Burning one ton of coal produces about three tons of CO2. So a tax of $15 per ton of CO2 emitted is equivalent to a tax of $45/ton on coal. The price of Eastern anthracite coal runs in the neighborhood of $45/ton, so under the proposed system, such coal would be taxed at a rate of about 100 percent. The price of Western bituminous coal is currently about $12/ton. This coal would therefore be taxed at a rate of almost 400 percent. Coal provides half of America’s electricity, so such extraordinary imposts could easily double the electric bills paid by consumers and businesses across half the nation. In addition, many businesses, such as the metals and chemical industries, use a great deal of coal directly. By doubling or potentially even quadrupling the cost of their most basic feedstock, the cap-and-trade system’s indulgence fees could make many such businesses uncompetitive and ultimately throw millions of working men and women onto the unemployment lines.
It’s OK. Even if they have paychecks, they won’t be able to afford to eat any more, anyway, after the price of food skyrockets. And it will solve that pesky population problem in the third world.
As usual Jim, you made some ad hom statements
Such as?
…it will change, perhaps considerably, in the Senate.
I hope that it will go to the Senate to die.
A prediction made by employees of government acting in an official capacity in support of a particular policy or agenda is a promise.
So the NOAA breaks promises whenever a weather forecast is wrong?
Christina Romer is a renown, well-respected economist. She would have made the same projection whether she was the head of the Council of Economic Advisers or still an academic. She doesn’t have a crystal ball, but then neither does anyone else.
Growing unemployment is in my view a response to government action. You don’t want to be caught with too many employees, if government passes laws making it impossible to fire people. So is the timid lending climate. You don’t want to be caught lending money, if government nullifies your loans. Same goes for the decline in new businesses. You don’t want to be caught starting a new business, if government is going to make it impossible through an increased regulatory burden to continue that business.
This is a fantasy. There is no prospect of a law making it impossible to fire people. The government has not nullified any loans that would not have been nullified anyway — they’ve been guaranteeing debt, not wiping it out. If you were planning a new business that can not exist without sex discrimination in pay, or the ability to emit CO2 for free, then yes, you shouldn’t start that business. But you shouldn’t have started it last year either.
Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Business was bad before Obama took office, and we knew that unemployment was going to rise no matter what he did. Fear of government action is a scapegoat.
So the NOAA breaks promises whenever a weather forecast is wrong?
NOAA doesn’t recommend policy actions to deal with the weather. What a nutty analogy.
…we knew that unemployment was going to rise no matter what he did.
That’s not what they and you said at the time. You (the inclusive you, since you are using the inclusive we) said that if we passed that legislative atrocity, it would cap at eight percent. Why should we believe them, or you, now?
It’s pretty obvious to those of us that do understand economics that we’re being led by charlatans and fools, to pay off their political allies and pauperize the rest.
Jim,
So if I am to understand you correctly, our putative poor person (PPP for future reference) has a $40 electric bill, gets a $10 rebate when the bill rises to $50 (how was this calculated, by the way? by whom?) so unless he decides to make some extra money by altering (likely downwards) his lifestyle, he has merely retained the status quo. You are thus depending upon the PPP to reduce their emissions (which they cannot control, unless you mean they will reduce their electricity consumption, a non-starter if you live – as I do – in an area with nuclear power) in order to increase their income? Given that PPP are typically low intensity emitters, they have less of a margin to play with, and thus are unlikely to be able to do this without significant lifestyle changes. Finally, the PPP are typically (not exclusively) composed of groups less likely to make changes in their lifestyles in order to achieve longer term benefits (which is why they are PPP in the first place), which further reduces the impact of your planned rebates…
What happens when ‘our betters’ discover that there is no discernable impact on emissions? Do we scale back the rebates? Ah yes…that won’t be a tax, just a withdrawal of rebates. Finally, how do we deal with the ‘hidden’ costs of W-M (since increasing emitter costs will essentially make anything manufactured in the US more expensive)?
You still haven’t answered my other questions, but if this is the best that you come up with, I don’t hold out much hope for useful replies. Why not just simply admit that this is a power grab, and stop trying to pretend that it will actually have much effect? Your ideological leanings support such a grab anyway…ashamed? Or perhaps it is simply that if us rubes figure out that this really is just a power grab we might not willingly go along with the program?
So the NOAA breaks promises whenever a weather forecast is wrong?
What policy or agenda is the NOAA supporting by making a weather forecast? Are they saying “Vote for this bill or we’ll see rain on Wednesday?”
Christina Romer is a renown, well-respected economist. She would have made the same projection whether she was the head of the Council of Economic Advisers or still an academic. She doesn’t have a crystal ball, but then neither does anyone else.
Interesting opinion. Incredibly gullible and naive, but interesting. Economists don’t take reputation hits when they lend their services to other parties. When everyone is a prostitute, prostitution no longer carries a stigma. Once again you seem blissfully unaware of conflicts of interest. The authors of the report have a considerable interest in reaching the conclusions that were reached.
NOAA doesn’t recommend policy actions to deal with the weather.
Are you kidding? Evacuation orders are based on NOAA forecasts.
You (the inclusive you, since you are using the inclusive we) said that if we passed that legislative atrocity, it would cap at eight percent.
No, “we” said that unemployment would peak higher without ARRA than with it, and that the best forecast showed it peaking at 8 percent with ARRA.
It’s pretty obvious to those of us that do understand economics that we’re being led by charlatans and fools
Do you honestly think that Christina Romer is a charlatan, or fool, and that you understand economics better than she does?
You are thus depending upon the PPP to reduce their emissions
No. As you note, poor people aren’t the major source of CO2 emissions, the rest of us are. The main features of the rebates are that 1) They don’t affect the incentive to reduce CO2 emissions, and 2) They keep Waxman-Markey from making poor people poorer.
Why not just simply admit that this is a power grab
Because it isn’t.
Actually, the PPP are not the major emitters as individuals, but as a group, they are the overwhelming majority of the ‘problem’. Of course, I am not surprised that you cannot tell the difference between individuals and groups….
As for this not being a power grab, you haven’t given a viable alternative explanation. Even supporters of W-M acknowlege it will do little to reduce emissions, and as we have already demonstrated, the bill is structured to minimize whatever impact it might have as a result of the various accomodations made to get it passed in the first place. So..it won’t accomplish anything other than create a federal bureaucracy to move money around (inefficiently, the ‘2 % Medicare cost nonsense was debunked long ago’) and establish the basis for govt control over the economy (something that could have never been done in an open ballot)…yet you don’t see that this is a power grab?
Rand was right about you…more fool me to pretend that reason what sorthwhile…
My take is that when one looks at the details, there’s some legitimate concern in the IPCC report about climate “tipping points” (hidden positive feedback), but most of the threat is from effects centuries out.
The one I’d have the most concern about is increased outgassing from thawing permafrost. There’s 1.6 teratons of carbon in those soils, according to recently reported estimates, and especially if much of it comes out as methane the warming effect would be huge.
I’m curious Jim, what do you do for a living? Most people here are involved in engineering or science oriented work. Work that creates skepticism about scientific claims. You seem to have no qualms about what the UN or Obama or the Goracle claim.
Bill:
I’m a computer programmer, and own a small software company.
You seem to have no qualms about what the UN or Obama or the Goracle claim.
I don’t get information about climate change from Obama or Al Gore. Like me, they are non-scientists trying to make sense of what the scientists are saying.
I am well aware that scientific truth is not established by majority vote, and that the whole point of science is that its findings can be overturned by new evidence, better analysis, etc. I don’t believe in climate change as a religious truth that is immune from refutation.
That said, policy makers and voters need to make decisions in the presence of scientific uncertainty. It is pointless to wait until every last science PhD agrees about the effect of CO2 on global climate; even if we did, they might all still be wrong.
That’s why I think the IPCC process is important. It tries to summarize what the scientists are saying, and make the best policy recommendations possible given the evidence. It has issued multiple reports, and you can see how their recommendations have been influenced by new findings. If there is another summary of the state of climate change research that is more careful or authoritative, I am not aware of it.
The process of turning scientific findings into policy recommendations is ongoing. It will take decades for cap and trade legislation to have a major effect on our economy. While that is happening the scientists will continue to collect new data, refine their models, etc. If future reviews conclude that limiting CO2 is not as useful as we believe now, we can revise our cap and trade policies.
Writing software requires the application of logic and not a small amount of the ability to think critically. From my perspective (officially Software Engineer, reality computer programmer) it is an endeavor that is as far removed from Community Organizer or Politician as possible. And yet you agree with them on this issue and do not see the stinkiness of what’s happening. I can’t put my finger on it, and I know there are countless others who are in our “industry” who come down on your side, but there seems to be something wrong there.
The IPCC is a political entity. It tries to obtain, and then maintain, a consensus. Over time that process, as history has taught us, inevitably veers away from science. To quote from their mandate: The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.
If you’ve taken the time to read their reports and note, as you say, how they have been influenced by new findings, you certainly should have the time and capacity to read Carlins report.
There is no cap and trade legislation at this time. The W-M “bill” that was voted on did not exist as a printed document at that time, and so (for anyone who thinks critically) must be considered, at best, some kind of moving target. We don’t know what effect “cap and trade legislation” will have on our economy.
Although the W-M “bill” is a moving target, the parts of it that have been made public leave no doubt that its effect on global CO2 levels will be infinitesimal.
And yet you agree with them on this issue and do not see the stinkiness of what’s happening.
Remember that the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the ban on CFCs, and the cap-and-trade system for sulphur dioxide were all strenuously opposed as unnecessary, expensive, and useless. They all were major successes, and cost much less than predicted. Maybe CO2 restrictions aren’t stinky.
you certainly should have the time and capacity to read Carlins report.
I’ve read the executive summary, and it is not impressive. I don’t expect a serious critique of the IPCC conclusions to use a National Review blog as a source, or to say things like “Global temperatures have declined — extending the current downtrend to 11 years with a particularly rapid decline in 1907-8 [sic].” It reads like a mishmash of arguments pulled from various sources, that aren’t even consistent with each other; all they have in common is that they dispute the prevailing view of climate change. There’s a joke about the lawyer who argues that his client’s dog did not bite the victim, and even if it did it wouldn’t hurt because the client’s dog doesn’t have any teeth, and furthermore, the client does not even have a dog. The Carlin report argues the same way: 1) it isn’t actually warming; 2) it is warming but warming isn’t bad because it won’t make hurricanes worse or melt the Greenland ice; 3) yes, it is warming but it’s the sun that’s doing it.
The EPA should not have told Carlin he couldn’t talk to the media about his report — government employees should be able to exercise their freedom to speak as private individuals. But I don’t see any reason why the report should have affected the EPA’s official findings about CO2.
Although the W-M “bill” is a moving target, the parts of it that have been made public leave no doubt that its effect on global CO2 levels will be infinitesimal.
I would support a bill that had greater effects, but figure this is the best we can get right now. Would you support a bill that made steeper cuts in CO2 emissions than W-M?
When Jim alleged he owned a software company, I had a cheap knock-off of the notorious long ago post of Jim’s faux concern about Rand’s unemployment (the “I’m wondering about your healthcare” post). I think it was probably fortunate that my browser ate the resulting post so I couldn’t be banned from Transterrestrial.
Having said that, I wonder how Jim can run a software business yet not connect the consequences of his beliefs with the world he works in. Maybe he’s getting some good contracts from government and is effectively a well-paid government employee. In his defense, software is one business where CO2 emissions aren’t directly harmful.
Karl, I think that you’re confusing “Jim” with “Jim Harris,” who seems to have ceased to troll here, for the most part. “Jim” continues to do so, however.
Maybe he’s getting some good contracts from government and is effectively a well-paid government employee.
No, I’m not. We get occasional orders from government agencies, but I’d estimate that over 95% of our sales are to the private sector. In general I’d rather not sell to the government — they’re prone to asking me to fill out 10 pages of paperwork before placing a $25 order.
your attempts to characterize this board
This Jim is an example of what you do continuously (and I promise to point out such examples in the future.)
My opinion does not characterize this board.
My opinion does not characterize this board.
I mentioned your opinion as one example of an opinion I consider crazy. I never said it was characteristic of the board.
I think we have a difference in world view here. For example,
Do you honestly think that Christina Romer is a charlatan
Yes, though perhaps a relatively honest one. I don’t need to speculate on whether I’m more knowledgeable than Romer is. She was destined to reach the conclusion that the ARRA would reduce unemployment. I can’t be bothered to figure out whether she lied or merely was heavily biased. But remarkably bad economic predictions made in order to support passage of a patron’s legislation would be an indication of lying rather than bias.
Glancing back through the thread, I still don’t buy the NOAA example where the NOAA recommends evacuation. They aren’t recommending a government policy, they don’t have a conflict of interest, and they have a good track record of being right.