Good news for climate bloggers (why aren’t I “excited”?)
The topic no one was going to mention in the election campaign, just got a mention. And in less than 24 hours, it’s already being revived from oblivion. Banking group HSBC tells us that:
Barack Obama may consider introducing a tax on carbon emissions to help cut the U.S. budget deficit after winning a second term as president, according to HSBC Holdings Plc.
A tax starting at $20 a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent and rising at about 6 percent a year could raise $154 billion by 2021, Nick Robins, an analyst at the bank in London, said today in an e-mailed research note, citing Congressional Research Service estimates. “Applied to the Congressional Budget Office’s 2012 baseline, this would halve the fiscal deficit by 2022,” Robins said.
There is no guaranteed path of course, the Republicans control the House. But how telling that the Zombie Ghost of Cap N Trade popped up its head so fast once the votes were in.
Climate Depot responds:
‘Congratulations to President Obama. Now that Obama will never have to face voters again, he may attempt to make global warming a key part of his legacy. Watch for the heavy hand of the EPA, which is poised to implement the climate regulations that Congress refused to pass. Obama’s vision of an EPA bureaucracy shutting down carbon based energy in the name of controlling the climate, will be massively opposed and exposed’
Reuters tells us Harsher energy regulations coming in Obama’s second term
With a pledge to cut oil imports by half by 2020, Obama advocated during the campaign for what he called an “all of the above” approach to developing a range of domestic energy sources. He said, however, that he would roll back subsidies for oil companies
and reduce the nation’s reliance on oil by mandating production of more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Obama apparently decided to be silent on climate change on 26 March 2009. Suzanne Goldenberg writes:
Those gathered on 26 March 2009 to hear from key members of Obama’s green dream team — Carol Browner, then energy and climate adviser, Nancy Sutley, chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, and Van Jones, then green jobs adviser, believed it would be a pivotal year. The White House and both houses of Congress were controlled by Democrats, world leaders were due to gather in Copenhagen in December to finalise a global climate change treaty. But the economy was in meltdown. The White House, after studying polling and focus groups, concluded it was best to frame climate change as an economic opportunity, a chance for job creation and economic growth, rather than an urgent environmental problem. “My most vivid memory of that meeting is this idea that you can’t talk about climate change,” said Jessy Tolkan…
Campaign groups agree Obama continued to push the climate agenda, even if he did so below the radar, through the Environmental Protection Agency regulations and other branches of the government.
The economic recovery plan included some $90bn for green-ish measures, such as high speed rail and public transport, and weather-proofing low-income homes.
“There was a really big emphasis on talking about what I call the sub-narratives – that there were other ways to speak about the opportunity and the challenge of climate change rather than calling it that,” said Maggie Fox, the chief executive of Al Gore’s Climate Reality Project. “There was a whole suite of sub-narratives: national security, clean energy future, diversification of energy, health, future generations … “
Time to pack the zombie away.
So when our economy fails … … …
61
……..They’ll blame it on Bush…….
110
In between times Obama and the Socialist Democrats will utilise external or international treaties to impose climate change alarmist emissions trading and other new world government agendas by stealth. I understand that the US Constitution has the necessary loophole, but will US citizens react angrily?
10
A carbon tax will be effective in cutting the deficit for exactly the same reason that it will be ineffective in cutting carbon levels – energy consumption is for consumers inelastic with respect to price. There is a test of this. Has the tripling of oil prices in recent years reduced the quantity of gasoline consumed by a significant amount? To extent that it has reduced consumption, has the US consumption fallen by a significantly greater amount than in Europe? The reason I ask this is that Europe has far higher taxes on gasoline compared with the US, so the US has seen a much higher percentage increase in the pump price than in Europe. As a result, the demand effect should be larger.
There is one area where a carbon tax will be effective in reducing US emissions. That is in the gas-consuming parts of the chemical sector. We know that because thousands of jobs have been created in the US due to shale gas halving prices, giving a distinct cost advantage. Remove the cost advantage, and the factories locate elsewhere.
91
Manic,
How will “a carbon tax will be effective in cutting the deficit.” ?
Literally everyone knows that a carbon tax will do nothing for reducing atmospheric CO2 levels. That’s not the real reason for a Carbon Tax.
The only rational reason for a carbon tax is to expand socialism by increasing dependence upon state subsidies.
The Carbon Tax is a lie that empowers Labor politicians to forcibly extract cash from the population in order to redistribute other people’s money to sections of the society that the leftist intelligentsia hope to make dependent upon government handouts.
By adding whole new sections of society to dependence upon government to help pay their energy bills, the leftist elites have increased their political power base at the expense of everyone’s individual liberty.
The next step is to write an Orwellian “war is peace” narrative… Even while government policy is the sole cause of higher energy prices that disproportional gouge working people, workers are taught by the state-controlled media, the ABC, the government is their best mate because the check is in the mail!
Of course, the big lie is that it was necessary for you to surrender your energy independence so that Canberra or Washington can “save the planet™.”
We’ve already seen here in Australia, the political opposition’s call to end the Carbon Tax is portrayed by the state-owned media as a “tax increase on the poor.”
George Orwell would be proud.
This is how creeping socialisms win elections:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578102971575770036.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
151
Wes,
I think you miss my point. Taxes on energy, like those on alcohol and tobacco, are good at raising revenue precisely because a large change in the price leads to little change in demand. In economic terms demand is inelastic with respect to price. Proponents of carbon taxes (or carbon trading)assume that large reduction in CO2 can be achieved at low cost. If they are right, then raising the taxes on gasoline in Europe (where taxes are already high), would lead to a reduction in revenue. In Britain, every tax rise on gasoline is accompanied by a projected revenue increase.
Elasticity of demand (and supply) is one of the great insights of economics, first postulated by Alfred Marshall. Any introductory text on economics should have this right after Marshall’s supply and demand graph.
80
Manic,
Yes, true… demand for energy is relatively inelastic, therefore a tax on energy won’t reduce demand very much and so will supply a reliable tax revenue stream.
My point is that raising more money via a carbon tax won’t be used for deficit reduction but to create energy welfare dependence among lower and middle income groups that are now self sufficient.
After all, not only is energy usage largely inelastic, but a family of four with an income of $250,000 per year doesn’t use much more energy than a family of four living on $60,000 a year.
Thus a carbon tax is dramatically regressive, because it is a fixed cost regardless of income. A carbon tax of, say, $2,000 a year to the wealthy is peanuts, but to the working poor it’s catastrophic.
Precisely because energy usage is inelastic, the money raised from a carbon tax must be largely redistributed to low/middle-income families in order to make the tax politically palatable.
This is just fine, of course, to the Left who love to tax and redistribute other people’s money to groups that will then become dependent upon continued government transfers.
70
You are right to say that a tax a fuel (or a carbon tax) is regressive. One of the consequences of the implications of this is that insofar as demand for energy is reduced by rising costs, it is the poor that will be bearing the burden. So PM Gillard’s attempts to reduce the impact of the carbon tax on the poor will remove make the carbon tax more inelastic, and thus less effective.
I realised this issue when I started blogging in 2008. In Manchester, England there was a referendum in Dec-08 on whether to introduce a conjestion charge on commuting to fund increases in public transport. The projected reductions in commuting would rely on putting daily car travel beyond the reach of many people. This in a city known for its cold, wet climate. (NB. the charge was rejected by 79% to 21%).
00
MBC you are dealing out the cold hard facts.
No doubt any carbon tax would raise plenty of revenue. No doubt it would hardly curb carbon consumption, at first. Gradually, costs will go up as business covers overhead. Then income demands will be made to cover expenses. Old debt as a percentage of GDP will go down.
Isn’t this Keynesian economic growth?
After awhile they’ll take credit for it. (pun intended)
20
Manic,
I don’t go around clicking the red disapproval button so I want to tell you outright, so you know who I am, that Wes is right and you’re wrong. There’ll be no reduction in the deficit. All the new tax dollars will simply be spent along with the old. And if there is a reduction in demand the government will simply print more money to keep the fools who are their power base happy, lest they revolt.
The whole thing is a gigantic fraud. Rules that apply during sane economic policy don’t work when idiocy rules everyone’s thinking.
91
Roy,
As with most economics, there are wider consequences. Raising the overall tax burden beyond a certain level will lead to a net reduction in total tax take. Most economies are beyond this. The rough theory behind this is the Laffer Curve. Ronald Reagan used this idea to increase total revenue by cutting taxes.
You and Wes are putting something else into the mix in saying that the extra revenue will not be used to reduce the deficit. Experience says you are right.
But for me there is a paradox, that is a near tautology. If taxes are effective in raising revenue (through not impacting much on demand) they are highly ineffective at reducing demand. When Wes is saying the carbon tax is a lie, he is saying what amounts to the same thing.
Further, I would also agree that a carbon tax increases dependency on handouts. By increasing the costs of energy, carbon taxes both directly and indirectly reduce living standards. This will fall hardest on the poorest. To alleviate this greater handouts are required. There is a net loss to the economy from doing so.
80
I agree with you at #2.2.1.
It’s a case of my misunderstanding what your exact point was.
Harder times they are a coming!
10
per capita gasoline use is indeed much higher in the US than in Europe.
26
What is the per capita gasoline use in AU?
What is the per capita domestic oil/gasoline production for Europe OR AU?
WTF is your point?
“WTF was my point” could easily be your epitaph
It should be for every Leftist…….
40
Good job of missing the point Mattb.
Isolating a single ‘per capita’ figure from all other relevant variables proves or disproves absolutely nothing.
The ‘per capita’ usage is not only linked to price and putting up the price of an essential commodity puts it out if reach of the people who can least afford that to happen.
00
Europe has laws about vehicles fuel efficiency. The US has them now, but didn’t used to. The US got them because the government bailed out the car makers, and in return the car makers gave in to greater efficiency laws.
I don’t think we in Australia have rules about efficiency.
00
There was a recent study published, I cannot recall the source or authors, from within the EU that indicated that emissions trading was not proving to be effective in reducing emissions however the US common sense application of technology was a far better way to go.
10
Don’t forget to double tap!
The Zombies will pass it all anyway if it means they can keep their political ambitions going for that little bit longer (just like printing money can keep the status quo moving along for that little bit longer as well).
And now for an excellent marketing campaign from the CDC…
20
Well, if it works …
00
The word I hear, from associates in the US, is that Obama will probably go around Congress by using the EPA to rule by regulation.
He gets to appoint a number (3 from memory) of Supreme Court Judges in the coming term, and they will be donkeys rather that elephants. Legal challenges to EPA rulings will therefore be harder to sustain.
None of this excites me terribly much.
90
Presumably the carbon tax will not be a tax. It will be a “fine” levied by the USEPA on everyone who emits the “pollutant” CO2 so they can get around the legislature.
Democracy bye bye.
70
RW ,
I think you are right but saying
” None of this excites me terribly much.” has to be the under statement of the week.It horrifies me. Letting idiots like Holdren and the head of the EPA have their way –popcorn time.
Someone said to me yesterday that he thought we should all have a vote in the US elections because what they do is so important.( tongue in cheek but the sentiment is right)
40
Those three Supreme Court Justices won’t matter that much because it’s quite clear that Obama intends to ignore the courts in any case. Who could do anything if he does defy even the Supreme Court? Who will come to the rescue? No one, that’s who.
50
Roy,
I thought being in contempt of the Supreme Court was an impeachable offence?
00
Rereke,
I suspect you know that impeachment is only half the process. Once the House of Representatives passes a bill of impeachment the Senate must try the case — with the Chief Justice presiding over the trial, by the way (talk about your judicial conflict of interest).
Now just how a Senate with a majority Democrat membership is going to vote guilty escapes me.
The courts have marshals who could theoretically compel the president’s attendance at a contempt hearing. But can you foresee that happening. Remember, a federal judge ruled that President Clinton was guilty of perjury but not much happened. I believe he ultimately lost his law license and was fined by the bar association but that had nothing to do with the courts having any direct enforcement arm. And it didn’t happen until he was out of office.
I think that if a U.S. President was to defy the Supreme Court he could easily get away with it if he could dodge impeachment and conviction. In fact, if he could count on the loyalty of the military to himself instead of to the constitution, he could do almost anything. Who could stop the United States Army if it was to be used unconstitutionally by the president?
This is why Obama is so dangerous. He has proven over four years that he has absolute contempt for the rule of law. He’s kept partially in check by only three things.
1. He’s a narcissist who can’t really stand up under the disapproval of his base of supporters.
2. The reality that he needs a lot of soldiers down in the trenches doing his dirty work and he has to be careful to be sure they will do what he wants them to do before he starts something.
3. He desperately wanted to be reelected.
You may call me cynical if you want to. But remember, I got there honestly, using real world evidence that supports my theory.
I fear this man like no other.
00
PS: There is a rule that you can always safely use in judging someone.
00
I have worked very closely with U.S. military personnel, on three or four occasions. They are well aware that their oath of allegiance is to the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and not to any particular person or position.
Obama and the Democrats are attempting to chip away at the Constitution, and that is something that will need to be addressed at some stage.
But, as I understand it, the U.S. Army is barred from hostile operations on U.S. soil. They will not fire on U.S. citizens.
Originally, domestic (defensive) operations were assigned to a part time Militia (which is why Americans can still legally bare arms), an organisation that later morphed into a permanent National Guard, backed by Reservists. I have no idea what sort of oath National Guardsmen are required to take, but considering that they have historically fired on students in campus demonstrations (Vietnam), it is probably not the same oath that the Army (and the other professional services) use.
I don’t foresee a Second Civil War occurring at any time in the next decade or two.
The socialisation of the U.S. (and the rest of the World), is a long term dance, choreographed by the UN. It is slow, but inexorable. What drives it, is the fear of another world war, waged with modern weapons. Everything else in geopolitics, including the Climate Change scam, flows from that.
10
If not the military involved in quelling opposition to the Socialisation of USA maybe some other group will be tasked with that?
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/who-does-the-government-intend-to-shoot
00
Rereke,
I don’t know how safe your assumption of loyalty to the constitution and their oath really is. It’s never been tested. I hope I never find out.
00
They won’t be in contempt because of the CO2 endangerment finding. So the EPA can “fine” emitters to their hearts content.
Its like the cellulostic ethanol rules, where petrol companies are fined for not adding cellulostic ethanol which doesn’t exist to their E15 blend. Impossibility is not an excuse. The EPA just keeps on fining them, no one can stop it because of the deadlock.
20
Bruce,
The CO2 endangerment finding is not on solid footing according to the EPA’s charter. If the CO2 is a danger to human health finding was to get an honest hearing in the courts it would fall. And fall just as hard as the whole global warming scam.
00
Do you have any evidence that Obama is acting in defiance of the Supreme Court? Or are you just wildly speculating…
01
John,
You don’t follow U.S. politics very closely do you? Yes, Obama violates U.S. law and his constitutional duty to enforce the very laws he violates.
There aren’t enough hours in a day to document it all. But the answer is yes, there is evidence — just immigration law alone would take up a book.
00
Crikey! & I thought the speculation about Gillard & Obama was just a bit of puerile fun. However a move like this is almost straight out of JEG’s playbook. (Or perhaps George’s).
It will do about as much good for the US economy & the world’s as it has in the EU. I wonder how long his status as the champion of the under-privileged will stand up in the “motor city” now.
30
Watch the gold price NOW!
20
Gold simply recovered what it lost a few days ago, it’s been flat (range bound) for a year
The fundamentals are very bullish for Gold, however it is important to hold allocated metal outside the bullion banking system.
20
O dear
00
Obama bin Laden wins,and amerika loses, joy o joy
13
Obama could care less about reduction of carbon. He only cares about punishing the producers of goods and services to please his warped sense that America is guilty of imperialism. And of course to keep the drones happy by supplying them with the producers money.
71
That’s one interpretive story about Obama’s motives – is it true is another question?
00
That is absolutely ridiculous.
01
Pathway is correct. Read “The Roots of Obamas Rage” Dinesh DeSouza. Exposes Obamas true plan for the US from Obamas own words and actions.
00
Seems like the IPCC’s solution for their next report is to lie even more. The De Boer idiot also thinks our present state of climate is like a smoker doing something after he finds he has terminal cancer.
What a mob of barking mad drongos and loons.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/former-un-official-says-climate-report-will-shock-nations-into-action-20121106-28w5c.html#ixzz2BV4aTj5R
10
While the climate “zombie” may have risen for some (mainly those who disdain science), for the many, science in the USA and elsewhere, will be resurrected from the mindless rhetoric and sci-fi babble of those who still chose to follow the path of scientific idiocy. An idiocy falsely cloaked in the veil of scepticism, but with limited, if any, scientific or physical reality.
233
Gosh silly nag but what about simple maths and a simple graph?
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/ieo/emissions.cfm
We know you detest facts, it doesn’t matter what the OECD countries do because it won’t change the climate or temp by a jot.
What is it about simple kindy maths that you don’t understand?
All the countless billions $ you flush down the drain every year will return ? you a big fat zero on your investment.
130
So we head for the future ignoring the “greenhouse effect” and the consequencesof ever increasing GHG emissions. How inappropriate, improper and completely disdainful of the science. You’ve made my day!
328
Stupid Horse, have a look at some real science. Those that believe in the “greenhouse effect” have to believe that the world is flat. Those of us that have a working brain know that it is not.
93
More like a wacked brain than a working brain.
225
Ah yes, the wacked brain of a brain-less insult. Science too difficult for you?
90
If you want real science then why link to a page full of slayer theorisations about straw dragons?
To believe in the greenhouse effect you simply have to believe in radiation and the three (non-trivial) laws of thermodynamics. The GHE follows from there.
Even Postma (whom you linked to) believes in the greenhouse effect, he just doesn’t call it the “greenhouse” effect, and so he hasn’t realised he believes in the greenhouse effect.
Because making dragons out of geckos is the Slayer way.
A Quick Seven Step Summary of Greenhouse Effect Theory For Those with 2-minute Attention Spans.
1. Radiation mainly in visible spectrum arrives at Top-Of-Atmosphere.
2. Most radiation comes down through air unimpeded, and while most hits ocean 30% hits solid surface of some type. Since the ground has between 2 and 8 times higher albedo than water, the radiatively interesting return path is by the water since it has the higher emissivity, even aside from its majority areawise.
3. Assuming the water was less than 5°C, at this point the Ocean heats up.
4. Energy is emitted upwards from the ocean through air conduction, water evaporation, and LWIR radiation. Regardless of the mode, eventually all the energy must leave earth again via radiation because, ipso facto, there is no water vapour or air in space. But if we are interested in surface air temperature then the relative mix between the conduction/convection/evaporation/radiation near the surface is still relevant.
(The GHE talks about radiation, so while conduction/convection/evaporation are busy cooling the surface, the green house effect steps in to slow that process.)
5. The air + water vapour atmosphere, being completely politically unbiased, emits its radiation evenly in all directions, meaning that between 0.5 and 0.47 (depending on altitude) of the atmospheric emission heads back towards the surface.
6. A lot of the back radiation will be absorbed by the atmosphere, and some will make it all the way back to the ocean where again it is absorbed, ready for another attempt at escape.
7. The power rate at which the ocean was cooling is slightly reduced by this radiative feedback. Analogously this is no different than if you have two leaks in your water tank and you plug up one of them you will be losing water slower than before. (The only people who have ever suggested that if you plug up one of the two leaks in the tank then your tank will spontaneously begin filling with water from nowhere are the Slayers.)
We could argue all day about how strong the effect is, how much or how little LWIR at different wavelengths is absorbed by water and ground, and how weak or strong CO2 is in the scheme, but the basic point that the Greenhouse Effect really exists is both permissible by physics and indirectly supported by the evidence of how everything else in the universe responds to radiation.
And yes the name is technically misleading but what else are you going to call it. The earth is warmer with it than without it, which is the same purpose of an artificial greenhouse even though the mechanism is different.
10
Silly Filly says…
Are you aware that the ad-hominen attack is a logical fallacy? Again – do you think that engaging in the use of known logical fallacies makes you look intelligent or – even – adds to your credibility?
10
As I said: Bull!
50
Just so I’m absolutely clear. Yes, we do
70
Amen to that.
Paying carbon indulgences to Arch Bishop Obama and the Uniting Church of Nations?
Screw that.
00
Silly was scratched from the cup and has now come over here to vent her spleen.
Very sad, just nays and tail swishing from the old nag these days; the glue factory beckons I’m afraid.
71
The nature of their wit is akin to the nature of their science, equally abysmal!
218
Silly’s theme song.
20
Hi Cohenite…
LOL.
Kinda vicious…I like it.
00
Question for sillyfilly.
If as is highly probable, in my opinion, the USA did put in a “carbon” tax to raise revenue to reduce their deficit as indicated in the article above, what would you advise all your US mates
(those who believe so much in the science) to do ? All the wording will be dressed up to make it look like it is something to do with emmission reductions but we will all know the real reason for it. In other words the politicians will have taken all your serious concerns and manipulated them to their own benefit. What should your mates do ??
( BTW it will probably be the poor who are most effected)
50
Oh well, if it mainly hurts the poor, who cares?
03
Well tell us silly nag how you’d fix the problem? Out to 2035 the non OECD will increase emissions of co2 by a whopping 73% and the OECD by a tiny 6%.
BTW that’s 73% on 2008 emissions, so one line is nearly flat and the other is rising steeply.(non OECD)
Also 2010 emissions are 13 bn tonnes (OECD) compared to 18.8 bn tonnes(non OECD). So tell us how you can mitigate AGW by wrecking our economies in OECD countries?
We all know you can’t, so why not pack up and go and demonstrate in China and India you stupid fool. Or go and join kindy again until you can understand very simple maths.
40
SillyFilly says…
[1] You must show that the current rise in CO2 emissions during the period of measurement is based on human actions and not because of natural environmental causes, and
[2] You must show that the climate system is sensitive to increases in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
I.e. (1) Humans are responsible, and (2) does it matter.
Your alarmist position has not proven either of these propositions – please provide measurable, empirical data from transparently calibrated instruments that provide repeatable results that demonstrate that these propositions are supported by physical evidence.
[3] “Inappropriate”, “improper” and “disdainful” are matters of personal opinion which the natural world will ignore in silence. Do you have anything that reaches beyond personal opinion to offer?
20
Bull!
20
no: Filly!
70
I was trying to be polite (sort of) but still make the point. Then you came along and I broke down laughing for several minutes over “Filly” – the perfect retort if I ever saw one!
60
Ahh….. the assinine ass does another dump of horses**t
60
Well done Si Fi
You could write for the ABC or Sydney Morgen Herald.
Ha ha
KK
00
The Australian Bureau of Corruption or the Sydney Morbid Herald…
Not much of a choice?
10
Hi SillyFilly,
Let’s just unwind some of the assumptions that you have going.
[1] I have a love of science that began with the discovery of Astronomy when I was six. Are you sure that you actually know what science is? Let’s start with a simple test. A scientific hypothesis is by it’s very nature is able to the tested. Given that it can be tested, then it can be refuted, – aka falsified.
Please SillyFilly, enlighten us all with the specific, measurable empirical events, – that if they were to occur – would refute, and falsify the hypothesis that Anthropogenic emissions of GHGs (primarily CO2) are (1) increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and (2) that such increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will produce Catastrophic Global Warming within the current century.
Could you also please specify the instruments that would be required to make those measurements, and how they would be calibrated.
Some of us, require empirical data of a known and repeatable providence before we will believe anything.
Your assistance in this will be much appreciated.
[2] Could you please define the terms (1) “mindless rhetoric”, (2) sci-fi babble and (3) scientific idiocy. I’m not sure that these words mean what you think that they mean.
[3] Scepticism from the free dictionary.
[4.a] Your quote…
[4.b] Really requires a heroic level of credulity from you in those in a position of authority. Are you aware that argument from authority is a logical fallacy – are you proud to engage in logically fallacious reasoning. Do you think that irrationality makes you look intelligent? I’m actually quite curious as to precisely what you think that you are doing, and what possible impact your actions will have.
Do you have any of the following.
[a] Empirical evidence of net positive feedbacks to increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere in the climate system?
[b] An explanation for the dynamic stability sufficient to sustain complex life on Earth of the climate system over the last 600 million years if it is governed by net positive feedbacks to atmospheric CO2 concentrations when CO2 concentrations have been up to 7000 ppm within that timeframe?
[c] A demonstrable dynamic expression of all the sources and sinks for CO2 within the climate system that accurately measure the impact of human emissions of CO2 on the performance of those sources and sinks that is repeatable in it’s alignment with measured empirical data.
Yours sincerely,
ExWarmist
10
Well Ex warmist you could start with this and work backwards.
David Evans (courtesy SPPI):
“There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence”
Or start with the experiments of John Tyndal and work forward.
Which do you prefer: experimentation and physical reality or bland endorsements of scientific ineptitude!
13
Stupid horse.
So I take it that your last steaming deposit of horse manure is your way of admitting that you can’t answer ExWarmists questions and points.
10
Mark,
If Ex-warmist is as sceptical as he thinks, then at least he should produce some scientific or empirical evidence to refute the known theories.
He has not done so here and is unlikely to ever do so.
CO2 concentrations are rising (the human component is measureable from carbon isotope ratios) and the world is warming as a consequence. There is an inbalance in the earth’s energy budget, hence we see ocean heat content rising as well as troposheric temperatures, as is expected. The stratosphere is cooling as more heat is trapped by greenhouse gases. Simple physical realities that he can’t or won’t address, hence I remain sceptical!
13
No, dopey horse.
When is it going to sink into your horsey brain that the onus is on YOU to disprove the null which you and your like have dismally failed to do. That is, there is nothing happening today which has not happened to an equal or greater extent in the past.
Now get back down to Melbourne and finish your race. Everyone has gone home so you can fool yourself that you really won.
10
Hi Mods – did my reply here to SillyFilly under Mark get caught in the spam bucket? it was link heavy?
00
Or you could answer any one of my questions?
For example
I propose that this question is one of the most difficult for you to engage with as it strikes at the “unquestionable assumption” that “CAGW is true” in your mind. At the moment you are highly unwilling or literally incapable of admitting that your “unquestionable assumption” that “CAGW is true” could be false.
Your mind – with so much invested in the idea of CAGW truthiness simply refuses to go there.
The purpose of propaganda and indoctrination is to insert “unquestionable assumptions” into the mind of the target subjects so that they are incapable of questioning the inserted belief system.
Such belief systems are indistinguishable from Dogma.
Is CAGW a pseudoscientific Dogma – or actual science?
What are the falsification criteria?
How could it be tested?
What would refute it?
Are you capable of an answer?
10
What’s with the CAGW meme: that a construct of the fraud that was the Oregon Petition. So it’s irrelevant.
So in answer, I ask you to prove that
1)No gas emissions of anthropogenic origin are contributing to increasing atmospheric gas concentrations.
2)There are no gases that cause a greenhouse effect.
That may satisfy my scepticism.
04
Hi SillyFilly,
You still fail to answer the question, and are simply attempting the misdirect the conversation away from the question.
This is not my position. I would agree that human emissions of GHGs (primarily CO2) are contributing to increasing atmospheric gas concentrations, however the extent to which they contribute, there residence time, and climate sensitivity to these emissions are open questions.
This is also not my position, I accept that H2O is the primary GHG in the atmosphere and that other GHGs may contribute to the greenhouse effect.
Now – since I have dealt with your misrepresentation of my position, could you please answer the question.
Or are you incapable of forming clear statements in the English language that would describe the specific, measurable empirical events, – that if they were to occur – that would refute, and falsify the hypothesis that Anthropogenic emissions of GHGs (primarily CO2) are (1) increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and (2) that such increase in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will produce Catastrophic Global Warming within the current century.
Is your position Dogma or Science?
20
SillyFilly says…
I would assert that you are not a sceptic as your writing is not marked by “a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions.”
I would assert that you are marked by the following certainties (rather than doubts).
[1] You are right, and I am wrong.
[2] Human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs are causing dangerous warming of the global climate system.
For all I know, someone may present “smoking gun” evidence that can withstand detailed, independent scrutiny that you are right – if that happens I will cheerfully change my mind and position on this issue.
You – however – appear to be suffering from the belief that your “certainty” matters. That being certain is sign of strength in debate. You have missed the salient fact that being certain is the hallmark of every fundamentalist, cultish belief system on the planet.
Are you capable of demonstrating doubt in what you believe to be true – or are you a believer in Dogma, rather than a practicing sceptic who is able to clearly define what the specific, measurable, empirical events would be that would refute what you believe?
10
Lets put my scepticism on the table.
If you are able to demonstrate with specific, measurable empirical evidence from transparently calibrated instruments the following, I will be very impressed with your argument.
[1] That human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have contributed to the majority of the rise in CO2 over the last 150 years.
[2] That human emissions of CO2 and other GHGs have a long residence time (more than 50 years) in the atmosphere.
[3] That the climate system responds to increasing CO2 and other GHG concentrations in the atmosphere with net positive feedback. (can be weak or strong feedback – but must be net positive).
[4] That the climate system has been able to maintain dynamic stability sufficient to maintain complex life over the last 600 million years while being governed by net positive feedback to CO2 and other GHGs concentration in the atmosphere.
[5] That the rate of climate change that has occurred over the last 150 years is faster than the rate of change that has occurred at all points in the Holocene period.
Give strong answers to those questions and I will be impressed.
20
Here’s the Bolter’s column this morning on the Sandy nonsense. All those pesky facts are there so warmists won’t enjoy it much, but it is entirely accurate.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_a_storm_of_hypocrisy/
81
Entirely accurate, and by Andrew Bolt? I think thats a contradiction in terms, isn’t it?
22
*Get ready for Obamas second term and the Feudalism of the Obamanites because here it comes if all goes as they have orchestrated. And there is no way this can be Constitutionally legal.*
Spanish Company Associated w/Geo. Soros Will “Count” America’s Votes Overseas In November. From The Western Center for Journalism in a piece entitled, “Spanish Company Will ‘Count’ American Votes Overseas In November,’ they state the following in this excerpt:
“When the Spanish online voting company SCYTL bought the largest vote processing corporation in the United States, it also acquired the means of manufacturing the outcome of the 2012 election. For SOE, the Tampa based corporation purchased by SCYTL in January, supplies the election software which records, counts, and reports the votes of Americans in 26 states–900 total jurisdictions–across the nation….” Find the rest of the article @ [link to http://www.westernjournalism.com] -…
And if that doesn’t make you squirm, George Soros is closely associated w/one of Obama’s biggest contributors who, himself, is involved with SCYTL, the company that is going to count the votes!! Keep reading.
continued……….
[link to http://www.dailypaul.com]
23
Sonny is here again with the wacky links, Snopes is your friend. I suppose I should be happy it isn’t about 911…..
I heard today that Soros owns all your toilets Sonny! Think about that eh?
31
Global warming as a real issue has fallen apart so to argue for a carbon dioxide tax during an election campaign would have been “too hot to handle”. It appears from the Reuters article in Jo’s piece and from other recent media articles that the whole issue had already been diverted onto a parallel track inside the US EPA. By the end of the month we will see drastic measures announced which will spiral energy costs upwards and successively hobble the coal sector.
The USA has a crippling debt problem and I guess everyone in positions of authority are grappling for solutions so a broad-based tax of some sort will have to be brought it. In effect it will be a large and rising consumption tax with many victims along the way.
My guess is that the climate agenda was only ever a cover right from the out-set. They must hate sites like this.
40
An economy wide cascading tax which will rip through the heart of the economy and its effect is multiplied over and over again as products and services are sold. Will do absolutely nothing to effect a change in global temperatures. A scam of the highest order for which every taxpayer will pay dearly.
40
This is their hour. The zombie is not climate but Secular-Progressive and it has been for more than a hundred years. Climate is just their warm-up act.
71
My blood turns to ice reading your comment.
00
Hi Roy,
You might just add Sinister to your zombie description.
Sinister, as in the Latin for Left.
00
Wow, Secular-Progressive! Just how scary is that!
10
There is almost nothing I agree with alarmists about; one is that the concept of gas guzzlers in the US should be taxed more heavily, so they pay the same gasoline price as the rest of us – that sounds like good economic sense to me.
It will reduce gasoline demand in the USA, which means lower crude oil prices for the rest of us. It means the USA’s huge budget and trade deficits will be dramatically and quickly cut, which is good news for the health of the world’s economy.
That’s as far as it goes – a general carbon tax, like that of Australia, is just plain goofy by being economically harmful without providing any environmental benefits.
30
Peter, gas guzzlers already pay more tax because it’s charged by the gallon.
Dream on.
The problem with more revenue to the government is that they have a predictable track record of not spending it wisely.
30
Mark
I don’t really like using Wikipedia because of its blatant bias and distortions over anything to do with climate data, but it does have a useful chart on gasoline taxes:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=us%20gas%20taxes&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFuel_tax&ei=Mu2aUML9JYqohAeD3oAI&usg=AFQjCNFmqKJ0ON5kQ6K2xSmZeA8EH_n7gQ
As you can see the USA, Canada and Australia pay the lowest gasoline taxes – shame on you. If the US paid the same taxes as a typical European country, then overnight their budget deficit would cease to be a problem. The problem is the average American thinks he has a God given right to have low cost gasoline.
However, your point of: “predictable track record of not spending it wisely” is well taken.
20
Peter, why should petrol be taxed at all?
10
To raise revenue. you know, the stuff the government has to have before they can spend on anything?
00
Catamon says:
Nice snarky reply…….But why petrol? Why tax the means people must use to be productive?
Taxes on petrol were always supposed to be used for roadway maintenance. That supports the notion of increasing productivity.
You and apparently Peter too, feel that productivity should be reduced. For what reason?
00
Peter,
We all have a god-given right to resist onerous taxation. Shame on Europe for unfairly taxation!
All sale tax on petrol should by law only be spent on maintaining local road infrastructure! Any other usage of a sales tax on petrol can not be justified.
The petrol tax should be as low as possible because it is a regressive tax that disproportionally taxes the income of battlers.
The reason why Canada, the US and Australia have lower gasoline taxes than Europe is because we are big countries with a lot of empty space between things. We believe in the fair go!
Simple geography means we depend upon and love the personal freedom of owning our own automobiles. Just the knowledge in the back of our minds that we could pack a bag tonight and drive thousands of miles across a beautiful continent, often without seeing a single stop light, is somehow reassuring. It’s part of our culture to be mobile. A proxy for Freedom.
Europe has a long history of restricting freedom of movement. Having the highest petrol taxes on Earth is part of that history.
But the US, Australia and Canada were built by people fleeing Europe, people who love to move freely, without Big Brother taxing or shaming them.
30
Except us atheist Wes. Without god in the picture, we have no idea how we get our rights.
01
HI JB,
As a fellow Athiest – the answer is simple – you have to declare what your rights are and then fight for them. You will hold onto your rights only as long as you are willing and capable of defending them.
The default position for human political society is tyranny and enslavement. Anything better than that has to be fought for.
10
Don’t worry JB instead of God, unelected elitists from Europe will ensure you get the rights you deserve. Of course, you can pretend to believe that God gave you your human rights. It’s safer that way.
00
I wonder if I should say this. But we use x% of the worlds petroleum and we also, directly or indirectly produce about x% of the world’s goods and services.
At the last figure I know of x was about 25.
And this bothers people exactly why?
I don’t get it. Can anyone tell me why this is inequitable?
20
Roy, I think you didn’t mention: invented x (number) of life extending drugs, x technology in use right now…..
I’ll stop there.
But ask: if one has envy over what we have/have done, would you/they rather prevent or promote other countries doing even better?
Anything that makes energy more expensive, slows or stops innovation.
10
Peter,
You said
It will reduce gasoline demand in the USA, which means lower crude oil prices for the rest of us. It means the USA’s huge budget and trade deficits will be dramatically and quickly cut, which is good news for the health of the world’s economy.
The debt incurred by the USA cannot and never will be repaid.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
All this carbon tax will do is generate more money for them to spend on nice new shiny bombs and cracked crab buffets where they can discuss even more insidious ways to rip that last dollar out of you.
11
The true Crakar24 begins to show through…
🙁
00
Roy,
I have hardly made a comment here for about a month but when i do i have to put up with shit from you.
You do realise that i am not like most here, i will not politely put up with your shit and not respond. I do not take fools lightly and you sir are a fool.
So once again just for clarity, the USA is in so much debt it can never ever be repaid they tax the crap out of their people, they pay them shit wages, they remove services, they let infrustructure crumble but yet they still find the cash to build weapons to blow the shit out of anyone they dont like.
If you dont like my comments then simply shut up if you want an arguement then fire away i will respond in kind.
Regards
Crakar
01
You display what is to me an unjustified bias against my country. Do you expect that I’ll simply be silent forever?
You can have your opinion if it suits you. I would not dream of trying to censor you. But I have the right to speak out just as you do.
I have no trouble living with the fact that you aren’t going to approve of me.
00
If you are a supporter of President Obama, you may remember how — up until about two paragraphs from now — you felt optimistic,
excited about the re-election of the president, thrilled he mentioned climate change in his speech.
✪
And then you got to here. From The Hill:
Anyway, the point is that you shouldn’t have read this post if you wanted to maintain the illusion that Congress would work together to save the planet.
Sorry about that.
20
Just one projection of the future.
00
The trick to having a Greenhouse Tax is to make sure you dont hand out more compensation than the tax raises. But with 47% of the population with an attitude of entitlement, I cant see that happening.
10
Huh! Not that anyone cares any more.
In May of 2010, two and a half years back now, the U.S. attempted to bring in its first go at Cap and Trade.
The bill, all 987 pages of it, failed to get up.
Now, Cap and Trade is back on the agenda. In much the same manner as Prime Minister Gillard’s “there will be no….etc etc” President Obama will now say he has a mandate to do this, even though it got zero mention during the campaign.
Again, let me stress that this nothing whatsoever to do with lowering emissions, and is only about the money, humungous amounts of money.
Again, who really cares now anyway, but at the time, I did a small series for the site I contribute at, and I’ll link in to that headline Post at the bottom of my Comment here. Please don’t think I’m linking in to my own Posts to bump the numbers at my site, because after all, this was more than 2 years back now, and the visitor numbers are only incidental, if that, for a Post from that far back.
Also, this now failed U.S. legislation was the model for the recently introduced Australian legislation.
If you think the Australian legislation raises a shirtload of money, in the U.S. you can multiply that by, well, heaps.
It shows exactly why this really is only about the money.
Here’s the link to that original Post, and at the bottom are 4 more links to further matters that arose from that same legislation. But hey, it’s all academic now isn’t it? Fait accompli!
Kerry Lieberman – The Great Big April Fools Day Tax Grab
Tony.
60
Tony,
The cap-and-trade idea still won’t fly through the House of Representatives but it doesn’t matter if the EPA can impose it by regulation.
I don’t know how that will work out yet. But it doesn’t look good.
10
Call me a sceptic, but re: carbon tax/ets, maybe Gillard taught Obama the “trick” how to get voted in.?
10
SILENT MAJORITY IS THE REAL WINNER
The real winner (or loser) of the US election was not Obama, with only 60,572,793 votes (33.6% of country’s 179,929,078 registered voters), but the non-voting Silent Majority with 61,500,000 non-votes (34.2%).
20
That just shows that there is a third party potentiality the non-voting segment felt there was no reason to vote as they had no real good candidate. If some one were to become available that would not align themselves with the two current parties, and stand for honesty and reducing the size and budget of the government, bring the GIs home from two countries where most of our work has been done and just leave them to govern themselves.
Be ready to end the senseless drug war at home, and the waste full spending on the IPCC as well as the rest of the UN, cut all grants to studies with CO2 as the main motivator of the BS paper research into CAGW and the scaremongers. Most of the rest of those non-voters would be actively campaigning for academic reforms and lower spending,taxes, and unemployment goals.
00
Unfortunately, the U.S silent majority aren’t silent due a lack of choices. It is due to their complete apathy and willingness to let others do their thinking for them.
00
Yes, the silent majority who couldn’t be bothered. Not necessarily a bad thing. I lived in Curtin electorate for a while. No point voting there – the Libs would win it every time. Except once, and that was fun. But all other elections, its just a wasted trip to the local primary school, and queueing for 5 minutes, and going home again.
01
That would be code for people who’s opinions don’t matter politically?
10
Great! Was there for all to see in his victory speech when he referred to coming generations and a warming planet. Interesting point up-thread that they may go around congress and do it by regulation? If he can pull that off would get around the stupid teabaggers and their seeming obsession with trashing the joint unless they get their way.
16
“Teabaggers”?
Do you have a hangup with “Bull” stuff Cat?
Stupid remains to be seen. How many people would have voted for 20% more federal taxes? Yet that and more is what will be coming with the Obamanation.
PS JB wants to know more about “baggin” maybe you can help?
30
It did not feature at all during the campaign and there is next to no chance he could pass an ETS through Congress.
10
Isn’t it amazing how the true attitude of people finally comes through? But then, we already knew Catamon, did we not? And one “teabagger” is worth 100 of him!
01
If the POTUS can just slide all of the agenda through by regulation then what would be the point of Congress? They might as well just go home.
00
Teabaggers are great. They made sure that the Republicans couldn’t win the election. Maybe the teabaggers are closet lefties?
11
🙂 Great wasn’t it. With Palin looking all confused. Not that it takes much.
01
John, Catamon,
I might suggest that the two of you pay more attention to your own house. But you’d ignore that, would you not?
00
John (oh, and some others too)
might you explain to us the derivation of the term ‘Teabagger’ and umm, just why you need to refer to them in that manner.
No wimping now!
Tony.
20
The term Teabagger for someone who participates in or identifies with the Tea Party movement in the US, as well as their wannnabeee clones eleswhere?
From what i have read, their early campaigns involved “teabagging” Washington which they defined as the act of sending a teabag with some form of protest written on its label. They then went on to some extent of public self-identification as “Teabaggers”. I suspect that was planned to try and enhance the apparent connection with the whole Boston Tea Party / Freedom garbage thing.
Then, the connection between what these loonies were calling themselves and the term for the what some consider to be the slightly un-savory sexual practice of repeated insertion of a persons scrotum into their male or female partners mouth, was made by some humorists in the US. After they realised why these people were publicly cacking themselves every time they had to say “Teabagger” on air, they now get all huffy about people calling them what they actually wanted to be called.
Overall, hilarious. 🙂
02
Nice try Cat. But everyone can see you use “teabagger” to insult and denigrate when you have no intelligent arguments to make.
The Tea Party are the mainstream family party calling for the entirely ordinary and obvious: an end to corrupt practices and a return to the constitution. If they weren’t au fait with all the street-terms used to describe every last minor sexual practice, so what? Your gloating reveals more about you than them.
It’s not much fun being a bully around here is it?
Sorry about that. But there are plenty of other sites where bullies go to pat themselves on the back, admire their “intellect” and tell each other how smart they are.
BTW: “Teabagger” is now a moderated term. People need to say something worthwhile.
01
I wouldn’t know, but some of the angry crew here who jump on anyone, even newbies, who dont subscribe to their particular point of view certainly would.
Still your blog and i am as always happy to play by the rules such as they are applied.
Particularly when the humour gets this good!
I’ll now avoid the use of the T term. 🙂
11
Teabagger Brookes says:
No John, the Republicans made sure they couldn’t win. The power within the Party made multiple grave mistakes.
First, they DIDN’T embrace the tea party.
Second, they didn’t embrace the Ron Paul faction either.
These two errors alone were fatal.
Additionally, the GOP inner power brokers are inept when it comes to developing a message based on party platform planks and solid principles. Instead they try to use watered down sound bites that don’t ring true.
Mit failed because he didn’t say the things that the Tea Party people would have said. Just the opposite of what you imagine.
21
YESS!
Really?
Seems that much of the commentary about the nut-bagger right taking away the wrong lessons from defeat are true. Who’s a thunk it.
01
Actually, that said i will follow with interest the developments in US politics over the next few weeks. Mainly as to whether the Republicans who aren’t in the orbit of the Tea Party can drag them back any distance towards what passes for the centre of politics in the US?
Hopefully see something other than the politics of NO both here and there.
01
Catamon, learn something by looking at this map: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
Click on a few blue states that went for Barry. You’ll note that by county (or land area if you’d rather) Republicans easily would make up the majority. These counties are populated by hard working, church going farmers and people more like the Founding Fathers in how they live than city dwellers. They are frugal, self sustaining, decent people that respect others when they are seen to be worthy and they know there is no such thing as a free lunch.
These are your Tea Party members.
I’ve seen both the Left and sadly the Right attempt to slander the Tea Party people. Why? Because the power brokers of national politics don’t really like being upset. The national power brokers seem to be interested in pulling power and control away from the states. This too is a major issue amongst Tea Party members.
So Catamon, I know why you despise Tea Party types, They represent a threat to your politics. I SAY GOOD!
11
Wot, slave-owners?
Ahh, or are you making the tired old argument that country people are inherently more sensible and virtuous so their vote should count for more than those danged decadent city folk??
Ah, i see that you are!
You know, you would probably have been right at home here, in Queensland, in the 70’s. 🙂
Nope, i dislike them because i think they are deluded and dangerous fools who appear to be doing all they can to break down any sense of community in the US that reaches beyond their limited horizons.
I see people trying to use similar tactics and nasty bullying tactics here. Not something we should import from the US.
12
OOOOOh nasty bullying…..Another leftist phenom. How to control your world; accuse anyone you don’t like of “bullying”.
Useless.
As useless as your contempt for the Founding Fathers and their profound wisdom.
Good for you, working like our congress, towards a more progressive and happy place.
Too bad it isn’t working
11
Catamon–if we are going to live at the “center” of politics, we only need one party to dictate what is to be done. There is only ONE center so two parties are an encumbrance to that. You argue for one party rule, a monarchy or a dictatorship.
Concerning bullying and the Tea Party: Anyone who is not with the Liberal Left is a bully. That is by definition. Leftists can call people names I cannot repeat here and it is an act of kindness meant to enrich the life of thepoor sap and help him see the light. The 99% can defecate in a park and are gentle, kind folks. A Tea Party member accidentally drops a gum wrapper and they are littering monsters. Surely you could not have missed the memo on this–everything Left is good and moral. All else is evil and wrong. All morals are fluid, so if the Left redefines them, it’s not hypocrisy, it’s enlightenment.
This rule on bullying extends everywhere. The “tolerate, caring Left” can call people homophobes (which is a derogatory term with as much hatred attached as “queer” ever had), but no one can homosexuals anything but gay. Name calling is only name calling if it’s against a liberal tenant. You see this in climate change. The Gods of climate change learned to follow the Left’s rules–he opposes us must be crushed, humiliated and driven out. It is the Law of Left. It’s caring and tolerant and you better agree or the Left will pummel you into submission.
10
I have never argued for such. You need to be careful of this sort of construct you’ve built, particularly when you start from an assumption like:
And treat that assumption like its actually true instead of the silly drivel that it is.
11
“orbit of the Tea Party can drag them back any distance towards what passes for the centre of politics in the US?” You did not say that this is a bad thing. You seemed pleased with the idea. Perhaps I misunderstood and you really are a supporter of the Tea Party.
You cannot have a government of “yes” unless you have only one party. That’s just the way it is. You can have two parties that look remarkably alike and pretend they are different, but to get the “yes” instead of the “no”, one party will be necessary. Think of it as climate change. Can you put “deniers” and “warmers” together in the same room and reach any agreement? How about creationists and evolutionists?
What is the centre of American politics? Do you have any idea? If you ask Democrats, it’s more to their side and letting them do everything they want. Republicans say the same. Moderates seem to be Democrats pretending to be Republicans and vice versa.
So, how about a definition of the “centre” of American politics (please make sure it is the centre, not just everyone moves to one side)? How do we “all get along”? Doing it “my way” is not getting along, which is the current requirement for Liberals in America. Their way or else. Are you arguing “my way or else”? If not, please explain. If you are arguing “my way”, then you are arguing for one party.
10
Alice Thermopolis –
where do your figures for the Popular Vote come from?
Popular Vote:
Obama: 60,652,149 Romney: 57,810,390
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
Popular Vote:
Obama: 270 to win
60,652,149 Romney:57,810,390 http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president
00
just want to comment on another tax push that no-one ever mentions, including the two main political parties:
5 Nov: News Ltd Editorial: Be brave and review taxation
THERE are some areas of policy in which only the fearless tread. Unfortunately for Australia, very few politicians in the Federal Parliament answer to that description. Therefore, the much-needed debate about this nation’s taxation system will remain beyond the scope of this most volatile of Parliaments.
That is unfortunate because the tax system, like any government apparatus, requires ongoing assessment and reform if it is to remain responsive to the needs of both the economy and the taxpayer. That’s why the Gillard Government correctly established a bipartisan committee to review the GST. The committee included former New South Wales Liberal premier Nick Greiner, former Victorian Labor premier John Brumby and South Australian business expert Bruce Carter. But, to underline the cowardice of this Government, the committee was not asked to look at the rate of the GST or what it covered…
The Opposition has fended off the debate by promising to prepare a White Paper on the tax system should it win the next election.
But the Labor Government remains unmoved on a matter that has long been too sensitive for some politicians. They recoil at the punishment delivered to John Hewson when he asked voters to elect his Liberal Opposition in 1993 with a promise to install a GST…
While the debate on the GST is frozen, revenue-starved governments have to resort to other measures to lift their income streams. This means bad taxes are increased or new taxes invented…
The GST has not realised the revenue hoped by politicians who have watched spending surge on exempt items, such as health and education, while consumers also try to save their money in challenging times.
Lifting the GST base to lower other taxes would be an overly simple change to the system. Instead, the full debate about the best ways for governments to gain revenue would consider the full range of options available in taxation systems.
Mr Greiner is among the people whose views should be considered. Few know the difficulty of funding expensive state services – or the capriciousness of a tax revenue dependent on consumers’ spending – like a state premier. And no one has the grittiness to urge reform like a former politician now free from party discipline.
Tax systems, like the nations they service, grow. Let them grow in harmony. Australians have always shown they can engage in intelligent macro-economic debate. Voters should be given the chance.
Responsibility for election comment is taken by David Fagan (News Queensland editorial director)
http://www.news.com.au/top-stories/editorial-be-brave-and-review-taxation/story-e6frfkp9-1226510411880
in other words, Greiner, a Liberal, wants to raise the GST or extend it to exempt items. the Coalition is “promising to prepare a White Paper on the tax system should it win the next election”.
and it’s all because the public has less disposable income to spend due to other taxes, including the carbon dioxide tax we would never have under the current Govt.
and the Murdoch media says bring it on!
00
Its all very well for the Murdoch press to accuse pollies of not being brave enough to tackle the tax system, but if anyone does try and change things (mining super profit tax anyone?), the Murdoch press sinks the boots in.
If our media commented rationally, we would all be better off. But they won’t. For any tax proposal you want to make, they’ll roll out a 98 year old lady from back of Burke and show how here life would be ruined by the changes.
Incidentally, a rather big change snuck through as a result of Wayne’s enthusiasm for a surplus. Being at UWA, I got an email about it a couple of days back. Various types of salary packaging are no longer available. Which is fantastic, because salary packaging is another odd policy that should be ditched.
01
What I find interesting in this whole argument about the introduction of a Price on CO2 in the U.S. is that they keep telling us that this is a dire problem, and that we need to do something immediately to alleviate the problem.
This will have some Math, and also some links. (Not to any of my own Posts, so therefore they can’t be perceived as crap, as some commenters here believe about My Posts at my Home site.)
We’re told that this so called price on Carbon (sic) is needed to alleviate the problem, which is just absolute bovine waste.
Consider this.
If the problem was so dire, then the obvious thing to do is to stop those emissions, and yet all they seek to do is to place a cost on them.
So then, in the last four and a half years how many of those large scale coal fired power plants have closed down? (Of a scale from 1000MW to 2000MW+)
Not one of them.
See the chart at this link, and scroll down to the second (smallish) chart with Unit Size as the heading in the left column.
Note the bottom three lines on that list. That has not changed since I first saw this chart in mid 2008.
Those plants in just those three target areas emit 1.98 Billion tons of CO2 EACH year.
So then, how much CO2 is emitted from (just) the coal fired sector alone. That is shown at this link at the very bottom of the chart, headed as rolling 12 Months ending in August, that number being 834,408 (expressed here in thousand tons, so that’s just less than one Billion tons) Each one ton of coal burned emits 2.86 tons of CO2. (Scroll down to the paragraph titled Coal Combustion and Carbon Dioxide Emissions)
So, from that total, that means an emission of 2.38 Billion tons of CO2.
So, just from the large scale plants I mentioned above, we have 83% of all CO2 emissions from the coal fired sector.
Now some of you will notice the distinct drop in coal consumption over the last year. That is not from the closure of any of these large plants which are all still working as they always have, but from the closure of a large number of smaller coal fired plants, nearly all of them less than 100MW Nameplate, and nearly all of them older than 40 and 50 years.
So, there has been a drop in CO2 emissions then.
However, let’s then look at another source, that of Natural Gas Fired plants, where emissions of CO2 have risen and by a large amount.
That is shown at this link. (again bottom number on that chart, that number being 9,226,748. (That is expressed there in million cubic feet of NG, and one million cubic feet is a one thousand mcf) hence that number equates to just more than 9 Billion mcf, which equates to a 35% increase over the last 4 years.
122 pounds of CO2 is emitted from the burning of one mcf of Natural Gas, so that number equates to 563 Million tons of CO2 emitted.
Note how (almost exponentially) the consumption of NG has risen over the last 12 months. That does not mean that a large number of new NG plants have come on line, because in fact, very few of them have been constructed.
What it does mean is that while those small coal fired plants have closed, the slack is now being taken up by those NG plants, which, instead of running for a few hours a day, are now running for considerably longer, hence the huge increase in NG consumption.
Again, I stress that none of those large scale plants have closed in almost 5 years that I have been watching this.
Now, let’s then look at Renewables specifically Wind Power, and see how this is supposedly being introduced so that those coal fired plants can be closed.
In just the last 4 years, almost 35,000MW (Nameplate Capacity only here) of new wind power has come on line. That is the equivalent of 17 large scale (2000MW) coal fired power plants.
Again we come back to how many large scale coal fired plants have closed.
Again NONE.
With all that new wind power, ask the question as to specifically why NG consumption has risen so dramatically over those intervening 4 years.
Wind cannot compete, cannot supply, cannot deliver. Wind power cannot deliver when power is required, and those NG plants are being run for longer periods of time to supply the power not coming from wind.
And now they talk of placing a price on CO2 emissions.
Coal Fired power current: 2.38 Billion tons of CO2
Natural Gas Fired power current: 0.563 Billion Tons of CO2
Total: almost 3 Billion tons of CO2 just from the delivery of electrical power, which makes up 35 to 40% of all emissions.
At even the low price of $20 per ton, that comes in at $60 Billion each year, and that’s just from electrical power alone.
All aimed at a captive target, all passed directly down to all consumers.
This is not being mooted to lower emissions.
It’s just for the money.
But hey, who cares now?
Tony.
50
Hank’s post on US wind is rather good. There’s less land suitable for wind turbines than windocrats might think.
The offshore wind quality is better but East Coast wind farms would be quite exciting places to be when something harder than a Sandy came through. The problem wouldn’t be the wind as much as the pounding action of the water. But you could clean up all the scrap metal afterwards, rebuild the turbines and get a brilliant Keynesian boost to your economy.
10
The clean energy people say the stories and models of turbines in hurricanes are flawed. Anti-wind people are just trying to scare everyone. Hey, we build them in tornado and earthquake zones all the time, and in extreme cold where the towers occasionally fall over due to metal fatigue. So what’s a hurricane? If you limit where we can build turbines, you are just dooming us to those evil fossil fuels or terrifying nuclear. So much better to pillage the planet in the name of saving it than for money (which all environmentalists work for free you know). One should not worry about hurricanes and wind turbines if the clean energy people say the turbines are safe.
00
quoted by Matthew Carr in his widely-syndicated HSBC (drug launderers since the 19th century) piece is “Center for Climate and Energy Solutions” of Arlington, Virginia (alarm bells going off):
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Board of Directors
David Hone
Senior Climate Change Adviser, Royal Dutch Shell
He joined Shell in 1980 after graduating as a Chemical Engineer from the University of Adelaide in South Australia. He initially worked for Shell as a refinery engineer in Australia and The Netherlands, before becoming the supply economist at the Shell refinery in Sydney. In 1989 Mr. Hone transferred to London to work as an oil trader in Shell Trading and held a number of senior positions in that organisation until 2001…
Theodore Roosevelt IV
Chair, Strategies for the Global Environment,
Managing Director, Investment Banking at Barclays Capital
(from bio) He was elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of Lehman Brothers Financial Products Inc. in 1994, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of Lehman Brothers Derivative Products Inc. in 1998. In February 2007, he was appointed Chairman of Lehman Brothers’ Council on Climate Change.
Mr. Roosevelt received his AB from Harvard in 1965. Immediately following, he joined the Navy as an officer in Underwater Demolition Team Eleven. Following his active duty, he joined the Department of State as a Foreign Service Officer. In 1972, Mr. Roosevelt received his MBA from Harvard Business School.
Mr. Roosevelt is Board Chair of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES), a Co-Vice Chair of The Climate Reality Project, a member of the Governing Council of the Wilderness Society, and a Trustee for the American Museum of Natural History and The World Resources Institute. He is also Counselor, China-U.S. Center for Sustainable Development and served as a board member of the League of Conservation Voters for nine years; three of which, he served as the Chairman. Mr. Roosevelt is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, The Economic Club of New York, and a Governor of the Foreign Policy Association…
At the Republican Convention in 2000, Mr. Roosevelt gave the speech on the environment…
Leslie Carothers
Scholar-in-Residence at Pace Law School
Eileen Claussen
President, Strategies for the Global Environment,
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
Hon. Eileen Claussen
President, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions
President, Strategies for the Global Environment
Eileen Claussen is the President of the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions and Strategies for the Global Environment. Ms. Claussen is the former Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
Prior to joining the Department of State, Ms. Claussen served for three years as a Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Global Environmental Affairs at the National Security Council. She has also served as Chairman of the United Nations Multilateral Montreal Protocol Fund.
Ms. Claussen was Director of Atmospheric Programs at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, where she was responsible for activities related to the depletion of the ozone layer; Title IV of the Clean Air Act; and the EPA’s energy efficiency programs, including the Green Lights program and the Energy Star program.
Ms. Claussen is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Ecomagination Advisory Board, The National Petroleum Council, and the U.S. Commodity Future Trading Commission’s Advisory Committee…
William B. Ellis
Resident Fellow, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, Yale University,
Former CEO of Northeast Utilities
Over the past thirty years, he has served on numerous corporate boards, including MassMutual Financial Group, HSB Group, and Renegy Holdings, Inc., a renewable energy company focused on acquiring, developing, and operating biomass-to-electricity power-generation facilities, and he presently is on the Advisory Board of Soltage, Inc., a solar-facility development company…
Ann Klee
Vice President of Environment, Health & Safety at GE
Ann R. Klee is the Vice President of Environment, Health & Safety at General Electric Company in Fairfield, Connecticut, where she leads the company’s global environmental, health and safety (EHS) programs and is responsible for ensuring that GE’s global operations comply with applicable EHS laws and regulations, managing the Company’s environmental litigation, supporting Ecomagination, and advising GE business leaders on environmental and energy policy issues…
From 2004 to 2006, Ann was General Counsel of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). She is also the former Chief Counsel of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works and served as the Counselor to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior (DOI)…
Wayne Leonard
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Entergy Corporation
Frank E. Loy
Former Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs
When President Obama appointed Frank Loy as Alternate U.S. Representative to the 66th Session of the UN General Assembly in 2011, it marked the fourth U.S. administration to name him to a senior position in the Department of State…
At present he serves on the boards of numerous non-profit organizations, particularly in the field of the environment.
Environmental Defense Fund (former chair)
The Nature Conservancy
Population Services International, which, with an annual budget of some $600 million, provides family planning and health products and services in over 60 developing countries (chair)…
He is a member of The American Academy of Diplomacy and the Council on Foreign Relations.
James P. McGinnis
Managing Director, Harbinger Capital Partners
Prior to that, he was the managing director at AIG-FP where he was responsible for developing principal investments, financing and strategic services with power companies and the financial community…
Before joining AIG-FP, he was managing director in the Global Energy and Utilities Group at Morgan Stanley, which he joined in 1993. While at Morgan Stanley, Mr. McGinnis was responsible at different times for global coverage of selected utility clients, including M&A and a wide variety of capital-raising; investment banking business in Asia and Australia; privatization of the entire, state-owned electricity supply sector of South Australia; and the US power and pipeline industry. Mr. McGinnis began his career with Goldman Sachs & Co. as a mergers & acquisitions and restructuring specialist in the Energy and Telecommunications Group…
John Schmitz
Managing Partner, Schmitz Global Partners LLP
Mr. Schmitz’s clients have included the US Chamber of Commerce, Deutsche Welle (German TV), General Electric, Bayer AG, Bertelsmann, Bosch GmbH, Gillette, Pfizer, Microsoft, Verizon, Eli Lilly Co., Ford Motor Co., and Arkema., among others…
http://www.c2es.org/about/board
and we know just how much they all care about saving the planet from manmade global warming! LOL.
10
U.N. offset prices drop 15 pct on supply jump
LONDON, Nov 7 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Secondary Certified Emissions Reduction prices fell more than 15 percent from a four-day high hit earlier on Wednesday, as the U.N. ramped up issuance of credits this week.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2050825?&ref=searchlist
7 Nov: Bloomberg: Joseph de Weck: Spain Delays Signing Onto Desertec Sahara Solar Project
Spain delayed signing onto a pact that would have cleared the way to build the first 600 million- euro ($768 million) solar plant in a network of generators envisioned to stretch across the Sahara desert.
Germany, France, Italy, Malta, Luxembourg and Morocco support plans to export renewable energy in the form of sun power via cables under the Strait of Gibraltar to Europe while Spain’s agreement is pending, according to a statement today.
“I am confident that the governments will sort out the negotiations,” Paul van Son, chief executive officer of (Desertec Industrial Initiative GmbH) Dii, said today at the venture’s third annual conference in Berlin. “The MOU will be a big step forward as it would bring renewable energy across borders from Morocco to Europe.”
Three years after the founding of Dii, the initiative that wants to generate electricity from the sun from Egypt to Morocco, it’s still waiting construction of its first project…
The Munich-based company’s shareholders include utilities such as EON AG and RWE AG. (RWE) Deutsche Bank AG, UniCredit SpA (UCG) and Munich Re, also shareholders, would help finance the project while Dii wants to obtain state-backed grants and loan guarantees to entice more investment…
Dii was dealt a blow on Oct. 22 when Siemens AG (SIE) pulled out of the venture and closed its unprofitable solar business
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/spain-delays-signing-onto-desertec-sahara-solar-project.html
7 Nov: GreenProphet: Tafline Laylin: Siemens Exits Desertec and China Wants to Enter
As part of its plan to shake off its unprofitable solar shackles, including Israel’s Solel initiative, German giant Siemens has exited the ambitious Desertec project. But that doesn’t seem to have deterred the strength of the initiative, which is designed to enable Europe to import one fifth of its power by 2050 from renewable energy plants scattered across Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia and other North African and Middle Eastern countries, as firms in China and other countries make moves to get involved.
China’s State Grid Corp (SGCC) expressed an interest in becoming involved in the $514 billion Desertec renewable energy project, according to a conglomerate spokesperson, Reuters reports…
http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/11/siemens-and-china-desertec/
LOL. not a shred of proof provided:
5 Nov: Reuters: China’s State Grid interested in joining Desertec
Reporting by Jens Hack; Writing by Christoph Steitz; Editing by Mark Potter
Chinese power company State Grid Corp (SGCC) is interested in joining the Desertec project aimed at expanding the use of renewable energy in Europe and North Africa, a spokesman for Desertec said on Monday.
The Financial Times Deutschland newspaper reported earlier that SGCC was interested in joining the project, without giving its sources…
Spread over 6,500 square miles – more than half the size of Belgium – the project’s planned delivery of 1,064 terawatt hours (TWh) would be almost enough energy to power the whole of Germany for two years…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/05/desertec-sgcc-idUSL5E8M56JD20121105
00
6 Nov: Reuters Point Carbon: Amazon tribe scraps carbon credit deal with Irish firm
SAO PAULO, Nov 6 (Reuters Point Carbon) – An indigenous community in the Brazilian Amazon state of Para has cancelled a controversial deal that would have allowed an Irish company to sell carbon credits from a project to preserve its forests, said the group’s leader and a local prosecutor on Tuesday.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2049556
without subscribing, can’t be sure about details in the above, and the story naturally isn’t being carried by MSM, but presumably it’s the following, which is another ongoing dispute:
12 March: Brazilian Indians Sell Amazon Land Rights to Irish Firm
SAO PAULO – The Mundurucu Indians have sold their rights to 23,000 sq. kilometers (8,880 sq. miles) of land in the Brazilian Amazon to the Irish company Celestial Green Ventures, one of the world’s leading firms in the world carbon-credits market, the press reported.
The $120 million deal was not approved by the entire tribe and is being investigated by the government, which questions the validity of the 30-year contract that bars the indigenous community from legally logging or growing crops in its territory, the O Estado de Sao Paulo newspaper reported.
The land is in the Jacareacanga municipality in the northern state of Para, and authorities fear that this surrender of land rights will endanger biodiversity and the development of the Indian community, the paper said after its staff was allowed to study the contract.
Another of the articles questioned in the contract is the company’s free access to indigenous territory, which by law is autonomous in granting or refusing entry to people outside the community, even including the Brazilian army.
The National Indian Foundation, or Funai, has 30 similar contracts on record between indigenous ethnicities and European companies that trade in carbon credits, a mechanism that compensates for gas emissions by industrial companies, chiefly in the developed world.
Celestial Green Ventures has 16 projects in the Brazilian Amazon region that together cover almost 200,000 sq. kilometers (77,220 sq. miles), an area twice the size of Portugal.
Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira commented that Brazil must make sure that “opportunities to increase the value of biodiversity are not used to disguise acts of biopiracy.”
The Irish company’s representative in Brazil, Ciaran Kelly, said that all contracts are submitted to a “rigorous process of free, previous and informed consent on the part of the Indian communities, while respecting international standards for the regulation of the environment.” EFE
http://laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=477858&CategoryId=14090
15 March: REDD-Monitor.org: Celestial Green Ventures’ contracts are “not valid”, says Brazil’s National Indian Foundation, FUNAI
Yesterday, Márcio Meira, president of the Brazilian government’s National Indian Foundation (FUNAI), held a press conference at FUNAI’s headquarters in Brazilia. Point Carbon reported that “Brazil’s top judge may annul 30 deals that give investors legal title to carbon credits by avoiding deforestation in the Amazon.”
The press conference took place after reports in the Brazilian and international media about an Irish company called Celestial Green Ventures, that claims to have the carbon rights to an area of 20 million hectares of forest in the Brazilian Amazon…
At this point, we have to take a detour, to Florida, where on 12 April 2007, a company called Pop Starz Publishing Corp. was incorporated. In June 2008, the company changed its name to Apollo Entertainment Group, Inc. The company’s business was pressing vinyl records and duplicating CDs and DVDs. On 19 October 2009, Manfred H. Wutzer bought 15,950,237 shares (or approximately 95.8%) from Michelle Tucker, who was at that time the company’s President, Chief Executive Officer, sole director and principal shareholder.
Wutzer decided to move the company in a different direction: mining and reforestation. On 10 December 2009, he changed the company’s name to Apollo Capital Group, Inc. And so we come back to the strange world of Celestial Green Ventures.
Celestial Investments was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apollo Capital Group. The company was established in November 2008 and appears to have done little for its first year or so. Then, in 2010, Celestial Investments started selling and marketing carbon credits from Celestial Green’s Rondonia Project. By 31 July 2010, Celestial Investments had secured letters of intent “for the sale and purchase of 8,600,00 carbon credits on a ‘when issued basis’ at a total sales price of $45,150,000 or $5.25 per carbon credit,” according to the filing with the US Security and Exchange Commission. Celestial Investments would receive a 10% sales fee “as well as reimbursement of certain out of pocket expenses”…
By the way, Ciaran Kelly, the CEO of Celestial Green Ventures is also director of Apollo Capital Group. He was a director of Celestial Investments, until the company was dissolved two days ago. In addition, he is director of the following companies (there are more, but as far as I can tell have nothing to do with Kelly’s carbon trading activities):…
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2012/03/15/celestial-green-ventures-contracts-are-not-valid-says-brazils-national-indian-foundation-funai/
00
19 Oct: PublicRadioInternational: Environmentalists worry California’s cap-and-trade plan will hurt national efforts
With the international Kyoto Climate Treaty stalled, Norway has done some REDD deals on its own in Brazil and Indonesia. California has its own plan to reduce carbon emissions that utilizes some of the same ideas as the REDD program, but is distinctly separate.
Critics of these efforts include Greenpeace, who blasted sub-national REDD projects in a report called, “Outsourcing Hot Air.” Greenpeace says these REDD projects may do little to cut pollution…
Czebiniak (Roman Paul Czebiniak, a Greenpeace Senior Policy Advisor) outlines three major problems, in his eyes, with the program: First, these programs aren’t proven to deliver “real emissions reductions.” Second, it may actually discourage broader, national efforts. And third, Czebiniak worried that the way markets work, delivering the most for the least, will actually harm the forests…
In one project, in Chiapas, Mexico, that Greenpeace looked at, the report documented a “lack of transparency.” The organization also found that the project has no baseline established, meaning it was impossible to tell whether the project was actually reducing emissions. California doesn’t plan to allow international offsets for its cap-and-trade program.
In fact, all offset programs must be in the lower 48 United States.
“Greenpeace isn’t opposed to carbon trading on any philosophical level,” he said. “But when we look at the world’s largest offset market, the Clean Development Mechanism, it contains many lessons that we should consider when we’re looking at the issue.”
In particular, he cited the example of China’s participation, in the Clean Development Mechanism, which he said was largely for naught.
“China has so far opposed action, precisely because it gets money and credit for doing something on a much smaller scale. We’re concerned that the same thing will happen with REDD,” he said.
http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/environmentalists-worry-california-s-cap-and-trade-plan-will-hurt-national-efforts-11830.html
00
A few hundred years ago a window tax was introduced in England during the reign of King William III (Wikipedia quotes 1696). Many buildings with bricked-up window arches can still be seen today.
Something I didn’t know, was that the phrase “daylight robbery” may have originated as a result of the window tax. lol
Wikipedia also gives the delightful quote:
“An Act for granting to His Majesty severall Rates or Duties upon Houses for making good the Deficiency of the clipped Money.”
40
[…] It’s back. Voting is over, and the climate zombie awakens […]
10
As a student of philosophy, I rarely call anything self-evident. But I believe that describes the answer to the question you have asked.
00
Raising a tax at $20 a metric ton may create $154 Billion in tax by 2021 but taxes collected from business and individuals will decrease by at least the same due to the impact on wider economic activity. This approach to reducing the deficit is destined to failure and will likely make the US deficit even worse as total taxes collected fall.
At least in Australia we compensate the less well off for the Carbon tax but to reduce the US government deficit there can be no compensation and even poor American families will experience big hikes in their energy bills. What will that do to consumer confidence? The exchanges between MBC and Wes George at #2 hit the nail on the head.
10
I guess you have not heard about FEAR
Other Sources:
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/19424239/militia-plot-linked-to-rainbow-six-patriots
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/military-terror-plot-murd_n_1833435.html
Just what the USA needs right now a bunch of idiotic Hotheads.
00
America has several bunches of idiotic Hotheads. It occurs whenever there are more than a few thousand people gathered and it is a worldwide phenomena. We don’t need it or want it, but just like tornadoes and blizzards, it’s part of nature and we are stuck with it. Whether it defines us is up to us.
00