Carbon Tax Cabal, Part One: Economic Punishment
H. Sterling Burnett
Last month, Congress joined with President Donald Trump to deliver a substantial tax cut to the American people. Leaving more money in the hands of the people, instead of under the thumb of government bureaucrats, is always a good idea.
This particular tax cut is already paying dividends as retirement funds and stock portfolios have boomed, corporations are repatriating billions of dollars they sheltered overseas, multiple companies have indicated they are going to invest right here in America with new factories and business expansion, and millions of workers have reaped benefits totaling thousands of dollars each in tax cut bonuses, stock options, etc.
Because of these evident benefits, it might surprise you to hear some liberal governors and members of Congress are already angling to raise taxes once again.
In this essay, I discuss why various proposed carbon taxes can’t work as promised and would be unfair. In the next edition of Climate Change Weekly, I will explain why any carbon tax scheme is doomed to fail and would be immoral.
The governors of Washington and Oregon and Democrat members of Congress are pushing bills to raise the price of energy through a tax on carbon dioxide emissions or by establishing a cap on carbon dioxide emissions and forcing industry and businesses to buy allowances to emit carbon. Capping carbon dioxide emissions and selling allowances to emit certain amounts of carbon dioxide is just a carbon (dioxide) tax by another name.
These tax schemes penalize the use of the cheap, abundant energy sources which built the modern, prosperous economy and are largely responsible for pulling the United States out of 2008 recession. While the rest of the U.S. economy was foundering, the fracking revolution brought about tremendous growth in domestic oil and natural gas production, dramatically reducing energy prices in the process. Lower energy prices helped raise the economy out of the depths of the recession. Energy is the lifeblood of any economy. Economies and people with access to relatively cheap, abundant, reliable energy resources prosper and are freer than those lacking the same. As a result, a carbon dioxide tax is a tax on freedom and prosperity.
In addition, carbon dioxide taxes are regressive, an especially pernicious tax on the poor and those on fixed incomes. A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found a $28 per ton carbon tax would cause the burden of energy costs to be 250 percent higher for the poorest one-fifth of U.S. households than for the richest one-fifth because “Low-income households spend a larger share of their income on goods and services whose prices would increase the most, such as electricity and transportation.”
The plans from Oregon and Washington substitute governments’ spending priorities for the people’s, taking money from the poorest among us to fund green energy schemes favored by the wealthy. This makes the carbon tax a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
The state of Washington’s proposed carbon tax would begin at $20 per metric ton emitted in 2019 and increase annually by 3.5 percent. It would amount to a whopping $3.35 billion tax increase over four years, in addition to a 20-cents-per-gallon increase in the cost of gasoline. The new tax revenue would then be used to fund renewable-energy programs—or so proponents claim.
In an effort to reduce regressivity, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) propose giving taxpayers the money raised from the sale of carbon allowances to industry. The U.S. Treasury department would conduct the emissions auctions, and the IRS would return the revenues to every person with a (valid, one hopes) Social Security number each quarter.
There are multiple problems with this plan. I’ll highlight just a few. First, government rarely leaves a revenue scheme alone for long. Once the federal government starts receiving the revenue, past experience shows us Congress and the President will soon decide to keep some or all of the money to finance their preferred government programs or pay down the debt. After all, gas taxes were supposed to be dedicated solely to funding roads and bridges, but legislators have siphoned money away from highways to finance bike trails, museums, visitor centers, and other programs that don’t help move people down the road quickly and safely. Hundreds of millions of dollars are diverted from road and bridge construction and repair each year, yet legislators complain current fuel taxes don’t raise enough money to maintain or expand basic infrastructure. Highways and bridges crumble while Congress raids the piggy bank to fund pet projects.
There is no reason to think Congress won’t find other uses for carbon tax revenue rather than returning it to the people as promised.
Second, even if Congress keeps its hand out of the till, it’s just a fact some of the money, probably a good portion, will be diverted to the bureaucracies involved in selling the allowances and cutting the dividend checks. No government program is cost-free.
How are we to calculate or track the amount of the dividend each individual should receive from the Internal Revenue Service each quarter? Will the government just give an equal check to everyone with a Social Security number? This would end up shorting some people, including truck drivers and others who use a lot of energy in their daily lives or at work, while overcompensating those who use little energy. On the other hand, maybe everyone will have to use their Social Security cards when purchasing gasoline or paying their utility bills, with the government assuming an additional set amount in payment for the higher costs of food and other goods for which fossil fuels are used in creation and transportation.
The carbon (dioxide) scheme would also result in higher policing costs: the criminal-justice system would have to deal with carbon cheats, efforts by organized criminal groups to profit by creating false Social Security numbers for illegal aliens, and attempts to sell fake carbon allowances to companies. In addition, some companies will almost certainly try to underreport their emissions, necessitating more bureaucracy, investigation, and recordkeeping costs.
Just as with every other government program, there will be huge transaction costs for collecting, tracking, auditing, and archiving taxes paid and rebates paid out. New employees will have to be hired, or existing federal government workers will have to divert their time from other responsibilities to focus on selling carbon (dioxide) allowances, policing the program, and sending out the quarterly dividends.
These and other costs will eat up billions of dollars each year. Unless these costs are paid directly out of the revenues from the sale of the allowances—in which case all the revenues will not be returned to taxpayers as promised—then the government will have to impose other taxes or take on additional debt to pay for the program.
Third, although the fees paid by companies buying carbon allowances could, in theory, be returned to taxpayers, that would still not reimburse people for the higher energy prices they will pay as a result of the program. As fossil fuel use is limited under the carbon cap, more expensive, less reliable, alternative energy sources will have to be substituted. Wind and solar power are many times more expensive, than coal and natural gas, so prices will rise because of the need to purchase allowances and because higher-cost energy sources are substituted, an amount not accounted for in this energy tax scheme.
Whatever the system—a straight tax or a cap and refund system—these government-imposed restrictions on fossil fuel use will cost billions, reducing people’s disposable income and making it harder for U.S. businesses to compete around the world.
Climate Realist to Chair EU Environment Council
Neno Dimov, Bulgaria’s Environment Minister, ascended to the presidency of the European Union’s (EU) Environment Council on January 1. Dimov previously served as Bulgaria’s deputy minister of the environment, from 1997 to 2002, simultaneously serving as a member of the management board for the EU’s European Environment Agency, which is comparable to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Dimov is unique as an Environment Council president because he is an explicit climate skeptic, or realist.
Like U.S. President Trump, whom he has told the press he admires, Dimov is known for arguing environmental protection must be balanced against economic growth. In his book From Environmentalism to Freedom (2012), Dimov argues EU environmental regulations have gone too far, harming people and the economy for little or no environmental gain.
Forbes reports Dimov has said in myriad interviews the theory of global warming is being used as a tool of intimidation. In a May 2017 television interview, Dimov said, “Climate change is a scientific debatе; there is no consensus, and every part has arguments,” and said he disagrees with the theory. In an online video from 2015, Dimov says global warming is a “fraud … used to scare the people. The melting of the ice will not raise the sea level even a millimeter.” In the same video, Dimov also said, “The main factor for climate change is solar activity.”
SOURCE: Forbes
Germany, Other EU Members Miss Emission Targets
Germany is leading a parade of EU member states falling behind in their carbon dioxide reduction goals under the Paris climate agreement. The Wall Street Journal reports Austria, Belgium, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Malta have each fallen behind in reducing emissions, with Germany facing the largest gap between commitments and current emission levels. In early 2018, Germany announced it would miss its target of cutting carbon dioxide emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Germany announced in 2016 its emissions rose for the second year in a row, emitting 2.6 million tons more greenhouse gases than in 2015. A government spokesman announced, “The environment ministry is preparing itself to purchase emission allowances from countries that have surpluses in the coming years.”
A report commissioned by the BDI German industry group estimates meeting Germany’s share of the EU’s overall long-term target of cutting emissions 80 to 95 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 would cost Germany $1.2 trillion. This price will rise if Germany’s emissions continue their upward trajectory in the short term. SOURCES:
The Wall Street Journal; Climate Change News
Pentagon Drops Climate From Defense Concerns
The Pentagon released its 2018 National Defense Strategy, and for the first time since 2008, it doesn’t mention anthropogenic global warming as a national security threat. The Daily Callerreports the Huffington Post did a keyword search of the National Defense Strategy’s 11-page summary and found neither “global warming” nor “climate change” was mentioned.
In 2008, the Bush administration added global warming to the defense strategy for the first time, with the Obama administration expanding on that in subsequent years. The 2018 report follows the National Security strategy released by the Trump administration in December 2017, deemphasizing climate change as a security threat. The National Defense Strategy’s discussion of energy issues is brief, saying the United States would “foster a stable and secure Middle East” and “[contribute] to stable global energy markets and secure trade routes." SOURCES: The Daily Caller; National Defense Strategy
Showing posts with label Climate Change Weekly. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change Weekly. Show all posts
Sunday, February 4, 2018
Saturday, December 7, 2013
CLIMATE CHANGE WEEKLY #112
POLAR ICE CAPS ARE
GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS
Southern Hemisphere polar ice extent set new records this
week, combining with fairly average Northern Hemisphere polar ice extent to set
the final stages of a year marked by above-average global polar ice extent.
Polar ice caps, apparently, are global warming deniers, attacking the science
of alarmist global warming predictions.
Average Southern Hemisphere polar sea ice extent during
November 2013 was nearly 1 million square kilometers above the long-term
average.
When polar ice happens to be below average in a given
year, global warming alarmists cite the annual departure from the long-term
mean as proof of a human-induced global warming crisis. During years like 2013,
when polar ice extent is above the long-term average, global warming alarmists
are largely silent on the topic.
Importantly, even if the years with below-average polar
ice extent began to form a meaningful trend, this in itself would not
constitute a global warming crisis. Polar ice retreat would merely reflect
warming temperatures, even if the warming is modest and benign. During recent
years when global polar ice extent has been below normal, it has been Northern
Hemisphere polar ice 'floating in the Arctic Ocean' driving the global
trend. When floating sea ice melts, it does nothing to raise global sea levels.
Southern Hemisphere polar ice, resting primarily on the
Antarctic continent, has been consistently expanding during the 30-plus years
since NASA/NOAA satellites first began precisely measuring polar ice extent.
IN THIS ISSUE
Pew poll: Climate change a low foreign policy priority; Lukewarmist Curry supports Nebraska study on natural climate cycles, Newly published paper predicts a new Little Ice Age Japan pulls back from
CO2 reduction pledge; Global rice production sets record, other crops also
strong; This is why they no longer call it 'global warming' Alarmist
Gelbspan sanitizes his Web site to hide false claims
PEW POLL: CLIMATE CHANGE A LOW FOREIGN POLICY PRIORITY
The American public strongly disagrees with the Obama
administration making global warming issues a top foreign policy priority, a
new Pew Research Center poll shows. Only 37 percent of Americans say dealing
with global climate change should be a top U.S. foreign policy priority,
reflecting the lowest concern about climate change since Pew began conducting
the poll in 1997. Even among Democrats, only 57 percent say dealing with
climate change should be a top priority, Pew reports.
SOURCE: Pew Research Center
LUKEWARMIST CURRY SUPPORTS NEBRASKA STUDY ON NATURAL
CYCLES
Lukewarmist climate scientist Judith Curry supported the
Nebraska legislature allocating a modest $44,000 to fund a study of how natural
climate cycles impact drought in the Cornhusker State. Alarmist scientists have
tried to rally opposition to the funding, claiming any climate study should
focus on alleged human influence on the climate. “Ok, I’m mystified. …
Exactly what is the problem with Nebraska lawmakers wanting to support research
from its state land-grant university to help them understand the natural
variability of drought? Presumably they want to understand what the state might
be facing over the next few decades in terms of drought. It is very difficult
to make an argument that this variability over the next few decades will be
dominated by AGW,â€
observed Curry, professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
SOURCE: Climate Etc.
NEWLY PUBLISHED PAPER PREDICTS A NEW LITTLE ICE AGE
Russian physicist Habibullo Abdussamatov published a new
paper examining recent quiet solar activity and predicting a new Little Ice Age
will begin within the next few decades. Abdussamatov documents an ongoing
decline in recent solar output. Should the decline continue, Earth may experience
climate conditions not seen since the depths of the Little Ice Age brought
famine, plague, extreme weather events, crop failures, and an increase in human
misery several centuries ago.
GLOBAL RICE PRODUCTION SETS RECORD, OTHER CROPS ALSO
STRONG
Global rice production set a new record in 2013, while
production was also strong for global corn, wheat, and other crops. The
bountiful 2013 harvest continues a long-term trend of dramatically increasing
gross crop production, as well as crop production per acre, as the planet
continues its modest warming.
SOURCE: Washington Times
THIS IS WHY THEY NO LONGER CALL IT 'GLOBAL WARMING'
More than 1,000 low temperature records were set in the
United States this week, bringing several snowfall records, as well.
Temperatures dropped below zero degrees Fahrenheit throughout much of the
Western United States during the latter part of the week.
SOURCE: Climate Depot
ALARMIST GELBSPAN SANITIZES HIS WEB SITE TO HIDE FALSE
CLAIMS
Global warming activist Ross Gelbspan sanitized his Web
site of incriminating evidence after global warming realist Russell Cook caught
Gelbspan falsely claiming industry was intimidating news networks into failing
to report connections between extreme weather events and global warming. Cook,
however, caught the incriminating evidence in several screen captures of
Gelbspan's Web site before Gelbspan tried to make the evidence disappear.
SOURCE: Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)