No carbon tax or fracking ban in the Democratic platform, but important acknowledgement that Oil companies knew decades ago that climate change was a serious issue, and yet still funded climate science denial groups who have fouled and distorted the needed public debate on the issue.
Decent synopsis above, including Dr. Michael Mann’s testimony to the Platform Committee.
Btw, I’m an independent, folks, if the GOP does something constructive on, well, anything,…I’ll report here.
Quick Dark Snow update. I’ve made contact a group of researchers who are heading up to the ice sheet edge today, and invited me along. Will most likely be camping on the ice tonight, back tomorrow.
And now for the news Peter Sinclair won’t relay to you, which you fellows are loathe to look for yourselves:
“Climate change prosecutors suffer setback as AG pulls Exxon subpoena”
The Washington Times Wednesday, June 29, 2016: Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker agreed Wednesday to withdraw his climate-related subpoena of ExxonMobil, a stunning reversal that delivered a blow to the Democratic-led effort to prosecute climate change dissent. ……
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/29/climate-change-prosecutors-suffer-defeat-as-attorn/
Gee, I can’t imagine that Peter has anything else on his mind as he tries to run his web site from Greenland and camp on the ice. And, yes, what a stunning setback. This leaves only 16 state attorneys general who are still suing.
Give “Kendal Stitzel” credit for at least acknowledging that AG Walker withdrew his subpoenas. But now there is the problem of seemingly taking heart in the belief that the ’16’ others have something out there to make up for Walker’s retreat. “Kendal Stitzel” can’t name what that is specifically for some unknown reason.
The one comment I got a kick out of a while back was how Peter Sinclair said he permits me to keep commenting here because “I can always point to Russell in case anyone doubts what I say about climate deniers.” ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83412 ), but much like the rest of you guys, he seems to have only his beliefs about me and not facts he can point to. Me, I invite outsiders into Crocks ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/746089526049701888 ) to show them what EVERYONE says here, myself included. Are you guys really that confident that your replies are going to help sell the AGW issue to fence-sitters? One more thing, despite whatever commenter “dumboldguy” (“d.o.g.”, for short) chooses to believe ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83477 ), I’m still serious about Peter having the opportunity to see if his beliefs about me hold any water.
Peter Sinclair says he permits me to keep commenting here because “I can always point to Russell in case anyone doubts what I say about climate deniers.” ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83412 ), but much like the rest of you guys, he seems to have only his beliefs about me and not facts he can point to. Me, I invite outsiders into Crocks ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/746089526049701888 ) to show them what EVERYONE says here, myself included. Are you guys really that confident that your replies are going to help sell the AGW issue to fence-sitters? One more thing, despite whatever commenter “dumboldguy” (“d.o.g.”, for short) chooses to believe ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83477 ), I’m still serious about Peter having the opportunity to see if his beliefs about me hold any water.
Friends, take a step back and look at what your tactic is here. You want to kill the messenger, hurling all kinds of names and accusations at me which you don’t back up with evidence. You don’t even try. Regarding the points I make, I can tack another line out of the “A Few Good Men” movie — “These are the facts and they are not in dispute.” Do y’all ever wonder why it is you feel a knee-jerk compulsion to resort to character assassination every time, rather than destroy me by showing everyone exactly where my assertions dead wrong or that there is irrefutable evidence proving the stuff I say about the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation is either lies fed to me or is rendered useless because of an underlying religious or political ideology?
Think about it. And have a nice safe July 4th holiday today.
“Climate change prosecutors suffer setback” Gosh. I totally wish, for your sake, that the subject here was “Climate Change Prosecutors”. Because in that case, whoever had to money to buy the most lawyers would win, and how TIDY would THAT be??? The sad fact, my litigating friend, is that the subject is “Climate Change”. And that is responding to Laws that can’t be bought, not with ANY amount of money. Failing that: right here, humbly stuck on the 3rd Rock from the Sun, Thom Hartmann’s explanation, above, is one of his most salient, and sober. You should view it, one time, at least.
“Ubrew12” wants everyone to believe the topic is “climate change” when it is in fact whether what little global warming we’ve seen over the last 150 years is primarily driven by human-induced greenhouse gases, an idea which skeptic climate scientist question in vast detail. And the fact is that that the current racketeering prosecution effort doesn’t even attempt to dispute those skeptic assessments, it proceeds on the notion that the assessments are false and prompted by coal & oil money purchases of it – which I’ve long said is devoid of any proof to back up that claim.
You are right. I am always loathe to read the Washington Times. Too much batshit crazy for me.
So, “East Coast Twiterati”, “mbrysonb” and “d.o.g.” here trash the Washington Times. But they doesn’t dispute that AG Walker withdrew his subpoenas. Don’t expect the news to be reported at HuffPo, the DailyKos or here by Peter. But for a totally impartial firsthand report of it, these three need only look at the court system where Walker filed his withdrawal documents. Can’t erase that problem.
Russell Cook – You have let yourself down badly again. Did you even bother watching the excellent “Daily Take” video and register Michael Mann’s point (that we can see the results of fossil burning nightly on the T.V news, even without scientific measuring instruments). You think that we will all be devastated that one attorney has dropped out from suing ExxonMobil.
Do you really think that we will be dancing in the street with joy if ExxonMobil are held to account ?.
None of us will, the mess we have already made will last for millenniums. The outcome will be unimaginable for generations to follow. That is already locked in. I guess you just don’t give a damn what happens to our children’s children, you will be long dead. You are just another self-centered blockhead who mixes up academics, knowledge, expert views and intelligence with political view.
Believe what you will. Meanwhile, I like how Peter Sinclair says he permits me to keep commenting here because “I can always point to Russell in case anyone doubts what I say about climate deniers.” ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83412 ), but much like the rest of you guys, he seems to have only his beliefs about me and not facts he can point to. Me, I invite outsiders into Crocks ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/746089526049701888 ) to show them what EVERYONE says here, myself included. Are you guys really that confident that your replies are going to help sell the AGW issue to fence-sitters? One more thing, despite whatever commenter “dumboldguy” (“d.o.g.”, for short) chooses to believe ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83477 ), I’m still serious about Peter having the opportunity to see if his beliefs about me hold any water.
Friends, take a step back and look at what your tactic is here. You want to kill the messenger, hurling all kinds of names and accusations at me which you don’t back up with evidence. You don’t even try. Regarding the points I make, I can tack another line out of the “A Few Good Men” movie — “These are the facts and they are not in dispute.” Do y’all ever wonder why it is you feel a knee-jerk compulsion to resort to character assassination every time, rather than destroy me by showing everyone exactly where my assertions dead wrong or that there is irrefutable evidence proving the stuff I say about the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation is either lies fed to me or is rendered useless because of an underlying religious or political ideology?
Think about it. And have a nice safe July 4th holiday today.
I haven’t forgotten the early efforts and false starts in the tobacco suits (or Jessie Helms et al’s long losing political campaign to defend the death industry). It will take a while (Exxon went to the Supreme Court over Exxon Valdez to reduce their liability– they aren’t going to give up on climate anytime soon either), but there will be suits and there will be losses, despite all the slick lawyers Tillerson et al will hire. Still, your sources–dude– the Washington Times? That Moonie rag? If you want real coverage of anything serious on this earth you really need to look somewhere else.
Hey folks,
Want to have a good laugh at Russell Cook’s expense?
Then check out what Cook had to say about Arizona climate-scientists’ emails (linky http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2016/06/22/az-court-reverses-protection-for-climate-scientists/)
Russell Cook, an Arizona taxpayer, testified that without access to the requested emails, “I cannot adequately determine whether climate research is a good use of taxpayer funds, whether such research is reliable . . . whether such research is effective . . . or whether the legislators and other public employees are being wise stewards of the public fisc.”
So Cook really thinks he’s qualified to pass judgment on the validity of climate research? Hilarious!! Asking Cook to review climate research would be like my niece asking her dog to help her with her algebra homework. Woof!
Hilarious!!!??? Russell being considered an “expert” is so far beyond “hilarious” that I can’t even think of a word to describe it.
I will merely say BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!! (and ask that everyone repeat that 27 times as Russell once did with “prove it” in a comment).
CBG666’s niece will get far more substantive help with her algebra homework from her dog than Russell will EVER contribute to the world of climate change science. WOOF indeed!
IMO, Russell is not qualified to pass judgment on much of ANYTHING, never mid climate science, and he himself recognized that fact less than two years ago at the 2014 Heartland conference. It’s time to trot out the video clip from that conference yet again so that Russell can tell us about himself and his inadequacies—-watch only the first 30 seconds—-the rest will rot your brain.
https://youtu.be/t6OhfbGHJqo
Of course, what is truly hilarious here is how “d.o.g.”, along with “caerbannog666” apparently literally believe I made unqualified assertions about climate science in my deposition. I can just imagine the quizzical look on any otherwise disinterested bystander’s face who’s just read my deposition while pondering these guy’s remarks: “Where on Earth do you get that from??”.
Remember, it doesn’t matter what you believe, only what you can prove. I submit this is exactly why “d.o.g.” continues to misdirect friends and foes alike with his bits about me not being a climate science expert, and continues to demand that no one watch my presentation beyond the 30 second point — it is because he literally cannot dispute the details I put out about how the accusation that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid industry shills’ falls apart. The rest of my video won’t rot anyone’s brain, it will illustrate fatal faults within that ‘corrupt scientists’ accusation. My GelbspanFiles blog won’t rot anyone’s brain, it will open AGWers’ minds to problems on the political side of AGW that they were blind to. And “d.o.g.” is petrified of what will happen to them when they see things that implode all they ever believed about on the certainty that skeptic climate scientists are guilty as sin.
“Caerbannog666” might have done a narrow Google time search of my name to dredge up the news of the U of AZ FOIA case. That’s how I found myself there. Golly, what’s up with it saying “Russell Cook, an Arizona taxpayer…”? “D.o.g.”‘s last paragraph here ( https://climatecrocks.com/2015/06/03/new-video-brother-sun-sister-moon-pope-francis-and-the-meaning-of-climate-action/#comment-73015 ) placed me in California. Well, since y’all don’t trust what I say and do trust “d.o.g.”, that presents a problem, doesn’t it? Li’l bit of advise for those of you wanting to send a tip about perjury to the court, ya might want to also include a list of lies I’ve told in my blog posts or online articles numbered 1 through 100. Or 1 through 3, if y’all can even find that many.
It would appear that Russell is perhaps now denying that he is the “Russell Cook, Arizona taxpayer” in the link?. Looking at the link, the “Arizona taxpayer Russell” is joined at the hip there with two other well-known Whores for Heartland—-Idso and Ferrera. One would think that their pimps (the Koch brothers) would have them stand on different street corners, but apparently they’re not paying much attention to what their “girls” are up to.. To wit. the link cites:
“Craig Idso, founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, testified that….”
“Peter Ferrara, a former law professor at George Mason University and current fellow at the Heartland Institute, testified that…” “
“Russell Cook, an Arizona taxpayer, testified that…”
Desmogblog has lots of info on all three—-they are MAJOR denier whores—-anyone wanting to know the sordid details of their denialism and lying can easily google there.
And Russell now cites me as an “expert witness” on where he lives? LMAO! Anything I said along those lines only reflected what Russell said himself in his ravings in various places, and CA is what I saw there. Is the “California Russell” just a smokescreen? A “decoy” persona meant to keep Russell from getting swept up when they come for him and the other deniers? Does he really live in AZ? Or does he own property there, which would make him a taxpayer and entitled to spout his bullshit as a paid Heartland whore?
Or does Russell really reside in CA and has he purchased a mailbox in AZ just to use that address as evidence of his residency so that he can spout bullshit on the record? That seems a bit fraudulent to me. Hmmmmm—–think I will contact the AZ AG as Russell suggests and ask them to investigate. Look out, Russell—one way or the other, they’re coming to get you!
Here’s Russell, striving mightily to earn his whore’s dollar from the fossil fuel interests who pay him to spout bullshit and try to clog up the discussion on legitimate climate change sites. I will second the idea that the Washington Times is a wing-nut publication suitable only for wrapping fish guts for the garbage, and has credibility only among those who think Rush Limburger, Glenn Beck, and Faux News are reliable “news sources”. They used to throw a free copy in my driveway once a week to try to entice me into subscribing—-had a good laugh reading the first one and threw all succeeding ones straight in the trash—-they gave up after a few months.
Also have to laugh at the “stunning reversal” that results from the AG of a jurisdiction with ~100,000 inhabitants dropping his action against Exxon. Big Whoop!—-I suggest that Russell keep an eye on what happens in NY and the other big states instead—-that’s where Exxon (and Russell) will be taken down..
All should note that Russell has AGAIN awarded himself two thumbs up from the get-go by HACKING the WordPress thumbs feature. Anyone seeking evidence that Russell is a miserable lying SOB with no character at all need look no further than the fact that he has been doing this for months even though it has been pointed out many times. Perhaps it’s Russell saying “DOG can’t tell ME what to do” and throwing his dishonesty in our faces? Good tactic, Russell—-I’m sure it will get people on your side.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have my self-imposed work to do, as in my latest post at GelbspanFiles.com . Let’s just say one of Crocks’ favorite heroines doesn’t fare so well in that one. Remember her claim about an LBJ speech proving LBJ understood global warming? Oops. For those of you refusing to read my work, don’t worry, “d.o.g.” will do that for you, and report back that it’s full of lies, misinformation, etc & so forth. If that satisfies y’all, then you’re fine, but if you dare ask what the lies were and how “d.o.g.” proves that ….. don’t hold your breath over that. Speaking of which, once again “d.o.g.” is all show and no go in his comment above, when it comes to proving I’m paid either a salary or via piecework to do what I do, and of course he has yet to dispute any specific detail within my collective set of blog posts / online articles or even prove that any kind of “hacking” (meaning unauthorized access in a computer system) is happening here. If y’all want to call him a “name”, one suggestion would he that he is consistent. One name to call me is “persistent”. I had originally posted all of my above individual comment replies within a single comment on July 2, but it’s apparently hung up in Peter’s comment moderation system.
Funny how Peter Sinclair says he permits me to keep commenting here because “I can always point to Russell in case anyone doubts what I say about climate deniers.” ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83412 ), but much like the rest of you guys, he seems to have only his beliefs about me and not facts he can point to. Me, I invite outsiders into Crocks ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/746089526049701888 ) to show them what EVERYONE says here, myself included. Are you guys really that confident that your replies are going to help sell the AGW issue to fence-sitters? One more thing, despite whatever “d.o.g.”chooses to believe ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83477 ), I’m still serious about Peter having the opportunity to see if his beliefs about me hold any water.
Friends, take a step back and look at what your tactic is here. You want to kill the messenger, hurling all kinds of names and accusations at me which you don’t back up with evidence. You don’t even try. Regarding the points I make, I can tack on another line out of the “A Few Good Men” movie — “These are the facts and they are not in dispute.” Do y’all ever wonder why it is you feel a knee-jerk compulsion to resort to character assassination every time, rather than destroy me by showing everyone exactly where my assertions dead wrong or that there is irrefutable evidence proving the stuff I say about the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation is either lies fed to me or is rendered useless because of an underlying religious or political ideology?
Think about it. And have a nice safe July 4th holiday today. (not a good idea to tote signs to the fireworks show saying “Ban Fireworks, they cause runaway hot/cold, wet/dry, extreme weather/no weather”, by the way)
Straight out of your own mouth, you’re nothing even closely related to a scientist, you’re just a guy off the street that the Heartland Institute has taken in as a mouthpiece.
“Climatelurker” earns credit for at least watching the first 30 seconds of my Las Vegas presentation, but notice how this individual literally cannot dispute anything I say beyond that point … and doesn’t even rise to opportunity to do so. Anybody wonder why this person sets himself/herself up for that wipeout?
In actuality, “Climatelurker” continues to show his good sense by NOT watching more than the first 30 seconds of Russell’s paid “bullshit the motivated reasoners” session at Las Vegas.
Why would anyone want to watch 11+ minutes of bullshit by someone who ADMITS that he “knows no science”, was “dragged in off the street” to speak, and represents the “scraping of the bottom of the barrel” by Heartland?
To make an analogy, it would be like passing by the park and hearing “crazy old lady” expounding for 30 seconds on why you should NOT listen to anything she says because she has no expertise or credibility and THEN stopping and standing there listening to the next 11 minutes of her “craziness” (and even taking notes because it is so profound?). Who in their right mind would do that?
Yes, watching any more than the the first 30 seconds (the ONLY part that contains truth and worthwhile info), IS dangerous to one’s brain. Anyone who does so is risking the “wipeout” of several IQ points
Once again “d.o.g.” is all show and no go when it comes to proving I’m paid either a salary or via piecework to do what I do, and of course he has yet to dispute any specific detail within my collective set of blog posts / online articles or even prove that any kind of “hacking” (meaning unauthorized access in a computer system) is happening here. If y’all want to call him a “name”, one suggestion would he that he is consistent. One name to call me is “persistent”. I had originally posted all of the above comment replies within a single comment on July 2, but it’s apparently hung up in Peter’s comment moderation system.
Sorry for the delay in responding, by the way, I have my self-imposed work to do, as in my latest post at GelbspanFiles.com . Let’s just say one of Crocks’ favorite heroines doesn’t fare so well in that one. Remember her claim about an LBJ speech proving LBJ understood global warming? Oops. For those of you refusing to read my work, don’t worry, “d.o.g.” will do that for you, and report back that it’s full of lies, misinformation, etc & so forth. If that satisfies y’all, then you’re fine, but if you dare ask what the lies were and how “d.o.g.” proves that ….. don’t hold your breath over that.
No, I will not be visiting GobsOfShitFiles on behalf of Crockers very much in the future. The time I have already spent there has shown me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Russell’s one-note song is demented and delusional, and too much exposure is dangerous to one’s mental health. I need no more proof.
I will allow the demented and delusional to visit there—-those who have seen Russell’s lies on WUWT and in other right wing-nut places like American Stinky Thinking will be likely go there—-not me.
Our main man says he permits me to keep commenting here because “I can always point to Russell in case anyone doubts what I say about climate deniers.” ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83412 ), but much like the rest of you guys, he seems to have only his beliefs about me and not facts he can point to. Me, I invite outsiders into Crocks ( https://twitter.com/questionAGW/status/746089526049701888 ) to show them what EVERYONE says here, myself included. Are you guys really that confident that your replies are going to help sell the AGW issue to fence-sitters? One more thing, despite whatever “d.o.g.” chooses to believe ( https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/12/world-waking-up-climate-deniers-scream-foul/#comment-83477 ), I’m still serious about “greenman3610” having the opportunity to see if his beliefs about me hold any water.
Guys, take a step back and look at what your tactic is here. You want to marginalize the messenger, hurling all kinds of names and accusations at me which you don’t back up with evidence. You don’t even try. Regarding the points I make, I can tack another line out of the “A Few Good Men” movie — “These are the facts and they are not in dispute.” Do y’all ever wonder why it is you feel a knee-jerk compulsion to resort to character assassination every time, rather than destroy me by showing everyone exactly where my assertions dead wrong or that there is irrefutable evidence proving the stuff I say about the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation is either lies fed to me or is rendered useless because of an underlying religious or political ideology?
A more rational take on the situation with the Virgin Islands AG and Exxon. Of course, Russell Cook doesn’t know from “rational”, so he will continue to repeat “stunning reversal” (27 TIMES).
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06072016/virgin-islands-exxon-agree-climate-probe-subpoena-claude-walker-schneiderman-healey?utm_source=Inside+Climate+News&utm_campaign=b0991ffbec-Weekly_Newsletter_Week_of_6_126_17_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-b0991ffbec-326471785&mc_cid=b0991ffbec&mc_eid=51208223cd
Reblogged this on Aware & Fair.
Apparently Exxon is feeling the heat:
Why Exxon Mobil is now lobbying for a carbon tax
This story begins with the Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg:
How We Got the Exxon Story
James Hansen must be pinching himself.
It’s more likely that James Hansen is shaking his head in dismay, partly because it took so long to uncover Exxon’s misdeeds, but mainly because of the fact that Exxon is now lobbying for a carbon tax, which is just more smoke and mirrors on their part—-a way to “look good” as they confuse the issue and delay the time when they must simply leave the rest of it in the ground.
Exxon wants to continue to pump oil, just as the others want to dig coal and drill for gas and burn it all—-they are willing to pay the costs of a simple tax (which they will pass on) in order to evade the worse alternative of close regulation and one day just being told to STOP.
I agree it’s just more greenwashing. Should have taken a second for a reality check.
If they really wanted a carbon tax they could have it tomorrow. They write the laws…
I’ll believe they really support a carbon tax when they publicly state – and follow through – that they will no longer make political and “educational” contributions to any candidate or organization that does not support such a tax.
I think it more likely that Exxon realizes that a carbon tax would do more to make people despise environmentalism ( and ‘big’ government’s role in addressing AGW) than anything they can conjure up with their disinformation war.
or that they know the Congress that they paid for will never pass it. Gives them room to pretend morality.
“People”, as in the bottom 70% group of household incomes, will pay a smaller proportion of their income in electric bills as a result of a revenue neutral carbon tax. By the time the tax is $115/tCO2, they will be paying about a third as much as before the tax. Those who make an effort to conserve can even improve on that.
For heating and transportation, I haven’t gathered enough data. The effect may be greater or smaller. But the effect is in the same direction and the opportunity to conserve will always be there.
Revenue neutral is the key. You are correct in regard to a plain old carbon tax where the government gets the money. That’s why the rev-neutral proponents prefer the term “fee” to distinguish from a tax that would be regressive.
Got a source for “By the time the tax is $115/tCO2, they will be paying about a third as much as before the tax”??
Thanks for asking.
Based on certain — what I think are reasonable — assumptions regarding the distribution of income and power spending in the US… This is the download link to my spreadsheet:
https://googledrive.com/host/0B6KqW0UlivnVbjJRM19BWktrczQ
Screenshot link:
https://googledrive.com/host/0B6KqW0UlivnVZnlsZDA5WnMxZzQ
Qualitatively, those who use less than the average citizen will pay less for energy. Those who use more will pay more. That’s how rev-neutral works.
Reread Merchants of Doubt and also read Dark Money (I’m 2/3 of the way through it and it’s an eye-opener).
Make people “despise environmentalism”? The psy-war against AGW that the Repugnants have waged at the behest of the Kochs and the other members of the 1% had that as its aim—-to convince the unwashed and uneducated masses that the “big government” effort to tax carbon was really a communist plot to take away their freedom, property, jobs, guns, confederate battle flags, right to burn abortion clinics, and use only-one-sex toilets.
It worked pretty well, didn’t it—-and it will continue to work until we get the dark and dirty money out of politics and reinstall concern for the greater good as our guiding principle.
““People”, as in the bottom 70% group of household incomes, will pay a smaller proportion of their income in electric bills as a result of a revenue neutral carbon tax. “
Appreciate the effort, but could you explain all this to me with nuts and bolts ans specifics, as if talking to a second grader?
First – how do you know the specifics of any bill going to be passed, if anything ever does get passed, which you have used to construct your Excel spreadsheet?
How is the money collected, to whom, and WHEN and how is it redistributed? Who pays for the bureaucracy this will require, how do we know it won’t be a huge fustercluck?
People are going to see major commodities get much more costly for them. Not just electricity, but gasoline, propane, oil, travel, cooking, heating, cooling, food. It is going to break household budgets. Nobody has any way of knowing if what they are getting back is exactly what they pay in, and many – millions of people – are going to get back LESS than they paid. Nobody is going to be happy about this even IF the deniers do not put a full court press on propaganda against it. Which they will.
And what is this money going to do? How, exactly, is it going to to build more RE? How is it guaranteed to reduce people’s electric bills, and on what schedule? Is this just economic projection?
If it is just projection, how is making fossil fuels as expensive as they were just a couple of years ago going to induce more RE construction when there was so little economic pressure to do so a couple of years ago?
Why are people going to like this program, how are they going to see new RE deployment from it? How are people not going to despise this program, the environmental movement that forced it down their throats, and how is it going to make people want more RE?
How about if we take one question at a time?
And what is this money going to do? How, exactly, is it going to to build more RE?
The “money” is not going to do anything. It’s the price that matters. If generating electricity from coal costs more than generating electricity from nuclear or wind or solar, the coal generated electricity will become obsolete. A utility will build a new solar farm instead of building a new coal burning plant.
In some places solar and wind are already cheaper than coal. As the tax rises, more and more regions fall into this category, and in other places nuclear becomes the cheapest option, as would be the case in Great Britain, for example.
In many places in the US, nuclear plants are being shut down as renewables and natural gas have become cheaper. If carbon is taxed we at least won’t be closing nuclear plants because of competition from natural gas.
So the carbon tax will rely on market forces to encourage, but not guarantee new RE construction, then?
These would be the same market forces which failed to produce much RE construction two years ago when fossil fuel prices were double what they are today? Might we assume, then, that the carbon tax would need to raise fossil fuel prices significantly higher than the retail prices were two years ago to have the desired effect?
And that, even if such a hike was effective, then the theoretical economic pressure this would produce would not be likely to produce new RE deployment for several years after that?
Meanwhile, every person in the country would be paying significantly higher commodity prices for years?
Why would we want to take such a market-based approach with its attendant regressive and debilitating economic hardships when instead we could simply increase direct government subsidies for targeted RE development, and avoid economic hardship for 300 million people?
RE: Market prices and new construction of power plants:
I don’t have the figures at hand but my impression over the last few years (your frame of reference) is that natural gas and RE have dominated new construction or usage, the latter overwhelmingly. If you have figures that say otherwise, bring them forward.
RE: Regressivity and commodity prices
It’s not regressive. To the extent that commodities have a FF component, they will be covered by the rebate in exactly the same way as energy prices. All tax revenue is returned to the public, so the aggregate effect is zero. Individually, those who use more than the average person will see an increase in price; those who use less than the average will see a decrease in price. This will roughly track income, making it a progressive tool.
It’s not regressive from an economist’s birds-eye view. But, on the ground, we are asking millions of people at the economic breaking point to pay more NOW, and wait for the rebate check. Millions, of whom, will receive LESS than they pay in. For punishment’s sake, I suppose.
I have experience waiting for rebate checks, and it ain’t good. When are they supposed to receive them? Or, are there no rebate checks, but somehow a deduction, based according to a mysterious entity which knows every person’s up-to-the-minute financial circumstance, will be made at the point of sale?
” If you have figures that say otherwise, bring them forward.”
No – I think you are right. But, this misses a couple of points. Firstly, this uptick in RE construction is too little too late. The pace is crucially important – and your proposed solution, based upon 19th century economic theory, is slow. Why would a utility care if FF’s become a bit more expensive? They resist stranding assets, and the economic hit is not coming out of their pockets – it is coming out of the pockets of consumers.
Secondly, it is not targeted and not guaranteed. Again, why would increased targeted subsidies not be a better way to proceed?
It’s not regressive from an economist’s birds-eye view. But, on the ground, we are asking millions of people at the economic breaking point to pay more NOW, and wait for the rebate check.
The popular proposals for a rev-neutral tax incorporate a 10-year phase-in. In the early stages the effect is minimal and the lag time between higher fuel prices and rebate check will not be a burden even to the lowest of incomes. In the meantime, people who might be vulnerable with the lowest incomes would learn the personal financial meaning of the tax and would be able to build up a buffer from the money they save through the difference between price increases and counterbalancing dividends, and would be able to adjust their life-styles to maximize their benefits as the tax rises. This is a non-issue.
Millions, of whom, will receive LESS than they pay in.
Like I said before, higher income people generally use more energy and these will be the people who end up using more of their income on energy — exactly those people who are able to and will notice it the least. It’s a progressive tool.
For punishment’s sake, I suppose.
For mitigation’s sake. Pay a little now or pay much, much more later. And let’s make the polluter pay!
It’s not regressive from an economist’s birds-eye view. But, on the ground, we are asking millions of people at the economic breaking point to pay more NOW, and wait for the rebate check.
The popular proposals for a rev-neutral tax incorporate a 10-year phase-in. In the early stages the effect is minimal and the lag time between higher fuel prices and rebate check will not be a burden even to the lowest of incomes. In the meantime, people who might be vulnerable, with the lowest incomes, would learn the personal financial meaning of the tax and would be able to build up a buffer from the money they save through the difference between price increases and counterbalancing dividends, and would be able to adjust their life-styles to maximize their benefits as the tax rises. This is a non-issue.
Millions, of whom, will receive LESS than they pay in.
Like I said before, higher income people generally use more energy and these will be the people who end up using more of their income on energy — exactly those people who are able to afford it and will notice it the least. It’s a progressive tool.
For punishment’s sake, I suppose.
For remediation’s sake. Pay a little now or pay much, much more later. And let’s make the polluter pay!
No – I think you are right. But, this misses a couple of points. Firstly, this uptick in RE construction is too little too late. The pace is crucially important – and your proposed solution, based upon 19th century economic theory, is slow.
The rate of change-over to zero-carbon sources of energy will be much faster with the tax than without. Using the tax does not preclude the use of other tools such as regulation and subsidies and costs the government nothing.
“Slow” is relative. Everything seems slow if you start late. It very well may be too late already. How fast would we have to move in that case?
Why would a utility care if FF’s become a bit more expensive? They resist stranding assets, and the economic hit is not coming out of their pockets – it is coming out of the pockets of consumers.
There are private utilities and there are public utilities. Private utilities are sensitive to the bottom line like any company. Public utilities are regulated and monitored, in my experiecnce, tightly. Please show me examples of utilities that did not respond to price pressure.
Secondly, it is not targeted and not guaranteed. Again, why would increased targeted subsidies not be a better way to proceed?
Subsidize and regulate all you want, it’s not one or the other. In some instances I would agree with you, such as a top-down commitment to streamlining the adoption of nuclear energy. Regarding “guaranteed”, laws are more difficult to change than regulations, and even more-so when the law has overwhelming popular support, which is what would happen with a rev-neutral carbon tax.
So, we have some kind of active comment filtering system happening here today, do we? Correct me if I am wrong, of course.
Step back and look at what your tactic is here. You want to marginalize the messenger, hurling all kinds of names and accusations at me which you don’t back up with evidence. You don’t even try. Regarding the points I make, I can tack another line out of the “A Few Good Men” movie — “These are the facts and they are not in dispute.” Do y’all ever wonder why it is you feel a knee-jerk compulsion to resort to character assassination every time, rather than destroy me by showing everyone exactly where my assertions dead wrong or that there is irrefutable evidence proving the stuff I say about the ‘industry-corrupted skeptic climate scientists’ accusation is either lies fed to me or is rendered useless because of an underlying religious or political ideology?
Peter allows me to keep commenting here because “I can always point to Russell in case anyone doubts what I say about climate deniers,” but like the rest of you guys, he seems to have only his beliefs about me and not facts he can point to. Me, I invite outsiders into Crocks (check out my June 23 tweet) to show them what EVERYONE says here, myself included. Are you guys really that confident that your replies are going to help sell the AGW issue to fence-sitters? One more thing, despite whatever “d.o.g.” chooses to believe from his April 13 comment in the “World Waking Up” post , I’m still serious about Peter having the opportunity to see if his beliefs about me hold any water.
Happy 4th to you all.
Boooring……ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz…….!!!
(Jeez, how many attempts did it take to get that last couple of paragraphs of my all-in-one July 2 comment reply in here today, past whatever filter that seems to be in place?)
You are ALWAYS “wrong”, Russell—–everyone who visits Crock knows that—–and your self-delusion makes it impossible for you to accept that, so “correcting” you is a waste of time. .
May I suggest that “whatever filter seems to be in place” simply choked on the massive amounts of bullshit that you posted on 7/2? Or that your Gish Gallop of comments (to boost your “count” and enhance your Heartland paycheck, no doubt) has caused an electronic “upchuck” in the guts of WordPress?
Please stop whining—-on top of all your other disgusting personal attributes, it is making ME want to upchuck.
PS My first sentence refers to your comment on July 4, 2016 at 11:57 am. To wit:
“Correct me if I am wrong, of course”.
My second paragraph refers to your comment on July 4, 2016 at 12:07 pm
Wouldn’t want you to get confused.
“… that you posted on 7/2 …”
Where is that post? Watch what happens when you click on this comment link: https://climatecrocks.com/2016/06/21/music-break-ludovico-einaudi-elegy-for-the-arctic/comment-page-1/#comment-85257 You aren’t taken to the comment … because it isn’t online. Y’all will clap for whatever blockage that has happened to me. But what happens if it starts happening to some of you? Think about it, dare you speak one step out of tune on the global warming issue anywhere without facing the bleak prospect of folks narrowing their eyes at you and wondering if you aren’t as pure as you say you are.
Friends, it’s been a hobby of mine since 2008 to see how folks react to tough questions. Some have much higher breaking points than others before they revert to standard talking points and hostile behavior. Crocks has been most amusing since it apparently freely allowed me to comment. I figured a few prior comments of mine not appearing immediately was just glitches in the system. They appeared eventually. The appearance of me not being able to get a comment online in this particular post without busting it up into multiple segments is an indication of some kind of problem here – again, I invite blog administrators to correct me if I’m wrong.
“D.o.g.” is apparently free to say whatever he wishes, including the kind of literal profanity that would quickly get him booted out of many other blog comment sections. It’s a free country, he’s also more than welcome to take whatever complaint he has about me to the AZ AG. Knowing what I know of my entire scope of activities compared to what “d.o.g.” believes (it’s anybody’s guess on what he comes up with next), this could be rather fun to watch. Now, if only he could apply this same degree of zeal to see whether folks he worships who accuse skeptic climate scientists of being ‘paid industry money to lie’ are above reproach.
Russell is nothing if not passive-aggressive. and my entreaty to him to “stop whining” results in?——yes, more whining! LMAO! Russell is not going to let DOG tell HIM what to do!!! No Sir!!!
I DID click on the comment link he provided, and it DID take me to the “music” thread specified (which I missed participating in because I was out of town and not keeping up—-it contained a lot of Russell’s usual bullshit, so no great loss). It has nothing to do with the referenced 7/2 comment on this thread (which, as I suggested, never appeared because it was too long or too full of BS)—–what the hell are you babbling on about, Russell?
Now Russell is whining in high gear, complaining that he has been “blocked”? LMAO again—-a quick count shows that 13 of the 45 comments on this thread are Russell’s, and 15 are in response to his 13, a total of 28, or ~60% of all the comments on the thread. Except for the useless navel-gazing that Shockley and Gingerbaker are engaged in, there is little that is NOT “all about Russell” here. Good little paid denier whore that he is. he has scored again, diverting discussion off-topic.
As for the “blockage”, Russell is already massaging Preparation H into his scalp to treat his brain tumor—-I suggest he also apply a liquid laxative of his choice to “loosen up” his confusion.
Dude – you do not dispute that my all-in-one 7/2 comment does not appear within this thread. And does everyone here need to explain to you that the url I provided to the music thread ends with the string “#comment-85257” …. and that the comment belonging to that number does NOT appear there? That’s why when you click on the link, you remain at the top of the page after you arrive, never moving down to a comment like any other url would with a comment that is permitted to be online.
Apparently, some sort of filtering thing is in place lately, otherwise I would not have had to break a single comment into multiple pieces in order to get my points across – the last being two paragraphs I had to re-write and re-submit several times before it got past whatever autofilter there seems to be. Peter or whoever else is delegated to running his show in his absence is welcome to offer rebuttal about this situation of course. But all are fully aware how “d.o.g.” veers into other directions while – how many times has it been now? – failing to provide any evidence to anybody that I’m paid to deny anything. Notice how touchy he can be to fellow Crockers the moment anyone dares to question his authority? This why I live rent-free in his mind.
Dumboldguy RE: Usefulness
Characters (without characterizing them) like Bates and Cook, I don’t read their comments and I don’t read the responses they provoke. To me these discussions are boring and a waste of time.
Gingerbaker may be sincere or not… I don’t know. I enjoyed the discussion because I learned something and it’s a subject I’ve studied and find important. As a result I’m inspired to become more informed. To me that’s useful.
I guess that means “usefulness” is relative, a matter of opinion.
Ah, yes—-opinions—–everyone has them but some are relatively WAY more intelligent and “useful” than others. Early in the thread, I asked you where you got the data for your bright-sided assertions about how wonderfully a carbon tax was going to work. Couldn’t access your actual spreadsheet, but the screen shot gave me an idea of what you were up to. I had to laugh at the PFTA and SWAG projections that you are using—–are you a budding economist?—-you know, one of those guys who have predicted nine of the last five recessions?—-one of those who would like to think there is any “science” or “precision” in their doodlings?
I’ve met Gingerbaker, and I do believe he is sincere, even if he is often too bright-sided and too much in love with the technological “fixes” that are supposedly going to save us from disaster. You, on the other hand, I’m not sure about—-I think I once asked you if you were a “soft” denialist, one who talks a good game but really has a hidden agenda of sowing confusion and delaying action by lulling people into believing that there’s hope even if we continue to burn fossil fuels, as long as we do it “responsibly” and adopt the right “fixit” technologies.
I myself would rather have fun dumping on Russell Cook than get involved in “useless navel-gazing exchanges” that are based on pie-in-the-sky data—-they are truly “boring and a waste of time”, and that’s why I let you and GB go on without putting my two cents in.
If you want to “learn something” very important, read “Dark Money” ASAP. The real barrier to dealing with AGW and just about all the other problems the country faces is the dirty money that the greedy rich plutocrats and oligarchs of the right have been pouring into buying the country.
Pompous and presumptuous, put-downs aside..
My spreadsheet started as a framework to calculate results on the basis of input data, some of which was guesswork to begin with, and some of those guesses were way off. As more of my errors become apparent I’m realizing I should make that a prominent disclaimer. Even though you think my numbers are bright-sided now, you should go back and take a look at the first version, where I was off by an order of magnitude in my household income assumptions!
The present sheet, I realize now, has a factor of 2X error in coal’s carbon content. That has a large effect on the magnitude of help the poorer households get from the rebate. So, instead of the price of coal generated electric quintupling at $115/tCO2, it will increase in price by a factor of 2X. Tentatively speaking. I also need to refine distribution of household income, household energy use and average family size data/assumptions. But qualitatively, the tax will still strongly increase the rate of transition, and the law will have staying power by virtue of its popularity with a strong majority of citizens.
The spreadsheet is useful to me. Talking about the rev-neutral carbon tax concept is useful to me. I’m making progress in my accuracy and understanding.
I agree that politics, the media and society have to change before anything meaningful can be done in this country to change the laws. James Hansen, probably the best known proponent of a rev-neutral carbon tax agrees also. That doesn’t stop him from informing himself and talking about it.
Perhaps things will change. “Sometimes nothing happens for decades and sometimes decades happen in a few weeks.” Wouldn’t it be wise to know what to do when the opportunity arises? Prepare for the day and also work to hasten the day.
Yes, “pompous and presumptuous” are two excellent words for describing your incredibly naive “spreadsheeting”, and that’s why I stuck a pin in you in an attempt to release some hot air before you exploded from self-admiration. I will repeat again, instead of massaging your ego by deluding yourself that you are finding any answers by manipulating data (that you can’t even get right and have to keep “adjusting”) and thereby really educating yourself, you should instead do some real research and pay attention to those who know what they’re talking about.
A recent article in the WashPost (5/31/16) provides some more “data” that you need to factor into your equations. It’s by Chris Mooney and Brady Dennis and is titled “What more air conditioning means for the climate”. Google it if you want the full skinny—-and there have been other pieces over the years that address the AC problem. Some excerpts:
“Americans use 5 percent of all of their electricity cooling homes and buildings. In many other countries, however – including countries in much hotter climates – air conditioning is still a relative rarity. But as these countries boom in wealth and population, and extend electricity to more people even as the climate warms, the projections are clear: They are going to install mind-boggling amounts of air conditioning, not just for comfort but as a health necessity.
“In just 15 years, urban areas of China went from just a few percentage points of air conditioning penetration to exceeding 100 percent – “i.e. more than one room air conditioner (AC) per urban household,” according to a recent report on the global AC boom by researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. And air conditioner sales are now increasing in India, Indonesia and Brazil by between 10 and 15 percent per year, the research noted. India, a nation of 1.25 billion people, had just 5 percent air conditioning penetration in the year 2011.
“A study last year similarly found “a close relationship between household income and air conditioner adoption, with ownership increasing 2.7 percentage points per $1,000 of annual household income.” For Mexico in particular, it therefore projected a stupendous growth of air conditioning over the 21st century, from 13 percent of homes having it to 71 to 81 percent of homes.
“Overall, the Berkeley report projects that the world is poised to install 700 million air conditioners by 2030, and 1.6 billion of them by 2050. In terms of electricity use and greenhouse gas emissions, that’s like adding several new countries to the world.
“The biggest country for air conditioning growth, and associated greenhouse gas emissions, is projected to be India…”
Did you get all that, Bill? 700 MILLION AC units by 2030, and a freakin’ 1.6 BILLION by 2050!!!!!!!! Put that in your spreadsheet and crunch it.
Correction:
Should be 2.5X
Updated
screenshot:
https://googledrive.com/host/0B6KqW0UlivnVaVFFMEtjWnhPWkU
spreadsheet:
https://googledrive.com/host/0B6KqW0UlivnVUXhzTDJ3OUtKNDg
The spreadsheet contains a macro so your browser may be automatically blocking the download.
Green cells are key assumptions. Red cells are key outputs.
The big red block at the bottom of the sheet is a summary of outputs for each progressive level of the tax ($15, $25, etc.). After you change assumptions, hit the “Run” button and the macro will re-calculate the summary table.
xls:
https://googledrive.com/host/0B6KqW0UlivnVZEktSGhJUTBNNVU
jpg:
https://googledrive.com/host/0B6KqW0UlivnVU3h6RFQ3RHZmVUU
Revised spreadsheet and screenshot. All data and math (i.e., no guesses). I did fudge the electric power generation number to end up with the historical “energy-related CO2 emissions” for 2014 (income, population and emissions numbers relate to that year). So, the CO2 emissions numbers — which is what is actually taxed — now represent total energy emissions — not just electric.
The main work done in this revision is getting electrical useage numbers partitioned to the quintile income strata. That was a major hurdle. I guess you could say there is still one significant assumption, in that I’ve extrapolated electricity useage distribution data to the rest of energy usaege, which I don’t think will skew the results too much. I wouldn’t even want to guess which way it would take it. Generally, rich people use more stuff.
I’m not sure what seemed over-the-top in the previous spreadsheet. This version is more aggressive than the previous one. My rebate per individual number is actually a bit more conservate than the one Hansen quotes.
My purpose in doing the spreadsheet was getting the numbers displayed in the summary table that show the magnitude and direction of energy expenditure relative to income strata as the tax is phased in. As it turns out my guess regarding per capita electricity useage between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy was extremely conservative. I had been using a 1.5:1 ratio, and the numbers I was able to find work out to 2.7:1. It’s interesting. It’s useful. To me.
Still rather pompously and presumptuously pontificating on how interesting and useful your going-nowhere spreadsheet is? You haven’t included the “AC factor” I brought up, nor have you factored in the impact of the “Dark Money” that the free-marketers are spending to thwart efforts to enact. a carbon tax and otherwise combat AGW.
A math lesson for you—-since there is NO-NADA-ZERO chance of a carbon tax passing the dark-money-owned Congress any time soon, you have left out of your spreadsheet the most important “multiplier ” of all—-a ZERO—-and putting that in there guarantees that no matter how many other PFTA’s and SWAG’s you include, your answer will always be zero.
Your sick. Get help.
“YOUR sick” (sic?)
My sick, your sick, everybody’s got a sick sick? Whose sick are you referring to?
Not to go grammar police on you, but it would help if you took time out from your inane spread-sheeting to review apostrophe use and possessives. It would also help if you posted your reply with the comment you’re (not your) replying to. What you did here makes it seem as it you were saying “your sick” to yourself, not that I would quarrel with that—-you DO display some minor personality disorders. I have tried to help you with that, and your library probably has books that will help with “you’re” grammar problem. Get help.
PS While you’re at the library, check out a copy of Dark Money—-read it and get educated about why the probability of a carbon tax is zero, and your equations are therefore meaningless.
“the useless navel-gazing that Shockley and Gingerbaker are engaged in, “
Of course, DOG, you are entitled to your opinion about what is useful and what is interesting. As are we all.
Myself, even though I have an undergraduate Biology degree, and did about 8 years of bio research, I find I am not so interested in the science of climate change anymore. The questions of how it will continue play out are not nearly as interesting to me as how is the best way to solve the problem. A problem we now know is very real and very very large.
And the solution to the problem,and it does seem solvable, will involve technology – yes. And efficiency. And changes to the social contract. A gradual program of population control. A new definition and adherence to the idea of sustainability.
All of these things will involve changes in policy. Policy is interesting to me, now. Policy seems extremely important. And it also seems to be the most neglected part of the conversation. Very few people seems to care much about it. Effectively, it is ignored – we have a policy vacuum.
Hundreds of scientifically-literate people on the web seem much more interested in arguing with deniers about facts. These scientifically-literate people, sadly, are the very people who are good at math. And math is something we need to a lot more of than we do right now. Math should inform our policy. As should our sense of humanity and social justice.
Talking about the merits of a carbon tax is, at least, the beginnings of of a discussion about policy. Personally, I feel that a carbon tax proposal is bad policy. And small policy. A sort of thoughtless substitute for a genuine conversation about national energy policy. It seems to make some sense at first blush,though, doesn’t it?
But, ultimately, it is just a delaying tactic. A way to feel like we are addressing energy policy without actually having to due the squeamish business of making real long-term decisions. Without have to shake things up. Without having to change, or even contemplate, the justice of our social structure even in the face of looming catastrophe. Without understanding that a carbon tax buttresses the very system that brought us here.
And this is why I think the FF industry really doesn’t see a downside to saying they are for it. All it does will make FF’s a little bit more expensive, while doing absolutely zero to make us any less reliant on them. It is still framing the issue as one which just needs a little tweaking of The Holy Free Market System to resolve. Basically, business as usual.
And so begins and ends what passes for a national discussion of energy policy in the U.S.: let’s continue to sit on our hands and let capitalists nibble at the edges of the problem. Maybe if we ignore it, the whole messy putrescence will heal on its own. Roof-top PV -yeah – that’s the ticket!
Well said, GB!! Even elegant in spots! Writing this essay was a far better use of your time than engaging with Shockley in his useless navel-gazing, and that’s an “opinion” that is backed up with rational analysis of FACTS rather than bright-sided BELIEFS. All opinions are NOT equal in weight just because everyone is “entitled” to have them.
You DO understand!—-it’s not the science but the “policy” (read politics and greedy free-market libertarian capitalists like the Kochs that want to rape the planet so they can take even more $$$ to their graves). And they are NOT going to quit unless there is a mass uprising that takes the government back from the 1/10 of 1% that have bought it. A piece on their latest efforts.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/06/14/house-approves-koch-backed-bill-shield-donors-names/85886164/.
IMO, the most important book for anyone who is interested in combating AGW is Dark Money. We will NEVER make any real progress until we deal with that.
Also IMO, it becomes less likely with every day that passes that we will solve the AGW problem before it overwhelms us. You are right that what is going on is merely delaying tactics and basically BAU. Mother Nature is going to start her own program of “population control”, and the Sixth Extinction is just the beginning of that. (Read The Great Disruption as well).