Should We Subsidize CO2?

Alberta’s NDP government passed its carbon tax law today.

Many agree that it is one of the stupidest taxes ever created, however even many arguments against the tax accept the basic premise that CO2 is a negative externality and “something must be done.”

But what if the premise underlying the tax — not to mention any other “climate change” policy — is wrong?

What if the social cost of carbon is negative — i.e. the net effects of carbon are positive?

A new paper by Dayaratna, McKitrick, and Kreutzer finds reason to believe this is justified by the empirical data:

Substituting an empirical ECS distribution from LC15 yields a mean 2020 SCC of $19.52, a drop of 48%. The same exercise for the FUND model yields a mean SCC estimate of $19.33 based on RB07 and $3.33 based on the LC15 parameters—an 83% decline. Furthermore the probability of a negative SCC (implying CO2 emissions are a positive externality) jumps dramatically using an empirical ECS distribution. Using the FUND model, under the RB07 parameterization at a 3% discount rate there is only about a ten percent chance of a negative SCC through 2050, but using the LC15 distribution, the probability of a negative SCC jumps to about 40%. Remarkably, replacing simulated climate sensitivity values with an empirical distribution calls into question whether CO2 is even a negative externality. The lower SCC values also cluster more closely together across difference discount rates, diminishing the importance of this parameter.

This all makes perfect sense, because there are non-climate effects of CO2 and they are extremely beneficial to the planet (plant growth, crop yield, human well-being). Furthermore, the climate effects of CO2 observed in the real world are far less damaging than what’s been predicted by the models of climate change propagandists — and these too are largely beneficial. On this, see Goklany’s Carbon Dioxide: The Good Newsfrom GWPF.

So using the logic of carbon tax advocates, since carbon provides us with overall benefits, we should subsidize carbon rather than tax it extra.

CONCLUSION

From the standpoint of economics and ethics, we should neither subsidize carbon nor tax it.

If you have a carbon tax, get rid of it. If you don’t have one but think you need one, forget it.

Carbon taxes are an abomination — they do nothing to improve the environment and exist only to plunder citizens so that politicians, central planners and cronies can enrich themselves.

Advertisements

This Is What Happens When a Leftist-Environmentalist Investigates the Claims of Climate Change Propagandists

Some of my favorite stories are those where a person begins as a true believer in one dangerous myth or another but then critically analyzes his assumptions and is forced to abandon his false beliefs.

Here is the story of a man who started out as a fairly typical environmentalist-leftist-liberal Democrat kind of guy who had swallowed the propaganda over CO2 and climate change, and even wrote his own book of propaganda on the issue. But as he looked more closely at the data, he started coming to a different conclusion.

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems.

This guy deserves a lot of credit for investigating the issue in the first place. It is always so much easier to continue walking around in a deluded haze of lies churned out by the hivemind.

His piece proceeds to offer a series of propositions then proceeds to carefully substantiate them.

  1. Weather is not climate. There are no studies showing a conclusive link between global warming and increased frequency or intensity of storms, droughts, floods, cold or heat waves.

  2. Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous. Most of what people call “global warming” is natural, not man-made. The earth is warming, but not quickly, not much, and not lately.

  3. There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works. Climate models are not yet skillful; predictions are unresolved.

  4. New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.

  5. CO2 has very little to do with it. All the decarbonization we can do isn’t going to change the climate much.

  6. There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

  7. Sea level will probably continue to rise — not quickly, and not much. Researchers have found no link between CO2 and sea level.

  8. The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others. Polar bear numbers are up, not down. They have more to do with hunting permits than CO2*.

  9. No one has shown any damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them.

  10. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry. There’s a tremendous amount of trickery going on under the surface*.

This is a long and well researched article and deserves to be widely read. Be sure to watch the linked videos as well.

We often overlook the fact that evidence has causal power and it pushes the mind towards truth — if this were not so, we could never say that evidence caused someone to come to a conclusion. Any honest person who examines the evidence should be hard pressed to keep swallowing the endless lies and deception about climate change, which are merely tools for those who seek political power, centrally planned economies, and crony capitalism.

Siegel’s article should be read by everyone.

— Read more at ClimateCurious.com

NDP’s Royalty Review Czar Dave Mowat Is a Climate Change Propagandist Trained by Al Gore

I knew I smelled a rat when Notley’s NDP chose ATB President and CEO Dave Mowat to head the royalty review board.

In a process that will surely revolve around “fairness” and other uneconomic nonsense, why would the NDP pick a banker of all things to head the review?

Well, now we know.

mowatandgore

algorelies

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/story.html?id=5371ac3d-3b2d-4825-a158-45fd0c3978bb&k=18066

Hmm, do you think his thinking might be a bit clouded by Algore’s lies?

Al Gore’s documentary is one of the most deceitful pieces of trash ever created. Rather than provide a thorough critique, it is sufficient to show this:

al_gore_graph

The x-axis there is supposed to be time. How does the data go backwards in time? That doesn’t make any sense!

I know Algore created the internet with his bare hands and all that, but did he invent a way to break the laws of space-time too? This is total nonsense — climate change propaganda at its worst.

Can Dave Mowat explain this magical graph? Was that part of his propaganda training with Algore?

Heck, the famous Algore graph shows CO2 increases preceding the temperature rise. You fail automatically at science if you observe that A precedes B and therefore conclude that B causes A.

Algore is a shameless liar and anyone trained to spread his lies should not be running a royalty review for Alberta’s oil industry.

It’s seems fair enough to say that Dave Mowat is biased. So he is the perfect guy to push the NDP’s agenda.

%d bloggers like this: