Given the tax reform effort currently under way in Congress this would seem an appropriate time to consider the usefulness of a carbon tax to increase Federal revenue even though no such proposal (happily) is in the current tax bill.
The first question, of course, is whether this perennial idea has any intrinsic merit. The answer is no.
The use of fiscal incentives for reducing pollution has considerable merit in general. Federal revenues are increased, other taxes which have adverse incentives can be reduced, pollution is decreased, and everyone is better off except the polluters. So win-win.
The problem with the oft-proposed carbon tax is that pollution would not be reduced because carbon dioxide CO2 is not a pollutant despite the endless propaganda by climate alarmists to the contrary. They claim that increased atmospheric levels of CO2 result in catastrophic increases in temperatures and that CO2 is thus a pollutant, albiet not the usual kind.
I and many other climate skeptics have argued that CO2 is not only not a pollutant but rather a vital component of Earth’s ecosystem, particularly for plants. It harms no one and helps plants, animals, and humans. Modest increases in global temperatures are good, not bad and the alleged catastrophic increases have no basis in science. So since CO2 is good, not bad, taxing human-caused emissions of it is bad, not good.
The Current Objective Should Be to Increase, Not Decrease Atmospheric CO2 Levels
If any change is needed in current atmospheric CO2 levels, the need is to modestly increase levels, not decrease them. Further, increased human-caused CO2 emissions mean more energy use, which results in more human productivity since humans generally use fossil fuel energy to increase their productivity and reduce their dependency on other less reliable and higher cost energy sources.
The only virtue of carbon taxes is that if carefully done they can be more efficient than administrative regulations. So if a government has unfortunately decided to impose reductions on CO2 emissions, it would be better to use a carbon tax. But by far the best solution is no carbon tax and no regulations for this purpose.
Given the magnitude of the climate scam, of course, rationality may not prevail, but is much to be desired.
The New Yorker is reporting some Real News about Climate celebrity Harvey Weinstein and David Boies, attorney for Al Gore circa 2000 and for the New York Times.
Does this invite questions as to whether Boies helps Weinstein and Gore on climate as well? The problem for the Times is when it champions Fake Science to the hilt, and some of its allies are found out to be unsavory, then the integrity and credibility of the Times on every subject could begin to come into question, within the minds of the misled flock of alarmists.
More about the wonderful element carbon.
Most of what animals eat consists of molecules made with carbon. An average human carbon intake is 300 grams per day.
Carbohydrates, fats, proteins, and fiber are made of carbon.
The food webs of life on our planet are mostly carbon.
DNA the code that programs species relies on carbon.
Carbon is uniquely powerful among the elements for each atom is able to form up to four bonds, enabling complex structures and a myriad of materials.
Accordingly More than 20 million carbon containing molecules are known. Without carbon atoms there is no life on earth.
As carbon intake is processed by animals and they obtain energy, they emit CO2 as a byproduct.
Plants, microbes, and animals including humans naturally emit more carbon dioxide than does fossil fuel combustion.
This natural emission enables future life by recycling carbon to be re combined with the Suns rays so as to make more oxygen and carbohydrates to power life.
The natural virtuous carbon cycle enables life on Earth.
This is why Doc Carlin welcomes CO2 levels rising, wisely knowing nature adjusts and makes fuller and beneficial use of CO2.
When environmental activists talk of carbon footprints and carbon pollution as if this were a threat, this ludicrous scientifically plus demented economics.
This is why Doctor Carlin a genuine environmentalist chose the title of his book, Environmentalism Gone Mad.
What other title can begin to do justice to how clueless activists have become?
The hearts and intentions of many individuals among the environmentalist flock may well be honorable, yet by following flawed sheperds, like lemmings they gallop along an unwise path.
What we see in the war on carbon may be beyond cargo cultism. The original cargo cult islanders were presumably aiming to imitate technologically advanced cultures by appearing to have imaginary radios to guide incoming planes bearing cargo. They were fooling themselves by emulating in a superficial way. Absurd but perhaps not Ill intended and they did not know better.
The war on carbon however is more pernicious because it depends on leaders of the scam subverting rationality and overthrowing real science for a phony cause from which they benefit. The political narrative must be served, so science must be bent. Though CO2 is an essential gas for life on this planet, it is instead miscast as a bad molecule, this political narrative over-riding genuine science. It is a scandal to see national academies of science knuckle under to the scam and the Fake Newsters.
It may not be widely appreciated that the newborne earth lacked oxygen in its atmosphere. Not until advent of photosynthesis about 3.7b years ago did the Earth begin to be more endowed with oxygen gas.
Photosynthesis requires CO2. CO2 is essential to natural manufacture of oxygen upon which we rely to breathe. Yes, CO2 is an essential gas for life on this planet. You are right again Doctor Carlin!
If there were not the Fake News mindlessly saluting every Eco foolishness, the claim CO2 was a problem would be a jolly good joke. A knee slapper. Epic farce! Ecology written by the three stooges.
Likewise a carbon tax is an intellectual abomination. Since CO2 and derived oxygen are essential to life, neither should be taxed. Tax cigarettes and booze.