- Is Yogi Berra a climate scientist? "Until it stops happening, we should expect it to continue."
- Japan's reduced reliance on nuclear power has predictable consequences for the use of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions
- A leading economist blows a seam on Obama Administration energy policies
- Revkin does a hurricane round-up -- "remarkably stationary" landfall statistics (no trends), even so Scientific American brings up the Category 6 nonsense
- The EU floats what will prove to be a lead balloon in advance of Durban
- Tornadoes and hail storms take weekends off, (h/t Pielke Sr.)
- NSF on Michael Mann at PSU (PDF), but you heard it here first: fudge not fraud
- John Quiggin writes of Julia Gillard's proposed carbon tax "the impact will be undetectable" (excepting electricity generation) -- so what's the point again? My answer is here.
6 comments:
Re the Exxon piece: regulatory overkill is the great untold story of this administration. EPA and several other agencies have been set loose on industry with no adult supervision from national policymakers,
Gerard, regulators are the only growth industry for jobs -- up 13% since Obama took office.
Roger, Yogi gives us the other side of Ben Stein's dad's admonition -- "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop." The Oklahoma article is stupid on steroids.
Curious if you are aware that the Corps policies which caused the Missouri River flooding almost gave us our own Fukushima in Neb. I have a friend who's an exec working in a nuke plant and he says it could have been a really serious problem. All caused by enviros who changed Corps policies away from flood control during the Clinton admin.
"Our carbon tax proposal is revenue neutral in the sense that we will lower other taxes in direct proportion to the impact, however modest, of a low carbon tax. We will do this with particular attention to those who may be most directly affected by a price on carbon."
"In the sense that..?" Is it revenue neutral or not? "In direct proportion to" is not synonymous with "equal to." If you use revenue neutral to mean, you know, revenue neutral, then you have to give back a dollar for every dollar you take. But you somehow have money left over to 'invest' in research, so I guess that when you say revenue neutral, you don't really mean revenue neutral.
And regarding that 'low carbon tax' - isn't it part of your plan to start low, as a 'pragmatic' step towards gradually tightening the screws? You've certainly said so elsewhere - is this a different plan for the Aussies?
Another quote from the first article would be interesting to parse probabilistically:
"Climate change increases the risk of what happens naturally."
-3-Mark B.
Gillard's carbon tax is supposed to reduce emissions through a price signal that changes behavior. The one I advocate raises funds for investment in innovation.
Roger
Then please explain why your tax to fund investment in innovation is levied on carbon. If you want to raise taxes to pay for research, why not just take it out of the general fund? You have said explicitly in the past that you want a small carbon tax to begin with, in order to set the stage for higher rates later. Why carbon now, and why higher later?
Post a Comment