The Politics of “AGW”

[Pooh]

Why are we following the Global Warming and Weather Discussion?
It’s just a pattern, but lots of us have a hunch that the Sun has something to do with the temperature of the earth. So, we follow the alternate theories and observations.
IPCC (politicians) ignore alternative root causes of “Global Warming”, claim incredible levels of certainty about their findings and denigrate skeptics personally. We see U.N., national politicians and media pundits ignore a quiet sun, cooling trends, decadal oscillations in oceans, and the effect of clouds. We also read that no energy alternative is acceptable except those that are unproven, distant, expensive or politically correct.
Politicians are not fools. We might suspect that the politicians have an agenda, something hidden up their sleeve.
This thread proposes to look up their sleeves.

---

We owe much to our gracious host VE3EN for providing this Forum. Thank you! ;D

[Pooh]

Energy Taxes: Political Solutions to Carbon-Driven AGW

Cap-And-Trade: For starters, mandates a cap on carbon emissions. A government agency would auction or allocate carbon emission permits to businesses, who would include it in their price to you. An approximate auction price could be set by (yet another government) computer model. The auction loot goes to a “Climate Change Credit Corporation, a “private-public entity” that would “invest in many things”. (E.g., FannieMay and FreddieMac?)
(Senator Lieberman guesses that the market value of all permits would be "about $7 trillion by 2050”.)

---

Carbon Tax (aka Carbon Content Tax): Representative John D. Dingle (D, Michigan) proposes to tax the “Carbon Content” of certain products, levy an additional tax on gasoline and “excessive” carbon fuel usage in your “large” home. He promises that the scheme would be tightened over time (60% to 80% less emissions by 2050), and that this Carbon Tax will be in addition to Cap-And-Trade. In return, he promises to spend the booty on “Share The Wealth” schemes and sundry good works and purposes.

---

Personal Carbon Credits, aka Rationing (a U.K. proposal): This is “A system of personal ‘carbon credits’ to meet emissions targets”. Each year, everyone gets an allowance (credit) for carbon-based energy. Of course, someone has to decide how to set each person’s ration. If you exceed your ration, you can buy more from someone (or some country) with a surplus of credits. Such “personal carbon trading” could operate like a credit card computer system.

---

Tax And Dividend (James Hansen and British predecessors). Hansen proposes a political policy of taxing fossil fuels at their source (extraction or import). In a letter to Barack Obama, Hansen urges this tax on carbon production with a 100% dividend to the public on a "per capita basis". Well, not quite "per head": kids count only half a head each, with a cap of two kids. He calls this policy "progressive" (code name for socialist). Control of the economy is an outcome of "The rate of infrastructure replacement, thus economic activity, can be modulated (a.k.a. regulated) by how fast the carbon tax rate increases." Note that the possibility of a decrease is not mentioned, since carbon has little material effect on climate, and some "citizens" will become dependent wards of the state.

---

Turnover Tax: You don’t find this Tax in the speeches and the media reports, do you? It expired with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
However, Cap-And-Trade, the Carbon Tax, Personal Carbon Credits and even Tax and Dividend have the same effect and operation as the Turnover Tax. These are merely different names for the Turnover Tax in the Soviet Union.

---

The Democrat Candidate President will have no problem keeping his pledge not to raise Income Taxes. Trillions of dollars will come in through Turnover Taxes, lots of wealth to share. Unfortunately, no one can do anything without energy. Economical alternatives are in the remote future. Everyone will pay the Turnover Tax, whatever its name.

Some will get a bit back under “Share The Wealth”, but the Price of that will be everyone’s Liberty, just as it was in the Soviet Union.

[Pooh]

The Command Economy
Once we establish the principle, all we can do is haggle over Price.

Characteristic	Turnover Tax	Cap And Trade	Carbon Tax	Carbon Credit Card	Tax And Dividend
What: Allocation of resources to output	Allocation of output is a political decision.	Mandates a cap on carbon emissions	Reduce carbon emissions 60% to 80% by 2050	Carbon emission targets	Mandate carbon emission caps
How: Goods are produced	Planners (Administrators / Bureaucrats) raise Prices by adding a Turnover Tax. Their goal is to fulfill the plan.	Raise the Price; a government agency auctions / allocates carbon emission permits to businesses. Excess allocation may be traded.	Raise the Price by an additional tax on gasoline and “excessive” carbon fuel usage for your “large” home, plus the effects of Cap And Trade.	Everyone gets an allowance, but can buy more. Someone decides how to set each person’s ration.	Raise the Price. Adults get a "dividend", with up to one more for two kids. Large families are out of luck.
For Whom: Whose needs and goals are met?	Attain the goals of planners and the ultimate political leaders.	UN, Politicians, “Climate Change Credit Corporation”	UN, Politicians	UN, Politicians	UN, Politicians
Effect?	Limit Demand by Raising Prices	Limit Demand by Raising Prices	Limit Demand by Raising Prices	Limit Demand by Raising Prices over “allowance”	Limit Demand and families by Raising Prices

[kiwistonewall]

We might suspect that the politicians have an agenda, something hidden up their sleeve

Agenda: How to stay in power!
Don't look for a conspiracy when stupidity is a valid hypothesis!
Don't underestimate the power of belief!
Politicians use belief as a tool. The more pragmatic they are, the more they dress up in the beliefs of their constituents.
People can be sincerely wrong!
We see plenty of posters at this board who sincerely believe in CO2 AGW and hack away at science and data since it MUST be wrong.

There has been an anti-science bias for years from several sources- Ascientists (to coin a word) use pseudo-science to fight real science. Often well financed, and able to dupe the public.
(Creation Research, Green Groups anti this & that etc)

Even scientists themselves can do valid science and have their results distorted by the organisation's publicity departments.

Creation Research has many scientists on board, but their fixed ideas that creation is only a few 1000 years old and that Noah's flood covered the whole Globe colour their thinking to all else.
An aside: I'm a Bible believing Christian AND a skeptical scientist by training. I'm a skeptic about traditional interpretations of the Bible, not the Truth it holds. The Bible describes the flood as covered the entire country-region-land-soil-ground-earth. We still use the word Earth in English for several of these meanings. If anyone wants to pursue THIS topic - raise it in the OTHER board.

And then there is the whole Left+green vs Right divide:
Lefties see the Right as money grabbing, insensitive evil folk trying to down tread the masses, and tramping all over the environment.
The right sees the other side as evil totalitarians, anti-liberty, anti-growth, anti-business, and therefore as lowering the living standards of the masses.
These positions do not reflect reality, and are caricatures of actual positions. I always fear the Demonizer - those who paint the other side as incredibly evil - either in Politics or Religion.

[nautonnier]

Unfortunately, this is all true and currently more so in Europe than in the U.S.A. as they are more socialist. But we can see that this may well change in 10 days time and the U.S.A. will run to the left of France and the Netherlands.
The 'Carbon Tax' approach has a real advantage for the politicians as it can be dressed up with 'inverse snobbery' to appeal mainly to the urban population. AWD SUVs are totally unnecessary for showing off on the school run - that is until you are on a hill farm in a driving blizzard trying to save your lambs. But you will still be taxed on your all wheel drive just as much because the politicians get more votes from the townies than they do from the country.
Similar inverse snobbery is used against air travel - what do you want to go on holiday on a jet for? They tend to be amazed that normal business people are continually flying to different sales areas for example. There are times when you just have to be there and a teleconference is NOT the same. Try training someone to use your new kit in a teleconference. (Strange that all the 'greens' HAD to go to Bali )

I can see industries like the automotive industry and the aircraft industry being crushed due to political perception rather than reality.

This is the theme of this entire climate change world - perception rather than scientific reality - and it is the JOB of politicians coming up with new clever tax schemes to ensure that the public perception on all things climatological is the same. They then try to demonize particular target areas to allow them to raise taxes. So for example aviation is responsible for ~1.5% of 'carbon emissions' and it is DROPPING as a percentage as aircraft become steadily more efficient. This has not stopped the ceaseless litany of carbon footprint complaints about aviation to soften up the populace for more taxes. Currently $400 is added to a return flight to UK from the U.S.A. as a carbon tax - Gordon Brown (and his Darling glove-puppet) know that no-one will argue. Yet aviation makes up 6% of the U.S.A. GDP as a hard export - similar figures for the European aviation industry - politicians do not seem to mind holes in their feet if there is a short term monetary gain (i.e. while they are in office).

So Perception rules in politics and now in science. If you want funding then you have to bow to the perception of what is politically important. Then all the research that is being done starts to be in the field that is perceived as important - and 'mistakes' that don't support that perception don't get through peer review or are not considered 'worth publishing'.

In short I do not think we live any longer in the age of science - we live in the age of populist perception. I am not even cheered by the probability that all could go really really cold Maunder minimum or worse. As all that will happen is 'perception' will be changed - and the political quick change artists will carry on as if it was what they meant all along while excoriating all the scientists who they had previously supported, for being so misleading.

[Pooh]

Reference: The Turnover Tax in a Command Economy
Samuelson and Nordhaus address various forms of planned economies in Chapter 35 of Economics. Among these was the Soviet Economy around 1983 (before its collapse). Samuelson and Nordhaus identified the Soviet Economy as a command economy.
The authors identify three “basic economic problems” to be decided for a market economy: What, How and For Whom. They then give the solutions employed in the Soviet economy of 1983.
What: “… the allocation of output is a political decision.” “… planners decide on the levels and distribution of consumer goods …, then planners set consumer prices so that demand and supply more or less balance.” (apparatchik)
How goods are produced: “In large part, the decisions about How are taken administratively….” “Unlike a market economy, the primary goal of firms in the Soviet economy is not to earn profits. Rather, the major goal is to fulfill the plan.”
For Whom: “The entire system is designed to attain the goals of the planners and the ultimate political leaders ….”

---

As an illustration, the authors invent a conversation about prices between a Western economist and a Soviet economist: (Samuelson, pgs 773 – 774)
Western: “How can you run an economy where you don’t know what goods are really worth?”
Soviet: “You are completely missing the boat. The whole purpose of planning is to avoid the mistakes of the market. We prefer to have goods that society really needs (as determined by the Communist Party), rather than to devote our economy to the follies of the market …. If we wanted the consumers to be sovereign, we could use the market. But we don’t.”

---

Samuelson, Paul Anthony. Economics (12th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985.

[Pooh]

The Turnover Tax Illustrated

(A brief "crib" about Supply-Demand basics in now in the "Open Forum" under "Supply and Demand in Economics 101" )
solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=talkanything&action=display&thread=195&page=1
(Right-click the link above and select Open in New Tab to keep this window open.)

Turnover Tax: How It Works (part 1) This is Samuelson�s diagram of the State�s mechanism to limit the people�s consumption (Demand) to that which the State permits (or plans) to be produced (Supply). A few words of explanation about the diagram: The curved line is a Demand Curve. It represents the concept that the higher the Price, the less people will buy. �A� marks an Equilibrium Point of a free market, clearing at a Price the customer would pay and Suppliers would charge (about 17 units at a Price of 1.75). �B� represents an Equilibrium Point of a command economy; it would clear at a Price some customers would pay if the Supply were limited to �Planned Output� (about 9.5 units at a Price of 4.3). �C� represents Reality in a command economy such as the Soviet Union (about 11 units at a Price of 3.4). The planners may leave the price unchanged for years (the five year plan). However, there is no Supply �Curve�. There is that vertical straight, red line labeled �Planned Output�. It is about 9.5 units of product; no more, no less.

Turnover Tax: How It Works (part 2) A few more words of explanation: How does the State work this miracle of limiting the Demand to the �Planned Output�? By the State�s favorite mechanism: a Tax. In the Soviet Union, it was called a �Turnover Tax�. This Tax added to the Price over what it would have been in a free market. The �Turnover Tax� was set so as to limit Demand to the �Planned Output�. The Tax was levied against the Producers (Suppliers). Since the Producer was the State, there was no escape: no competing Suppliers, imports, or competition on the basis of quality. Unfortunately, only Climate Change models achieve perfection. When the Tax is set too low (or becomes too low over time or political pressure), the actual Price remains 3.4 (�C�) rather than 4.3 (�B�), but the Supply remains at 9.5 units, not 11 units. This outcome is called a �Shortage�. (We would not wish to break the plan, now would we? The State has guns and gulags.) ;D

Samuelson, Paul Anthony. Economics (12th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985. Fig 35-1, pg 772-775

[magellan]

The Democrat Candidate will have no problem keeping his pledge not to raise Income Taxes.

Oh, we'll get our taxes raised and then some.

He is lying through his teeth. First of all, my family will see about $2000 increase once the Bush tax cuts die on the vine.

Next, he is lying about tax cuts for "working families". Roughly 40% or more already do not pay income taxes, so how can they get a "tax cut". It is welfare, period.

This is nothing but the largest government power grab in the history of our country. Obama is a Marxist (sorry if that offends some) and will set in motion a tyrannical statist form of government the likes we have never seen.

The sheeple are falling for his deceptions and we probably deserve what we get. BTW, I agree with your posts.

[kenfeldman]

It’s just a pattern, but lots of us have a hunch that the Sun has something to do with the temperature of the earth.

So far, you're in complete agreement with the IPCC and most climate scientists! The sun provides about 240 watts per meter squared of warmth to the planet.

It's the climate change that we're interested in. The sun varies about 1.5 watts per meter squared in energy provided to the planet between solar min and solar max, which translates to about 0.26 watts per meter squared when the albedo and surface area are taken into account. By comparison, the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution currently provides about 1.7 watts per meter squared and is expected to increase to 2.8 watts per meter squared by 2050 when the concentration of CO2 reaches 475 parts per million (ppm).

If we take action to lower emissions, we might still be able to cap CO2 levels at 450 ppm, then begin to lower them in the next few decades. At 450 ppm, most of the models predict that global temperatures will stabilize at about 2 degrees C higher than 1900 levels, and we will only see partial melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Sea level rise might be limited to between 1 and 2 meters, and the release of methane from ocean hydrates and melting permafrost could be limited to an amount that will allow the concentration of methane to remain stable.

So most people would argue that perhaps we should address this problem to prevent the worst of the severe impacts from occuring. Whether the solution is a cap and trade, a carbon tax or a strict limit on emissions has yet to be determined.

[kiwistonewall]

Actually, I thought the basic way of restricting goods was the Queue:

We'll get price controls next - if the controlled selling price is too cheap, then manufacturers will make something else (or they'll go broke)- leading to shortages- shortages = rationing or queues.

I remember the command economy we had under Muldoon in New Zealand- we lived in a country town in an age when the basics all had fixed prices. "Luxury" items were not controlled - so all you could get in the supermarket (actually small grocer's store by today's standards) were "luxury" versions of the basics - no plain bread, only spiced, fancy loaves.

Empty shelves. There may have been token shipments, but we had no car, and by the time my wife walked to the store (with child in 'pram, there were no basics left.

And let us not kid ourselves, this financial crash was engineered (maybe by ignorance) - mainly by socialist policies of encouraging lending to those who couldn't repay.

This has nothing to do with the "free market" - but is being used to show how we must stop rampant "capitalism" -

So the stage is set for a giant leap? Where? Cold+no power+no food for the poor. The lower classes all suffer under socialism - but are firmly led to believe that life would be worse under freedom

We've had creeping socialism for so long, its the old how to boil a frog trick.

[kenfeldman]

The cap-and-trade system has been successfully used in the United States to clean up Sulfur Dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. It provided an incentive to the utilities to buy scrubbers for their power plants and to shut down older, less efficient plants.

Europe instituted a cap-and-trade system to meet their Kyoto goals. Although the first round was not successful (they gave away the credits instead of auctioning them off and they gave away too many credits), the second round is going better and it looks like Europe is on track to meet their Kyoto goals.

On the other hand, the Montreal Protocol was very successful in outright banning the CFCs that lead to stratospheric ozone depletion. Although chemical companies, air conditioning manufacturers and refrigerator makers at first protested that they'd be destroyed by this massive international government intervention in their industries, they successfully developed new products that don't destroy the ozone and turned a profit in doing so. So there's an arguement that a carbon tax or a strict limit on carbon dioxide emissions, without a counter balancing incentive mechanism like the cap-and-trade system, could work as well.

Many of the proposals around carbon taxes and the auction proceeds from cap-and-trade permit sales focus on how to distribute the income that would be generated from these systems. They vary from a direct check back to the taxpayers (cap-and-dividend) to investments in alternative energy and rail transportation systems.

Perhaps it would be more useful to debate some of those aspects of the politics. After all, both of the major party candidates for the US Presidency have indicated they are in favor of cap-and-trade. The question is how they would implement it.

[kiwistonewall]

Since there is a very high possibility that Ozone was not effected by CFC's but solar emissions and cosmic rays, it just proves how we get fleeced like sheep by stupid sensational claims!

The "people" end up paying the taxes through more expensive goods, and our economies by production of goods moving to countries without the restrictions.

Indian and China will laugh at us for the next 50 years, and distant civilizations will look back at the decline and fall of the West with wonderment!

[Pooh]

Oct 28, 2008 21:27:07 GMT kiwistonewall said:

We might suspect that the politicians have an agenda, something hidden up their sleeve

Agenda: How to stay in power!
Don't look for a conspiracy when stupidity is a valid hypothesis!
Don't underestimate the power of belief!
Politicians use belief as a tool. The more pragmatic they are, the more they dress up in the beliefs of their constituents.
People can be sincerely wrong!
We see plenty of posters at this board who sincerely believe in CO₂ AGW and hack away at science and data since it MUST be wrong.

Probably not a conspiracy; too many people involved to keep a secret.
More likely a convergence (or confluence) of Interests that has the same message. Coalition Politics has a long history here in the States. Rote Kapelle comes mind, but that goes too far. It is also unfair to those who are sincere.

As to how folks have come to believe that message, one might revisit:
Re: Precautionary Principle and AGW - Continued « Reply #3 on Sept 30, 2008, 7:32pm. It is on Sunstein's Laws of Fear. {Right-Click to Open in New Tab to keep your place here}
solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=134

An aside: I'm a Bible believing Christian AND a skeptical scientist by training. I'm a skeptic about traditional interpretations of the Bible, not the Truth it holds.

I think you do well. In Truth, your approach is praised:
"Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Acts 17:11
Zondervan, NIV, Thompson's Chain Reference, 1982

I also think that all citizens should apply this principle more widely. For that reason, I try to link to or reference a source whenever possible.

[nautonnier]

Oct 28, 2008 23:31:11 GMT kenfeldman said:

So far, you're in complete agreement with the IPCC and most climate scientists! The sun provides about 240 watts per meter squared of warmth to the planet.

I have a problem with this simplistic assumption that TSI (direct radiation from the Sun) is the only source of energy that the sun 'provides to the planet' and variations in TSI are the only changes. It is too simplistic. First of all there have been several studies showing magnetic and other effects. Then there is the solar wind that is continually hitting the magnetosphere around the earth which is now at historically low levels.

However, the 'one-club-golfers' have decided that a trace gas is solely responsible for all climate changes - cooling as well as warming - since the mid 19th century. This is because their over simplified models can have their assumptions massaged to show that out of 17, 4 of them (if not followed too closely) can almost be claimed to match current temperatures.

So I do NOT believe that this has been proven - if the next few years show continued reduction in global temperatures the AGW position will become significantly less tenable as none of their models in AR4 will match reality. Had the temperatures continued to rise during these last 8 years then I may have remained just 'not convinced'. I still feel that the anthropogenic water vapor increases has had more of an impact on temperature since the 1970s than CO2 and that even that has less impact than the solar effect. The reason that water vapor has not been followed up is political - telling people not to drive SUV's is easier than telling them to stop using the deep wells to irrigate their crops.

[magellan]

Oct 28, 2008 23:44:14 GMT kenfeldman said:

The cap-and-trade system has been successfully used in the United States to clean up Sulfur Dioxide emissions from coal-fired power plants. It provided an incentive to the utilities to buy scrubbers for their power plants and to shut down older, less efficient plants.

Europe instituted a cap-and-trade system to meet their Kyoto goals. Although the first round was not successful (they gave away the credits instead of auctioning them off and they gave away too many credits), the second round is going better and it looks like Europe is on track to meet their Kyoto goals.

On the other hand, the Montreal Protocol was very successful in outright banning the CFCs that lead to stratospheric ozone depletion. Although chemical companies, air conditioning manufacturers and refrigerator makers at first protested that they'd be destroyed by this massive international government intervention in their industries, they successfully developed new products that don't destroy the ozone and turned a profit in doing so. So there's an arguement that a carbon tax or a strict limit on carbon dioxide emissions, without a counter balancing incentive mechanism like the cap-and-trade system, could work as well.

Many of the proposals around carbon taxes and the auction proceeds from cap-and-trade permit sales focus on how to distribute the income that would be generated from these systems. They vary from a direct check back to the taxpayers (cap-and-dividend) to investments in alternative energy and rail transportation systems.

Perhaps it would be more useful to debate some of those aspects of the politics. After all, both of the major party candidates for the US Presidency have indicated they are in favor of cap-and-trade. The question is how they would implement it.

That's odd. I don't recall ever having a 'sulfur dioxide' ration card.

Was there an artificial market created around sulfur dioxide? No. Was it used to control the behavior of individuals? Did it raise operating costs for energy companies? Yes. Who ultimately pays for these costs? Duh.

Every single item you listed cost money. Consumers will always end up paying.

So there's an arguement that a carbon tax or a strict limit on carbon dioxide emissions, without a counter balancing incentive mechanism like the cap-and-trade system, could work as well.

That is completely absurd. One look at the ethanol debacle debunks that notion.

Ever wonder why Europe is in a perpetual state of stagnation compared to the U.S.?

What is the true value of CO2? Is there a high demand for CO2?