GW: rhetoric v reality
As the global warming (GW) fear-mongers often like to point out — Australia and the United States have failed to sign up to the Kyoto protocol (as they shouldn’t) and are the axis of climate evil.
What isn’t mentioned is that Australia and the U.S. are actually doing better than many European countries in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Jennifer Marohasy links to a recent speach by Kurt Volker which gives some interesting comparisons:
* Between 2000-04 (best figures available) the U.S. has decreased their greenhouse gas intensity (greenhouse gas/GDP) by 7.5% and emissions have increased by only 1.3%.
* Over the same period the EU25 has decreased their greenhouse gas intensity by 4.5% and emissions have increased by 2.1%. The figures are even worse for ‘old Europe’, with the EU15 increasing emissions by 2.4%.
According to the United Nations, nearly no country is on track to achieve their Kyoto goals. Instead of pointing their fingers at Australia & America the GW activists might like to consider the increased emissions since 1990 of Finland (15%), Canada (27%), Spain (49%), Portugal (41%), Greece (27%), Ireland (23%), Italy (12%), New Zealand (21%) & Norway (10%).
As for Australia, the Australian Greenhouse Office reports that Australia is broadly on target to reach our Kyoto requirements (an 8% increase in emissions between 1990 & 2010) once you factor in changes in land use and forestry.
And despite the ongoing debate about whether the government should act on climate change — the US has already spent nearly US$30 billion and Australia around A$2 billion on the issue.
This highlight an important issue for libertarians & skeptics to consider: if government action on climate change is inevitable, what is the best (or least worst) alternative? Subsidies? Carbon trading? Carbon tax? Regulations?
87 Comments »
Leave a comment
-
Recent Comments
Here on Discussion 
Jerry on Bob Carr on the wrongs of a bi… 
Michael Sutcliffe on Discussion 
'Nuke' Gray on Discussion Annette on Discussion 
Semi Regular Liberta… on More guns, less crime 
Fermi on More guns, less crime 
Semi Regular Liberta… on Discussion 
Ben on Discussion 
TerjeP (say tay-a) on More guns, less crime 
papachango on Sean Penn Suggests Prison Time… Semi Regular Liberta… on Why I am opposed to an Austral… 
Victor on The British Libertarian P… 
Shem Bennett on Sean Penn Suggests Prison Time… Ben on Why I am opposed to an Austral…
LINKS
Featured Book
Stats
ALS elsewhere
With carbon trading you get selected industries who are covered by the trading scheme which will end up lobbying for all sorts of exemptions and grants and free allocations. And every year they will lobby to bend the rules in their favour one way or the other. This is a rent seeking cost, not to mention the private resources diverted into arbitraging carbon credits and the artificial industries created.
of course you will also get some of this lobbying under a carbon tax but I think less so. The kicker advantage with a cabon tax is it can be revenue neutral as we could use it to cut and flatten income tax rates.
Thus on balance if we must do something I prefer a carbon tax to carbon trading.
If we never signed nuthin’, then how can we be on target? Did someone else put our name in? I’ll bet it was that actor, John (not the PM) Howard! How unscrupulous can you get? Australia’s been framed! I want an expert to test the signature!
This highlight an important issue for libertarians & skeptics to consider: if government action on climate change is inevitable, what is the best (or least worst) alternative? Subsidies? Carbon trading? Carbon tax? Regulations?
————————————————————–
Nothing. Nothing. No taxes no nothing. Nothing until ALL substitutes are allowed to be on the table without fear or favour. Nothing until nuke is allowed without resorting to overregulation to placate the Bob Brownshirts of this world. Nothing until the union movement’s political arm- the ALP- come to their senses and agree that nuke must be placed on the table. and it must be allowed without resorting to underhanded regaulation that will make it unattractive.
Put the onus on them
In any event you have said we are meeting our Kyoto requirment without being in the gang. So why impose a tax? This is just crazy. We are reaching our objectives and then we want to impose a tax because we have done so.
I am possibly reading this wrong? Another example of why the goverment is shocking at making policy.
Humphreys you idiot.
Why are you feeding this hoax?
IF KILLING YOUR GRADMA IS INEVITABLE WHICH WAY ARE WE GOING TO DO THE OLD GIRL IN?
Stop this stupidity.
And do me a favour and either wipe this thread or find me evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.
Jason — I agree and I plan on writing more about that soon. I can’t believe Howard actually came out and said that carbon trading is more “free-market” than a carbon tax!
nicholas — we are a party to the Climate Change Convention that set the Kyoto goals. We just didn’t ratify Kyoto.
JC — it was an “if/then” question. And while it looks like we’ll hit our objectives (or come very close) that wasn’t without governmet involvement. They’ve already spent around $2 billion of selective subsidies.
John
But my points still holds. Why raise a tax if we have met the limits and why impose a tax when the second best alternative has been removed by zealots.
First things first. We can’t have a substitute tax without having a sub.
I would rank the options as follows:-
1. Carbon tax
2. Carbon trading
3. Regulations
4. Subsidies
I’d be prepared to move regulations up the list depending on what they entailed.
For carbon taxes to influence emissions behaviour it has to amount to a real increase in costs in association with that behaviour. As such it can’t be merely a rejigging of existing taxes that apply to emission creating behaviour. For instances renaming “fuel tax” as a “carbon tax” without increasing the cost burden on vehicle CO2 emissions is not going to do anything to reduce emissions.
I would suggest that any carbon tax should be offset in revenue terms against one of the following (roughly in my prefered order):-
1. State payroll tax
2. Personal income tax.
3. Company tax
The only problem with the tax approach is that you don’t create any incentive for activities that sink carbon (eg forestry).
JC — so does that mean you prefer the current subsidy approach to a tax approach?
Terje — It’s not true that using carbon tax revenue to cut fuel tax would consequently make no difference to emissions. The value of a carbon tax is that it makes alternative energy relatively more affordable and therefore brings forward the transition to nuclear, wind, solar etc.
No, it has to be a tax approach, John.
Speaking of fuel tax, isn’t is LDP policy that “fuel excise tax should be immediately reduced by 10 cents a litre”?
Where does this fit in? If you were to calculate the “cost” of carbon emissions – even using IPCC figures – and levy this as a tax, wouldn’t it be less than what we pay now on petrol (presently 38 cents a litre)?
This (being a carbon tax) doesn’t fit into LDP policy anywhere at the present. This is just some random thoughts being thrown around on the ALS blog.
But yes, it is LDP policy to redue the fuel tax.
Well, a carbon tax might be the lesser evil, but I would expect our official position to be against any of the options provided.
John,
You are correct. I meant to say it would do nothing to reduce emissions from the transport sector.
Lets say we abolish fuel taxes entirely and then imposed a general carbon tax. The carbon tax would apply to coal, petrol etc. The net effect may be cheaper petrol and more emissions from transport, whilst still leading to a reduction in emissions over all.
However if you accept the logic of a carbon tax to mitigate the impact on the climate, then why not accept the logic of higher fuel taxes to mitigate the impact on urban air quality?
Regards,
Terje.
Fleeced,
If you are a libertarian then you want the government to reduce the tax burden. However most libertarians don’t want the burden reduced to zero (ie they want taxes to pay for defence etc). As such there is not necessarily any inconsistency between advocating a carbon tax and having a libertarian outlook.
Even if AGW is non-existent I’d still be quite comfortable with a carbon tax that paid for a reduction in income taxes. As an indirect tax it would be reasonable inoffensive.
Regards,
Terje.
If it’s urban air quality you’re worried about then a fuel tax seems very poorly targetted. It applies equally to petrol burned inside & outside of cities. It seems that the urban air quality problem isn’t just driving… but driving in a place where there are lots of other people and drivers.
I would add that the west doesn’t seem to have an urban air quality problem and the parking & congestion & public transport are probably bigger influences on a city-dweller’s transport decision.
Finally, I haven’t accepted the need for a carbon tax to mitigate the impact on climate change. I was simply asking a “if/then” question. However, if we could switch to a carbon tax without harming our economy at all then the argument for a carbon tax would be relativley sound even if there was no AGW.
I will not put my name to any of the proferred government interventions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This debate is morally bankrupt and I will use my last carbon dioxide laden breath to cry down government intervention.
I acknowledge the post was put forward as a least worst intervention, but I believe we should be doing our best to debunking all proposed government solutions irrelevent to whether we belive in global warming or not. For those that do think there is AGW, let them argue free market solutions if they hold libertarian values dearly.
Your last sentence implies that political capital should be expended regardless of the cost. If the greenies of the world implemented a carbon tax and were using the revenue to cut income taxes (yes it’s only hypothetical) then wouldn’t there be more worthy causes to expend breath on? Things like hospital privatisation, constitutional reform etc.
Your last sentence implies that political capital should be expended regardless of the cost.
Pick our fights, yes, but actively debate FOR intervention, no.
If the greenies of the world implemented a carbon tax and were using the revenue to cut income taxes (yes it’s only hypothetical) then wouldn’t there be more worthy causes to expend breath on?
This is Democrat Party balance of power “keep the bastards honest” talk. I can see a role for the LDP in this, but not the ALS, we should be hardline on these causes in out thinktanks, more malleable in our party politics.
Anyway, why is replacing one tax with another better (assuming that the effect is ostensibly revenue neutral), isn’t our aim to reduce taxation across the board?
Have you guys got any evidence for CGM?
No you haven’t.
So this is idiotic.
Our duty is to oppose any limitations on CO2 emissions.
HEAD-OR-GUT?
If beating you up is inevitable……………
This is worse then a bad argument. Its a sell-out.
Brendan & friends — I can’t understand your stubborness on this issue. When people debate the idea of switching from income taxes to consumption taxes do you decry the existence of the debate and cling to the idea that there should be no tax?
Do you have absolutely no opinion on which taxes are preferable, except to say that all discussion of taxes is evil?
And do you extend your critique so that you would never argue for school vouchers (that’s intervention, but a less worse form that public schools) or a negative income tax (that’s intervention, but a less worse form that the dole & minimum wage) or any other half measure, such as moderate reform on drugs, guns or immigration?
On all of these issues it is perfectly reasonable to say you support a totally free system but that you can see a range of relatively less bad interventions.
Brendan, I agree with you wholeheartedly. See my post at Catallaxy here. As I say, I can’t understand this confusion between thinking from first principles and apparent political expediency.
Terje,
If the greenies of the world implemented a carbon tax and were using the revenue to cut income taxes (yes it’s only hypothetical) then wouldn’t there be more worthy causes to expend breath on? Like..
With the utmost respect, because I have found a lot of sense and value in all your previous comments, I just cannot understand what you mean by this statement. Of course there are more worthy causes, that was the point of the Copenhagen Consensus deliberations.
If we’re discussing things here from libertarian first-principles, and not for political strategy or tactics, then isn’t the point to question knee-jerk demands for government intervention, and figure out whether there is a case for policy action?
Again, I don’t mean to be unnecessarily provocative, that is not usually my style. I am just pretty stymied by this apparent need to shift the debate to solutions, rather than focusing on the definition of the problem in the first place.
I do not believe that the jury is in on *why* something needs to be done about A/GW. I further do not believe that any kind of boat has sailed with regards to the ‘inevitability’ of government action. Sometimes the hardest thing to do is to do nothing.
I can’t understand your stubborness on this issue. When people debate the idea of switching from income taxes to consumption taxes do you decry the existence of the debate and cling to the idea that there should be no tax?
Government intervention to prevent greenhouse gas emissions is not government reform of existing policy, it is introducing completely new government regulation and interference. It is one thing debating about reforming current state intervention, another to advocate a move away from a status quo position.
We’re arguing about the least worst impact on freedom and free markets, completely ignoring the fact that the onus is on the would be regulators to show how their carbon tax or trading system would improve the problem they perceive. Are we already conceding defeat on this? How is bigger government going to help?
I’ve got to say that environmentalism is the greatest challenge for small government advocates. Green politics will regain the ground the statists have lost to deregulation and privatisation, and they’re going to do it by appealing to wealthy middle class people who think polar bears are cute, while we try to reform their anti-growth taxation and welfare systems.
We’ll turn around having acheived a 30-30 income tax revolution, only to find a progressive carbon tax regime in its place and a whole mess of regulators and accountants to enforce it.
When people debate the idea of switching from income taxes to consumption taxes do you decry the existence of the debate and cling to the idea that there should be no tax?
I don’t believe I suggested anything of the sort. We oppose a carbon tax because it is an unfair, uneven, distortion of the market. Carbon tax is NOT a broad based consumption tax, so please don’t talk rubbish.
Yes, tax is a necessary evil – but carbon tax is a tax designed SPECIFICALLY to curb industry. My God – the lefties don’t even try to hide it anymore.
If the existing fuel levy were replaced with a broad carbon tax, such that the result was revenue neutral (which would make petrol much cheaper – having significant flow through effects), then maybe I wouldn’t be so resistant… but this isn’t going to please the greenies, who want their new taxes piled on top.
Kate — the government is already acting and now the Libs are even signing up to a carbon trading system, so the boat has sailed.
Are you opposed to the concept of hypothetical questions? Or just this hypothetical question? Or do you think that libertarians should not be allowed to consider political reality? Or we shouldn’t be able to consider moderate reforms (like school vouchers or the negative income tax)?
If you have a personal fatwa against hypothetical questions or moderate libertarian reform then feel free not to discuss such things, but I can’t understand your hostility when reasonable people debate reasonable and relevant issues.
And you misunderstand Terje when he talks about expending political capital. He is saying that libertarians shouldn’t bother whinging about a revenue neutral tax shift and we should concentrate on more pressing issues such as drug law reform, privatisation of universities and abolishing the minimum wage. Of course, he would add monetary reform.
Brendan — nobody has ignored the fact that the onus of proof is on the interventionist. I hate to break it to you, but taxes already exist. In that context, it is perfectly normal to debate which ones are the least bad.
And there is nothing inherently immoral about hypothetical questions.
As for conceding defeat as to whether the government is going to do something — absolutely. Wake up Brendan. Our government has been doing something for the past 10 years and now they’re promising to do more. There’s nothing wrong with continuing to argue for no intervention. But it is also perfectly normal to recognise the current reality of intervention and argue for relatively less bad intervention.
The exact same argument applies for welfare (NIT) and educatin (vouchers). Do you refuse to discuss those issues too? How about 30/30? That’s a compromise that admits the political reality of intervention in income tax and welfare. Surely you oppose even talking about 30/30!
Fleeced — I never said that a carbon tax is a consumption tax. My point (which I thought was fairly obvious) was that it is perfectly legitimate to debate the relative merits of different taxes. Of course a carbon tax is uneven and distortionary and harms industry. So is the fuel tax. So is the income tax. So is company tax. So is the GST. What’s your point? Why do you prefer all of these taxes to a carbon tax?
As for whether our options would please the greenies… I don’t care. I was simply asking which options are the least offensive to a libertarian and/or skeptic, given the assumption that we had to have some action.
John – I think we’re on the same page, and as I have stated elsewhere, I am not opposed to debating reform, nor am I opposed debating least worst solutions. I’ll admit my “morally bankrupt” jibe was a bit harsh, but these watermelons and outright statists and opportunists like Howard really get me riled, and to see even the ALS debating carbon taxing makes me angry.
At a pinch I’ll listen to arguments on least worst intervention, and may even agree with them, but I’d rather see debate refuting the intervention at all.
It is issues like this that make me question whether we can rein in government at all. Sure we have some successes, but the statists are always around the corner with a new way of undermining liberty (and having a better marketing campaign to boot!)
The exact same argument applies for welfare (NIT) and educatin (vouchers). Do you refuse to discuss those issues too? How about 30/30? That’s a compromise that admits the political reality of intervention in income tax and welfare. Surely you oppose even talking about 30/30!
Why am I not allowed to draw a line in the sand on AGW and not be considered worthy of discussing other issues?
I stated this on Catallaxy, but it is more pertinent here:
John Humphreys said:
The ALS blog has debates about whatever issues are of interest to the ALS bloggers. We don’t impose a “no talking about less bad interventions” policy.
I said:
I keep forgetting that liberty is a real bitch.
Debate away.
Back in the day Donald Thomson, the Melbourne/Arnhemland anthropologist used take a horse and cart from Croydon to Camberwell station everyday. It is possible to just revert back to the old ways and slow everything down that requires slowing down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Thomson
[you're a great guy], parkos.
Yes, let’s go back to horse and buggies to slow everything down.
edited by admin… I don’t want personal shit-fights on this blog.
Kate — the government is already acting and now the Libs are even signing up to a carbon trading system, so the boat has sailed.
I detest the complacency shown here in terms of intellectual rigour. You are not acting in accordance with Popper’s notion of the open society.
Popper says: all knowledge is conjectural.
If ever this idea was important it’s now. And what that means is that the basic null hypothesis – that climate change presents a real problem – should be the only thing we are talking about. I.e. how to falsify that null hypothesis with evidence.
There’s lots of things we could do.
But why?
Why should we impose these costs?
You destest what? Kate, you’re not making any sense.
It is a fact that the government is already acting. The null hypothesis is not that climate change presents a real problem. And that has nothing to do with the legitimate asking and answering of a hypothetical question.
If I asked the legitimate hypothetical question “assuming the government is going to act on education what would be the best approach — government ownership, school vouchers, regulation etc” would you be having this mental breakdown? It’s a normal question. Normal people either answer it or don’t answer it. They don’t complain about the question being evil.
You seem to have some anti-rational phobia of hypothetical questions and/or some unexplainable fear of thinking about least-worst scenarios. Fine. You can ignore all hypothetical and least-worst questions for the rest of your life and leave other people to consider these complex, important and contemporary political issues.
Of course a carbon tax is uneven and distortionary and harms industry. So is the fuel tax. So is the income tax. So is company tax. So is the GST. What’s your point? Why do you prefer all of these taxes to a carbon tax?
My point, which I thought was pretty clear, was that these other taxes (with the exception of fuel tax) are broad based taxes. Yes, a carbon tax is less fair than the GST – even less fair than the present income tax.
The big advantage of the 30/30 tax system is that all income is treated the same, and that every dollar earned has the same incentive. A GST occurs at point of sale, but again, it’s a flat rate.
I could not support a carbon tax, even with a reduction in income tax as Terje suggested. I might consider a broadening of fuel levy, provided it were reduced to remain revenue neutral – but even this scares me, as it could be increased all too easily.
However, if we could switch to a carbon tax without harming our economy at all then the argument for a carbon tax would be relativley sound even if there was no AGW.
But it would be harmful – that’s the point. It’s a direct tax on production, just as payroll tax is a direct tax on employment. I think Brendan hit it on the head with the following:
We’ll turn around having acheived a 30-30 income tax revolution, only to find a progressive carbon tax regime in its place and a whole mess of regulators and accountants to enforce it.
Sorry – fixed up italics in this one:
Of course a carbon tax is uneven and distortionary and harms industry. So is the fuel tax. So is the income tax. So is company tax. So is the GST. What’s your point? Why do you prefer all of these taxes to a carbon tax?
My point, which I thought was pretty clear, was that these other taxes (with the exception of fuel tax) are broad based taxes. Yes, a carbon tax is less fair than the GST – even less fair than the present income tax.
The big advantage of the 30/30 tax system is that all income is treated the same, and that every dollar earned has the same incentive. A GST occurs at point of sale, but again, it’s a flat rate.
I could not support a carbon tax, even with a reduction in income tax as Terje suggested. I might consider a broadening of fuel levy, provided it were reduced to remain revenue neutral – but even this scares me, as it could be increased all too easily.
However, if we could switch to a carbon tax without harming our economy at all then the argument for a carbon tax would be relativley sound even if there was no AGW.
But it would be harmful – that’s the point. It’s a direct tax on production, just as payroll tax is a direct tax on employment. I think Brendan hit it on the head with the following:
We’ll turn around having acheived a 30-30 income tax revolution, only to find a progressive carbon tax regime in its place and a whole mess of regulators and accountants to enforce it.
The trading system is an outrageous attack on our sovereignty.
That we would sign up to it in the first place is poor deterrence because it sends a message that we are capable of being cajoled into restricting our freedom of action, not with the threat of main force……
But with the cajoling of wimps.
We now trade our sovereignty away on account of relentless nagging of a bunch of girly-men affecting to be scientists.
What would the CHI-COMS make of this?
If I were them I would say that it means the colonisation can begin.
Hows that for a clear show of weakness.
Weak, wimpy, feeble ectomorphs and dwarves lie to us about stuff and frighten us with faux-revelations fantasies….. And we are so damn lame that as a result we trade away sovereignty to appease them.
How undignified.
One can understand Alfred paying protection to some Vikings to buy time and then immediately getting his shit together to destroy them the next time around.
Thats Just a Good King accepting the reality of his situation.
But how could we trade away our national autonomy for no reason at all except on account of the harrassment of leftist wimps?
Surely there is something in the water.
We face the paradox of the first generation of kids that are less cool then their parents.
“It is a fact that the government is already acting. The null hypothesis is not that climate change presents a real problem. And that has nothing to do with the legitimate asking and answering of a hypothetical question.”
Humphreys you have to focus, you have to prioritise.
Listen to me…..
WE MUST TAKE THE FRAUDSTERS DOWN!!!!!!
Whereas you might have innocently brought up this topic the fact is that it is this topic-bringing-up-of that is the whole basis for the BAD-MEME-ON-HE-RUNS’ survival.
I’d refute every alarmist assumption on a thread at Prodeo…. No Problem…. The marxists just start anouther thread.
I don’t want to be too hard on you man but I’m taking this personally because I just spent 5 days responding to a leftist-denial-alarmist filibuster………
……. I had everyone line up and call me names and blame me for stuff….. I had warnings and cautions and so forth….
I lost my temper and started abusing people which is fine but two of them didn’t deserve the abuse……
And after 5 days not one alarmist could come up with evidence for the likelihood of catastrophic warming………………… Nor could they come up with evidence that a bit of warming was a bad thing in a severe ice age.
And then what dose Humphreys do?
You start doing the Prodeo thing.
The alarmist hoax has no reason to be.
But it thrives only, on this full-spectrum thinking-through-of-implicatons…………………….to a problem that doesn’t exist.
Forget hard-leftists for a moment.
To me a left-Liberal is a guy who you go fishing with….. and a hole develops in the boat…… and you are bucketing and trying to seal it and bucketing some more….
…..And there the left-liberal is……
…… drinking your wine with his own flute that he brought for no known reason….
….And there he is CONTEMPLATING THE FINER POINTS OF LIFE UNDERWATER.
But in this real-world case…….. every motherfucker is getting sucked into the marxist net and they are contemplating the finer points of life underwater when……… THERE IS NO HOLE IN THE BOAT!
Now like I said your motives might have been totally righteous and perhaps you did not realise that it is these type of discussions that comprise the whole of the superstructure that keeps this hoax afloat.
But be optimistic.
WE CAN TAKE THESE MOTHERFUCKERS DOWN.
WE CAN TAKE THESE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT.
WE CAN TAKE THEM DOWN AND OUT AND GET THE PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION, PUBLICITY AND SPONSORSHIP THAT WE NEED.
This “direct tax on production” line is silly. All taxation involves the acquisition of real goods. Every tax is a tax on production (ultimately)because producers (including workers) are the only ones with anything to confiscate. It must be produced before it can be plundered. You can’t plunder from non-producers. I think you are suffering money illusion.
I also can’t see how a carbon tax could or would be progessive in the way income taxes are. I would support a carbon tax (in conjunction with abolition of income tax or payroll tax) simply because there is less scope for it to be progressive.
If a carbon tax was applied to electricity I’d prefer that the tax applied at the point of production (ie power station pays the tax) rather than at the point of consumption (the homeowner or business) for reasons of simplicity and efficiency. I’m not sure where in the supply chain existing fuel taxes get applied.
“if government action on climate change is inevitable, what is the best (or least worst) alternative? Subsidies? Carbon trading? Carbon tax? Regulations?”
If paying protection to Jihadia is inevitable……..must we now ready the gold coins or ought we send them our virgin sheilas on the morrow?
I don’t see a willingness to fight evil here.
We can smash this hoax movement and get enourmous satisfaction out of it.
And we can use the smashing of these fraudsters globally as a way of achieving certain sponsorship and electoral goals locally.
I fail to see the point of opening an argument up with a few paragraphs of observations that lots of people are still polluting too much given that you concede (quite correctly), that something is going to be done about it by governments, no matter what. Its an exceptionally poor argument to say “please point the finger at the crowd that isn’t going to reach their targets instead of us because they wanted to”.
You certainly wouldn’t buy an argument like this, where i have switched “global warming” for “murderer”
If I’m a murderer and your a murderer, then we’re still both murderers, but because I admit to being a murder, we shouldn’t point the finger at you.
What POLLUTING conrad?
What are you talking about?
The only pollution here is coming from the tips of your fingers.
BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU MEANT???
This “direct tax on production” line is silly. All taxation involves the acquisition of real goods.
The difference being that this tax effects production by design – it isn’t just a side-effect. Furthermore, it effects specific types of production which the powers-that-be deem unworthy. I’ve already stated (more than once) that a tax is the “least-worst” option provided – but our energies are better expended, in my opinion, rallying against all of them.
Every tax is a tax on production (ultimately)because producers (including workers) are the only ones with anything to confiscate. It must be produced before it can be plundered. You can’t plunder from non-producers. I think you are suffering money illusion.
I thought I’d made it clear, but evidently, not clear enough. Yes, all tax effects production, but it is also a “necessary evil”. Taxes should, however, have as broad a base as possible so that one particular industry/sector/business/whatever isn’t unfairly disadvantaged. ie, If you’re going to distort the market, at least do it even-handedly. Anything else is inefficient.
A carbon tax is not simply about making “renewable energies” more viable by comparison – it will inevitable lead to the standard favouritism/kick-backs that any arbitrarily levied tax will always produce.
Is there ever such a thing as a necessary evil? Why do we always let the governments set the terms of debate? One of my many self-labels is Agorophilist, because i prefer the free market to government intervention. What is needed is a good look at all alternatives. Are there really no private ideas that could replace all this governmental activity?
Has the free market failed us on air pollution? Is taxation the only solution?
There is not substitute for victory.
We ought to be in the forefront to bringing this communist hoax down and humiliating its advocates and appeasers.
conrad — I agree that you failed to see the point. The point was that GW activists often identify Australia & America as the evil-doers, but in reality they are no worse (and sometimes better) than the “good guys”. In your murder analogy, it’s like having two murderers and the GW activists only point their finger at the person who admits to being a murderer.
fleeced — I’m amazed by your attitude on tax. You seem to only like efficient and progressive taxes. Personally, I prefer to keep taxes low and proportional. You also don’t seem to understand what makes a tax efficient anyway (Ramsey efficiency dictates than it’s best to tax products with price inelastic demand/supply).
Further, even if a carbon tax was marginally worse than income tax (an open question)… I would still argue that it is a much better outcome than carbon trading or greenhouse regulation or picking-winners subsidies. And that was the actual question.
As for how our energies should be spent… you decide for you and I’ll decide for me. You can debate utopia and I’ll try to actually influence political reality. The most pointless waste of energies was people complaining that my hypothetical question was evil.
Is there ever such a thing as a necessary evil?
Well, I view government as a necessary evil… and they requires taxes to support them.
Has the free market failed us on air pollution? Is taxation the only solution?
Actually, the evidence suggests the opposite: that in the western world, major air pollutants have decreased dramatically. Growth does not have to be sacraficed for the environment – they are not opposites.
Without proper protection of the environment, growth is reduced – but without growth, and the standard of living that comes with it, environmental protection simply cannot be supported. Those who would seek to stop industry for the sake of the environment will end up harming both.
There has been government intervention in the past, which has arguably helped. Eg, with lead pollution. But as awareness arose, it is arguable that the free market would have sorted it out without intervention.
The free market also encorages increasing efficiency. The Skeptical Environmentalist makes the point that in the past 30 years, the number of car miles travelled doubled, and the economy more than doubled – but that in the same time, total emmisions have been reduced by one third. Air pollution is well below historical levels.
The (invalid) argument from some environmental groups is that if a ton of carbon in the atmosphere costs $x in economic terms, then we should tax carbon emmisions by $x to even things out. Some buy into the idea, and from Terje’s comments, so does he, that this produces a double dividend: 1 by reducing pollution, and 2 by lowering existing distortionary taxes to produce a net economic benefit.
Of course, most people supporting the carbon tax aren’t interested in reducing other taxes – they want the money spent elsewhere… *sigh*
Further, even if a carbon tax was marginally worse than income tax (an open question)… I would still argue that it is a much better outcome than carbon trading or greenhouse regulation or picking-winners subsidies. And that was the actual question.
A question which I answered, and I agreed with the consensus that a carbon tax was the best of a bad bunch.
And at no point did I say I prefer progressive taxes to proportional taxes.
One interesting point Graeme raises relates to sovereignty. Kyoto is a sacrifice of sovereignty. So is joing the WTO. And at an individual level so is getting married. In general I think we should trade off sovereignty very sparingly and only for issues that really do demand a global response or where the benefits are significant.
Sovereignty is one of the major reasons I would prefer a tax over an international trading regime. A tax lets you avoid locking into a market and associated set of interests that make exiting later on more difficult. With a tax you can look like a good international citizen and then exit the position easily down the track if the science pans out differently.
If you were to take the trade/regulatory path I think something like an expanded version of MRET is a reasonable approach (which has been in operation for nearly a decade now). Certainly it would be much better than the subsidies that the government started handing out last year.
I agree Terje. I’m not at all attracted to options that tie us to a new international institution.
The government didn’t start handing out subsidies last year. They have been handing them out for many years.
You guys have probably seen this already but I thought maybe some of you might not have: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.html
“Since coming into effect February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost the world about US$ 300,268,545,034 while the potential temperature saving by the year 2050 so far achieved by Kyoto is 0.003113897 °C
(to get activity on the clock we had to go to billionths part of one degree, which obviously cannot be measured as a global mean) and yes, that really does represent about $100K per billionth of one degree allegedly “saved.” Guess that means for the bargain price of just $100 trillion we could theoretically lower global mean temperature by about 1C”
Doesn’t everyone think the fastest way to develop alternate fuels is through a free market? Even if alternate fuels are not actually beneficial, judging by the amount of global warming hysteria, there should be a big market for them.
There are many examples where discoveries have been made in people’s garages and not in universities. For example I admire that guy who powered his diesel van from old cooking oil. I’d argue, a free market would best allow these type of technologies to have a chance against the oil companies.
Graeme, on your blog, have you compiled a list of literature, authors, scientists that are global warming skeptics? I remember back in 1998, a scientist called Arthur Robinson wrote an article skeptical of global warming. He mentioned a petition signed by 20000 or so scientists in the US.
I had a ride in a truck powered by cooking oil recently. It worked well however I think it will remain a niche solution.
Fair enough, probably a bad example.
Yeah Tim.
Art Robinsons superb.
No I’ve linked to various people. But made no comprehensive list of these guys because I just try and think it through and don’t really rely on them too much.
Look we’ve got to drop this skeptic tag.
The alarmists cannot now be judged to be the consensus. They are wrong and are lunatics and really everyone in the business seems to know it.
Even Annan is really a closet anti-alarmist.
There’s nothing to be skeptical about. The alarmists are wrong, unscientific, idiotic and dishonest.
Thats not a skeptical attitude I’m taking here.
[...] Humphreys defends Australia’s greenhouse emissions record, but concedes that it will be hard resist international pressure to do more. In John’s view [...]
Pingback by Club Troppo » Friday’s Missing Link | February 16, 2007
I had a ride in a truck powered by cooking oil recently. It worked well however I think it will remain a niche solution.
And not a particularly carbon neutral one at that.
There have been a number of instances in the UK of people using vegetable oil as a substitute for diesel. The authorities cracked down on users because of fuel excise avoidance. They were pretty easy to catch as well, because their cars smelt like fish and chips shops, not to mention the overly high sales of cookng oil at local supermarkets.
I also can’t see how a carbon tax could or would be progessive in the way income taxes are.
Why not? Progressive income tax is simply taxing higher earner a greater proportion of their income. A carbon tax is likely to focus on some greenhouse gas producers more than others (if at all). Would dairy farmers be taxed for the methane their cows produce? How exactly do you measure how much a cow farts? Would garbage dumps that produce methane also be taxed? How would you measure that? What about plastics producers? They use oil to make their product, but it isn’t burnt and released into the atmosphere. How are you going to tell? I see a real problem with accounting for greenhouse gas emissions, since there is a myriad of types of GH gases. It will be very difficult to enforce, and some easily accountable carbon producers will be captured disproportionately to others. Avoidance will be a real problem and invite an army of regulators to enforce. Progressive might not be the best term, but a carbon tax is not going to be applied uniformly because it can’t possibly be.
Cumulative effects of externalities are hard to even measure, let alone “correct” by taxation.
Who in the outer edges of the Sydney CBD benefits and who loses from automotive pollution?
You seem to only like efficient and progressive taxes. Personally, I prefer to keep taxes low and proportional.
At no stage did I say I prefer progressive tax to proportional tax. In fact, I’m pretty sure I explixitly indicated support for 30/30 and flat-rate broad-based GST. But a carbon tax is not a proportional tax.
And I thought it was pretty clear from the context of my argument, that my comments about efficiency were with regards to the efficiency of the marketplace – not the efficiency with which tax could be collected.
You also don’t seem to understand what makes a tax efficient anyway (Ramsey efficiency dictates than it’s best to tax products with price inelastic demand/supply).
Yes, tax on products with inelastic demand/supply are efficient at gathering taxes, but that does not mean they are the most
efficient result for the marketplace. Fuel, for instance, is a basic input cost for many other products. When petrol prices go up, so does the cost of other things (eg, fruit). When the price of these other things go up, their demand goes down.
Also, a carbon tax is not simply a tax on fossil fuel, for which demand is less elastic. It is a tax on emissions. Brendan gave the example of methane emmisions from cows… Bob Brown is already on the warpath about tree loggers burning off deforested areas, claiming them as one of “the big CO2 offendors”.
As for how our energies should be spent… you decide for you and I’ll decide for me.
I do decide for myself, John – and I will continue to try and persuade other people to see it my way
You can debate utopia and I’ll try to actually influence political reality. The most pointless waste of energies was people complaining that my hypothetical question was evil.
I never personally called your question evil, and did provide an answer. But you can’t expect people to to say which of the answers was better without qualifying their statements. My answer from the beginning was essentially, “tax is better of the options provided, but…”
And yes, whenever this and other sites start arguing over which action is the most libertarian, it inevitably leads to these sort of arguments… but that was essentially your question in the first place, so I don’t know why the result was unexpected.
Thanks to Jason Soon and catallaxyfiles ( http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2554 ), see this article at leftwrites:
http://www.leftwrites.net/2007/02/15/global-warming-my-bright-ideas
Fleeced — 30/30 is progressive, as are all flat income taxes. The GST is proportional. The carbon tax is regressive. The fuel tax is regressive. The cigarette tax is regressive. The gambling tax is regressive. And more to the point, broad-based taxes are easier to increase. Regressive, narrow tax are more difficult to increase.
You seem to be supporting the more progressive taxes which are easier to raise (you didn’t state it like this — I just noticed it). And for some reason you have identified one regressive tax as infinitely more “evil” (yes, I know you didn’t use this word) than the others. Strange.
Um… you don’t seem to understand what “efficient tax” means. It is exactly what you say it is not (ie an efficient tax is one that distorts the marketplace least).
You repeat Brendan’s strange complaint about methane from cows. This issue is easily dealt with and has been dealt with in countries that already have a carbon tax. You might as well as an income tax is evil because it can’t effectively tax housework.
“Cumulative effects of externalities are hard to even measure, let alone “correct” by taxation.
Who in the outer edges of the Sydney CBD benefits and who loses from automotive pollution?”
Mark for the mentally constipated EVERYWHERE!!!!!!
WHAT EXTERNALITIES?????
CO2-release is a POSITIVE externality.
Under the science there is just no doubt about that whatsoever.
Not unless you can prove that CO2 actually cools things down.
>>>>>>>>>
Now lets get this right here.
The stupidity of the rest of the world gives us a massive niche-market for both publicity and sponsorship here.
The science says that CO2 is a good thing.
But the alarmist scientists and the press say its a bad thing.
This is a once in a lifetime opportunity for us to exploit.
If we can’t take advantage of this juxtaposition we ought to have our asses whipped and be sent back to our countries of ultimate origin.
If you are in the least bit in doubt that CO2 release is a good thing then sort it out with the science.
ITS NOT A LINE-BALL CALL.
if government action on climate change is inevitable, what is the best (or least worst) alternative? Subsidies? Carbon trading? Carbon tax? Regulations?
I have no objections to a hypothetical question. However, I have very little idea how any of the options would work in practice.
How would a carbon tax work? How could I trade carbon? What might be subsidised or regulated?
I’m only acting slightly dumber than I really am. I slept through much of the single unit of economics I took.
30/30 is progressive, as are all flat income taxes.
Flat rate income taxes are progressive? Maybe I’m really showing my ignorance again here, but my memory of high school economics is that a progressive tax is one where those on higher incomes pay a higher percentage. With a flat tax, every one pays are the same marginal rate… isn’t this proportional? Of course, the NIT 30/30 isn’t a pure flat rate tax, but it’s as close as we’re likely to get.
DavidL,
As I see it you would never directly encounter a carbon tax unless you were an electricity producer, fuel wholesaler or in heavy industry (eg cement manufacture). You would however encounter the effect through a higher price for some products. However if the tax was introduced in a revenue neutral way you would have more after tax income (via cuts to income tax) or else a cheaper petrol bill (via an effectively reduced fuel tax). The objective of a carbon tax would be to shift behaviour (like a tax on cigarettes) rather than shut down the economy (although the madder greenies like Garrett seem to want that also).
Unlike a cigarette tax I don’t think the issues of personal liberty are as severe (although still real). And if it was done via an adjustment to fuel taxes, such as John has alluded to, it would arguably be less of an economic distortion because it would broaden the base. Even without AGW that might be a good idea (although abolishing fuel tax entirely is arguably better).
Personally I don’t think as a nation we should do anything at all about AGW at this point. However with nations like France threatening an all out trade war if we don’t move, and noting the pain the last major trade war caused (think Smoot Hawley) then I think we may want to consider blinking. A tax is politically easier to unravel later than a trading regime (although still difficult) and if it is done in conjuction with tax cuts elsewhere the impact to the broader economy will be mitigated.
Regards,
Terje.
Fleeced,
I use the word “progressive” the same way you do. So I’m not sure about where John is coming from on this specific point. However it is mostly just a symantic side issue.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje
If a carbon tax was introduced in a revenue neutral way it will probably have little impact. Energy consumption is inelastic to a large extent, so a cut in income tax offest by a carbon tax will almost certainly mean that consumptioon will not change.
It’s a feel good tax. That’s all it would be and make people think they are doing something for “globill warmin”.
Look Humphrey is right.
His scheme is “PROGRESSIVE” because it is proportional WITH A THRESHOLD.
And that is the ENLIGHTENED form of PROGRESSIVITY.
And good on him and David for getting this going.
Its got to be the lynch-pin to what we are about.
At least as a first budget.
You know what it is?
Its just about a fair go. Its just about doing the right thing. Because we have asked our low-paid-workers to lose all their union power and such. And whilst thats best for everyone including those self-same low-paid workers its a bit rich to just let such people be the buffer for the fallout for the rapid change in our determined advance towards freedom.
So what Humphreys and David have done is take the burden of change OFF such people. Their scheme is such that you can get a job if you want it and that if you have a job you’ll get by.
But we’ve got to look at this as a sort of MORAL NECESSITY. And not look upon it as some sort of vote-catcher or GROWTH-MAXIMISATION SCHEME.
It is all of these but its a moral necessity to have this as an immediate first budget up front.
And it will enable us to sack nine out of ten of the non-combat taxeaters with a straight face and clear conscience.
It will enable us to sack nine out of ten of the non-combat taxeaters WITH RELISH and with a happy heart.
You repeat Brendan’s strange complaint about methane from cows.
John, you’ve asserted that this is strange without refuting it. If I’m wrong, I’d like to know why I’m wrong.
I really don’t understand why you object so strongly to some of us more interested in refuting government intervention, even if we’ve agreed that carbon tax would be the least worst option. All this talk of who is the most “pure” is absolute rubbish, all I’ve advocated is that an argument against intervention is more important to me, although adtmitedly in a melodramatic way.
The point about cows & methane is strange because it’s easy to fix so hardly worth mentioning. Simply keep the carbon tax to the energy sector and exclude the agricultural, industrial & personal.
Progressive means that a richer person pays a higher average tax rate than a poorer person. A flat income tax is progressive for two reasons.
The first (as Graeme mentions) is when they have a tax free threshold. Under 30/30 you always have a 30% effective marginal tax rate… but not a 30% average tax rate. For a person on $30,000 you have a 0% average tax rate. For a person on $60,000 pays 15% average tax rate. As your wage increases your average rate assymtotically approaches 30%.
The second reason is that rich people have a higher marginal propensity to save and savings are effectively double taxed in all income tax systems by definition. This discussion gets quite technical, so for the purposes of this debate I hope you’ll just take my word for it. The only truly proportional tax is a flat universal consumption tax.
But my point about all this is that, as much as I generally oppose all tax, I can’t see how a carbon tax is particurlarly more objectionable than most other taxes. Personally, I find income tax very objectionable.
The point about cows & methane is strange because it’s easy to fix so hardly worth mentioning.
OK, cows I know about. You can’t stop cows producing methane, even if you’re an economist. Unless you shoot them, which is not exactly ‘fixing’.
Let them eat cake, David.
Less strident me (I hope):
I think there is a real question here about the substitution relationship between different claims for government intervention. Does the possibility that one tax could be made revenue neutral by offsets in other areas strengthen the case for the tax to be imposed?
I know there are differences in the *form* of intervention in any one area, and that discussing the differential impacts of two alternative forms (i.e. carbon tax and an enforced trading regime) was the point of the post. I did not mean to imply that hypothetical thought experiments are not of value or interest (and certainly not that they’re evil).
I was (and still am) bemused (confused, if you must) by the idea of universal substitution between *areas* of intervention. The apparent inevitability of increased intervention to affect CO2 output does not make a stronger case for income tax reform, surely. Again, I think 30/30 makes the case for income/welfare reform very well as it stands.
Of course there definitely are trade-offs amongst some sets of policy interventions: school funding and vouchers, mandatory super and CGT, welfare and income tax. And as already pointed out on this thread, there are potential trade-offs in different combinations between fuel excise, existing subsidies to energy production and tax/regulation of carbon.
But surely not all potential areas for government intervention are equally substitutable? (Again, leaving aside the specific forms that these policies might take in each area.)
John you seem to have some internal consistency in your approach that I and perhaps others would like to understand more. Does public choice theory come into this?
(Right at this moment I don’t have time to investigate the theoretical links myself, but will try to).
Simply keep the carbon tax to the energy sector and exclude the agricultural, industrial & personal.
I acknowledge the expediency of taxing only the energy industry, this industry already has strict emission regulations and so has readily accountable and therefore taxable emissions. Would such a tax also exclude the transport industry as well?
This is picking winners though, somehow the greenhouse gas emissions of some industry sectors are taxable, but others are not, which shies away from the purpose of the tax in the first place.
Putting on a devil’s advocate hat, why should farmers get away with poluting our precious environment with their nasty methane? Let’s tax them as well.
This discussion is based around divorcing the reason the watermelons want this tax from its implementation. These statists are not going to be happy until the tax creeps its way into every aspect of our lives. To not advocate a carbon tax on some industries on the basis of it’s too hard or too distortionary will not wash with irrational watermelons. A realist may get away with restricting the legislation to cover just one industry, but the watermelons will be back next parliament to argue for another tax on farmers or some other group. What is going to be the most efficient, least distortionary way of taxing cow’s farts then? This is the slippery slope we enter when we start advocating “least worst” government intervention on an incoming tide of intervention. With things like 30/30 income tax, we are arguing on an outgoing tide, our policy would be that this is a first step to even less government intervention, whereas a carbon tax would be a first step to even greater intervention.
I can see the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow with tax and welfare reform along the lines of 30/30, but with carbon tax, all I can see is a nightmare of more intervention, and I can’t see how it can be avoided. Sensible economic rational analysis of least worst solutions that lead to greater state intervention will only delay the inevitable.
The problem is I don’t share a vision of ultimate collapse of civilisation that some do as the state grows and grows and grows, I actually think that our entrepreneurs, engineers and scientists will overcome state bungling to continue the progress of civilisation, but that it will be slower progression and more dull for the want of individual liberty. We will overcome the state, but it will be in faded out dull colours at a snail’s pace, not the technicolour high definition explosion of human potential we could have with minimal state intervention.
John,
Fleeced and I did not have any issue with calling 30/30 progressive but rather with calling a flat income tax progessive (30/30 is not flat). The marginal propensity to save plus double taxation of interest argument (plus the magic “it’s complex” hand guesture) is not terribly satisfying. I’ll take your word for it but only because this is a mere issue of symantics and not because I think your line of argument is particularily strong.
Regards,
Terje.
In other news, Malcome Turnbull wants to ban incandescent light bulbs:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/light-bulbs-ban-to-slash-emissions/2007/02/19/1171733685061.html
The energy “waste” of incandesent bulbs is over rated. In the winter months the heat they pump out is appreciated, not wasted. And if they ban incandesent light bulbs then how on earth am I supposed to incubate chickens?
Turnbull is going the wrong way about things.
Reducing tariffs on more efficient bulbs from overseas and privatising energy distrubutors would see the uptake of more flourescent bulbs and capital investment in more efficient transmission lines.
An interesting item of news in today’s Australian which relates to this debate- a scientist has co-authored a book blaming the Sun’s magnetic field for causing most of the warming! Apparently it normally keeps temperatures stable, but for a while, until 1998, it wasn’t doing too good a job. Nigel Calder thinks that cosmic ray precipitation is a major factor. If proved, it might stop the whole debate in its’ tracks.
I use mostly the flourescent bulbs anyway, but there are some times you can’t (eg, with dimmer switches). It seems a pretty stupid idea. Then again, the story did say he’s expected to announce… so it’s possible bs
That said, so far Turnbull has been something of a disappointment…
Mark,
In privatisation terms I’d look at the power stations and the electricity retailers long before I’d look at the transmission or distribution components of the electricity market. And I’d privatise transmission before distribution because duplication in the former makes a lot more sence than in the later. Victoria is further ahead than NSW on these measures.
The microeconomic reform bandwagon really needs to move ahead now in the state sphere more urgently than at the federal level. Turnbull should be screaming about the low price charged for urban water rather that fiddling with light bulbs.
Regards,
Terje.
“Turnbull should be screaming about the low price charged for urban water rather that fiddling with light bulbs.”
A salient point Terje, but it is worth pointing out for the non-economists that the resulting high price will result in increased supplies being found or made and conservation measures to be uptaken.
“And if they ban incandesent light bulbs then how on earth am I supposed to incubate chickens?”
Or brew beer in winter…etc. This goes back to Hayek, in that alternative uses of a product are not considered, nor are the effects of substituting behaviours (e.g more use of mercury, phosphorous etc in flourescent bulbs). All of this has no backstop without secure private property rights and prices reflecting scarcity and opportunity costs.
Technical question: what about halogen lamps?
Terje: “The marginal propensity to save plus double taxation of interest argument (plus the magic “it’s complex” hand guesture) is not terribly satisfying.”
You and I have discussed the double taxation of savings inherent in income tax previously. The issue really isn’t in doubt and I thought you agreed.
I didn’t try to wave away the debate with “it’s complex”. I don’t think I’m required to give full economics lectures every time somebody get economics wrong and as you point out the issue was tangental to the debate.
But if I must…
1. Interest is paid to compensate for the time value of money and to represent risk. If you make a return from risk that is legitimately understood as income, but to be compensated for the time value of money is not a net increase in total wealth measured in net present value. Consequently, taxing the interest (or capital gain) that represents the time value of money represents a tax in addition to income tax. As returns are only paid on savings then those who save more pay relatively more than those who save less. As richer people have a higher marginal propensity to save (MPS) then they pay relatively more, over and above the proportional level. Therefore: progressive.
2. As you are fond of pointing out with regards to CGT, the fact that income tax will be charged on future income reduces the return that a invester can offer on their debt/equity. So the return on that debt/equity is effectively taxed twice. Once again, as richer people have a higher MPS then they are stung by this double tax on savings more than poorer people. Therefore: progressive.
“But my point about all this is that, as much as I generally oppose all tax, I can’t see how a carbon tax is particurlarly more objectionable than most other taxes. Personally, I find income tax very objectionable.”
I think I’ve gone over this.
A carbon-tax is totally objectionable since:
1. Its very existence is standing propaganda in favour of a damaging hoax.
2. We are missing out of the positive externalities of extra CO2.
3. If indeed CO2 does warm the planet a bit we are missing out on a potential mitigation against a new glacial period within our nasty ice age.
4. Since we face substituting away from the primary energy source of oil this is the worst time in industrial history imageinable for such a tax.
1. You believe in AGW so why call it a hoax.
2. See I told you so. I’d trade these positive externalities for the positive externalities of reduced income tax. Although if I could have my cake and eat it then all well and good.
3. Which is just point 2 repackaged.
4. Actually our well being is far less energy intensive than it was half a century ago. And if you taxed coal more and petrol less then you would tilt things towards oil (which with Hydrogen bonds delivers more energy per unit of CO2 emitted).
But you can get the reduced income tax anyway.
And its a bad time to make that trade.
Its a hoax for many reasons. And one is for the idea that a little bit of human warming in an ice age is a bad thing.
AGW is a screwed-up concern. Since its bigoted against the human race.
We should take our warming with good grace wherever we can find it.
“And if you taxed coal more and petrol less then you would tilt things towards oil (which with Hydrogen bonds delivers more energy per unit of CO2 emitted).”
So what?
CO2 is a positive externality.
The alarmist movement is a fraud and you seemed to forget all this within seconds of beginning your post.
It was your point not mine. You said we should not be substituting away from oil. I merely pointed out that broadening fuel tax to cover coal and to reduce the burden on oil would not be encouraging a substitutsion away from oil.
“Fighting global warming” sounds to me as “Making sunset later”: natural processes occur regardless a human will.
Of course, it is not a point to accelerate this natural phenomena, but from a view of a planetary epochs thousands of years not so big passage of time at all, anyway.
“I merely pointed out that broadening fuel tax to cover coal and to reduce the burden on oil would not be encouraging a substitutsion away from oil.”
RIGHT.
Excellent point.
So the carbon tax is even more perverse then my original estimate.
I think I’ve won this argument. So is the matter resolved yet?
No compromising with this lunacy.
Sometimes one needs to compromise in practical politics. But we don’t need to do this now when faced with this near-universal fantasy about excessive warming. They must be talking about a different planet entirely.
One can imagine it coming down to horse-trading at some point. But why give away all your ground now?
Plus I want to reiterate that this issue is a good opportunity to differentiate ourselves from the other guys.
To stand out clearly and get heaps of publicity and/or sponsorship.
Surely somewhere out there there is an oil or coal company we can graciously accept money from.
Then of course the next thing is all these leftist lunatics will accuse us of being in the pay of oil and coal companies….
… FREE PUBLICITY.