Jun 22

Let’s start calling it what it is: ‘Pricing carbon’ = taxing carbon

By Editor Cap and trade, Carbon tax, Sen. John Kerry Comments Off on Let’s start calling it what it is: ‘Pricing carbon’ = taxing carbon

I just watched this video of Sen. John Kerry on MSNBC discussing his efforts at getting a cap and trade bill passed.  True to the recent trend Lurch avoids discussion of “cap and trade” and instead focuses on the phrase “putting a price on carbon” or variations thereof:

Lurch:

Our bill does not rely on so-called cap and trade, it’s got a very minimal, uh, mechanism in there, but it really relies on the pricing of carbon which comes by setting a target for the reduction of emissions.  That’s how you price carbon.

The term “pricing carbon” is nothing more than taxing carbon, but that’s obviously a tougher sell in this Tea Party era. Last year when “cap and trade” was the favored term by the Democrats, it was nearly universally referred to by smart aleck opponents as “cap and tax”. So why have these same folks fallen victim to the Dems linguistic trickery, and not recognized that the term “pricing carbon” is nothing more than a dishonest way to say “taxing carbon”.

Let’s start calling it what it is. It’s taxing carbon.

2 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
May 28

Click on photo for .pdf

Click on photo for .pdf

Via Victoria Taft, the Oregon Legislature is introducing a bill to be approved by the voters that would allow the Legislature to “impose taxes on the release of carbon into the air or water or onto land“:

RED ALERT!! Oregon Democrats Toss in a Carbon Tax at the Last Minute With Hearing Slated for 8am TOMORROW

This is a Joint Resolution which would result in this going to the voters. Let’s kill it NOW while it’s in committee.
This from Todd Wynn at Cascade Policy:

This bill could amend the Oregon Constitution to allow the legislature to impose taxes on carbon emissions and then put the revenues raised into alternative energy or other ‘systems or programs’ that result in a reduction of carbon emissions.

Information on the hearing/bill:

House Joint Resolution 48

Committee on Revenue

Tomorrow(Friday at 8 am, hearing room A)

Link to the bill: http://www.leg.state.or.us/09reg/measpdf/hjr1.dir/hjr0048.intro.pdf

If the Oregon Dems are successful, I believe this would be the first carbon tax put up to the voters in the US.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
May 21

Dovetailing nicely with Bjørn Lomborg’s column, The Climate-Industrial Complex (which we posted last night), GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, validates Lomborg’s position.

…GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” May 20 to discuss the White House meeting of President Barack Obama’s 16-member Economic Recovery Advisory Board headed by former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker.

Immelt used his platform at CNBC to make the case for a cap-and-trade program to curb emissions – something Obama has called for and one Congressional committee is debating this week.

“There’s going to have to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “In some way, shape of form, you’re going to have to create some certainty. You have to make technology your friend in this debate. But we sit here today Becky, I think about things like global warming. We’ve been on this for four or five years.”

Immelt contended he wasn’t an environmentalist, despite criticism that his networks’ have patterns of promoting the green agenda. Immelt told “Squawk Box” the science surrounding man-caused global warming was “compelling” and that it was only a matter of time before something will be done about carbon emissions.

“I think the science, as a CEO I’m not an environmentalist – just purely as a CEO that has to make a payroll – things like that,” Immelt continued. “The science is compelling, so it’s a question of when and not if there’s going to be something done on carbon. Give us some certainty and let’s go.”

The General Electric CEO said he favored a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions versus a carbon tax.

“Look, I’ve said it – there’s got to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “I’ve come to the conclusion that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to create a market and go. There’s going to be people that argue for taxes. But, I – I just think cap-and-trade is the more practical approach. But let’s debate all that stuff, but let’s get it done.”

Austan Goolsbee, a former campaign flack now serving on the Council of Economic Advisers and staff director and chief economist of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, joined Immelt in the CNBC segment. Goolsbee called for cooperation between the private sector and the federal government for the sake of the green agenda.

“Here’s a case where government policy with the private sector working together is the only way that it really can get done,” Goolsbee said. “And looking at it internationally too, it’s got to be done in an international context, so the U.S. isn’t the only one passing these rules. But we’ve fallen behind in this. This is a place where the government’s energy policy could be used in a way that would help American business and thus far you know, has been less so we’re trying to push that today in this meeting.”

Hat tip: Drudge

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Dec 04

James Hansen’s Carbon Candor

By Editor Cap and trade, Carbon tax, James Hansen Comments Off on James Hansen’s Carbon Candor

Tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal editorial notes James Hansen’s parting with Al Gore and the rest of his alarmist cohorts on implementing a straight carbon tax rather than the cap and trade system favored by Gore et al. Specifically Hansen says a carbon tax is the only “honest, clear, and effective” way to reduce emmissions and that all revenues be rebated in their entirety to consumers on a per-capita basis. “Not one dime should go to Washington for politicians to pick winners,” he says.

The Journal:

The risks of fossil fuels remain speculative, but if they really are the apocalypse of Mr. Hansen’s prophecies, then the cleanest remedy is a tax. That would raise energy and all other prices as the incentive for new technologies and investments. But a tax would be neutral, eliminating the market distortions caused by subsidies and regulation, and the proceeds could be used to offset other taxes. The transition to a world in which growth is not tied to carbon would still be long and extremely expensive, but a tax would be the least painful way to get there.

“A tax should be called a tax,” Mr. Hansen writes. “The public can understand this and will accept a tax if it is clearly explained and if 100 percent of the money is returned.” Clearly the man is not standing for elective office.

Beltway sachems prefer posturing that disguises the cost of rising energy prices, such as cap and trade. This “subterfuge,” as Mr. Hansen terms it, shifts the direct burden onto businesses, which then pass it along to consumers. Congress may flatter itself that it is saving mankind, but what the Members really want is a cap-and-trade windfall that they can redistribute in the green pork of Mr. Obama’s “new energy economy,” whatever that means.

Unrealistically, Mr. Hansen also favors a complete phase-out of coal-fired electric power, arguing that it be replaced by advanced nuclear, which could be capable of recycling radioactive waste within a decade. He adds: “It is essential that hardened ‘environmentalists’ not be allowed to delay the R&D on 4th generation nuclear power.” We’d like to see him debate Al Gore on that one.
Mr. Hansen can usually find a journalistic stenographer for his pronouncements. This one evaporated without a trace. Perhaps it’s because the Obama transition is drowning in position papers. Or perhaps his candor is merely too embarrassing.

Clearly, Hansen has thrown the usual talking points in the trash. Al Gore will not be happy.

So what gives? I don’t know, but I’ll speculate. Perhaps Hansen is just getting sick of having to cooking the GISS books to produce Al Gore’s global warming. As Hansen’s GISS data is increasingly scrutinized and found to be incorrect, the pressure on Hansen is getting to be unbearable. Meantime, Al Gore has gone all in on the global warming scam. His legacy and his retirement depends on cash-cow solutions being implemented, before the public figures out that the earth is not warming. To Al Gore, Gore-made global warming is now “too big to fail”.

Therefore, Hansen may be getting sick and tired of playing the game, and repeating the talking points verbatim. So, now he’s exercising his secret desire to tell people what he really thinks. I’m not saying that he doesn’t believe in global warming, just that he may have some divergent opinions on what ought to be done. Who knows? Only James Hansen really knows what lurks in the the heart of James Hansen.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Oct 15

Daily Bayonet: "Global warming is a good enough scam to make Al Gore rich, but it’s not good enough to fool electorates"

By Editor Carbon tax Comments Off on Daily Bayonet: "Global warming is a good enough scam to make Al Gore rich, but it’s not good enough to fool electorates"

That’s apparently correct for Canada, so let’s hope that holds elsewhere.

The Daily Bayonet commenting on last night’s Canadian elections:

It’s true, carbon taxes kill electoral success more effectively than even John Kerry.
The best news to come out of
Stephane Dion’s ignominious defeat last night is that it will be the end of the nonsensical carbon tax.

In Spring 2009, British Columbians will go to the polls and will throw out the Liberal government that forced a carbon tax on them. The winner of that election will be the party that promises to end the unpopular tax. That BC election will be the final nail in the coffin of carbon taxes, in any form, in Canada.

The world of politics is a small one, and other countries will have watched the Canadian results with interest because Dion was the vanguard for carbon tax as headline policy. As the world watched Dion fail, expect many other nation’s leftist parties start pushing the green agenda to the back of the bus, if not under it. I predict much more greenwashing and far less actual green policy in the future.



Global warming is a good enough scam to make Al Gore rich, but it’s not good enough to fool electorates.

Read the entire post here.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
preload preload preload