lifestyles, ones that may not even be necessary?
Few would challenge the need to decarbonise, but our current, highly dirigiste approach will be economically ruinous. There will be huge waste, with the taxpayer footing the bill: when the Government asked the economist Dieter Helm to look into what it was doing to meet the net zero target, he concluded that up to £100bn had been squandered, largely from investment in technologies which hadn’t matured to the point where they were cheaper than the alternative.
The market discovery process will be shut down, meaning costs will inevitably rise. Regulators may be captured, rents will be sought, and poor decisions will be maintained long after it is clear they are irrational.
Responding to the news that the UK had halved its emissions, Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho hailed the country as a “world leader” in tackling climate change. This might be true, but is not something to trumpet given we are responsible for less than 1pc of global emissions.
It would be far more reassuring to learn that the main polluters – China, whose emissions are up nearly 50pc since 1990, or the US, or India – were leading the charge. But why would they row behind an agenda at such speed it might damage their domestic interests? Why, indeed, are we?
Germany is emitting 666 million tons of CO2, the US 5,057 million tons. We shouldn’t take heart from going further than other G20 nations: we should slow down.
So, Annabel says in the first line “Human beings are an adaptable species”, then goes on a rendition of “Few would challenge the need to decarbonise”, which includes the damage to the UK economy by the Net Zero theme, without any evaluation of Mitigation versus Adaptation. At the heart of this is the question: who living in the UK thinks 1.5 deg C increase in average temperature is a bad thing?
Beat me to it, Ron. I was just about to comment on that cop-out, CYA statement. Well, I’m one of the ‘few who challenge the need to decarbonise’. The author does not explain why nor what the benefits of doing do would be – having spent most of her article railing against the costs, hidden and otherwise, of doing just that.
I have advocated for much MORE CO2 in the aur since 1997 (750 t 1599ppm). That is based mainly on reading about 200 CO2 enrichment — plant growth scientific studies from 1997 to about 2017. They all said the same thing, so I moved on to other subjects after 2017.
CO2 is the staff of almost all life on Earth
More CO2 is a pro-life, logical, data-based position
.. Yep, we need to further enhance the carbon-cycle by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Plants LUV CO2 !!!
There certainly is no need to “decarbonise”. We are a carbon based life form as are almost all others on the planet. CO2 is an essential trace gas with no measurable GHG effect over 250ppm and needs to be much higher than it is currently. 1.5deg C gets us back to the levels of the RWP and MWP and will save a huge amount of energy. We need to stop trying to interfere with nature by hemming in rivers, clearing forests and changing environments. I still believe that nature knows best and we cause morew problems by trying to “help”.
Happy New Year to one and all and thank you WUWT for being there.
“CO2 is an essential trace gas with no measurable GHG effect over 250ppm”
That is false and disproven by a century of spectroscopy measurements, now in the HITRAN and MODTRAN databases. Very few scientists dispute those data.
There is no evidence any climate in the past 5000 years was warmer than the second half of 2023
You are wrong again.
There is plenty of evidence to disprove the usual leftist predictions of CAGW doom. We do not have to make false statements about CO2, or claims about a past century with no data available prove it was warmer than the past six months. Those false claims will allow leftist fact checkers to dismiss a conservative author as a science denier.
“There is no evidence any climate in the past 5000 years was warmer than the second half of 2023…”
Please stop trolling every thread with this malarkey, OK?
Just stop saying it, at all, ever.
Because it is wrong, and badly so.
The only measurements of past warming periods are local proxy climate reconstructions
When averaged they make a fake global average
The fake global averages always has smaller variations than the local estimates
These averages are not accurate
There is no way their accuracy is better than
+/- 1 degree C.
Claims are made these warm periods in the past 5000 years averaged about +0.5 degrees C warmer than the past 10 years
Those claim are statistically insignificant
With the warmest six months in the era of real time measurements, the second half of 2023, the temperature was almost certainly higher than any warm century in the past 5000 years
You may complain that comparing six months with a whole century is not fair.
The only other answer is that local reconstructions should never be compared with real time instrument measurements, so we can never prove any century in the past 5000 years was warmer than the past six months of 2023.
With the imperfect data available and the large increase of atmospheric CO2 in past centuries. it is very unlikely that any century in the past 5000 years was warmer than the last half of 2023
Your choice
(1) We do not know
(2) No century was warmer
I won’t be silenced by insults,
down votes or rude posts
I once heard conservatives favored free speech
I once heard conservatives favored free speech
Disapproval is not censorship. Who is limiting your speech?
So we know for a fact that warmistas have completely altered all of the data sets of past temperatures, and in fact if one looks at the adjustments that are made, the present and the recent past have a large amount of adjustments.
They are doing this so that every year is the warmest ever.
We have talked right here and a hundred other places every single day and every single night for many many years, about how the warmistas are committing vast amounts of fraud and outright lying about literally every detail of every thing they say.
And yet it is your opinion that they are precisely correct about the part of the fraud that is the most pertinent to the lies they tell: That the present time represents a period of unprecedented warmth.
But I have seen a comment of yours that gives me a clue as to why you are saying some of the things you say: You are scared of them when they call skeptics, “science deniers” and yada yada yada.
So it is just an effort to curry favor perhaps, idunno.
We have fake averages today with 90 percent of the temperature readings made in cities worldwide where we know asphalt and concrete hold in heat and raise the temperature.
Richard, what aspect of “spectroscopy” are you referring to as a century of measurements? The only useful system for measuring either CO2 or chlorophyl is AAS which came into initial use in the 1950´s. As a research geologist I have utilized Short Wave Infrared Spectrometers in the field to both identify minerals and to adjust processed satellite imagery, but don’t know what aspect you are referring to. Thank you.
“leftist fact checkers…”
Now that’s two things you rarely see in the same sentence. Good thing today is December 30. I think you just posted the oxymoron of the year.
Most leftist fact checkers are fact chokers
But if conservatives present them with junk science, which is surprisingly common, they can easily fact check us and make us look like fools
I decided in 2023 to tell conservatives spouting junk science that they are nitwits. Like most adults, they will never change their minds. They will just get mad that someone wants to change their mind. Leftists won’t even listen. Some of the common myths from conservatives are stupid beyond belief
Climate change consists of
(A) Real climate science
(B) Climate junk science
(C) Wild guess predictions of doom
not based on any science
Leftists get the real science right but add some worst case assumptions junk science, and then skip to believing all predictions of doom
Some conservatives replace real science with their own 0.1% consensus junk science, but at least they do not believe the predictions of climate doom
Top Ten of Conservative Junk Science
(1) There is no greenhouse effect / back radiation
(2) CO2 has no effect above 250ppm, 350ppm, etc.
(3) 3% of atmospheric CO2 is manmade
(4) Global warming is caused by El Ninos
(5) El Ninos are caused by undersea volcano heat
(6) Global warming is all from UHI
(7) It’s warm now from a January 15, 2022 volcano
(8) Modern global average temperature statistics are corrupt, but we know it was warmer in past centuries.
(9) There was no global warming from 1940 to 1975, and from 2015 to mid-2023, which proves CO2 does not cause global warming
(10) Earth’s temperature is controlled only by changes of energy reaching our atmosphere from the sun
Honorable Mention:
Any conclusion presented
with no supporting data
The above junk science allows conservatives to be dismissed as science deniers. Even if most of what they say about climate science is right, it will be ignored
The right target is leftist predictions of climate doom, wrong since 1979. That propaganda war can not be won by spouting junk science. And that’s why I speak up, whether you like it or not. I want to win that propaganda war. Claiming there is no greenhouse effect makes us losers. And this comment section should not become a junk science echo chamber.
You can leave me out of your “we”, dumbass.
What utter nonsense.
It’s been obviously warmer for most of the last 10,000 years than today.
The physical evidence is so pervasive I have no idea why you do this to yourself.
Because i rely on data and
you are just presenting a data free opinion
Even the evidence that the Holocene Climate Optimum was warmer than the past six months is not conclusive.
The rough reconstructions imply that period was warmer that the last half of 2023, but not with 100% certainty
That optimum was 4000 years, and 4000 years is not most of the last 10,000 years.
The last half of 2023 was verywarm because of an El Nino that started unusually early in a year.
Conservatives with confirmation bias refuse to believe the past six months could possibly be warmer than any century in the past 5000 years.
While leftists believe the six month period was the warmest in 123000 years.
Climate science has become a lunatic asylum and conservatives are joining the leftists, who have been inmates for many decades.
Richard
May I ask how you concluded that the evidence for a warmer than present HCO is non-conclusive when the evidence for a global average temperature, based on sparse data, contaminated by UHI, poor siting of weather stations (as attested to by our host), and a myriad other issues with the official temperature records?
Ah, Mr. Greene, I have observed that you are merely a contrarian, who posts contradictory stuff just to get attention.
If you had any intelligence, you would quote a paragraph from any of my comments and try to refute what I wrote. The key word is “if”.
“Leftists get the real science right…”
Most of the things you say are laughable.
But this is beyond the merely ridiculous,
Look back at the entire WUWT archive for refutation.
“Some conservatives replace real science with their own 0.1% consensus junk science…”
So it is your opinion that skeptics represent no more than one in one thousand scientists?
That is what you seem to be saying here.
So you are making the 97% malarkey look like a low ball estimate…by a huge amount.
I think I heard you mention someplace that you are of an advanced age.
Which may explain your personality change.
You get the need for enhance CO2 correct.
Then collapse back into anti-science lukewarmery.
It is a real pity !
Large amounts of evidence from all around the world that the MWP was warmer than now.
Your comments allow you to be dismissed as a lukewarmer science denier.
Reconstructions are locl and inaccurate
When averaged to create a fake global average the variations are smoothed to well below a reasonable
+/- 1.0 C. margin of error in the past 5000 years
From 5000 to 9000 years ago the warming was probably statistically significant.
Few people accept “We do not know'”
They only accept answers
that confirm their existing beliefs
There is no way to know how far an average of proxy reconstructions is from an accurate measured global average temperature.
Proper science would be to say “We do not compare reconstructions with instrument data”.
Which leads to the scientific answer:
“We do not know”
Oh, but you are saying very clearly that you do know, and everyone here who thinks different is a junk science spouting fool.
I do not need to tell you where to go, but you should go there.
I may be the only one coming right out and saying it, but everyone else here is thinking it, I promise you.
Beat me, also, Ron. Especially given the “decarbonize” comment was positioned below the article’s title, which was position beneath, “This is an excellent article:” judgement.
Annabel should know that the U.S. has actually reduced it’s carbon dioxide emissions over the years, while China and India have not, and globally 2023 will have broken all time emission records.
Decarbonize really means redistribute, and it concerns wealth not CO2.
Every article in the UK MSM – even if critical of the cost of Nut Zero and the difficulties to be piled onto us plebs who never voted for it in the first place – never questions the need to “decarbonise”. It is ingrained into their psyche that warming (wherever) from 1880 (or whenever) must be human caused and that CO2 is the single control knob. None of them ever question what other causes there might be for any warming (and, indeed, cooling).
At the heart of the matter is the science and data based fact that adding CO2 to the atmosphere has been a benefit for out plant.
And that hydrocarbon fuels are used for 92% of global primary energy consumption, which supports 8 billion people. While wind and solar alone could not support anywhere close to 8 billion people.
Every human who ever lived has adapted to climate change, every year of his or her life
The best climate for our planet is during a warming trend during an interglacial. That’s where we are now. We should be celebrating the current climate, hoping for more warming for us, and more CO2 for our plants.
But smarmy leftists created a fake CO2 boogeyman and a coming climate crisis hoax, as an underhanded strategy to empower leftist governments.
Leftists are vermin
But it is illegal to set traps for them
Yes, on the left, the law should be limiting, but they violate it with impunity. They pick and choose which to laws to follow, which to ignore and they selectively prosecute to increase their power.
So true. During the defund the police movement’s heyday, there were NO cities scrapping massive numbers of laws that are only enforced when of benefit to the currently ruling politicians. The politicians are afraid to remove all those laws due to the possible need to use them in the season before the NEXT election to make themselves look good.
Do you remember the unarmed black man who died in NY City while being arrested for “selling a single cigarette” in violation of a law enacted to stop monetary losses to properly licensed and taxed bodegas? Now that is a law with no justification.
A man DIED because some politician told the police to do SOMETHING for his friend the bodega owner. (That bodega owner had complained about the soon to be dead man, and the dead man had been cited and/or arrested multiple times for the same “offense”.) It is my assumption, having worked for a city for 24 years enforcing various codes, that a pol or his or her “liaison” had initiated the enforcement actions.
Funny story. 2 new members were elected to the Las Vegas city council. They joined forces to get the Code Enforcement department, soon renamed Neighborhood Services, to do many things to improve the look of older neighborhoods, which had largely been neglected.
One of those councilmen wanted to get junked cars off of front yards so he directed the head of the Code Enforcement to start citing cars not parked on paved surfaces or proper gravel driveways. The “Manager” sent an officer to cite the councilman’s Corvette that was parked on his parents front “lawn”. He and most of us “enforcement” types thought it was very funny. He was soon reassigned to an equivalent level and pay job in the building department, created specifically for him. He was happier in the new position because he no longer answered directly to politicians, or their liaisons. He stayed in the new position the 5 or 6 years until his planned retirement.
On a positive note, they created a team of painters, loaded in the back of a PU truck with a gas powered sprayer, using mostly donated paint, who would ride around the old neighborhoods painting over graffiti. This was a very successful endeavor since graffiti “artists” like to see their crap and when it was often painted over the morning after they had painted it the night before, they become discouraged. Of course any graffiti on private businesses was required to be painted over by the business owner, the teams did block walls in alleys and on streets of private homes.
It really annoys me since 2021 that Republicans in the House have not impeached Jumpin’ Joe Bribe’em for completely ignoring immigration laws. The worst impeachable crime in many decades. No action. When a president gets to ignore laws he does not like, without even a slap on the wrist impeachment in the record books, then we are a fascist nation.
And then you have cancellation of student debt as a violation of the Constitution that puts Congress in charge of spending.
And then the Joe Bribe’em crime family of grifters
That’s three impeachable offenses not being applied
Maybe four if picking a dingbat as vice president is an impeachable offense.
“It really annoys me since 2021 that Republicans in the House have not impeached Jumpin’ Joe Bribe’em for completely ignoring immigration laws.”
Me, too. Biden should be thrown out of office for dereliction of his duty to protect and defend the United States, which includes its borders.
Some Repubicans focus on Mayorkis, but Biden is the one setting this open-door policy, and he is the one who should be removed from office.
Everything Biden does harms the United States.
Guessing Annabel has never heard of the CO2 coalition or their web site – the benefits to mankind from CO2 far outweigh any hypothetical damage
“Few would challenge the need to decarbonise “
she can’t do math either…
😉
First up
“”Energy prices are rising by 5% in January””
https://www.which.co.uk/news/article/energy-prices-are-rising-by-5-in-january-find-out-how-much-more-youll-pay-aEwFb6x0FCyO
Housing
“” Traumatised families trying to flee a ‘slum’ housing estate made of rusting shipping containers have branded it the ‘worst place to live in Britain’ and a ‘third world cesspit’.””
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12909245/The-worst-place-live-Britain-Families-fleeing-shipping-container-estate-plagued-gangs-prostitutes-call-rusting-homes-world-cesspit-children-killed.html
“” Few would challenge the need to decarbonise””
Count me in
I have had a fixed price deal with Scottish Power for the past 2 years. It has cost me £188 a month for gas and electricity. When I had to take out a new tariff I was dreading how much it would cost. I was amazed to be told that for the next 36 months I can have a fixed price contract for £111 a month. How that works I do not know.
Wow! Good for you, Octopus [energy] won’t be doing that
Does Scottish Power use natural gas?
Electricity prices around here are going to be a little less, the electric company says, because natural gas prices have gone down. Our prices are supposed to be lower by $15 or $20 per month.
I, along with hundreds of others, commented on the Telegraph article, particularly with regard to the silly claim that “Few would challenge the need to decarbonise”. It is obvious that the Telegraph does not allow any direct challenge to the climate change scam (although hundreds of its subsribers do).
Here is the most liked comment:
“Few would challenge the need to decarbonise” – here we go again, another lazy assertion by a journalist who has done no research. Annabel’s colleague, Matthew Lynn said the same thing the other day in an article about boilers, to which I replied:
Professor Richard Lindzen (IPCC contributor)- “what kind of ‘pollutant is CO2? You get rid of it and you die”
Dr Judith Curry (formerly of the NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee) – “we really don’t know how sensitive the climate is to anthropological CO2 emissions. The UN’s climate panic is more politics than science”
Dr John Cristy (IPCC contributor)- “the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than has been predicted by climate models. Elimination of CO2 is a suicide pact”
Dr John Clauser (joint winner of 2022 Nobel Physics prize) – “there is no climate emergency. Clouds are the most important controlling mechanism for the earth’s temperature and climate. And they dwarf the effects of CO2 and methane”
Professor Ian Plimer (Emeritus Proffessor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne)- “the key scientific point here is that it has never been proven that human emissions of CO2 drive global warming. We are being misled on the ‘climate crisis’.
Well there’s a few for you.
It would be nice for a major economy to fail by following the path to NutZero but any economy on that path is becoming economically irrelevant. So it no longer has global significance.
UK is already in recession or on the verge. It will worsen in 2024. Servicing the government debt is at an all-time high.
The Netherlands is already in recession. Germany is already in recession. The common thread is NutZero and the high inflation that comes with it. China simply does not have the resources to meet the world demand for useless wind and solar generators so prices are going up. China is on target to overtake Germany as the second wealthiest nation by the end of 2024 as measured by net international position. Japan remains on top but China also closing on Japan.
So if a significant portion of the countries heading for NutZero fall into recession then it might get the voters’ attention.
Where is Nigel Farage when the UK needs him? UK needs to make much smarter choices. Find responsible scientists willing to put their heads up and talk sense rather than spouting fashionable nonsense that comes out of academia.
As shown in an earlier comment there are plenty of scientists willing to “put their heads up” …but they will get zero airtime so their comments are not heard by the vast majority of people….
Plimer is a nitwit
The others are good scientists
Says a non-scientist pseudo-financial wannabe !
Plimer claims manade CO2 is 3%
Ony climate nitwits claim that
Therefore, Plimer is a climate nitwit
While the biggest weather system there could be is going on outside their window, and has been all year long
But most noticeably and for a media with Zero Attention Span (and even shorter memories), the rapid succession of named storms to sweep over the UK
here’s today’s here & now picture = typical for the last 2 months.
A humongous cyclonic system has been sitting on Europe all summer.
During summer, hot dry dense air poured out of it, desiccating Europe as it went.
Now, cold dry dense air is pouring out of it, simply removing water from Europe.
As the water disappeared, plant-life of all forms all over Europe struggled to absorb CO₂
Not that was important but when they did/do that, they absorb immense amounts of water also.
But they don’t ‘hang on to it‘. When the sun comes out and temps rise, they release it, shading the sun, making it rain and especially, bursting the cyclonic system – thus letting in more water/rain and so maintaining themselves (and us) in a cool temperature climate,
But because the water they needed to kick start that cycle was gone, dried up by last years’ cyclonic system, and the year before that, and before that and before etc etc etc, the cyclonic high stuck. Is still stuck
Do you see the specially dark/strong contour on that map, that goes from lower left all the way across to centre-right (past Volgograd) of the image?
That is the 1014mb isobar – 1014 is The Tipping Point.
Higher number = dry hot/cold weather, resistant ridges and deserts
Lower number = wet temperate weather and rainforests
For the UK, this resulted in the summer we saw, general a cool/cold and wet washout.
Yesssss, on very brief occasions the cyclonic high spread its wings north and UK had some very hot days, but that was it.
A Few Hot Days do not ‘a climate make’
So we see another named storm coming in, attempting to breach the near impenetrable cyclone. They are regular features, less than a week apart and it is the very dryness of Europe that’s bringing them and what’s making them so vigorous, grey, windy and wet
Lack of water drives climate, not any surplus of CO₂ and it’s written large outside everybody’s window right now if they’d just get off their backsides and look
“Lack of water drives climate”?
Hello, Bro
Yo, where did the water go?’
I want to know
Is water really low?
No more snow?
Is this something we’ll outgrow?
Showers I’ll have to forego?
Or did the water grow?
And overflow?
Or is there just a water plateau?
Is this science or tarot?
Should I ask Jaques Cousteau?
He was my hero
Although now six feet below
Maybe I should calm down
And drink a bottle of Bordeaux
Politicians and a lamentable majority of consumers seem to have forgotten (or never knew) that only consumers pay taxes.
Others may appear to pay taxes (e.g., corporations), but they are simply tax collectors for government. They pass the taxes and the costs of collecting those taxes on to consumers as increased prices of goods and services. TNSTAAFL
Corporations and other businesses do pay taxes
They can not pass on tax increases or increased costs of supplies, without affecting sales revenues.
Pass on taxes is a silly conservative myth
If there were no penalties for passing on any cost increase, such as higher taxes or higher costs or raw materials, why would a corporation wait until those costs increased to raise their prices? Why not raise prices any time they felt like it?
Consumer demand for goods and services is always reduced by higher prices. There is no free lunch.
“Why would a corporation wait until those costs increased to raise their prices?”
Because in a free market there is this silly thing called “competition”.
If I unilaterally raised prices on a whim, my customers would simply go to my competitor.
When the government interferes with free trade (e.g. by taxing everyone) then we ALL have to raise prices to be able to stay in business.
The profit margins on many businesses are VERY slim. Not everyone is an Amazon or Microsoft.
Businesses attempt to sell products for more than their fully accounted costs. They hope to make a profit and know some of the profit will be shared with the government.
They do not pass on taxes
They do not pass on cost of supplies
They do not pass on the cost of labor
They try to sell a product or service for more than it costs, and sometimes do not exceed. They do not keep raising prices until they make a profit. There is competition.
Higher prices mean fewer sales.
If the price increases merely keep up with inflation there will be a smaller effect than if they rise faster than inflation.
If competitors are reluctant to raise prices, then you will have fewer sales if you raise your prices.
When there is inflation some people will have incomes rising faster than inflation and others will have incomes not keeping up with inflation,
Let’s say you sell cheap product that appeals to low income families like “dollar stores” in the US
The local dollar stores raised their prices by 30% to 50% since 2018 here in Michigan. They are not very busy anymore. We don’t spend as much there as in 2019. What was $1.00 then is now $1.29 or $1.49.
The actual increase of the consumer price index was +18% since 2019.
Every Chinese buffet (cheap) self serve restaurant in SE Michigan went broke after raising their prices faster than the CPI and there were a lot of them.
How can you NOT pass on the costs of supplies or labor? they’re baked into cost of the product?
The prices re based on supply and demand
that’s called capitalism
They are not based only on costs
That’s pure socialism
The belief that businesses can just pass on higher taxes by raising their prices, with no consequences is socialist / Marxist economic BS
They are not based only on costs
Has anyone claimed that prices are based ONLY on costs?
Cost of inputs impacts the sales price.
According you your argument, if the price of steel increases, car prices will remain the same, and if chip prices go up, computer prices will remain the same.
If you’re making the argument that overhead doesn’t affect price, then you’re saying that rent, labor costs, equipment prices, etc. don’t affect prices.
Yes, supply and demand play a role, as does competition, but so do input costs, including tax. This is basic economics – and fundamental to running a business.
with no consequences
Perhaps I missed it, but who made this claim?
There are only two sources of tax.
You or Me!
And most of the electorate do not understand this – worse they are grateful when the government gives them subsidies – that is buys them off with money they took from them in the form of taxation.
That’s like being mugged – and then thanking the mugger for giving you back your wallet and cards while only taking your cash.
Companies do not pay tax – the consumer does.
All companies pay taxes
Check their profit statements
Many companies do not make profits
So they do not pay income taxes
They may pay real estate r taxes
The false claim that companies do not pay taxes
would mean that companies do not care if taxes are hiked. And their shareholders (owners) would not care
But that only happens in the imaginary world
of the corporations don’t pay taxes nuts.
Corporate Income Taxes
The corporate income tax is levied on business profits of C-corporations (named after the relevant subchapter of the IRS code).
Most US businesses, including sole proprietorships, partnerships, and certain eligible corporations, do not pay federal or state corporate income taxes. Instead, their owners must include an allocated share of the businesses’ profits (known as “pass-through” income) in their taxable income under the individual income tax.
Over 95 percent of businesses were organized as flow-through entities in 2019,
Political economy requires that Government try to equitably distribute both the burden and the benefits of taxation but this is political not economic.
The “economy” is a huge cantankerous beast that resists any and all attempts at manipulation.
Increased company taxes will automatically result in higher consumer prices and would be exactly the same as an increase in VAT.
As Ronald Regan once said “You can’t tax companies, companies collect tax!”
Company tax is simply an avaricious government confiscating the wealth of a successful company because they “know” how to utilise it better. This is simply nonsense – government track records on redistributive taxation are appalling – rather leave the money with the people who have a track record of ability to generate wealth.
One of the common complaints is that “companies don’t pay their fair share of tax” – you mean they didn’t pay over vast amounts of VAT and all their employees and shareholders managed to evade personal tax? These companies produce and collect vast taxes for and on behalf of the fiscus – because they are successful and employ a lot of people.
Ditto all the other industries and their employees that support that industry.
But they can, and do, avoid paying company tax.
Next time you hear the mantra that companies don’t pay tax remember VAT, PAYE, dividend tax etc. etc.
What can a company do with its surplus ? – the options are limited – it can reduce prices or increase payments to its stakeholders / employees – all of which attract tax.
The only other thing they can do is invest it in growth and job creation – the very thing most governments say they are striving for – so they (government) go and tax the success of companies doing just that ! On what basis ? That they know how to generate growth and jobs better than this company with a proven track record of success. Absolute piffle, nonsense, etc. etc.
So company tax is a tax on success and therefore totally regressive.
Ronald Regan once again “Government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
The only thing that is unfair is the tax itself and it is much harder for smaller businesses to operate via a Camen Islands account – we would be far better off without company tax.
https://nomadcapitalist.com/finance/countries-with-the-lowest-corporate-tax-rates/
Many countries manage with low or zero company tax.
Based on that claptrap, after a 10% tax hike all companies will immediately raise their prices to pay pass on the higher taxes. No consequences.
With a 10% tax cut all companies will immediately lower their prices to reward their customers. No consequences.
That only happens in a dream world
Now you know that doesn’t happen in the world of economics 1 plus 1 equals two only after the effusion of some time.
So prices do not instantly track tax but ultimately must do so.
That only happens in a dream world
Or a strawman.
Many companies do not make profits
Those companies won’t be around very long, then.
Amazon, one of today’s biggest multinational companies dominating the e-commerce industry, only turned its first profit nine years after being founded.
Tesla spent 17 years unprofitable, largely due to burning through tremendous volumes of money in order to grow.
Google: Founded in 1998, it wasn’t until the introduction of Adwords, a credit-card-activated self-service ad program, in 2000 that led the company towards its first quarterly profit a year later at the end of 2001.
Facebook, now Meta, took five years to reach profitability. Founded in 2004, Facebook grew quickly being initially targeted to university students at Ivy League colleges. After opening to everyone over the age of 13 in 2006, Facebook turned its first profit in 2009.
Twitter has been operating at a massive loss for years, failing to book an annual profit since 2019 (Mauer, 2022). For eight out of the last ten years, the company has posted a loss. While losses are trending downwards, the company saw a net loss of a staggering $1.14 billion in 2020.
You are aware of the idea of startup costs?
You’re pointing to a few exceptional cases that were able to cover their costs by obtaining outside funding, and you don’t seem to understand the idea of initial investment. That money doesn’t come from nowhere.
I would love to see how long you could run a business that way.
Also:
Can you please explain exactly how they achieved any profit at all if their revenue did not exceed their costs? Show me the math.
He seems to have forgotten the trillions of dollars in offshore profits that those companies were refusing to onshore back to the US, right up until Trump cut the corporate tax rate for such profits to a reasonable amount.
I am not going to take a long time trying to explain anything to you, but in the case of Amazon, they had massive revenue, and revenue growth, but it turns out there are a lot of ways to avoid showing a profit on the quarterly report, and investors understand this, which is why they continued to bid up the share price.
Amazon was plowing all of their free cash flow back into the business.
While they were not turning a profit, they were becoming one of the largest real estate holders in the country, a larger shipper than Fedex, their cloud business was grabbing major market share etc.
When is the last time you say a freight train that did not have a large percentage of Amazon cars on it, or drove down a road or interstate without seeing an Amazon truck. That is what they were building with their lack of profits.
You are confused or ignorant, not sure which.
Not showing a profit on a quarterly report is not the same as not making a profit.
Here is one way they were avoiding showing profits or paying taxes:
Double Irish With a Dutch Sandwich: Definition and How It’s Used (investopedia.com)
I forgot that there were people who never read anything.
“Cost of supplies” doesn’t set prices, competition does.
That’s what I said
Costs do not control prices
You’re apparently not an economist either.
And certainly NOT a scientist.
Probably hasn’t done any actual science since junior high.
Insults are simple’
And you ARE a simpleton
I wrote the for-profit economics newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC for 43 years, from 1977 to 2020 and had hundreds of subscribers
Try again
And Krugman has a Nobel Prize.
“Politicians and a lamentable majority of consumers seem to have forgotten (or never knew) that only
consumersproductive worker pay taxes.”There, fixed it for you. A consumer who got free money from the government, either through welfare or a totally unproductive job created to employ liberal voters, pays NO taxes.
Government bureaucrats pay taxes
How productive are they?
Government workers generate no wealth, unlike those in the private sector, so the tax they pay is merely money going round in circles.
Exporting heavy industry can’t be considered decarbonizing. Wokeachusetts has done that- I don’t think any heavy industry is left in this state- and now the state brags about how energy efficient it is! We must import everything. Our economy is still doing well because of world class hospitals and medical industries, computer software, genetic engineering, tourism and the like. All bring in a lot of money so we can important everything else- from non decarbonized regions. They bring in so much money that housing prices are sky rocketing. (it doesn’t help that the state WELCOMES illegal immigrants)
Though the state is 2/3 forest- we import 99% of our wood products because so much of the forest is locked up while forestry work is over regulated- because the enviros and climatistas hate forestry saying that not cutting trees will help save the planet- forgetting that everyone loves wood products so we must import the wood products. They are incredibly stupid.
Regarding the attached photo- there are many hundreds of these dead factory buildings in this state. Notice the smokestack is still standing. If it was a power plant, of course, they would have blown it up the second the power went off.
Direct carbon capture is another Gate’s scam.
The one thing that riles me, is that when people start talking about CO2, they often begin with the claimed statement that CO2 is just 0.4% of the atmosphere. WRONG!
To recap on the percentage of the various gas elements in the global atmosphere:
Nitrogen 78%
Oxygen 21%
Argon 0.93%
CO2 0.038% Please note.
Methane 0.00018%
Neon, Helium, Krypton together 0.0001%
SUM: 99.968% The difference from 100% is down to rounding.
Now we need to look at the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere that is attributed to Nature on the one hand, and anthropogenic activities on the other. This is important.
According to the UN & the IPCC, Nature emits 97% – Humankind 3%.
Look again; Anthropological emissions of CO2 are 3% OF 0.038% = 0.00114%.
That’s globally.
The UK produces 1% of global emissions made by humankind.
That’s 1% of 0.00114% = 0.000014%.
Reducing that last figure to Zero will make absolutely ‘zero’ difference to us in the UK, nor anyone in the whole world. But the cost of doing so is the shutting down of all forms of life, for the sake of reducing the life giving gas that is CO2, for without it, no plants will grow, no mammals, fish, birds or insects will survive.
And even if my figures above are wrong to the extent the UK emissions includes those from Nature, it still will not make a jot of difference.
We need to be out there on every public forum, with these figures, stating over and over again that the U.K. is only responsible for 0.000014% of the total CO2 emissions of the entire world (including nature), and that’s even before challenging the obvious lie of ‘CO2 causes global warming’, for which there is no evidence. This single figure alone, 0.000014%, which can easily be worked out by anybody using available figures from the IPCC (and any other of the climate grifters) will demolish the entire ‘Net Zero’ fiasco, because nobody can defend ruining our entire economy and our entire way of life, to reduce 0.000014% to ‘zero’.
Steve, It’s a question I put as often as possible to believers: What are the top three gases that go make up our atmosphere, and what percentage of the whole is CO2? It’s amazing to me – but not surprising – how many either do not know or think CO2 is in the top three and is about a third of atmosphere!
I shall make sure I keep your calc handy for ref. Thanks. HYN.
Please stop with the total BS junk science
CO2 is 0.042%
I doubt if many people know that
And who cares if they do
CO2 inhibits cooling, which is similar to saying it causes global warming
33% of the 420ppm is from manmade sources,
not 3%
The IPCC does NOT say 3%
They says 33%
Only deluded junk science incompetents like you spout these conservative conspiracy theories and make fellow conservatives look like science deniers.
Please find another hobby.
Please show me the evidence that 33% of atmospheric CO2 is from Man Made sources. Termites produce more CO2 than mankind!
Another conservative myth
Termites are not burning fossil fuels.
The carbon they produce comes from decomposing wood.
This carbon came from the atmosphere, and as the wood rots this carbon will wind up back in the atmosphere whether termites eat it or not.
Over the lifespan of a tree this is a carbon neutral process, and is accordingly treated as a net zero in global CO2 accounting.
So from a global climate point of view the statement is flat wrong.
The methane that termites release is irrelevant because the warming effect of methane is tiny, because the methane absorption wavelengths are overlapped by water vapor absorption wavelengths.
The carbon they produce comes from decomposing wood.
This carbon came from the atmosphere, and as the wood rots this carbon will wind up back in the atmosphere whether termites eat it or not.
Just where do you think Oil, Coal and Gas come from. They are as part of the carbon cycle as termites and the rest of us. In the long term, all are “Carbon Neutral” .
roflmao..
…. as if the difference between 0.038% and 0.042% makes any meaningful difference to the calculations.
33% of the 420ppm is from manmade sources,
That is probably one of the most STUPID comments you have ever made.
It makes the idiotic assumption that humans are responsible for all of the CO2 increase from when it was 280ppm
Arrant NONSENSE.
Sorry, but 3% of emissions are from human sources.
You are WRONG yet again.
You seem to be the only deluded junk science incompetent around here.
Worse than the simpleton, worse than fungal.
“33% of the 420ppm is from manmade sources,
That is probably one of the most STUPID comments you have ever made”.
My 33% comment is supported by at least 99.9% of scientists on this planet, which excludes nitwits like you
Please explain your silly version of why the atmospheric CO2 increased +140ppm from 1850 to 2023, after 800.000 years failing to break out of the 180ppm to 280ppm range
I await a good laugh
Stevejones, your first sentence is confusing because the atmospheric CO2 content is about 0.04%, not 0.4% as you say the claimed statement is. Did you mean to purposely give the incorrect value there? I assume you just put the decimal in the wrong place because your 0.038% value below that is closer to the correct value.
Your point that human emissions are small compared to what nature is doing is correct, but it is not correct to simply multiply the fraction of the total of CO2 in the atmosphere by that percentage and assume that is our total contribution because human emissions have changed throughout history. Our emissions started slowly and today are at the highest levels ever.
To get an accurate accounting of the total human contribution for CO2 that is in the atmosphere today, one must know our cumulative emissions, as well as nature’s sources as sinks. We don’t know nature’s sources and sinks to within great precision, as they too change over time, e.g., with volcanic eruptions, ocean cycles, etc.
We do know our total emissions pretty well on some time scales, e.g., annually. Given the mass of those emissions and the volume of the atmosphere. Based on this we know that nature is sequestering about half of those emissions.
Again, I agree with your overarching point, but your mathematic argument is incomplete/incorrect.
“Your point that human emissions are small compared to what nature is doing is correct”
FALSE
You are totally confused 3% manmade CO2 Nut
You are confusing seasonal CO2 flows, called the carbon cycle, which do not increase atmospheric CO2 levels year over year, with manmade CO2 emissions, which DO increase atmospheric CO2 levels year over year.
At least 99.9% of scientists understand this most basic climate science FACT.
Climate Science 101
First hour of the first day of class
You must have been sleeping
Only dimwits spout the 3% nonsense
You are a dimwit
I will say this if even if I get 50 thumbs down votes because science deniers like you are killing any chance we conservatives have of ever refuting the coming CAGW crisis hoax.
I was referring to the natural flux of CO2. I never mentioned the “3%” figure used by stevejones.
I observe that you are quick to jump to false conclusions and you’re quick to call people names when they don’t deserve it. When you receive negative votes it’s often because of your imbecilic name calling.
You provided needless confusion because you are confused.
I may receive negative votes and insult comments.
i don’t care
Debate requires others to quote what you wrote and then refute what you wrote based on reliable accurate data. Or at least some data. That seems to be missing in this “we hate the goobermint” echo chamber.
If nature was adding CO2 to the atmosphere the total atmospheric CO2 rise would be
manmade CO2 emissions + natural CO2 emissions
We have a good estimate of manmade CO2 emissions since 1850
+250ppm
We have a good estimate of atmospheric CO2 since 1850
+140ppm
Therefore manmade CO2 emission account for way more than 100% of the rise of atmospheric CO2
And that means nature has been a CO2 absorber
You comment confused this simple equation for no logical reason
““Your point that human emissions are small compared to what nature is doing is correct””
TRUE STATEMENT.
The lukewarmer non-scientist is WRONG yet again.
Confused as usual BeNice
You compare manmade CO2 emissions and natural seasonal CO2 emissions while conveniently forgetting natural CO2 absorption … which offsets the natural CO2 emissions … so that year over year atmospheric CO2 does NOT rise from natural CO2 emissions
The “carbon flow” is two ways
You ignore half of the carbon flow
because you are biased
or not very bright.
Those numbers are for dry air, and air is mostly not dry in the troposphere.
It is important to note this important fact, because not only is it a fact, but it is important.
One of my favourite euphemisms used by the alarmist fraternity happens to be: “cautious optimism”. This is their way of saying it won’t ever actually happen at all. So, what are they cautiously optimistic about?
“Climate scientists hail 2023 as ‘beginning of the end’ for fossil fuel era”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/30/climate-scientists-hail-2023-as-beginning-of-the-end-for-fossil-fuel-era
A think-tank by the name of ‘Ember’ gets much of the credit in the Grauniad’s puff piece. And they say: “We are an independent energy think tank that aims to accelerate the clean energy transition”
https://ember-climate.org/about/
So [in woke world] it is an entirely impartial data driven organisation. Except in reality it is the very antithesis of that; it is a new gospel driven truth outfit.
There are quite a few [failed] competing ideas from heat pumps to Hydrogen to sailing ships. None of them will ever cut the mustard.
In another blow to the Net Zero brigades
“Zero onshore wind plans submitted in England since de facto ban was ‘lifted’
Exclusive: Developers still unwilling to put forward schemes despite change to planning rules in September”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/dec/27/zero-onshore-wind-plans-submitted-in-england-since-de-facto-ban-was-lifted
More and more subsidies are obviously required. Ouch.
EMBER is a Climate Change Committee sockpuppet with Baroness Worthington (who co-wrote the Climate Change Act) on its board and a founder.
“Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho hailed the country as a “world leader” in tackling climate change”
Why on earth would anyone want to be a world leader in a race to the bottom?
Governments in every country think they are ‘world leaders’ in tackling something – it makes them feel good even if it is a race to the bottom 🙂
To be fair to Nut Zero, which is a total waste of money, the ONLY direction possible is getting worse than we previously thought. Similar to EVs.
Better title:
Nut Zero is about to get more painful: Part One
By Part 27 we may be discussing Nur Zero blackouts.
England, Germany, Australia, California and Texas are taking the lead. But Jumpin’ Joe Bribe’em is doing his best for the whole US to catch up.
China, India and Russia are watching and laughing at us, which means our energy policies are bassackwards. Like they were designed by China. And with Joe Bribe’em in charge, maybe they were?
Yeah, I wonder how involved are China, India and Russia in pulling the strings to get Joe to do what they want, and how much of this folly is directed from within the U.S. or by orgs like WEF.
I love the AI generated pics that head these articles but have to say that I’ve concluded that AI has no sense of time or place. The picture above shows a London bus with an open platform at the front instead of at the rear and some rather ancient tube-train coaches (1922 vintage) on the public highway!
I think AI still neads a lot of tweaking…
No. Things have got so bad in the UK that that’s a contemporary picture 🙂
Maybe you’re right…
Not to mention the complete lack of any scientific evidence we need to “decarbonize”. This is like starving ourselves to death because, on very rare occasions, some food might contain substances that worsen hair loss.
“Few would challenge the need to decarbonise”.
I would.
There is no emergency, and every molecule of co2 added to the atmosphere is beneficial.
The “social cost of carbon” is likely -$1000 per ton.
I agree wholeheartedly with the need for more CO2 because it is the only feedstock with which plants make oxygen without which we are all toast.
To remind us how unlikely reaching Net Zero by 2050 really is, we need to consider the following. Between 1995 and 2022, global fossil fuel consumption increased 59%, despite billions being invested in new green technologies and power sources. In 1995, fossil fuels provided 86% of the world’s primary energy; today it’s 82%. So if all the money spent on supposedly greening the economy and all the mainstream and government rhetoric and general alarmism about a doomed planet has had such a miniscule effect on consumer, business and industrial behavior, maybe Net Zero should be pushed back to 2150 to retain any credibility.
Hydrocarbons provide 92% of global primary energy consumption excluding wood for which no accurate data are available.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog: Global primary energy consumption — hydrocarbon fuels are 92%
There’s something deeply odd about that Route material London bus – it seems to be back to front.
Sorry, autocorrect replaced “Routemaster” by “Route material”.