Trickle-Up Carbon Taxes

Here are some points about carbon taxes which may have passed under the radar gleaned from Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision (a Canadian think-tank.)

The commission had what they refered to as a debate today between Chris Ragan, chair of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission and Merran Smith, Executive Director or Clean Energy Canada moderated by the Globe and Mail’s Editorial Page Editor Tony Keller. It wasn’t much of a debate, it was more like publicity. The live event was aimed at corporate oil sector executives.

The participants mostly echoed each others’ comments. Even pre-recorded clips and guest questions simply regurgitated the day’s talking points. They were few, but seemed to encourage oil companies to accept the incentivization programs aimed directly at them. The public, and its concerns, were for the most part, ignored.

The one point which kept coming up was that carbon taxes should be revenue-neutral. What this means is that while companies would be taxed for their share of carbon emissions (again, there was no distinction between CO, CO2, and CH4) at about $30/tonne, the money would then come back to the company through special programs, tax breaks in other areas, or subsidies. BC’s cement industry was cited saying that some $25M had already been given in order to reduce GHG emissions. So is the government trying to get some of its money back, or is it trying to get corporations to pay for their own subsidies?

BC uses a revenue-neutral system whereas the system in Quebec is cap and trade (Quebec carbon is taxed at about $14/tonne.) The problem here is the perception of oil companies; if they feel the taxes are not revenue-neutral, the ‘debators’ conceded, there would be an exodus of mostly manufacturing jobs towards cheaper emerging markets. In other words, ‘the working man’ suffers.

They then pointed out that manufacturing jobs were being replaced with other jobs (in Ontario total hires went up.) If those jobs are being replaced with better jobs (R&D,) (re)education will cost more for the workers and saddle them with more debt – if Canadians are even qualified to do these jobs – which is doubtful. But if the jobs (as is more probably the case) are being replaced with lesser jobs (service sector) as is the current trend, again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers.

Emerging market countries have been quick to point out that most of this ‘pollution’ was made by developed market countries who then counter that the pollution from the next fifty years will be mostly EM, and much worse. We got it on credit, but you have to pay up front.

Finally, the ‘leftover’ taxes would be used to help subsidize public transport. Since less people will be able to afford cars, this seems reasonable. Again it is ‘the working man’ who suffers. Those who can afford it will be encouraged to buy newer cleaner cars. More money being spent by the public which already owes a tremendous amount of new car debt in favour of the car companies who produce the pollution in the first place. This is all getting rather circular. Who suffers? You guessed it.

All this is based upon the notion that this entire carbon market will not be a free market, but a highly manipulated one; one in which the price of carbon can never be high enough, much like the already carbon-tax-laden airline ticket. Prices will be set, because if the market were left to its own devices, and it turns out that CO2 does nothing to raise global temperatures, the >$1T market would collapse taking everything out with it.

Canada’s Ecofiscal Commision has no literature referencing sources for CO2 harm, cites no peer-reviewed papers backing up its claims, will not provide any references, and says the science is settled which negates the need for any pesky proof.

The commission has also indicated that all forms of carbon emissions should be subject to taxation. Get ready for a breathing tax, Canada.

 

Who Cops the COP?

In light of the recent attack in Paris, and with police claiming they cannot ensure the security of the many participants to COP 21 including the pope and other heads of state, no public demonstrations will be allowed. Period.

The emphasis has been on the hundreds of thousands of supposed supporters who had been expected to march in solidarity with the aims of the conference (whether or not it would have manifested.) No mention has been made, however, of those who oppose the conference and its goals. No mention will be made of them at all as they will, thanks to the new normal of global security, not even be allowed to show up. This has turned out to be a tremendously effective way to silence dissent. Is this the future of global governance?

The fear was that support for the ‘environmental’ goals would be overshadowed by those who denounce them. Public apathy on the subject is rampant and the arguments against anthropogenic global warming are gaining momentum. In no way did they want a repeat of many G-7/G-8/G-20 conferences in which protestors turned out ‘en masse’ while support for the policies was nowhere to be seen.

Surely their numbers must be substantial. The CO2 poll at the top of this blog shows that fully two thirds of respondants believe that the world would be better off if CO2 levels were not reduced.

One can only wonder, had the events of Nov. 13th in Paris not occured, just what the conference, or more precisely, the scene outside the conference, would have looked like. Just lucky, I suppose.

Since all demonstrations were banned for the reason of security (anti-terrorism,) all demonstrators will be seen as terrorists; hence, if you are a skeptic, you’re no better than a member of ISIS.

With the unelected writing policy to be sold by the elected to the electors, and with an absolute media blackout on dissent, it is difficult to see how the ‘international order’ could be headed towards a democratic future.

Sun Tzu wrote that the best way to win a war was not to fight in the first place. Wise words taken to heart in Paris. One more in a long list of debates which alarmists have done everything possible to avoid.


It all started here at COP 2.

1996: COP 2, Geneva, Switzerland

COP 2 took place in July 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Its Ministerial Declaration was noted (but not adopted) July 18, 1996, and reflected a U.S. position statement presented by Timothy Wirth, former Under Secretary for Global Affairs for the U.S. State Department at that meeting, which:

  1. Accepted the scientific findings on climate change proffered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its second assessment (1995);
  2. Rejected uniform “harmonized policies” in favor of flexibility;
  3. Called for “legally binding mid-term targets”.”

Timothy Endicott Wirth

“In the State Department, he worked with Vice President Al Gore on global environmental and population issues, supporting the administration’s views on global warming. A supporter of the proposed Kyoto Protocol, Wirth announced the U.S.’s commitment to legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions. From 1998 to 2013, he served as the president of the United Nations Foundation, and currently sits on the Foundation’s board.”


“The United Nations Foundation was launched in 1998 with a $1 billion gift from Ted Turner to support the United Nations causes… The main issue areas that the Foundation addresses are child health, climate change & energy, sustainable development, technology, women, girls, and population, and supporting the United Nations.”


How is it that the philanthropists who are the most ardent supporters of medical programs to save more lives (especially in the 1/3 world) through health services, disease reduction, and mass vaccination, are the same alarmists who decry over-population as the number one threat to humanity in being the number one cause of climate change (0:58)? These Ehrlichians, these Holdrenites really need to clarify why they routinely spend billions funding these programs to save millions of lives while publicly stating that it is a death sentance to us all. In order for people to voluntarily agree to have no more than one or two children, poverty must be eradicated. Funding health services will only make that problem worse, if one listens to the men who share the views of the Ted Turners’ and the Bill Gates’ and the Al Gores’ of the world. When notable people say one thing yet do another, it should be noted. When objecting to these incongruencies is not tolerated, it should be feared.

 

 

Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?


Margaret Thatcher    “Nothing is more obstinate than a fashionable consensus.”

“Consensus: “The process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values, and policies in search of something in which no one believes, but to which no one objects; the process of avoiding the very issues that have to be solved, merely because you cannot get agreement on the way ahead. What great cause would have been fought and won under the banner: ‘I stand for consensus?”


Before getting into details, some very basic questions on the topic answered briefly:

1- Who are the chief actors?

  • Pro AGW actors will herein be known as ‘alarmists.’
  • Con AGW actors will herein be known as ‘doubters.’ ‘Deniers’ is seen as derogatory and has been replaced in the mainstream media (MSM.) Skeptics is still prefered by some.

2- Is the global climate changing?

Yes. It always has and it will continue to do so. This is why there have been ice ages.

3- Is this change due to human activity?

No. (see question 4, below) The sun is the primary determinant of climate as this is where the planet gets almost all its energy.

4- Does human activity contribute to warming or cooling trends?

Otherwise stated, is anthropogenic global warming or anthropogenic climate change (AGW or AGCC) a legitimate concept? On the face of it, probably not, but if it is, the effect is truly minimal. The rub here is whether or not we consider geo-engineering (besides a slight mention, geo-engineering is not a substantial part of this article) as part of this equation? If so, the effect would be to increase the amount of influence man has on his environment, although very slightly. In which direction, though, is still not known.

5- Is CO2 pollution or plant food?

CO2 is most definitely not pollution by any definition of the word. Conflation between carbon monoxide (CO – which is pollution) and carbon dioxide (CO2 – which is plant food) and basic scientific ignorance seem to be at fault here. See this article for disambiguation.

6- Does the economy have an effect on the science?

Just as with politics, when money is introduced into a problem, it tends to aggravate the situation by bringing up new problems. The economy affects everything. Governments need revenue to fund research and address issues. Corporations need investors in order to continue doing business. Universities and think-tanks need government (and private) money to continue their research. Magazines, journals, and publishing houses need advertising revenue to continue to publish. Scientists need money to support their families. There are many points along this chain in which to introduce money as a corruptive factor. Money can indeed influence science, and has.

7- Does politics control policy, or do the facts?

It would seem that there is an agenda at work behind the question. The IPCC (the UN’s main deliberative body on climate change) was, at its inception, created with a mandate. The IPCC is a political body and not a scientific one and was created with specific goals and objectives to attain. Their own literature attests to this fact. Scientists who participate with the IPCC do so as consultants and advisors only. Motions put forth by the UN are written by lawyers, bureaucrats, translators, and policy-makers, not scientists.

8- Is there bias in the debate?

Both sides of this question are subject to biases (scroll down to the comments section where professor Brown references these biases) when reporting on the data. Everybody who works in this field has a horse in the race, so to speak, and everybody wants their horse to come out ahead. However, there are several documented instances of outright fraud concerning manipulated data which all seem to come from one side of the table in particular – the alarmist side. (More on this later) And yes, many people on the internet lie or are mis-informed, on both sides.

9- How much carbon dioxide is there in our atmosphere?

400 ppm = 0.04% That is to say that four one-hundredths of one percent of our atmosphere is composed of carbon dioxide.

Some basic facts about CO2 concentrations:

  • 70,000-100,000 ppm (unconsciousness within an hour)
  • 7000-8000 ppm (earth’s historic high)
  • 5000 ppm (US Occupational CO2 exposure limits – 8 hrs.)
  • 3000-4000 ppm (poorly ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (well ventilated indoor spaces)
  • 2000-2500 ppm (Jurassic era levels)
  • 800-4000 ppm (optimal greenhouse targets)
  • 360 – 410 ppm (earth’s atmosphere today)
  • 250 ppm (earth’s historic low)
  • 200 ppm (IPCC target level)
  • 150 ppm (level under which plants start to die)
  • 0 ppm (where Bill Gates wants it)

If you only click one link in this entire article, make it the following:

Chistopher Monckton Keynote – ICCC9 July 9, 2014 (47:11)

Start at the 20:00 mark if you don’t have much time. In this video, Lord Christopher Monckton lays bare the language of the agreements reached at several climate summits demonstrating the true intent behind these schemes. He then goes on to suggest some very positive actions which we all can take in order to guarantee legitimacy and transparency in these international tribunals governed by non-elected bodies accountable only to their own interests. With the COP-21 United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris quickly upon us (November 30 to December 11, 2015) there is precious little time to act.

Let’s put an end to global warming.

Continue reading “Climate Change – Conservancy Or Governance?”

CO2 Poll

This poll is now closed. Recent attempts to troll the results are to blame.

The final tally was not surprising.

Those who thought that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere should remain the same or be higher than they are today outnumbered those who thought they should be lower by a 2 to 1 margin.

The question read: Given that the current level of atmospheric CO2 is 400 ppm, what would the ideal level be?

1500 ppm = 33%

400 ppm = 33%

200 ppm = 25%

0 ppm = 9%

Thank you to the hundreds of people who participated.

See here for an article to explain the climate situation, and how it relates [or doesn’t] to the current level of atmospheric CO2.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Do You Know the Difference?

Probably not, and that is exactly what they’re counting on.

CO (carbon monoxide – lighter than air) is formed as a result of oxygen-poor combustion (as in combustion engines,) it is used as a coloring agent in US meat production (illegal in EU and Japan,) and has potential in the medical field as a biological regulator. It is widely used in chemical manufacturing. It may even be used, one day, as a fuel source on Mars. CO is toxic to humans in very low concentrations (35ppm.) Atmospheric concentrations are approximately 0.1ppm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide

CO2 (carbon dioxide – heavier than air) “is a colorless, odorless gas vital to life on Earth.” Plants use it to photosynthesize sugars from CO2 and water (with oxygen produced as a byproduct.) CO2 is produced by the respiration of animals and fish, organic decay, fermentation, and combustion of wood and fossil fuels. It is used throughout many industries for decaffeinating coffee, adding sparkle to carbonated beverages (soda, beer, champagne) and when frozen becomes ‘dry ice’. CO2 is only toxic in extremely high concentrations (>70,000ppm.) Atmospheric concentrations are between 360 – 410ppm depending on location.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The above article contradicts itself in several places and also claims that CO2 is directly responsible for ‘global warming’, but more on that later.

In a sentence, CO is poison and CO2 is plant food necessary for all life on Earth. Both are so-called greenhouse gases (GHG.) CO2 is truly a greenhouse gas in the sense that farmers enrich their greenhouse environments with it in order to stimulate plant growth and increase yield.

Without CO2, breads wouldn’t rise, sparkling wine wouldn’t sparkle, beer would be flat, and compressed-air tools (not actually air, but CO2) would cost a lot more to run. Oh and by the way, all green plants (on land and in the seas) would die causing mass starvation for herbivores and humans alike.

Continue reading “Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2): Do You Know the Difference?”

Wonky+…

The true state of the environment is nothing particularly abnormal as can very clearly be seen in the following chart.

image157

On the other hand, this next chart is the kind of pseudo-science which is all-pervasive these days. Note the dotted line and that the next forty year rise is equal to the previous 60,000 year decline. The graph itself is speculative even displaying a question mark, but this is the kind of thing that passes for science in this debate.

Last 100 million years

Despite the fact that both vaccines and chem-trails contain some of the same neuro-toxins, vaccines are safe and chem-trails don’t exist.

As stated in a recent article by Mother Jones, “People who have measles are more susceptible to starvation through climate change… In its landmark report last year, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that global warming poses a range of health threats… Kirk Smith—an environmental health expert at UC, Berkeley, and a lead author of the IPCC chapter on health impacts—points out that “a child weakened by measles is more likely to die from the malnutrition caused by climate change.” In other words, anything we can do to reduce the impact of existing health problems will be even more important in a warming world. And vaccinating children, he says, is one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have.

I would also like to mention that if you are susceptible to starvation, measles and climate change are not your biggest problems. Kirk Smith points out that “one of the most cost-effective public health tools we have” is vaccines. I would like to point out that THE most cost-effective public health tool we have is better nutrition. Warmer temperatures, increased rainfall, and increased levels of CO2 would only increase crop yields.

Continue reading “Wonky+…”