The entire business of carbon trading and carbon credits is based on the erroneous assumptions that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that it causes global warming, that global warming is a bad thing, and that the process can be reversed through legislation.

A tax on carbon dioxide emissions is a tax on the combustion of any hydrocarbon — coal, natural gas, or petroleum derivatives (gasoline).  Thus it is a tax on internal combustion engines and industrial activity of any kind.  In other words, it is a tax on everything.  That's a brilliant idea, if your job is to generate tax revenue.  Unfortunately the stated benefit of the so-called "carbon tax" is a fraud.  Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  The release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is not something to be avoided.  (You do it every five seconds, when you exhale.)  Plants all over the world, from the grass lands to the rain forests, benefit from increasing levels of CO2.

Overview:
The Key to Understanding the Global Warming Fraud.  While it did not introduce any new scientific means to reduce CO2 emissions (worldwide CO2 emissions grew by 32% during the period), the [1998] Kyoto Protocol introduced a novel economic concept:  the trading of carbon credits and offsets.  At first, the concept of trading carbon credits was straightforward; it was known as "cap and trade."  Each country was allocated a level of carbon emissions each year by the signatories to the agreement based on an annual targeted reduction in carbon emissions to reach the goal.  If a country or emitter expected to exceed its cap, it could "trade" or buy unused carbon credits from other countries that expected to emit less than their cap.  However, if a country failed to meet its emissions target and did not purchase carbon credits, the protocol required it to make up the difference in the second commitment period, with an additional 30% penalty.  On December 15, 2011, Canada withdrew from the treaty to avoid paying $14 billion in fines for emissions greater than its cap.  Shortly thereafter, the treaty fell apart.  However, a star was born:  a new commodities market with huge growth potential. [...] The worldwide market for trading carbon was estimated to be $10 billion in 2004, it grew to $800 billion by 2018, and it was estimated to be $1 trillion by the end of 2021.

New study:  To avert 'greater-than-expected' degree of warming, carbon must be stored a minimum of one millennium.  "Climate" science is almost always junk science — forecasts from human-programmed computer-based guesses, endless doomsday predictions that never manifest, and an ever-changing narrative, oscillating between global warming and global cooling.  But when junk science comes out and completely undermines progressive policy initiatives by showing how utterly irrelevant and worthless such initiatives are?  It's a silver lining, and pretty tasty schadenfreude.  According to a new article out on Tuesday [12/3/2024] from Anthropocene Magazine, new "scientific" findings suggest that all the "climate change" ideas and schemes the left foists onto taxpayers to avoid this strikingly vague "existential crisis" don't mean anything unless they can sequester an unidentified level of carbon from the air and store it for at least a millennium. [...] The sad reality about this is that although this is a great example of how asinine and unrealistic the agenda and vision of the progressive left climate fantasists are, it won't sober them up — as one would reasonably expect — and it'll become the basis for even more maniacal "climate change mitigation" plans.

The Editor says...
[#1] Carbon dioxide is not carbon.  In a carbon dioxide molecule, the oxygen atoms outnumber the carbon atoms by two-to-one.  Saying "carbon" when you're talking about carbon dioxide is a lazy shortcut that was probably originated in a TV newsroom somewhere.  [#2] The mass of the atmosphere is so great that there is no vessel (or cave or salt dome) large enough to hold enough sequestered carbon dioxide to make a measurable difference in the CO2 concentration in the air above.  [#3] China and India are not the least bit worried about carbon dioxide emissions, apparently, and whatever is done in North America over the rest of this century will be negated by what China and India do next month.  [#4] Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  It's plant food.  It would be far more beneficial to mankind to find additional sources of carbon dioxide, rather that places to hide it.

Carbon Capture and Storage:  An Expensive Solution Looking for a Problem.  There is a lake in northern Cameroon called Lake Nyos.  This lake sits atop a volcano crater, and underneath this lake is a cauldron of volcanic gases, including that arch-villain of the climate change crowd, carbon dioxide.  Lake Nyos doesn't look all that unusual, and like most lakes and rivers in that part of the world, a fair number of people lived nearby, along the shore and in the surrounding countryside.  In August of 1986, though, something bad came up out of Lake Nyos, something that caused the deaths of 1,746 people.  That was, of course, carbon dioxide.  This was a natural event, not prompted by anything humans had done — but it could very well present a scenario that should concern everyone.  As part of the climate change argument, some groups are pushing carbon capture and storage — a practice that could, conceivably, produce a Lake Nyos-like incident.  This is a solution desperately seeking a problem.

Earthquakes, Leakage, Expense, Death by Asphyxiation — Is There No Beginning to the Advantages of Carbon Capture?  If carbon capture and storage (CCS) was fracking for gas, it would have been banned years ago.  Both processes can cause earth tremors — equivalent to a man falling off a chair in the case of fracking, but potentially much greater with carbon capture.  This is because it involves millions of tonnes of pressurised carbon dioxide being pumped into rock cavities possibly compromised by prior drilling holes.  Waste water from pressurised oil and gas projects has been known to escape from degraded drill plugs causing geysers 100-foot high.  Such a catastrophe on land with millions of tonnes of CO2 waiting to escape is not a good prospect.  On August 21st, 1986 the sudden high pressure release of magmatic CO2 from the bed of Lake Nyos in Cameroon led to heavier-than-air CO2 suffocating all living beings in the surrounding villages including 1,746 people.  CCS divides a green movement riven with disagreements as its climate crisis grift starts to fall apart in the face of reality.  Capturing CO2 and burying it in the ground has been described by one influential green think tank as a "colossal waste of money".

Elections Matter to U.N. Climate Negotiations.  COP 29, to be held in Baku, Azerbaijan, is less than two months away, but despite the overall theme of "climate finance" having long been agreed to, normal discussions of topics and the framework language for the finance agreement has stalled.  Negotiations have gotten bogged down, in large part because the payor countries are uncertain what the United States will do if Donald Trump is reelected president.  The United Nations and most developing countries have argued over the years that the United States, as the biggest source of historical carbon dioxide emissions, should pay the most for climate reparations, mitigation, and adaptation.  It hasn't worked out that way under any administration so far, and Trump was the most recalcitrant on this point.  Trump continues to refer to climate change as a "hoax," on the grounds that China and other economic and geopolitical adversaries and competitors are using the issue as a backdoor means of diminishing the United States, harming its economy, and reducing its influence globally.

The Editor says...
China and India emit far more CO2 than the United States.  (Any discussion of the plans being made by the U.N. could stop there.)  Any assertion that the U.S. is "the biggest source of historical carbon dioxide emissions" is untrue: Volcanos produce more carbon dioxide than all the activities of man.  (If you want to talk about "historical" CO2, I would remind you that history didn't start in 1800.  Volcanos have been around for a long time.)  Moreover, some people claim that cows and termites produce more CO2 than people (and cars and trucks) do.  But no matter where the CO2 comes from, it serves as plant food, and there is no need for "climate reparations" or mitigation.

Giant Wyoming Carbon Capture Project Pulls Plug For Lack Of Clean Power.  CarbonCapture Inc., which had wanted to build one of the world's largest direct air capture of carbon dioxide and storage projects in southwestern Wyoming, is pulling the plug on development of the complex in the Cowboy State.  "We've been seeing growing competition for clean power amongst industries that are emerging much faster than anybody would have ever predicted," said Adrian Corless, CEO of CarbonCapture, a Los Angeles-based clean technology company.  CarbonCapture cited "intense competition from data centers" in the region for electricity as partially the reason why it is moving from Wyoming. [...] A CarbonCapture spokeswoman declined to respond to questions regarding the project.

The Editor says...
The first question that comes to mind is how will they dispose of the carbon dioxide they have already captured?  Or is there nothing to show for it?  And the next question is why is it necessary to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere?  (The correct answer is:  IT ISN'T.  If the answer they give is "because the U.N. told us to," there is no point in continuing the conversation.)  And the third question is How many megatons of carbon dioxide does the atmosphere contain?  It would take hundreds of years (and lots of energy) to extract enough CO2 from the atmosphere to make any measurable difference.  And look what caused the end of the Wyoming project:  They want to defer to the "data centers" and let them have the juice.  What does that mean?  Government data centers that collect all the internet traffic and every phone call to archive it all?  Or does that mean bitcoin mining?  If a marijuana farm needed the electricity, would they shut down and move out of their way?  What a bunch of misguided weirdos!

"Colossal Waste of Money": Climate Alarmists Turn on Carbon Capture.  The insane Net Zero revolution is starting to devour its own children.  The latest technology to fall foul of the zealots passionate hatred of all things hydrocarbon is carbon capture, a process that consumes billions of dollars, often fails to meet expectations and, horror of horrors, justifies the continuing activities of oil and gas companies.  Green Blob-funded Oil Change International (OCI) has released a report entitled 'Funding Failure:  Carbon capture and fossil hydrogen subsidies exposed'.  In an article circulated by Blob-funded Covering Climate Now and published by DeSmog — recently given £400,000 by the Rowntree Trust to continue running a grubby 'blacklist' of so-called climate deniers — carbon capture is said to be a "colossal waste" with the United States leading the way in public spending on "false climate solutions".  Perhaps not such good news for the Mad Miliband's £8 billion GB Energy operation which will act as a state-run subsidy fund for numerous wacky green projects including carbon capture and hydrogen.

Carbon offsets have always been just another global warming scam.  It has been obvious from the day carbon credits started that they are worthless pieces of paper that allow rich people and companies to pretend that they are reducing their carbon footprint.  Anyone with a brain could recognize that buying a carbon offset credit from Tesla or some other green company did not reduce the amount of carbon that a jet, house, yacht, mansion, or factory emitted.  This scam has been going on for almost three decades.  It has made the offset producers very rich.

The State Is Not Your Friend!  [Scroll down]  There is the global apocalypse gambit:  (1) indoctrinate citizens with the false message that hydrocarbon energy is killing the planet, (2) heavily regulate all market activity for the public's safety, (3) tax citizens for using unapproved energies, (4) launder windfall profits to "green energy" cronies, and (5) strictly monitor all citizens' carbon footprint from cradle to grave.

General Assembly sends carbon capture bill to governor's desk.  A legal framework for carbon capture and sequestration, part of a plan to reduce emissions and advance hydrogen development, has made it through the General Assembly.  It now awaits the governor's signature.  Senate Bill 831 has found support among some environmental groups like the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Environmental Defense Fund, and the Nature Conservancy — but others like the Better Path Coalition, Clean Air Council, and the Center for Coalfield Justice have opposed it.

The Editor says...
[#1] Carbon dioxide is not carbon, so please stop saying, "carbon capture."  [#2] Carbon dioxide is plant food.  It is not a pollutant that needs to be extracted from the air.  [#3] It is not necessary for every state (or any state!) to have its own carbon dioxide sequestration scheme.  Each additional plant would remove CO2 from the same atmosphere as all the others.  And no matter how many of these plants are built, they can't possibly keep up with the CO2 emissions from China and India.

Carbon vacuum nicknamed 'Mammoth' goes online, promises to remove 1/1,000,000th of annual emissions with a hefty price tag.  Call me crazy, but it seems like if the goal is creating superior air quality, and doing it as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible, which should be the goal for any government or "private" (air quotes because this is crony capitalism) business, then the solution is trees... right?  I've said this before but I'll say it again — this is not to suggest that high carbon levels in the atmosphere makes for dirty air as it's a requirement for every living thing on the planet, and the lower the carbon levels means the less plant growth we have, from crops to grasslands, and from biodiverse jungles to kelp forests.  Carbon is a "building block of life" after all, with the American Chemical Society declaring it "impossible to live without." Which is why, from the leftist cultists that spread death everywhere they go, it's easy to see why carbon is Public Enemy No. 1.

The Editor says...
Please stop saying "carbon" when you are speaking about carbon dioxide.  Using "carbon" as a nickname for CO2 probably started in the lazy news media, where the writers don't know the difference.

Green terrorists are stealing property in America's heartland to build massive CO2 pipeline.  Summit Carbon Solutions is back at it in Iowa trying to steal private farmland for use in its massive "carbon capture" scam.  The Iowa Utility Board (IUB) reportedly approved a proposal by Summit to build a carbon dioxide (CO2) pipeline that stretches across five Midwestern states:  Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.  The pipeline is slated to cover 2,500 miles — the portion in Iowa is supposed to be 680 miles long — and connect with 57 ethanol plants, a spokeswoman from the company revealed.  The IUB decision will allow Summit to use eminent domain to steal 859 land parcels from private landowners, the vast majority of whom are opposed to the "green" project, which aims to bury CO2 underground so it cannot "pollute" the environment.

EU's Ursula von der Leyen says it's time we 'put a price on carbon'.  Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission (the "executive arm" of the European Union), says "if we want to keep global warming below the tipping point" then it's about time we put a price on carbon emissions. [...] Ursula suggests that implementing a carbon tax would force "heavy polluters" to pay a price, but who determines what a "heavy polluter" is?  Big government bureaucrats?  Since when has the government, or a bureaucrat for that matter, ever been a reliable litmus test of objectivity and fairness?  These are the same types of people who insist I can afford to fork over 25% of the money I earn just in federal income tax, and tell me I still have enough to afford the very high price of quality food, and massive energy bills because they want to eliminate affordable energy.  They're either totally unaware, or just plain sadistic and murderous — I lean toward the latter.

The Hidden Agenda Behind Lockdowns.  [Scroll down]  But some of the more insidious threats to American freedom are moving forward without needing a state of emergency.  The official response to the "climate crisis" offers countless examples.  If ongoing pandemics condemn Americans to recurrent lockdowns (a word once only used in the context of maximum security prisons, but to which we are now completely desensitized), it is to save the climate that might inform how our cells are designed.  They're not pretty.  Across America, single family homes with yards are being outlawed.  New construction is prohibited and existing suburbs are being rezoned.  This is to reduce "greenhouse gas," despite weak arguments that low density housing causes more "greenhouse gas," even if you think "greenhouse gas" is a real problem.  More generally, a whole new genre of creative accounting has been invented, called "carbon accounting," whereby corporations, along with state and local governments, are now required to calculate how they will reduce their "carbon footprint."  Failure to do so results in the loss of subsidies and grants, as well as access to investment capital.  Carbon accounting encompasses every imaginable aspect of life.

New study:  Corporate investments in 'carbon offset' schemes were 'probably junk' that did nothing to negate pollution.  We've all heard of liberal logic or leftist logic — but what about Bill Gates logic?  An individual can pollute the environment at an absurdly exaggerated rate compared to the average person because he or she is a pseudo-elite, and entitled to do so because they have the money to "invest" in mitigation schemes[,] commonly known as "carbon offset" technologies.  I mean, that's how Bill Gates excused his luxury lifestyle of private jets, yachts, and mega mansions when he admitted to Anderson Cooper on 60 Minutes that he "probably" has "one of the highest greenhouse gas footprints of anyone on the planet" and recognized the impact of his "personal flying alone" is "gigantic" so what he does is pay a "very high price" to a company that pulls carbon from the air and buries it underground to negate all the damage he's doing to the environment.  (However, when your existence in the world is deleterious to almost everyone else who lives here, you have to pretend you're contributing in some way, so it's not totally crazy.)

The Editor says...
Flying around in a private jet does not materially damage the environment, whether he's travelling alone or otherwise.  If Bill Gates wants to waste his own money by sequestering carbon dioxide, that doesn't help or hurt anyone else.

Economists' Advocacy for a Carbon [Dioxide] Tax Is Misguided.  Many, if not most, mainstream economists, both conservative and liberal, support a carbon tax.  As economist Alan Blinder recently remarked, "It's only a very slight exaggeration to say that all economists favor a carbon tax to mitigate climate change."  But I argue below their position seems to overlook real-world politics, bureaucratic incentives, and the "pretense of knowledge."  Advocates of a carbon tax seem to fall victim to what Ronald Coase labeled "blackboard economics".  The benefits from such a tax may, therefore, be far less than promised by blackboard economics, and than advocates are claiming.  In fact, the benefits can be negative, given what I regard as "guesstimates" (highly uncertain metrics) that policymakers rely on to represent the damage from carbon.  Aligned with Coase's blackboard economics, even if one can theoretically show that a carbon tax is the best way to combat climate change (which many economists would concur), it may fail in practice.  A major reason is the highly speculative nature of the external costs from carbon emissions.  Attempts to measure the social cost of carbon (SCC), for example, depend on predictions of economic and climatic conditions decades out in the future.  Analysts refer to the damage from carbon emissions as the SCC, which is the theoretically correct metric for setting a carbon tax.

Change Proposed to Compensation Method for Carbon Capture Leases.  Greater compensation for many property owners whose land is taken through eminent domain for carbon capture and sequestration projects is in a proposal at the Louisiana House of Representatives.  House Bill 783 would require landowners be compensated per acre to "no less than the maximum amount paid to any other landowner in that project."  [Advertisement]  The bill is applicable for carbon sequestration projects where the gas is put into pores underground, which is the empty space between grains in a sand layer.  Rep. Danny McCormick, R-Oil City, sponsor of the legislation, told the committee some of these CO2 storage plumes can be up to 20,000 acres.

Reject, Don't Reform, Carbon Capture.  Rep. Danny McCormick is certainly one of the better officials in Baton Rouge, someone who is not only willing to talk about State sovereignty but also do something to advance it, which makes us unhappy to have to criticize him.  But in this case it is necessary.  Rep. McCormick is sponsoring HB783, a bill that would ensure all property owners receive equal compensation if their property is taken from them for the sake of a carbon capture project.  That sounds nice — equal pay for the little guy — except for one problem:  He should be rejecting the entire premise the carbon capture 'industry' is built upon instead of trying to normalize it.

Another Climate Folly:  Carbon Capture and Storage.  [Scroll down]  " [...] The captured CO2 is compressed or liquefied and then transported, usually by pipeline.  The CO2 is then safely stored permanently and securely thousands of feet underground — this process is often called 'sequestration.'" [...] The CO2 is then transported by truck or through pipelines to the storage site(s).  Pipelines require pumps.  Trucks typically require diesel fuel.  Is this process free?  Nope.  Requires energy.  Then the liquified CO2 is pushed down deep in the earth under layers of rock, which requires drilling and more pumping.  Is this process free?  Nope.  Requires energy.  So now that we've got liquified CO2 buried under a naturally porous earth at a pressure that can lift water the equivalent of the depth it is buried, how long will it stay there?  Who knows?  Even though there have been no long-term studies on this at the various geologic sites and conditions planned for these vast and expansive projects, various government-funded studies such as this one (laundered through MIT) are suggesting it's "safe and effective" because gas has been found buried in the earth for millions of years.  Spoiler alert:  we didn't put it there by drilling big holes.  Big difference.

Biden admin temporarily drops 'outrageous climate mandate' amid flurry of lawsuits.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) temporarily suspended its controversial rule requiring private companies to disclose carbon emissions data after it was met with a slew of lawsuits.  The rule, which was finalized in March, was immediately met with litigation by a cohort of 25 GOP attorneys general, along with energy companies Liberty Energy and Nomad Proppant Services, and business groups including the Chamber of Commerce, Texas Alliance of Energy Producers and Domestic Energy Producers Alliance.  Last month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted a brief administrative stay of the rule while the various lawsuits were consolidated.  The groups asked the 8th Circuit to force the SEC to block its rule.  On Friday, the SEC voluntarily agreed to temporarily suspend its rule while the litigation continues on the merits.

Justin Trudeau's allies turn against him over carbon tax.  Justin Trudeau's political allies have turned on him over his "net zero" tax policy, as his Liberal Party slumps in the polls.  The Canadian prime minister is facing a rebellion within his own party over the unpopular 23 percent carbon tax rises, which will see drivers charged more for fuel from Monday.  The federal carbon price is set to bump up from Can $65 (£38) to Can $80 (£47), meaning the extra charge on gasoline will increase from 14.3 cents to 17.6 cents per litre.  As things stand, Mr Trudeau's Liberal Party is heading for humiliation in Canada's federal elections, which are due to be held by October next year.  According to one poll, the Conservatives, led by Pierre Poilievre, are on course for a crushing victory, gaining 92 seats, while Mr Trudeau's Liberals lose 96.

Our Invisible Chains, Our Stolen Vote.  The next "green" horror: exploding carbon-capture pipelines.  Right now South Dakota is under attack by a freshly born green corporation, Summit Carbon Solutions, funded by China's Belt and Road initiative, and you, through the Green New Deal provisions buried in the last debt ceiling deal, to pipe "carbon," from the oil fields to some obscure part of the Dakotas and bury it.  There can be no more stupid waste of money than this.  But even some of our bravest politicians, including Kristi Noem, Pierre Poilivere and Danielle Smith in Canada cower before the almighty (anti-)carbon lobby and rabbit on about sequestering it.  It is an industry into which thieves flood because it means you loot the public purse at the beginning through Green New Deal giveaways, and then for all perpetuity because of the tax advantage. [...] A policy researcher friend tried to track down the annual billions, trillions over the last thirty years, that the U.N. and its various satellites have given of your money to "climate change" mitigation outfits in the Global South.  The money vanishes, nothing happens, it's stolen.  She google-earthed one heavily PR'ed outfit, only to discover that it didn't exist, just a pile of sand.  These projects are payoffs to an army of activists placed at every weak point in the system.  If the projects exist, they don't work.  Both the Guardian and Harper's have done extensive work on the fraud of "climate mitigation."  Carbon sequestration is a scam meant to steal public money.

Federal Court Halts Biden Admin's Corporate Emissions Disclosure Rule.  An appellate court paused the Biden administration's corporate emissions disclosure rule on Friday.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted Liberty Energy's request for an administrative stay against the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) corporate climate risk and emissions disclosure rule, according to a court filing.  The regulation requires medium-sized and large public corporations to disclose climate change-related risks and data on the emissions created directly by their businesses in financial reports.  Liberty Energy, a company that specializes in fracking, asked the court to halt the policy's implementation while its case works through the judicial system, according to Bloomberg.  The judges who signed off on the stay did not specify why they decided to do so in the court order.

The Ideology and Reality of Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage.  One of the greatest technological advancements in the climate change space is, arguably, the fact that we now have the technology to outright remove CO2 from its point of emission, or even the atmosphere.  This technology — called carbon capture utilization and sequestration (carbon capture for short) — is a huge step forward in solving the challenge of pollution from fossil fuel and should be considered a huge coup for the climate movement.  Wrong.  Back in 2021, over 500 conservation organizations took out a full-page advertisement in The Washington Post opposing any carbon capture technology, leading to a bizarre irony where climate-focused organizations are opposing proven climate solutions.  The carbon capture debate has revealed that in many ways climate progress is not held back by economics, but by idealogues [sic] that have an alternative agenda that overlaps with — but is not consistent with — climate progress.  Is the objective to put fossil fuel companies completely out of business (a naïve and impractical goal) or to solve the problem of climate change from carbon emissions?

The Editor says...
[#1] Removal of CO2 from the atmosphere does not solve any pollution problem, because carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.  [#2] So-called "carbon capture" (which actually captures carbon dioxide, which is not carbon) is not a "proven climate solution," because only a relatively tiny amount of CO2 has been "captured" in this manner, at a rate far slower than the Chinese are pumping it out, and the climate is still changing at the same imperceptibly slow rate.  [#3] Climate change is so gradual and inevitable that it is not a problem, and even if it is, it cannot be stopped.  For that reason, there is no such thing as "climate progress."

10 states file legal challenge to SEC climate disclosure rule.  West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey announced a coalition of 10 states will file a legal challenge to new regulations requiring public companies to disclose their climate-related risks and direct greenhouse gas emissions.  The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted 3-2 Wednesday to approve the climate disclosure rule, which will go into effect in 2026.  Intense blowback from the business community delayed the passage of the final rule as the agency combed through thousands of comment letters following the initial proposal in 2022.

Carbon removal is a very expensive product that no one needs.  Nearly 800 companies around the world are exploring a wide variety of methods for drawing planet-warming greenhouse gas out of the atmosphere and storing it away or putting it to use.  A gigantic leap from the five startups that James Temple could have named in 2019.  However, the industry is in trouble because carbon dioxide removal is "a very expensive product that no one needs" and no one seems eager to pay the "true cost" for the "waste management of invisible garbage."

The Editor says...
Carbon dioxide is not carbon, nor is it garbage.  It's plant food.

Hawaii looking 'to introduce a climate change fee for visitors'.  Visitors to Hawaii may be hit with a new fee, following in the footsteps of other popular holiday locations around the world.  Tourists heading to Hawaii may be slapped with additional entry costs, as the popular holiday destination looks to introduce a climate change fee for visitors.  The new tax, according to the state's Governor, Josh Green, would be introduced as a way to protect beaches and prevent future wildfires.  Mr Green estimates the flat-fee of around $25, which would be charged at hotel check-in or vacation rentals such as holiday homes, and amount to more than $68m annually if passed.

CNN Op-Ed Has a Big Idea — Carbon Passports for the Peasants.  The propaganda to restrict the peasant's travel is heating up.  The author of a CNN article, It's time to limit how often we can travel abroad — 'carbon passports' may be the answer, claimed the article was strictly his opinion, not CNN's.  He wrote:  ["]By the end of July, international tourist arrivals globally reached 84% of pre-pandemic levels.  In some European countries, such as France, Denmark and Ireland, tourism demand even surpassed its pre-pandemic level.  This may be great news economically, but there's concern that a return to the status quo is already showing dire environmental and social consequences.["]  As is typical of the leftist globalists, he wants to take something important away from the peasants — tourism.

So filled with fraud:  The green agenda and the rich who benefit from it.  The federal government essentially has ordered electric car companies to commit fraud. [...] These are the worthless carbon credits that companies such as Tesla got rich selling to companies like GM and Ford so they could pretend to reduce the carbon from their highly profitable gas guzzling trucks and SUVs.  Democrats claim they care about the poor and middle class but the poor have been screwed for years to pay more for their gas-powered vehicles to cover the massive losses from selling inefficient, expensive, impractical vehicles powered by the highly flammable pollutant lithium that the green pushers want to force all of us to buy. [...] In other words, the government, the carmakers and the green pushers knew this was a massive fraud but they didn't care.  They were greedy and the radical green agenda was all that mattered.  The people are irrelevant, especially the poor and middle class.  And of course, Democrat campaign workers posing as journalists, have participated in perpetuating the fraud by just repeating talking points without doing research or asking questions.

Drax Carbon Capture Could Cost Bill Payers £40 Billion.  Drax has received permission from the government to fit carbon capture technology to its wood-burning power plant, in a project that could cost bill-payers more than £40bn.  The energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, on Tuesday approved the project to convert two of its biomass units to use the technology.  Analysts have predicted that the revamp of the North Yorkshire site could be one of the most expensive energy projects in the world.  The project could add about £1.7bn to energy bills every year if the company acts on plans to fit all four of its biomass units with carbon capture technology, or a total of more than £43bn, according to Ember, a climate think tank.  In addition, the government is expected within days to extend a lucrative bill-payer-backed subsidy scheme that last year paid Drax more than £600m to burn trees for electricity until the end of the decade.  The decision is likely to anger environmentalists, who have campaigned against burning imported wood pellets and have opposed the multi-billion-pound subsidies paid to Drax over the past 12 years.

It appears the Church of the Climate Change Cult (CCCC) is losing some of its Flock, Part 5.  Due to the oppression on companies involved in the oil and gas sector by the CCCC coupled with the political support and pressure on oil and gas companies the latter have sought to develop the ability of carbon capture at a significant scale.  Canada's largest oil and gas companies have formed the Pathways Alliance in an effort to develop technology to satisfy the "cult" and the Trudeau led government.  Collectively the "Alliance" working with government bodies plan to spend $24.1 billion by 2030 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from oil sands operations by 22 million tonnes per year by 2030 and the Federal Government will contribute an additional $7 billion.  It sure seems to be aimed at driving up costs, perhaps to make renewable energy look cheaper?

Germany's Nationwide Discontent Will Be Fueled Further by Higher CO2 Tax — Planned For 2024!  The German government's CO2 price increase beginning from January 2024 will make petrol, heating and electricity more expensive.  Already Germany's industry is shrinking rapidly and farmers are now protesting nationally due to high fuels costs:  [Video clip]  These protests are rapidly expanding and a national day of protest in planned for January 8, 2024.  Many of the working class are expected to join in.  Yet, Germany's Socialist-Green government, led by Olaf Scholz, continues to stick to its plans to drastically increase the carbon price, beginning in January, and thus make life for millions even more painful.  Currently the price is 30 euros per ton and it will rise to 45 euros per ton beginning in 2024.

Coming Soon:  Your Travel Will Be Restricted By Personal Carbon Allowances.  A report on the future of travel and tourism, co-authored by a travel agency called Intrepid Travel and The Future Labs Institute, posits a future deeply impacted by climate change and restrictions on tourist travel to combat it.  "A Sustainable Future for Travel", warns of "travel extinction", where some areas suffer such radical climate change that all tourism there ceases, and "personal carbon allowances" that will restrict how often one is permitted travel. [...] For all practical purposes, your carbon emissions will line up with your energy usage, give or take a relatively narrow band of efficiencies (unless we have some kind of clean energy breakthrough, and the only viable one we have, nuclear, is not considered clean energy by the climate cult).  Said differently:  Your standard of living is your energy usage.  Reducing a society's energy usage is the same as reducing its living standards.

Diners hit with 'carbon footprint charge' on restaurant bills.  Diners are being hit with carbon footprint charges on restaurant bills to "counterbalance the environmental impact" of meals.  Customers have reported charity donations for a scheme called Carbon Friendly Dining being added to restaurant cheques, on top of service fees.  The scheme, an initiative backed by retail consultancy Lightspeed, aims to tackle global warming by charging each cover £1.23 to pay for fruit trees to be planted in developing countries.  Carbon Friendly Dining's website says the charge "helps counterbalance the environmental impact" of diners' meals and "also help some of the poorest communities on the planet".  Celebrity chefs including Marco Pierre White and James Martin are among a number of restaurant owners to have signed up.  The cost of the donation is added on to the bill at the end of the meal.  Diners can ask for it to be removed and staff are given instructions on how to take off the charge.

The Editor says...
This is an obvious scam.  How would you ever find out how the money is spent, or what percentage was paid for "administration" fees?

SEC abets latest climate cheat by Dems:  The Green New Deal is a shuck!  The latest scandal centers on Persefoni, an emissions-tracking company that counts at least three high-ranking former Securities and Exchange Commission officials as members.  Which just might have something to do with how it seemingly won huge sway in writing a new SEC rule demanding companies above a certain size must hand over their CO2 emissions data (including from their suppliers). The company, formed in 2020, is now poised to reap millions from firms flocking to purchase its services:  a software platform for comprehensively tracking CO2.  The SEC took six meetings — six! — with the for-profit company as the rule was being written.  Allison Herren Lee, appointed by President Joe Biden as acting chair of the SEC, was in charge of the public comment period around the new rule and stepped down in 2022 shortly before the rule was revealed.  Guess where she went?  Persefoni.

Carbon offsetting is a 'waste of time': Scientists.  Planting trees in vast schemes to 'offset' carbon emissions is harming nature, an Oxford study has claimed.  Celebrities and tycoons including Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, Elton John, Emma Watson and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos have all said they have used offsetting to cancel out the greenhouse gases emitted by activities such as flying in private jets.  But when offsetting involves planting large numbers of a single types of tree, it can actually degrade the environment, the authors argued.

Traders in CO2 Credits Saddled With Vast Stranded-Asset Pile.  A number of major carbon traders are finding that offsets they bought may now be valueless.  Trafigura Group, the world's largest trader of carbon-removal credits, has suspended a consignment as it awaits the results of a probe into the forestry project behind the units.  The situation has led the company to replace the offsets in a contract with a corporate client and instead keep the stranded credits on its own books.  Hannah Hauman, global head of carbon trading at Trafigura — and a former oil trader — says the complete loss of value seen in some corners of the voluntary carbon market is unlike anything she's witnessed in oil markets.  Oil traders "see distressed or off-spec cargoes," but they "don't see defunct assets," she said in an interview.

Gotham's Airheaded Carbon Law.  On Earth Day 2019, then-mayor Bill de Blasio signed the Climate Mobilization Act (Local Law 97) into law, heralding a Green New Deal for New York City.  The measure, committing the city to full carbon neutrality by 2050, represented the most aggressive urban climate-change plan in America.  Its centerpiece provision seeks to cut greenhouse-gas emissions from buildings, a source that constitutes two-thirds of the city's total emissions.  "In one of the great coastal cities of the world, there's a lot we have to do to make sure that life in 2050 will be livable," preached the mayor.  Local Law 97 won't make life in New York more livable in 2050.  On the contrary, starting next year, when its harsh penalties take effect, the law will further raise costs in the world's priciest housing market, force middle-income New Yorkers to subsidize green industries, and — by discouraging newcomers and driving away existing residents — displace emissions to less carbon-efficient jurisdictions.  In exchange for nearly three decades of New York sacrifices, LL97 will reduce global climate emissions by an infinitesimal amount.

Africa Climate Summit Hears Calls for Carbon Tax on World's Richest Nations.  Economic success must have a price and a global tax on carbon emissions can help redress Africa's chronically low Gross Domestic Product (GDP) rates, Kenya's President William Ruto declared Tuesday as the first Africa Climate Summit began.  He pointed to "climate change" driven by successful, dynamic economies in Europe, North America and Asia, as a drain on Africa's economic progress and it's time to have a global conversation about a carbon tax on the world's richest nations.  "Those who produce the garbage refuse to pay their bills," Ruto said, according to AP, echoing others who have also called for carbon tax impositions.

Why wind and solar power are running out of juice.  Alternative energy madness — and that's what it is — has had its biggest impact in California.  But New York and New Jersey have adopted most of that state's mandates.  Sales of new internal combustion vehicles will be banned beginning in 2035 in the states.  All of the electricity sold to retail consumers will have to be "zero-emissions."  Homeowners and building owners will be forced to replace gas- and oil-burning space and water heaters with electric heat pumps.  And, gas stoves will be regulated out of existence.  New York also will soon implement another California import: a carbon "cap-and-invest" program, which will impose a tax on fossil fuels sold by wholesalers and utilities.  The billions of dollars collected each year will provide a green slush fund, allowing the governor and legislators to hand out money to their politically favored cronies, as has so often been the case in the past.  Washington State began its "cap-and-invest" program in January of this year.  Modeled after California's, Governor Jay Inslee promised the program would have "minimal impact, if any.  We are talking about pennies."  Instead, the program has raised gasoline prices — almost 50 cents per gallon so far this year.

Carbon Offsets from Forest Conservation Projects have Been Overestimated.  A new analysis reveals that emission reductions from forest conservation projects — sometimes used to "offset" carbon emissions from other sources — have been overestimated.  According to a new study, many REDD+ (Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) programs have not significantly reduced deforestation, and those that did had benefits substantially lower than have been claimed.

Republicans Are Trying To Sneak A Carbon Tax Through The Back Door.  Fresh from the looming trainwreck that is the deal to increase the debt limit, four Republican senators recently signed onto legislation that would require the Biden administration to study the feasibility of ... a national tax on energy that would be collected at the gas pump and in electricity and heating bills.  The four Republicans — Senator Cramer (R-ND), Senator Cassidy (R-LA), Senator Graham (R-SC), and Senator Murkowski (R-AK) — joined five Democrats in asking Team Biden to determine the amount of energy used — and carbon dioxide emitted — by various countries in the production of essentially everything that makes modern life possible (aluminum, iron, steel, plastic, crude oil, batteries, etc.).  Eventually, the information would be used to impose tariffs on those countries who — in the view of the Biden crew — emitted too much carbon dioxide while creating those products.

South Dakota Farmers Face Carbon-capture Land Theft.  Farmers in South Dakota are facing egregious intimidation tactics by a private company that wants to use eminent domain to confiscate valuable farmland for carbon-capture pipelines.  Summit Carbon Solutions requested a restraining order against Brown County farmer Jerad Bossly.  The company claims he threatened the lives of its representatives who showed up unannounced to survey his property, a farm that has been in his family for four generations.  He told The New American that when they arrived, he was about 12 miles away, working in a field.  His wife was home, recovering from gallbladder surgery, and was taking a shower when the Summit surveyors knocked at her door.  They entered the house, but finding no one there, they proceeded to an outbuilding where one of them walked in.

The Editor says...
"Carbon capture pipelines" are one of the dumbest ideas ever proposed.  First of all, it's carbon dioxide they're after, not carbon.  Second, there's no real reason to remove carbon dioxide from the air, because that's what trees and grass do.  CO2 is not a pollutant.  Third, nobody will never be able to remove CO2 from the air as fast as China and India are putting it into the air.  But most of all, if CO2 must be extracted from the atmosphere, that can be done anywhere in the world.  If CO2 must be sequestered, extract it from the air at the same place it is to be stored.  No CO2 pipelines are necessary.

Battle Looms Among New York Democrats Over High Cost of Green Energy Plans.  The stage is set for a battle royale within the New York Democratic Party over climate policy.  Governor Hochul has suddenly realized that the cost of the state's planned emission reduction scheme will be "extraordinary," and is challenging her own party to make the climate law less damaging to New Yorkers' pocketbooks.  Will the left wing of her party go along?  In this year's budget negotiations Ms. Hochul and the legislature agreed to a cap-and-invest program as recommended by the state's Climate Action Council.  Cap-and-invest programs put an annual limit on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions New York businesses collectively emit, with the amount declining each year.  Businesses will have to bid for an ever-decreasing number of permits and naturally will pass the costs on to consumers by raising prices.

The Great Carbon Capture Scam.  The modern elite turn up their noses at the legions of the unenlightened, with their gas-guzzling trucks and single-use plastics, surely the cause of all our problems.  If we could just get rid of all that CO2, climate change would be solved, right?  But net-zero is as nonsensical — and as evil — as the sham witch trials of the Middle Ages.  Here's why it's nonsense.  Capturing even half of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions would require capturing, transporting and storing 50 trillion cubic feet of gas annually, which is more than the 34 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the United States produces each year. [...] Even the most successful decarbonization does nothing to mitigate a changing climate.  So why are so many corporations buying into the sham?

Green New Deal Appeasement Leads Nowhere.  The sad story of North Dakota's largest coal-fired power plant, Coal Creek Station, should be an important lesson for anyone involved in carbon-based energy.  The prior owner of Coal Creek was Minnesota-based Great River Energy, which has come under growing pressure from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to rethink its coal dependency and was looking at its options, including mothballing the dependable plant that was producing reliable and affordable electricity for 1.7 million consumers in Minnesota and Wisconsin.  In 2021, Rainbow Energy, based in North Dakota, agreed to buy the plant.  The sale closed in mid-2022.  Rainbow Energy's plan to save Coal Creek Station included a large-scale carbon capture and storage project.  That plan should have been music to the ears of Green New Dealers.  Rainbow Energy's carbon sequestration plan had several significant technical hurdles and it was also going to be expensive.

Aussie Parliament Votes to Impose a Carbon [Dioxide] Tax.  There is an old proverb, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  The politicians currently in charge of Australia seem utterly clueless about how businesses make investment decisions.  The politicians in charge of Australia genuinely seem to believe punishing businesses with higher costs, new taxes and energy shortages (when the gas runs out, or the coal plants are decommissioned) will overcome their reluctance to invest in green technology.

Report: Carbon markets may hit family-scale farmers hard.  Family scale farmers in the Midwest may lose a lot to large agribusinesses through carbon markets, a new report says.  According to the report, "Agricultural Carbon Markets, Payments and Data: Big Ag's Latest Power Grab" by Open Markets Institute and Friends of the Earth, carbon markets programs will entrench chemical-intensive farming practices and increase corporate control of agriculture rather than reduce greenhouse gas emissions like politicians assert.  The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023's Growing Climate Solutions Act and the Sustainability Targets in Agriculture to Incentivize Natural Solutions Act, or SUSTAINS Act, support corporate carbon market programs.

Blue State Is Imposing A New Climate Policy And Gas Prices Are Already Skyrocketing.  Gas prices in the state of Washington have surged 40 cents since the new year, when a new law designed to penalize greenhouse gas emissions went into effect, according to the U.S.  Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA).  Washington businesses that produce more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year will either need to purchase allowances from the state's Department of Ecology at quarterly auctions, or trade for them with another business later, a practice commonly known as "cap-and-trade," Axios reported.  Since the law was implemented, the cost of gas in the state has skyrocketed from nearly $3.70 to just over $4.10, according to the EIA.

Claim: 90% of Verra Carbon Credits are worthless "Phantom Credits".  The Guardian has accused Verra Carbon, which sells credits to climate champions like Disney, Shell and Gucci, of not being worth the paper they are printed on.

Carbon Capture Is a Woke Fantasy.  Let's say you're brainstorming with some friends, trying to figure out how to cash in on the woke green wave.  It would probably not occur to the less boldly imaginative among us to propose 1) capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from agricultural areas covering five Midwestern states, 2) dehydrating and compressing it into liquid form at various capture locations, 3) transporting it via brand new pipelines, and 4) sequestering it into its permanent rocky tomb a mile beneath the surface, safe from climate change, nuclear war, and all but the most severe cosmic catastrophes.  As a bonus, liquid CO2 that survives burial has commercial industrial applications, like dry ice for food preservation or creating cloudy or foggy effects for Hollywood productions.  It's also used in fire extinguishers and to carbonate soft drinks, and it is even an important cooling agent for cryogenic freezing, as was done, for example, to Ted Williams and his son John Henry.  If you're wondering where the money comes from for these enterprises, the Department of Energy has announced many tens of millions of dollars in funding for research and implementation of carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects.

The Editor says...
What is the point of sequestering the CO2 below ground, if it is going to be turned into dry ice, which will release the CO2 back into the atmosphere?

'Social cost of carbon' racks and stacks human life around the globe.  There are several things that stand out about the composition of Democrats, but one trait remains the most recognized: they love to flap their jaws about how much Black lives matter, and the endless ways in which racism against the BIPOC community (Blacks, Indigenous, People of Color) permeates every facet of conservative, Republican, or pro-American philosophy.  Yet, shocker, it's just a massive load of malarkey.

The EU Plans To Impose Direct Carbon Taxes On Individuals.  Would you like to pay a carbon tax every time that you turn your heater on?  What about every time that you fill up your vehicle with gasoline?  Incredibly, this will soon be what life is like in Europe.  When I first heard that the EU plans to impose direct carbon taxes on individuals, I thought that it must be just another false Internet rumor.  But it isn't a false rumor.  News sources in Europe are reporting on it, and you can find information about this plan on the official website of the European Parliament.  I don't know why the corporate media in the United States is not talking about this, because this is an enormous story.

Satellites detect no real climate benefit from 10 years of forest carbon offsets in California.  Many of the companies promising "net-zero" emissions to protect the climate are relying on vast swaths of forests and what are known as carbon offsets to meet that goal.  On paper, carbon offsets appear to balance out a company's carbon emissions:  The company pays to protect trees, which absorb carbon dioxide from the air.  The company can then claim the absorbed carbon dioxide as an offset that reduces its net impact on the climate.  However, our new satellite analysis reveals what researchers have suspected for years:  Forest offsets might not actually be doing much for the climate.  When we looked at satellite tracking of carbon levels and logging activity in California forests, we found that carbon isn't increasing in the state's 37 offset project sites any more than in other areas, and timber companies aren't logging less than they did before.

Climate Change Professionals Now Provide Goals and Individual Allowances for Transportation, Food, and Clothing.  Carbon trading is the economic platform to generate government income.  That income then drives the carbon control financial mechanisms that will be deployed to the people.  At the end of the financial lane, we arrive at a world with Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).  The digital money provides instant control over spending and carbon resource allocation.  For many years the carbon allowances for individuals were esoteric goals as presented by those who assemble at various global COP meetings, Davos and the World Economic Forum.  However, with rapid advances in the energy control process, a result of the pandemic and Build Back Better exit, the control officers are now quantifying the specifics for the individual citizen.

John Kerry defies logic and creates new extortion scheme to reduce 'carbon footprint'.  There's one thing we can know about the government — the goal is always to collect money.  The purpose of carbon credits has always been to make it look like corporate and foreign entities are reducing their carbon footprint when all they are doing is buying a worthless piece of paper.  While the U.S. drowns under climate tyranny, China and India get to pretend they will start reducing their carbon emissions down the road.  The scheme to sell "carbon credits" is nothing more than a sleight of hand, satisfying calls for action from the uninformed members of the public, all while bringing in extra revenue.  Big Government and Big Business unite in the messaging, pretending corporations reduced emissions, but in reality, all they did was write a check — and people cheer as if the companies did something.  Currently, companies like Ford and General Motors make lots of money selling big, gas-guzzling trucks, but then turn around and buy surplus carbon credits from companies like Tesla — a transaction which has made Elon Musk very rich.

The Green Energy Profiteering Scam.  When governments limit drilling and mining for hydrocarbons in the ground, they manufacture scarcity.  When governments set strict limits for how much oil, coal, and natural gas may be used commercially, such energies' broad industrial usefulness ensures increasingly high demand.  When companies are forced to limit their "carbon footprint" or purchase "carbon credits" (ordinary rocks) from licensed "green" vendors, then the government's preferred business partners reap windfalls (and the government's treasury mushrooms, too).  When only certain wealthy individuals and companies can afford artificially expensive hydrocarbon energies as regular business costs, then budding entrepreneurs and small firms can no longer compete.  Those at the peak of society's wealth pyramid have a much easier time staying on top when the same natural sources of hydrocarbon energy once used to amass fortunes are now denied to those who would do the same.  A war on "fossil fuels" is a superb tactic for protecting private market share.

Legislation Within the Biden Green New Deal, Inflation Reduction Act, Has Created a Domestic Carbon Trading Platform.  Deep inside the legislative language of the falsely titled "inflation reduction act", aka The Green New Deal legislative vehicle constructed by lobbyists and passed by congress, people are now starting to realize a carbon-trading system was created.  Ultimately, a carbon trading system has always been the holy grail of the people who run the western financial system and want to create mechanisms to control wealth by using the 'climate change' agenda.  A carbon trading system is a very lucrative financial transfer mechanism with a potential scale to dwarf the derivative, Wall Street betting, market.  Secondarily, such a market would cement the climate change energy policy making it very difficult to reverse.  The new creation as explained by the Wall Street Journal, holds similarities to the EPA ethanol program.

The globalists' secret, under-the-radar way to control everything in your life.  In 2010, cap-and-trade needed congressional approval, and with the Chicago Climate Exchange having already been established and waiting in the wings, climate goals would have been implemented swiftly.  But that cap-and-trade effort failed, and the Chicago Climate Exchange was dissolved. [...] It is the implementation of the climate agenda that failed in 2010.  Cap-and-trade failed because it allowed the climate agenda too much exposure.  Taking America into a worldwide climate web required another decade of hushed conspiracy, and it ceases to be a conspiracy theory when it becomes reality.  It was naïve to think the Chicago Climate Exchange would be the Gores, Clintons, Obamas, and all their associates brokering the air over third-world countries so that industrialized nations could stay in business.  That may indeed be what they had in mind, but technology gives them so much more control today.

Progressive Carbon Taxes Roll Back Progress on Conservation.  Consider the American income tax system.  Not all income is taxed the same — recognizing differences in the nature of income, and in the policies favored regarding certain investment or business practices, means that income is divided into different categories.  The three chief categories are earned (active) income, portfolio income, and passive income. [...] Carbon taxes are use taxes — they are applied like flat (regressive) taxes, on all carbon use without distinction.  These are generally levied against fossil fuels like natural gas, fuel oil, or gasoline, but also on electricity use.  These are essentially "sin taxes" designed to curtail or reduce use of these commodities to "save the planet."  In truth these will do no such thing, and do little if anything to actually curtail consumption. [...] It is most definitely not equitable whatsoever.  In classic regressive fashion, progressives who tax these fuels shift the greatest burden onto those least able to bear it.

Wildfires are destroying California's forest carbon credit reserves-study.  Carbon offsets generated from forests to counteract future climate-warming emissions from California's big polluters are rapidly being depleted as trees are ravaged by wildfire and disease, new research published on Friday suggests.  One of California's key policy tools to combat climate change may be falling far short of its goals, the researchers said — raising questions about similar carbon offset programs around the world.

Supreme Court hands Biden admin major win for climate agenda.  The Supreme Court denied a petition from 10 Republican-led states Thursday requesting it to block a key Biden administration climate policy.  The decision ensures that President Joe Biden's so-called "social cost" of carbon policy — which assigns an estimated dollar value or cost to every ton of carbon emissions, according to the Government Accountability Office — can remain in place and be used for future federal permitting processes.  The high court rejected states' April 27 petition without giving a reason or listing which justices opposed it, according to a one-page filing published on the Supreme Court docket.

Canadian Multinational Executive Outlines Tech Initiative to Create Consumer Carbon Footprint Tracker.  It is important to remember the ultimate goal of the 'climate change' promotors (World Economic Forum) is not an energy system that changes the global climate.  The goal of the 'climate change' group is to create a carbon trading system; a new financial mechanism (a global tax program) to control human activity on a world-wide basis.  This system also needs a digital identity in order to work.  You cannot tax, or trade, things you cannot track.  As a result, there was always going to be a need for an individual tracking and monitoring system that would connect to the global digital identity and determine the carbon footprint.  The carbon taxing and trading system will be more financially lucrative than any stock exchange or monetary banking system.  It is the ultimate human control mechanism, and the preferred way to redistribute wealth under the guise of global equity.

The Absurdity of Using the Biosphere to Power the Technosphere.  There are two main types of biofuel, bioethanol and biodiesel.  The primary sources of bioethanol are corn and sugarcane; the primary source of biodiesel is palm oil.  In both cases, the spread of plantations to grow these crops has devastated some of the most fragile ecosystems on the planet.  From cane ethanol in Brazil, to palm oil in Indonesia, thousands of square miles of rainforest are lost every year to new plantations.  In 2016, for a few brief weeks, the world paid attention to the problems being caused by biofuel production.  That was when forest fires raged across Indonesia, sending a toxic haze across thousands of miles, making the air barely breathable for millions of people in Borneo, Java, Sumatra, Singapore and Malaysia.  The cause of these fires?  Land owners burning rainforests to make room for palm oil plantations.  The idea that achieving alleged "carbon neutrality" is a sufficient benefit to offset the replacement of rainforest with monocrop plantations of palm trees and sugar cane is ridiculous.

New MasterCard to monitor cardholders' carbon footprint, cap purchases.  Auto manufacturers, companies, and governments increasingly have the power to track our every movement and prevent us from driving our own vehicles.  Supposedly democratic governments can lock us down or even freeze our bank accounts on a whim (see also "Canada" and "Trudeau").  In this increasingly dystopian world, large multinational corporations are working hand-in-glove with said governments to reshape society in their preferred image, [...].  To that end, MasterCard and the United Nations have joined forces to produce a credit card that measures your carbon footprint.  Once you reach your "limit," you can't purchase anything else... at least with that card.

Mastercard Introducing Its Own Social Credit System In The Name Of Climate Change.  MasterCard and the United Nations have joined forces to produce a credit card that measures your carbon footprint, once you reach your limit you can no longer purchase.  This seems to be based on China's social credit score system where you are denied services and entrance to certain venues based on your behavior and purchases.  [Video clip]

Biden administration resumes plans for oil and gas drilling on federal land.  The Biden administration is finally moving forward with re-starting the leasing of federal land for oil and gas drilling.  The Interior Department made the announcement after a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the administration last week.  The "social cost of carbon" value is factored in measuring the cost of climate change in the drilling process.  The court ruled that the administration can use a higher calculation value of per ton of greenhouse gases emitted in the federal decision-making process.  When Joe Biden ran for president, he promised to stop federal drilling auctions, but that effort has caused Republican-led states to file court challenges.  Since he took office in January 2021, Biden's administration has provided a string of stops and starts to the federal oil and gas leasing program.  Biden wants a return to the Obama-era value of $50 per ton of greenhouse gases emitted, while Republicans prefer the calculation used during the previous administration of $10 per ton.

The Editor says...
Any price on carbon dioxide emissions is completely arbitrary, and could easily go negative someday soon when enough people realize that more CO2 in the air is a good thing.  It's nothing but a tax.  It's a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, which are not only beneficial, but almost completely unavoidable.

NPR has figured out that most companies are faking their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint.  Politicians, CEOs, scientists, and others fly in private jets to endless gab-fests where they pretend to care about their carbon footprint.  Now NPR has put written an article about how big companies are essentially cooking the books.  They aren't actually reducing their carbon footprint.  Nope — they are purchasing worthless carbon offsets to pretend they are complying.  Twenty-four out of 25 companies, including Walmart and Amazon, write checks to buy carbon offsets to fake compliance.  Why do these companies pretend they are actively reducing their carbon footprint?  So leftists, including journalists, will get off their backs.

CEI's New Anti-Carbon Tax Study.  CEI has a new study out this week titled, "Why Carbon Taxes Are Anti-Growth, Anti-Consumer, and Politically Dangerous for Conservatives."  It develops the following points.  A tax on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, contrary to its advocates' claims, is a market rigging policy, not a free market one.  Its purpose is to drive investment into renewable energy sources not by lowering their cost or improving their performance but by handicapping competing technologies.  Carbon taxes would inflict substantial losses on GDP, job creation, and household income.  Even the most aggressive CO2 tax would have negligible climate effects, and costs would far exceed benefits.

Multi-state carbon tax scheme on gasoline collapses.  A dozen states have been considering a tax on carbon dioxide emissions from gasoline and diesel fuel, starting at about 10 cents a gallon and rising to perhaps 40 cents over time.  The idea was higher prices would discourage driving, and the revenue would be used to promote electric vehicles (EV) and public transportation.  Last December, only three state governors signed onto this project (Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts).  This week, two of the three state governors (Connecticut and Massachusetts) abandoned the project, effectively ending it.

Why Bad Climate Legislation Is Worse Than No Climate Legislation.  Progressives are angry that moderate Democratic Senator Joe Machin has reportedly opposed the inclusion of climate-related legislation in President Joe Biden's budget "This is absolutely the most important climate policy in the package," said Leah Stokes, a Canadian political scientist who helped write the legislation.  "We fundamentally need it to meet our climate goals.  That's just the reality."  But that's not the reality.  The "Clean Energy Performance Program" is not needed to meet climate goals, and might actually undermine them.  Consider Waxman-Markey.  That's the name of the "cap and trade" climate legislation that passed the House but failed in the Senate in 2010.  It had a climate goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by the year 2020.  Instead, the U.S. reduced its emissions by 22 percent.  Had cap and trade legislation passed in the Senate, emissions would have declined less than 22 percent, because Waxman-Markey so heavily subsidized coal and other fossil fuels.

Democrats' Climate Change Predictions May Not Materialize, but Their Taxes Undoubtedly Will.  Behold the Democrats and their "imminent doom" climate change predictions.  It is quite possible there has never been a more error-prone business than the climate alarmism prediction business.  [Link to another article]  As the article demonstrates, Big Media has long been doing its part.  It has spent the last half-century jamming climate alarmism down our throats.  Trying to have us forget about the last failed prediction — by immediately pivoting to the next failed prediction. [...] This fake story on a fake poll on real taxes imposed in the name of fake "climate change" follows immediately on the heels of Democrats proposing real taxes in the name of fake "climate change."  Why should a half-century of climate alarmism being very, very wrong get in the way of Democrats really taxing [...] us in the name of climate alarmism?

Climate Regulations Reach Critical Turning Point in Pennsylvania.  If an independent panel votes down proposed regulations to limit carbon dioxide emissions in Pennsylvania, state lawmakers will have added leverage to prevent Gov. Tom Wolf from joining a multistate initiative to address climate change.  However, if the panel approves the regulations in a meeting Wednesday, Wolf's executive agencies likely would gain latitude to move forward with plans to implement cap-and-trade rules in step with 11 other states in New England and the mid-Atlantic that are part of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  Either way, September is shaping up to be a critical month for the future of carbon taxes and other anti-carbon measures that have drawn bipartisan opposition in the Pennsylvania General Assembly.  Since the commonwealth is No. 2 only to Texas in oil and gas production, according to government figures, the final decision on the cap-and-trade proposals will have significant ramifications across state lines.

Pennsylvania DEP releases new carbon cap and trade modeling.  State environmental officials released new carbon cap and trade modeling this week as Pennsylvania's scheduled entry into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative draws nearer.  The Department of Environmental Protection provided the latest data to the Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee this week during the first of a handful of scheduled meetings with public advisory boards invested in the final regulations anticipated for adoption later this year.  Allen Landis, executive director of the DEP's Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority, said Monday that key take-aways of the updated modeling shows consumer electricity prices will increase between 84 cents and $2.70 over the next decade as a result of RGGI participation.

Climate bill would tax carbon [dioxide] in New York.  While the federal government and many states have been sluggish in taking definitive action against climate change, New York has offered a range of examples of what a state can do by itself.  The Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, a landmark 2019 law, mandated that the state reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 compared to 1990 levels.  The Climate Action Council of experts established by the legislation is expected to work out all the details in a plan due by the end of 2022.  And offshore wind and solar energy projects got a boost in the recently passed state budget.  None of these efforts, however, definitively answer a multibillion-dollar question:  How is the state going to pay for all of that?

The Editor says...
Who picked the 85 percent figure, and the 1990 starting point?  How do they know how much carbon dioxide is optimal?  What trade-offs were considered?

Canada:
Liberals will defend carbon tax at the polls after Supreme Court win:  Environment minister.  The Liberal government has successfully defended its carbon tax in the courts, and it will defend it at the polls too, says the federal environment minister.  In a 6-3 decision on Thursday [3/25/2021], the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the federal carbon pricing regime is constitutional.  The decision means the government can move forward with its plan to ensure every province and territory has a price on carbon emissions, despite strong objections from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Ontario.  Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson called it "an important step forward in the fight against climate change," and says it will likely be a key issue in the next federal election.

Biden sued by 12 states over executive order.  Biden has just been sued by 12 states over his trillion dollar executive order on climate change: [...] If there's any thing Democrats love it's an "enormous expansion of federal regulatory power", and they use it to try and kill industries that they don't like, like the coal industry.  I'm betting that's what they intend to do here, by forcing companies to pay tons of money for expensive filtering technology to 'scrub' greenhouse gasses from their emissions.  These 'social costs', whatever their eventual impact, could very well bankrupt companies — unless they are stopped.

Why 'Social Cost of Carbon' Is Most Useless Number You've Never Heard Of.  On his very first day in office, President Joe Biden issued an executive order resurrecting the Obama-era social cost of carbon, intended to quantify the economic impact of climate change.  The administration on Feb. 26 issued an interim estimate reporting that these damages are approximately $51 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions.  Dubbed by some as "the most important number you've never heard of," the social cost of carbon is defined as the economic damages associated with a ton of carbon dioxide emissions across a particular time horizon.  That metric, relied upon heavily by the Obama administration, has been used as the basis for regulatory policy in the energy sector of the economy.

Climate Change Initiative Would Raise Costs Without Environmental Benefits, Critics Say.  If Pennsylvania joins a multistate climate change agreement that restricts carbon dioxide emissions, energy prices will increase and jobs will be lost in response to new regulatory burdens that won't produce any environmental or health benefits, according to public policy analysts who took part in virtual public hearings earlier this month.  The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, also known as RGGI, is a "cap and trade" agreement among 10 New England and Mid-Atlantic states that requires power plants to purchase permits to emit CO2.  The participating states set a regional cap on the amount of emissions that is permissible.  But power plants can purchase and trade emissions allowances during quarterly auctions.  Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, took executive action in October 2019 directing his Department of Environmental Protection to draft regulations so the commonwealth could join RGGI.  This past September, the Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board voted to approve regulations in step with what Wolf proposed.

Sorry Virtue Signalers, A Carbon Tax Would Have No Impact on Climate.  Many of America's corporate and academic elites have united to advocate for a carbon tax.  With all the money and brains behind the self-anointed "Climate Leadership Council" (CLC) you would think it would be able to figure out — the math is simple — that a carbon tax will have no effect on climate.  There are reasons they haven't.  The CLC is undertaking a media and lobbying blitz to push for a $40-per-ton national carbon tax, escalating by 5% per year.  The CLC calls this "the most cost-effective, environmentally ambitious and politically viable climate solution."  A $40 carbon tax would immediately raise the price of oil by $17, or to about 133% of today's prices.  We're told not to fret the price increase because the government will remit the tax back to taxpayers as a "carbon dividend."

See you at the Supreme Court, Ottawa says after Alberta demands carbon tax be killed.  On Monday [2/24/2020], Alberta's top court declared the federal carbon tax unconstitutional.  On Wednesday, the province's justice minister demanded that the federal government remove the levy and reimburse what Albertans have already paid.  On Friday, the federal government responded:  See you in court.  "The Supreme Court will determine if a federal price on carbon pollution is constitutional, a decision that will answer this important question for our country as a whole," Federal Justice Minister David Lametti wrote to Alberta Justice Minister Doug Schweitzer, in a letter obtained by CBC News.

Oregon House GOP joins Senate Republicans' walk out in protest of cap-and-trade.  House Republicans walked out of the Oregon Capitol on Tuesday, joining their Senate colleagues in protest of a greenhouse gas emissions cap-and-trade bill.  "Oregon House Republicans are taking a stand, with working families, in opposing cap and trade and this rigged process," House Republican Leader Christine Drazan, R-Canby, said in a statement.  House Speaker Tina Kotek, D-Portland, said she has and will continue to make an effort toward compromise, but that isn't possible if Republicans are not in the Capitol.

Attack of the green carbon counters as business world reduced to tallying emissions.  Locked down rail transportation is just the latest blow to a Canadian economy that seems to be moving backward.  Canadians who previously marvelled at their ability to work the land, build enterprise, lay rail and produce industrial and commercial wealth are now being told that the only measure that matters is whether their work and enterprise add or subtract from the nation's carbon count and improve or jeopardize Canada's ability to meet its international carbon emissions targets.  From pipeline to electricity production to industrial development in Atlantic Canada, the business world has been reduced to counting carbon emissions.  Forget revenue estimates, profit projections, innovation, market breakthroughs, lower cost structures, new technologies, better jobs, future economic growth prospects and a richer country.

Transportation and Climate Initiative:  Caution lights are flashing.  The Transportation and Climate Initiative (TCI) has generated lots of buzz recently.  Understandably so. [...] TCI seeks to reduce carbon emissions from cars, trucks, buses and other modes of transportation by creating a cap and invest program.  The program would cap carbon emissions and sell allowances to fuel suppliers, called regulated entities.  Regulated entities include large storage tanks that hold fuel before the tankers deliver it to your local gas station.  The cap would decrease over time, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by lowering the total amount of emissions allowed and encouraging businesses and consumers to switch to alternative fuel options as the price of fossil fuels increases.  The model for TCI is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI).  RGGI is a cap-and-invest program begun over a decade ago aimed at electricity generators, the largest source of carbon emissions at the time.  Now, the largest source of carbon emissions is the transportation sector.

UN climate talks face collapse after world leaders cannot agree on compensation deal for poorer nations.  A UN climate summit in Madrid risked collapsing Saturday after all-night negotiations between countries left them more divided than ever over on how to fight global warming and pay for its ravages.  Diplomats from rich nations, emerging giants and the world's poorest countries — each for their own reasons — found fault in a draft agreement put forward by host Chile in a botched attempt to strike common ground.

Pennsylvania Governor's Cap-and-Trade Scheme is All Pain and No Gain.  Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf's executive order imposing a cap-and-trade system on carbon dioxide emissions is easily the most harmful act he has taken in his two terms as chief executive of the state.  As one of the most liberal governors in the nation, his progressive impulses have, until now, been constrained by the Republican-controlled House and Senate.  His move to bring the Keystone State into the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) and impose an economically crippling carbon dioxide credit trading scheme is an attempted end-run around the legislature, implementing a de facto energy tax on fossil fuels without legislative approval.

You Know, Carbon Credits Don't Actually Offset Your Carbon Footprint.  For everyone who likes to fly on airplanes or drive cars but feels guilty about the carbon footprint, there is a lovely way to assuage your guilt without making any actual lifestyle changes: buying carbon credits.  Many companies are selling such credits to consumers, with the vague promise of offsetting your carbon footprint.  However, no one can actionably explain how paying to offset your carbon footprint actually counters the alleged extreme harm caused by everyday life.  Nevertheless, one of the first things on many of these businesses' websites is asking for money, either through purchasing a carbon credit or a donation.  In looking closely at the companies that sell carbon credits, it becomes clear they have found a clever way to profit off guilt over climate change.  One such company, Cool Effect, solicits $129.98 right off the bat when you click on their website, to offset a year's worth of carbon usage.

Another Round of Energy Pork.  The House has produced a draft piece of "green energy" legislation that would yield massive costs, massive economic distortions and massive environmental damage.  Rep. Mike Thompson, D-California, justifies his "Growing Renewable Energy and Efficiency Now (GREEN) Act," as "a comprehensive approach to addressing the threat of climate change through our tax code."  Put aside the fact that there is no evidence — none — that there is a climate "crisis" to be addressed.  Instead, nowhere have the supporters presented an actual estimate of the "climate" effect of this ostensible effort to achieve "net zero" U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050.  Applying the climate model used by the Environmental Protection Agency, under assumptions that exaggerate the effects of reduced emissions:  0.17 degree Celsius by 2100.  Under assumptions more consistent with the recent scientific literature:  0.08 degree Celsius.

The Editor says...
Before any of this effort is undertaken, it should first be proven that the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is harmful, that man-made sources of CO2 outweigh natural sources, and that the greenhouse effect is approaching a "thermal runaway" condition.  None of these has been proven.  Thus it is apparent that the government is in a big rush to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

Reality check: [The] Drive for rapid 'net zero' emissions [is] a guaranteed loser.  [Scroll down]  We just have to look to New Zealand, the only country to have actually made an estimate of the cost of achieving carbon neutrality.  New Zealand's prime minister, Jacinda Ardern, received plaudits this year for passing legislation designed to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.  To her credit, her government asked a respected economics institute to estimate the cost.  This revealed that getting to 50 percent below 1990-levels in 2050 would cost at least 5 percent of GDP annually by 2050.  Why so expensive?  For the same reason it is expensive anywhere:  Weaning economies off fossil fuels and onto pricier, less efficient forms of energy reduces growth and prosperity.  The impact quickly adds up.  For New Zealand, the cost is similar to today's entire expenditure on socialized education and health care.

Chile and the revolt against climate-change policies.  Add Chile to the growing list of countries whose governments are suffering a backlash as average people, tired of elites forcing costly climate policies down their throats, take to the streets to protest higher energy costs.  Although, undoubtedly, many issues stoked the protests on the streets across Chile, the Washington Post rightly notes that what finally drove the public to take to the streets was the government's decision to curry favor with international agencies by pushing expensive energy restrictions to fight purported climate change.  As the Post states, "[T]he catalyst [behind the protests] was a proposal to raise public transport fares and energy bills.  There is ample evidence from across the world that these will incite rebellion like nothing else — a point that those who hope to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions via a carbon tax should bear in mind."

Squeaky clean, huh?  Obama forgot about these 25 scandals.  [#23] Cap & Trade:  When in doubt, bypass Congress.  In April 2010, the U.S. Senate rejected the "cap-and-trade" bill, which created a carbon-tax system and amplified federal power over the energy industry.  Nonetheless, Obama's EPA administrator, Lisa Jackson, declared carbon dioxide a pollutant.  Before Congress had voted on the matter, on Dec. 7, 2009, Jackson signed an "endangerment finding" labeling CO2 and five other gases — methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6 ) — threats to human health.  That step provided the EPA with the authority to regulate the gases in the absence of congressional approval, and the federal agency rolled out new rules.

Climate and the Money Trail.  Several years before Al Gore and others decided to use a young Swedish school girl to be the poster child for climate action urgency, or in the USA the call of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a complete reorganization of the economy around a Green New Deal, the giants of finance began devising schemes for steering hundreds of billions of future funds to investments in often worthless "climate" companies.  In 2013 after years of careful preparation, a Swedish real estate company, Vasakronan, issued the first corporate "Green Bond."  They were followed by others including Apple, SNCF and the major French bank Credit Agricole.  In November 2013 Elon Musk's problem-riddled Tesla Energy issued the first solar asset-backed security.  Today according to something called the Climate Bonds Initiative, more than $500 billion in such Green Bonds are outstanding.

Democrats Hand Trump Another Issue.  During last week's climate town halls, several Democratic presidential candidates endorsed a carbon tax.  It's an idea Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton shied away from.

Dems Endorse Huge Tax Hikes on Lower- and Middle-Income American Taxpayers.  CNN hosted a discussion yesterday [9/4/2019] with the major Democratic candidates about global warming ... oops, I mean climate change ... no, sorry, the preferred term is now "climate crisis."  Shockingly, something newsworthy actually happened.  As reported by The New York Times, most of the candidates expressed support for a big carbon tax that would be especially painful for poor and middle-class taxpayers.

The climate change crisis racket.  [Scroll down]  Alas, perhaps there's another answer to Democrats' incessant crying about climate change.  It all comes down to the green — green cash money that is.  Carbon credits are tradable certificates.  Each one allows the holder to emit one ton of carbon emissions.  This has created an extremely valuable market out of the polluted thin air for buying and selling these carbon credit permits.  The CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) allows businesses, mutual funds, and other investment groups to trade these carbon credits and offsets like any other stock.  Interestingly, the public company that runs the CCX also runs the European Climate Exchange.  More importantly, it's not having any effect on actual total carbon emissions.

Taxes do not generate money.
Senators to unveil carbon tax bill to generate $2.5 trillion in 10 years.  Two Democratic U.S. senators will unveil a bill on Thursday [7/25/2019] to curb climate change by slapping a fee on oil, natural gas and coal and delivering most of the revenues to low- and middle-income Americans, one of the lawmakers said. 

The Editor says...
No legislation of any kind will stop the climate from changing.

Resources for Making the Case against Carbon Taxes.  A carbon tax will not be pro-growth.  Most carbon tax scenarios reduce GDP for the entirety of the 22-year forecast period.  Better than break-even economic performance may not be possible unless revenue is devoted entirely to corporate tax relief.  A lump-sum rebate results in lost GDP equal to between $3.76 trillion and $5.92 trillion over the 22-year forecast period.  A carbon tax is not an efficient revenue raiser for tax reform.  Using standard scoring conventions, a carbon tax is likely to only produce net revenue available for tax reform of 32 cents on the dollar.

Logging Trucks And Tractors Descend On Oregon Capitol To Protest Cap-And-Trade Bill.  Semi-trucks and tractors surrounded the Oregon Capitol Thursday to show support for GOP lawmakers who agreed Friday to return for weekend sessions.  The protest against climate legislation was held as most of the state senators stayed in hiding, despite Democrats' assurances that they do not have the votes to pass HB 2020, the cap-and-trade bill that Republicans walked out on June 20, the Associated Press reported.

Mitt Romney Open To Considering "Carbon Tax" Bill.  Let's be clear about a few things regarding "carbon taxes".  First, the system of taxing carbon emissions, also known as "cap-n-trade", has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.  Second a "carbon tax" is the holy grail for the totalitarian globalist world view.  The concept of a tax on carbon emissions was developed inside the same financial network of multinational monetary interests that control the current global trade system.  Powerful financial interests directly connected to The World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO), together with global banking interests connected to Wall Street and all international stock-trading systems, were the first to put together a "cap-n-trade" proposal after the financial collapse in 2008.

How to lose the unloseable election: be anti-coal.  The climate vote evaporated.  Australians want the Adani coal mine built and running.  They also aren't willing to vote for climate change action, even in some of the wealthiest inner city seats.  All the badly designed polls supporting "climate action" [misled] the pundits.  If only they had read skeptical blogs, they'd have known that people can tick the believer box free of charge, but when it costs, climate action always ranks at the bottom, and no one wants to pay for it themselves, not even $10 a month.  If people don't even pay for carbon flight offsets or donate to environmental causes, they certainly won't consciously vote to lose jobs and spend billions.  Ultimately, even in 2019, more than half of all Australians don't buy the UN climate scare.  It was only 2017 when 60% of Australians said they were OK with dumping Paris if they could cut their electricity bills.

Environmental Hypocrites of the Left.  [Scroll down]  That gap between the Left's loud talk and their unwillingness to make personal sacrifices is not an accident.  It is now part of their dogma. [...] Only the sacrifices made by others will make a difference.  This dichotomy is evident in my home state of Washington, where politicians pride themselves on showing "leadership" in the effort to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. [...] Ironically, though, many who demand action do little of it themselves.  For only a few dollars a month, anyone who supports renewable energy can already buy renewable-energy credits (RECs), ensuring that there is enough renewable energy on the grid to cover their personal use.  I asked one politician pushing for the 100 percent-renewable requirement if she buys RECs to cover her environmental impact.  She admitted that she does not and has no plans to do so.

Hawaii Swamped by Carbon-Dioxide Tax Bills.  Multiple carbon-dioxide tax bills are under consideration in the current session of the Hawaii State Legislature.  The purpose of a so-called carbon tax is to decrease carbon-dioxide emissions by levying a tax based on the amount of emissions produced.  Hawaiians already pay more for electricity than residents of any other state, at 26.05 cents per kilowatt hour, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports.  Hawaii's retail electric rates are 148 percent higher than the national average.

The Economic Argument for a Carbon Tax Is a Work of Fiction.  Regarding the regulations, such as the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), CAFE mandates requiring ever higher fuel efficiency in our vehicles, and the so-called "Clean Power Plan" which punishes coal-fired power plants:  Yes, I agree wholeheartedly that these are absurdly inefficient regulations, even if we stipulate the basic climate change externality framework.  But these economists should ask themselves:  If these regulations are so inefficient, then why do they exist in the first place?  The answer, of course, is that they are there for political reasons, not because they passed a legitimate cost-benefit test.

The carbon tax — a wolf in green clothing.  For the wealthy, a carbon tax would be an inconvenience.  For the rest of us, a carbon tax is a catastrophe.  How very revealing it is that the same political group which loudly proclaims their concern for the poor and disadvantaged by promoting more of their government provided compassion, is willing to sacrifice those same souls on the green altar of carbon neutrality.  Besides, this is not an argument about climate change, this is an argument about pure economics.  Whatever you believe about the effects of CO2 emissions, this tax is simply wrong.  So, yes, this proposed tax is not a symbol of sound environmental stewardship.  It is a symbol of the callous cluelessness of its proudly self-righteous proponents.

Flaws with a "Green New Deal," Part 2 of 2.  Even on standard Keynesian terms, it makes no sense to embark on a $1 trillion government spending program with official unemployment below 4 percent and the Fed raising rates to rein in price inflation.  Worse, historically the actual New Deal under Franklin Roosevelt prolonged the nation's suffering, making the Great Depression linger for a decade. [...] The various proposals would waste enormous sums of money in pursuit of impossible goals that would raise energy prices and hurt consumers.  Even if one believes that carbon dioxide emissions constitute a "negative externality," the measures in the proposed Green New Deal would achieve emission reductions at a much higher cost than necessary.  And we see once again that the progressive Left does not think a simple "price on carbon" is enough to achieve their agenda.  Conservatives and libertarians should therefore be under no illusions when the idea of a "carbon tax deal" is floated.

2018 Saw a Global Revolt Against Climate Change Policies.  Despite increasingly apocalyptic warnings from U.N. officials, 2018 has seen a number of high-profile defeats for policies aimed at fighting global warming.  Politicians and voters pushed back at attempts to raise energy prices as part of the climate crusade.  It started in June with election of Ontario Premier Doug Ford.  Ontario residents overwhelmingly voted Ford's conservative coalition into power on a platform that included axing the Canadian province's cap-and-trade program.

If we all pay this tax, the weather will never change again!  And if you believe that, you should never vote.
The Proposed 'Climate Damages Tax' Is Dumb and Dangerous.  Among the myriad dumb ideas put forth by climate change activists, arguably the dumbest is the Climate Damages Tax (CDT) promoted last week at the United Nations climate conference in Poland.  No matter what one believes about the causes of climate change, the CDT would have no impact on climate and would simply damage domestic fossil fuel companies.  According to the Climate Damages Tax report launched during the UN climate conference by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Practical Action, and others in the "social justice" arena, the CDT would be a new charge imposed on coal, oil, and natural gas producers to account for the damage their products supposedly cause to the climate and to the world's most vulnerable populations.

Carbon prices — Set to KILL California economy, families and businesses.  If you are staying in California be prepared for a government policy to skyrocket the cost of doing business in this Third World State.  The current price is $14.65.  "As required by legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2017 extending the state's cap-and-trade program through 2030, the state Air Resources Board has proposed a new ceiling on the price of carbon credits, per ton, at auction.  Until now, California has not set a price at the high end.  Regulators have proposed a ceiling of $61.25, which, if approved, would take effect in 2021. [...] That is right — they want to increase the price by four times.  But, they say it will never happen.  Social Security started at 1%.  They wanted a maximum of 2%, but told it could never get that high — today it is closer to 15%.

Climate Interventionists Won't Stop with a Carbon Tax.  Say what you will about the climate policy discussions at Vox, but they don't mince words.  They come right out and tell you how much they want to micromanage every last detail of your life.  Vox's resident expert, David Roberts, recently interviewed policy wonk and author Hal Harvey, to discuss which areas of society government should regulate in the name of slowing climate change.  Everything was on the table — ranging from building codes to auto fuel efficiency to diet to family size — with the only debate being over the relative results from the various interventions.  Among other results, this peek into the interventionist mentality should serve as a wake-up call for the few writers who keep charmingly calling on libertarians and conservatives to strike a carbon tax deal with progressive leftists.  As the Roberts/Harvey discussion says quite plainly, a carbon tax is just one arrow in the quiver of those championing aggressive government intervention to slow climate change.

France's Macron learns the hard way: green taxes carry political risks.  When Emmanuel Macron rose to power, he put the environment at the heart of his agenda.  Eighteen months later, anger over those policies has stoked protests that are a huge challenge for the French president.

France May Be Ahead Of The Curve When It Comes To Global Warming Policy Backlash.  The French love a good riot, but the political backlash to the French government's plans to increase carbon taxes on fuel could be a harbinger of what's to come in countries committed to the global warming crusade.  Calls from the United Nations and environmentalists for the world to "do more" to stem projected global warming might run up against economic realities.  But France could be a taste of what's to come if more governments try to tax carbon dioxide emissions.

Climate scientist hit with campus 'inquisition' over post opposing carbon tax.  University of Washington atmospheric scientist Cliff Mass has been called plenty of names, including climate "denier," but it wasn't until he came out against the state's proposed carbon tax last month that he was accused of being a racist.  Since then, Mr. Mass said he has been upbraided by the university's diversity dean and subjected to a faculty "inquisition," events that have stoked alarm about the threat posed by campus climate-change activism to academic freedom.

France 'yellow vest' protests should be a lesson for green activists in the US.  The proximate cause of what's being coined the "Yellow Vest" protests may shock you:  climate taxes.  French President Emanuel Macron has fully bought into the elite, environmentalist position that governments must do everything, including implementing regressive taxes on the most disadvantaged, to restrict so-called dirty transportation like driving.  That's why Macron championed an "eco-tax" that would raise fuel prices in order to discourage driving.  Diesel fuel was set to rise by 24 cents a gallon and gasoline by 12 cents a gallon in January.  That may not seem like a lot, but the French are already paying exorbitant fuel prices, roughly $6.57 per gallon in U.S. dollars.  You can see why the French people would say enough is enough.

Paris Is Burning Over Climate Change Taxes — Is America Next?  The City of Lights, Paris, has been illuminated in recent days by cars set alight by thousands of protesting "Yellow Vests" — largely middle class people who earn their living by driving or who commute to get to work.  The cause of their ire is a scheduled 25 cents-per-gallon increase in gas taxes, and about 10 cents on diesel, to fight climate change.  French President Macron, deeply unpopular, just reversed course on the new green tax — Parisians are already paying about $7.06 per gallon for gasoline, almost half of that in taxes.  If Paris streets burned over a proposed 25 cents per gallon climate change tax, imagine the global conflagration over a $49 per gallon tax.

Trump Says Paris Climate Accord 'Isn't Working Out So Well For Paris' As Riots Engulf The City.  For weeks, tens of thousands of French have risen up to oppose planned hikes to carbon taxes on diesel and gasoline as part of Macron's climate agenda.  Carbon taxes provided the spark for what's morphed into protests against Macron's attempts to revamp France's economy.

France, Taxes, and Riots.  Maybe there's hope for France.  When Greeks, Belgians, and the Brits riot, it's because they want more handouts.  The French, by contrast, have taken to the streets to protest higher taxes. [...] I joked years ago that the French national sport is taxation.  It's so bad that thousand of taxpayers have faced effective tax rates of more than 100 percent.

France Suspends Climate Tax Following Weeks Of Anti-Macron Protests.  French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe announced Tuesday that the government is suspending a gas tax that roiled the country in widespread violence and chaos.  The government proposed a slew of new carbon taxes designed to wean consumers off fossil fuels and transfer to electric cars.  The price hikes, however, triggered a wave of unrest unseen in recent decades.  Tuesday's announcement represents a major reversal for President Emmanuel Macron's government, which initially stood its ground.  Critics are accusing the president of being out of touch with the plight of normal French citizens.

Macron makes U-turn on fuel-tax increases in face of 'yellow vest' protests.  France's prime minister on Tuesday [12/4/2018] suspended planned increases to fuel taxes for at least six months in response to weeks of sometimes violent protests, the first major U-turn by President Emmanuel Macron's administration after 18 months in office.

The Global Carbon Tax Revolt.  France's violent Yellow Vest protests are now about many domestic concerns, but it's no accident that the trigger was a fuel-tax hike.  Nothing reveals the disconnect between ordinary voters and an aloof political class more than carbon taxation.  The fault line runs between anti-carbon policies and economic growth, and France is a test for the political future of emissions restrictions.  France already is a relatively low-carbon economy, with per-capita emissions half Germany's as of 2014.  French governments have nonetheless pursued an "ecological transition" to further squeeze carbon emissions from every corner of the French economy.  The results are visible in the Paris streets.

Vandals, or Militants?  The origin of the present protest is not the price of bread but an increase in gasoline taxes.  Yet, with gasoline now occupying a central place in our way of life as bread once did, there is at least some link between the two eruptions.  And Louis XVI was guilty by inattention, just as Emmanuel Macron the First, France's president, seems strangely indifferent to public sentiment.  To enact policies that raise gasoline prices — already the highest in Europe — on the eve of the year-end holidays and without offering a justification, was a major political error.  Macron's mistake was made worse by the justification given after the uprising:  the government explained to skeptical citizens that the new tax was actually an ecological measure, and therefore justified, since the goal was not to add to the state's coffers but to help fight climate change.  Obviously no one believes this excuse, including the government that issued it, or so we must hope.

The Carbon Tax Scam.  Anyone who questions the validity of Bruce Yandle's Bootlegger and Baptist theory of Public Choice needs to look no further than the Climate Leadership Council and its carbon dividend proposal which is now be flacked by Americans for Carbon Dividends — AFCD — which is co-chaired by former Senators John Breaux and Trent Lott.  The carbon dividend proposal, designed by James Baker and George Shultz, would impose a carbon tax — they call it a fee — on all fossil fuels and then rebate the revenue on an equally to all Americans on a monthly basis.  The program would be administered by the Social Security System.  The implementation of the carbon tax would lead to the phasing out of regulations that are intended to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.  This proposal is supported by major corporations and distinguished Americans such as Ben Bernanke, Martin Feldstein, and of course, James Baker and George Shultz.  On the surface the proposal appears quite reasonable.  It is not.

Climate Change Alarmists Suffer Huge Blow In Deep Blue Washington State.  The initiative proposed a $15 tax on each ton of carbon emissions in the state starting in 2020, with the tax rate climbing each year.  It would have cost families in the state nearly $1,000 a year by 2035.  Keep in mind that the proposed carbon tax was a tiny baby step toward what environmentalists' claim will be needed to avoid a worldwide climate catastrophe.  The United Nations says we'd need a global carbon tax of up to $5,500 to achieve that.  Washington voters rejected even this minimalist step toward fighting what a large majority of them claim to believe is an existential threat to humanity.

5 States Could Wreck Their Economies In Futile Fight Against 'Climate Change'.  In Washington, voters will decide whether to be the first state to impose a carbon tax.  Initiative 1631 would slap a $15 tax on each ton of CO2 emissions starting in 2020.  That would climb by $2 every year after that.  This tax will hit everything, from gasoline prices (up by as much as 59 cents a gallon) to electricity bills to everyday household goods.  That translates into hundreds of dollars a year for a typical household right out of the gate, with costs climbing to nearly $1,000 a year by 2035.  An analysis by the National Economic Research Associates also found that the tax would cut the state's growth by 0.4% in the first two years.

There's No Such Thing as a 'Conservative' Carbon Tax.  The so-called "conservative" case for a carbon tax has always been a shell game.  Point out that such proposals might not meaningfully address climate change, and defenders claim that they'll boost economic growth.  Note that they won't boost growth and you're told that they will save the planet.  The confusion abounds: carbon tax proposals are sold as the key to reducing burdensome red tape, even though that tape can be (and has been) cut absent a sweeping new tax regime.  The tax is supposed to be "revenue neutral" thanks to offsetting tax cuts elsewhere — even as that same revenue gets promised to households in the form of a "dividend."

A carbon tax:  A useless solution to a nonexistent problem.  Mr. Fred Krupp is president of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).  He claims that "capitalism will solve the climate problem".  EDF pays him the princely sum of about $350,000 USD.  Evidently, his duties include spreading the idea that EDF, an aggressive environmental non-profit, is "pro-market."  Krupp asserts that the climate warmed in the final two decades of the 20th century, thus following the 1988 predictions of Dr. James Hansen, former head of NASA-GISS (Goddard Institute for Space Studies), notorious for his violent opposition to emission of CO2.  But Krupp is quite wrong, and so are the predictions of Dr. Hansen.  There is no warming at all after about 1940, 'til the El Niño event of 1998 (which had nothing to do with CO2).  Therefore, there is no climate problem to be "solved."

The Dubious Basis for a Carbon Tax.  Rep Curbelo of Florida has introduced a carbon tax bill even though the House of Representatives have voted 229-180 to oppose any carbon tax legislation.  It is clear that no legislation is going to be passed and most likely that Rep Curbelo is simply using his proposalto bolster his campaign for re-election in November.  He has proposed a $24 per ton tax — the social cost of carbon — beginning in 2020 with the proceeds replacing the federal gasoline tax.  How did he pick $24 when the estimates often cited range from $15-$150 per ton?  It really doesn't make any difference since the choice is driven by the climate orthodoxy, model estimates and judgments and assumptions by climate advocates.  In reality, the social cost of carbon which is reflected in any proposed carbon tax is nothing more than an intellectual exercise that has very little basis in science or empirical facts.

States Consider Carbon Dioxide Taxes.  Several state legislatures, including those of Connecticut, Hawaii, and Utah, are considering establishing taxes on carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel use.  The purpose of the tax, typically referred to as a "carbon tax," is to decrease carbon dioxide emissions in an effort to mitigate climate change.  Connecticut's proposal would tax "any petroleum derivative that is commonly burned to produce heat, electricity or motion or that is commonly processed to produce synthetic gas for burning, including, but not limited to, propane, gasoline, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, heating oil, diesel fuel, kerosene-based jet fuel and number 4 oil, number 5 oil and residual oil for utility and nonutility uses," based on the amount of carbon dioxide emissions their use produces.  The tax would begin at $15 per ton in 2020 and increase by $5 per ton each subsequent year, indefinitely.

Carbon Tax:  A Bad Idea Whose Time Should Never Come.  The temptation of a carbon tax these days seems great, even to some Republicans.  But it's a bad idea.  Now two GOP lawmakers want to put people on the record opposing it, in the hopes of keeping it from becoming a reality.

The phrase "carbon tax" is a misnomer because carbon dioxide is not "carbon" and it is not a pollutant.  Since Mathur and Morris do not pretend that their per-ton carbon tax has anything to do with the purported marginal social cost of GHG emissions, it is not quite clear why they need a "carbon" tax at all.  Why not a tax on, say, okra, or fat-free ice cream, or argyle socks, or any of the other myriad monstrosities confronting modern mankind?  Actually, it is clear:  A carbon tax is where the big money (revenue) is.

America Is Finally Catching Up on Clean Coal.  That the Obama administration was out to severely curtail fossil fuel use is well known.  The former president's scorn for coal was abundantly obvious, and the Paris agreement was its embodiment.  Despite proclaiming the U.S. the "Saudi Arabia of coal," in May 2008, Obama soon back-flipped once in office and turned against the resource.  Within a year, Obama unleashed the war on coal when he proposed a nationwide cap-and-trade system targeting local plants, stifling coal companies with excessive regulation, and cutting billions in funding for clean coal projects across the country.

Trial of carbon tax 'fraud of the century' opens in Paris.  Between 2008 and 2009, 1.6 billion euros were swindled in a huge carbon quota market scam dubbed the "fraud of the century".  On Monday, 36 people suspected of running the scheme's largest operation went on trial in Paris.  At the head of the Marseille-based gang appearing before the judges this week is Christiane Melgrani, a former maths teacher who once managed a piano bar.  The outspoken 59-year-old, known as "La Marseillaise", had previously been sentenced for drug trafficking and sales tax fraud in telephone businesses.

Unsustainable model:  Carbon tax would make state less competitive for businesses.  An environmental advocacy group is proposing a carbon tax in New York to generate revenue to invest in renewable energy.  NY Renews is a coalition of organizations committed to reducing threats to the planet resulting from climate change.  Its members include Syracuse United Neighbors and CNY Solidarity Climate Justice.  Coalition members referenced a study conducted by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst.  It reports that New York must invest between $4 billion and $5.5 billion per year in clean energy initiatives to reach its goal of obtaining 50 percent of the state's power from renewable sources by 2030, as outlined in the Clean Energy Standard.  The study says this revenue could be derived from taxing climate pollution.  This would reportedly generate between 145,000 and 160,000 jobs annually in the clean energy sector in the first decade.

The Editor says...
[1] Taxes do not generate jobs.  [2] "Taxing climate pollution" means putting a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, and carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Lindsey Graham's Idea To Bail Out The Highway Trust Fund Could Involve You Paying More For Energy.  South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham told reporters he supported taxing carbon dioxide emissions to keep the Highway Trust Fund from going under and to bail out ailing nuclear power plants.  "The Highway Trust Fund is falling apart," the Republican lawmaker told reporters at the National Clean Energy Week event in Washington, D.C.  "Somebody needs to do something about it."  Graham told reporters a carbon tax could boost highway funding as electric cars become more prevalent, according to Axios.  Electric vehicles and fuel efficient cars have depressed federal and state gas tax revenues.

Lindsey Graham endorses carbon tax at Yale climate forum.  Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham endorsed a carbon tax on Tuesday during a Yale University climate change conference hosted by former Secretary of State John Kerry.  "I'm a Republican.  I believe that the greenhouse effect is real, that CO2 emissions generated by man is creating our greenhouse gas effect that traps heat, and the planet is warming," said the South Carolina senator in a transcript of his pre-recorded message to the conference.  "A price on carbon — that's the way to go in my view."

The Editor says...
Someone who has attained the powerful position of U.S. Senator shouldn't have to be told that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, that natural sources of carbon dioxide far outweigh those produced by industrial activity, that water vapor is a far more important component of the greenhouse effect, and that no amount of legislation or taxation will affect the weather.  But alas, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham apparently has not been informed.

Rhode Island Considers Carbon Tax.  Rhode Island lawmakers are considering imposing a carbon tax that would increase energy costs and other prices of goods and services in the state.  The tax would start at $15 per ton, increasing by $5 per ton each year thereafter.  It would go into effect only if neighboring Connecticut and Massachusetts adopt coordinated, virtually identical carbon-dioxide tax laws as well.  The bill being considered in the Rhode Island Senate would tax carbon-dioxide emissions from fossil fuels, natural gas, gasoline, coal, propane and other petroleum products sold in the state, based on the amount of emissions each fuel produces.

Hillary 'fascinated' by Carbon Tax.  In her new book What Happened[,] Hillary Clinton reveals she was "fascinated" by the idea of a carbon tax and a financial transactions tax.  She wanted to take the money generated by both taxes, filter it through the Washington D.C. bureaucracy, and then send everyone a check as part of a Universal Basic Income scheme.  The whole process would be "a way of making every American feel more connected to our country and to one another — part of something bigger than ourselves."

New Carbon-Capture Plant Called The "Worst Investment In Human History".  Removing carbon from the atmosphere would certainly reduce food production to famine levels.  The same job can be done by planting trees., which consume CO2 the way nature intended it.

It's the theory of Global Warming that's really dangerous.  Even if one does not have a scientific background, one can reasonably question why someone like Al Gore who is not a scientist can become a billionaire selling carbon credits.  This snake oil venture allowed environmental activists to continue their wasteful abuse of resources by buying a carbon credit permitting them to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gas.  The funds would then be paid to projects that absorb these gases like planting trees, etc.  This is, of course, an oversimplification but actually reading the details of this scam is mind boggling.

Shakedown:
Developing nations in Paris accord threaten to keep polluting unless they're paid.  Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.  North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check.  Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.  Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared with its "business as usual" projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of 22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.

The Editor says...
Carbon dioxide is not carbon, nor is it a pollutant.  The holdouts have no leverage because they aren't doing any harm.

Surprise: The United States is the Leading Reducer of Carbon Emissions.  The Europeans are contemptuous of our decision not to join their One-World Government and submit our economic future to the incomparable IQs of the central planners in Brussels.  And yet, who is doing the most, right here, right now, to reduce carbon emissions and whatever effect they have on global warming?  The United States of America.

Without congressional 'advice and consent,' was US ever officially in Paris climate accord?  Perhaps it's only appropriate that there's a geographical common denominator between the U.S.'s first international agreement and the climate-related pact from which the U.S. most recently withdrew:  Paris.  The 1783 Treaty of Paris between Great Britain and the ascendant United States halted the Revolutionary War and set into motion the American experiment.  The first article of the treaty granted the U.S. the right to exist as a sovereign nation, liberated from the British.  The U.S.'s Congress of the Confederation (created between the first and second Continental congresses and prior to the inception of the modern U.S. Congress) ratified the treaty in 1784.  In other words, the concept of international treaties predates the republic.  The Founders incorporated the idea of treaties into the Constitution.  Article II, Section 2 grants the president power "with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."

U.S. Paid $1 Billion To Paris Agreement Green Fund — All Other Nations Combined $0.  The Paris Treaty was/is always about distribution of economic wealth; and the convenient use of "climate phrases" as branding instruments used to create political policy favorable to multinational corporate interests who control the shifting of economic wealth.  Listen to the responses from participating EU corporate comptrollers discussing climate and the entire purpose of the Paris Treaty becomes self-evident.

Watch As Rand Paul Totally Levels Through Every Global Warming Talking Point!  President Trump was absolutely doing the right thing when he pulled the US out of the monstrous Paris Climate Accord.  That agreement would have cost the US in excess of $3 trillion over the next few years.  It is a massive wealth redistribution scheme that benefited countries such as India, Iran and China.  Those last two are enemies of ours and China is the biggest polluter on the planet.  Paul is also correct in saying it would have cost us 6 million jobs.  It's a Ponzi scheme that would have destroyed us economically, period.

The Hard Truth About The Parasite Accord:  It's All About Money & Power.  To all those now whining about the United States pulling out of the Parasite/Paris Accord — that international non-binding agreement that was widely dismissed as a nothing-burger in 2015 but is now being heralded as the savior of the planet by unhinged anti-Trumpers, have you actually read it?  Because if you did, you would soon realize the Paris Accord does NOTHING substantive to limit CO2 on the planet.  NOTHING.

You're Fired, Paris Climate Accord.  [President] Trump is taking on all of this global warming poppycock that rests on the utterly ridiculous notion that carbon dioxide, the natural gas humans and other earthly life forms constantly produce and expel, the same gas that promotes plant growth, is a pollutant.  It is a truly insane idea that has no support in science but leftists are running with it because they hope to browbeat and intimidate Americans into accepting shrinking the economy by drastically reducing carbon emissions.

A path forward after the Paris climate agreement.  [Scroll down]  So, even if Hillary Clinton had beaten Mr. Trump and had kept the United States in the treaty, and even if every single national leader on the planet (and their successors) had unflinchingly stood by every single treaty promise for year after year, regardless of economic downturn or political crisis, the Paris Treaty would have left 99 percent of the problem in place.  Before Mr. Trump axed the treaty, many environmentalists quietly acknowledged this.  They praised the agreement regardless, because of the political value of world leaders focusing on climate change and because they believed that much larger carbon-cutting promises would come later.  That foolhardy assumption flew in the face of history.

Paris Can Wait — It Was A Bad Deal.  Supporters of the Paris climate deal present a false choice.  You either (a) believe in the scientific consensus about climate change (in which case, you support Paris), or (b) you are a denier.  But they are missing a third option, which is that (c) this is simply a bad deal in terms of the cost-benefit analysis.  Why is it a bad deal?  There are no consistent standards for participation.  Countries unilaterally decided what voluntary and non-binding commitment they wanted to pledge. [...] Here's where the deal really falls apart.  According to another study, the Paris deal would shave about 0.2 degrees off warming by 2100.  You heard me right.  Assuming everything works perfectly according to plan, we could plausibly be trading 6.5 million jobs for a 0.2-degree payoff.  But remember, there is no enforcement mechanism.

Claim: Four Trillion Dollar Per Annum Carbon Tax Required to Save the World.  Lord Stern, author of the Stern Review (2006), a government report which was used as the basis of UK climate policy, now says we need a four trillion dollar per annum carbon tax to save the world from CO2. [...] So much for claims that renewables are "free energy".

A fool's errand:  Al Gore's $15 trillion carbon tax.  Al Gore wants to reverse modernity and save the world from itself through an elimination of its fossil-fuel-based energy system.  During the final week of April, his newly created Energy Transitions Commission released a document setting forth a fool's-errand pathway to "decarbonize" the world's energy system.  If this sounds familiar, it is.  Gore's plan features a new, sophisticated, and expensive public-relations campaign, but it's all based on his views on carbon dioxide first broached in his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, which he reissued in 2000 for his failed presidential campaign.  The subsequent efforts made by Gore during the past 25 years have transformed little from their genesis, and he remains as tragically wrong today as he was when he first surfaced as an opponent of everything linked to carbon-dioxide.

Sacramento public housing residents just got free Zipcars.  Residents at three public housing areas now have a mini-fleet of free Zipcars to make their way around Sacramento.  On Friday, Sacramento launched a pilot program that put eight shared electric Kia Souls at public housing sites.  Up to 300 residents can apply for on-demand access to the vehicles, with no charge for maintenance, insurance or juicing up the battery.  The program is funded through a $1.3 million grant from the California Air Resources Board using cap-and-trade funds that businesses pay to offset their carbon emissions.

Proposed US Carbon Tax — A Recipe for Disaster.  A group of Republican elder statesmen have recommended that the US adopt a $40/ton carbon tax as the "most efficient and effective way of reducing CO2 emissions".  This post reviews the potential economic impacts of such a tax on the US energy sector.  It concludes that the impacts on the oil and natural gas sectors would be comparatively minor but that the impacts on the coal sector would be severe.  Electric utilities with a high percentage of coal in their generation mix could well be driven into bankruptcy.

Carbon credit climate scam: the fraud prosecutions begin.  The London Evening Standard has a very interesting story today (20 September 2016) describing the first day of a professor's fraud trial at Southwark Crown Court, London, for operating an alleged £60 million climate-related tax dodge.  The story, headed World-famous conservationist "was part of £60 million eco-projects tax scam", says prosecutors allege that Professor Ian Swingland, a "renowned conservationist" who collected an Order of the British Empire from the Queen in 2007, together with four accomplices, had helped investors avoid tax on £170 million of income during a three-year "scam".

"Libertarian" Gary Johnson Pushes "Free Market" Carbon Tax.  Despite a historic opportunity for third parties to do well this presidential election, Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson seems determined to blow it.  In the equivalent of shooting himself in the political foot, Johnson announced support for a deeply unpopular tax on emissions of carbon dioxide, or CO2, to stop alleged "climate change."  And he sought to deceive voters while doing it.  While the former New Mexico governor framed the tax scheme as a "fee" and a "free-market approach," even libertarians blasted the deception.  The "fee," as Johnson referred to his proposed tax in a perfect emulation of ObamaCare-style semantic deception, would massively expand government control over Americans and the economy.  At the same time, the scheme would further enrich crony capitalists such as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, along with the other mega-banks and oil companies pushing for it.  The poor and middle class, though, along with freedom and free markets, would suffer a devastating blow from the plan.

Real Science vs Catastophism.  Catastrophism is the pretend science of the Prophet Gore and his fanatical followers.  It is far simpler.  Whatever the question, the answer is that diabolical gas, carbon dioxide.  It comes from burning fossil fuels, but not from breathing!  It has ruined our climate.  But wait, there is still time to save the planet, if we vote for Democrats, enact carbon taxes and ban troublesome scientists who stubbornly maintain that "it's not true."

"Climate Hustle" demolishes climate alarmism.  Without presenting it to the US Senate, as required by the Constitution, President Obama has signed the Paris climate treaty.  He is already using it to further obligate the United States to slash its fossil fuel use, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth[,] control our lives, livelihoods, living standards and liberties[,] and redistribute our wealth.  Poor, minority and working class families will suffer most.

Obama's Global Warming Plan is a 166% Tax for Poorest Families.  Carbon taxes are one of the biggest scams possible.  They're a massive wealth transfer and they take money out of the pockets of the working poor and shove into the greedy fat fists of Big Green and its legions of bankers, environmental consultants and parasite feeder fish.

Obama's Global Warming Plan Cost Poor Americans $44 Billion, Raises Taxes By 166%.  [President] Obama wants to implement the Enviromental Protection Agency's Clean Power Plan, which would effectively tax four-fifths of American carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and be similar in scope to an economy-wide carbon tax.  In addition, Obama has proposed a $10.25-per-barrel oil tax.  Neither plan would have a large impact on global warming.  Data modeling created by the EPA and run by the libertarian Cato Institute shows that the Clean Power Plan would only have adverted 0.019° Celsius of warming by the year 2100, an amount so small it couldn't be detected.

Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama's Climate Change Treaty.  [#1] The economic impact of domestic regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe.  To meet America's commitment to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the administration will need to drive the cost of conventional fuels higher so households and businesses use less.  Because energy is a necessary input for almost all goods consumers buy, households are hit by higher prices multiple times over.  Global warming regulations will increase electricity expenditures for a family of four by at least 13 percent a year.  Cumulatively, they will cost American families over $20,000 of lost income by 2035 and impose a $2.5 trillion hit on the economy.

Hillary's Hibachi Racket.  Hillary Clinton's "trustworthiness" problem is fed by a long history of "varying credibility," as a recent Politico story delineated, including cattle-futures trading, law firm billing records, muddled sniper fire recollections, and e-mail use.  While providing pertinent points, the Politico list is just a sampling.  One missing item on the "mistrust" litany is a project she reportedly cooked up as Secretary of State, but that was shaped by her family foundation. [...] No one would begrudge corporations giving to a philanthropic effort, but we would probably feel differently about our own tax dollars going to the project Clinton is hawking — especially when the project is, by most accounts, an epic failure. [...] If Clinton becomes president, her energy policies will likely enact a cap-and-trade system or a carbon tax — which would suddenly make her cookstove project profitable.

Washington considers nation's first carbon emissions tax.  Washington could become the first state in the nation to impose a direct tax on carbon emissions from fossil fuels such as coal, gasoline and natural gas.

"Greens" vs. Transparency.  Oregon officials are very much aware of the potential for abuse in such programs.  An earlier program, the Business Energy Tax Credit, was so bad, so disastrous it was actually repealed.  It allowed businesses to set up "green" projects and take huge tax breaks — 50 percent, up to $10 million, in the final, 2007 version of the credit.  Worse, in the manner of cap-and-trade systems, companies could sell their credits, creating even more potential for corruption.  For example, one paper mill earned energy credits by burning wood and using the heat to dry the paper.  The company sold credits to Walmart for $2.3 million, which Walmart could then use to offset $3.3 million in state taxes over five years — which, it turned out, Walmart was able to use even though the plant itself had shut down.  A Texas trucking company received 752 credits worth $4.5 million, even though less than one percent of its runs were on Oregon roads.  A tire recycling plant received $3.4 million even though, after more than two years, it had yet to recycle tires.  A New York company divided its wind farm into thirds, to qualify for three separate $10 million credits, despite a state analysis that should have disqualified the scheme.  And backers of a $23.6 million project to install solar arrays at two colleges allegedly used forged documents to qualify for a $11.8 million credit — one document, an invoice from a nonexistent contractor, and the other document, a letter supposedly signed by the president of a "renewables" company that was dated five days after he had resigned.

Tax Cuts to Cut Carbon, an Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come.  In theory, tax cuts on so-called "clean" technologies should dramatically increase investments in these industries, because investors would not have to pay taxes on the profits.  Because taxes would still be paid by companies using fossil fuels to produce electricity or churn out popular products not as energy-efficient as alternative models in their class, stock prices would fall and investment in them would wane.  Proponents have described it as "an all carrot, no-stick" approach to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Conservatives, Climate Change, and the Carbon Tax.  Global warming has for a long time been a partisan issue rather than a purely scientific one — and in important respects, conservatives have painted themselves into a corner.  Based on the reasonable expectation that admitting a problem would lead to a huge government power-grab, those conservatives with access to the biggest megaphones have long used scientific uncertainty to avoid the issue.  That game is up, and they suddenly find themselves walking unprepared into the middle of a sophisticated scientific and economic conversation about how to deal with the problem.  While a few conservative think tanks have considered these issues seriously for some time, the public discussion has until recently been conducted largely among various liberal factions and has turned into a technical debate about differing schemes for taxing emissions of carbon dioxide.

Where is the due diligence on 600 billion dollars invested in "decarbonisation"?  It seems the UN is co-founding groups for money managers to get large funds to "decarbonize".  That's code for chiseling investments out of coal and forcing them into the pointless, inefficient and uncompetitive "renewables".  But of course, renewables are only worth investing in if governments keep demanding people use them.  If the [...] voters vote muck it up, by voting for leaders who will stop wasting their money, the renewables industry is a dead dog.  So the UN project (which is probably funded by taxpayers) aims to remove the risk for investors by lobbying governments to keep the regulations friendly to green investors (and not so much to taxpayers).

UK scraps one billion pound carbon capture technology scheme.  Britain has scrapped plans to spend up to 1 billion pounds ($1.5 billion) to help commercialize the technology for capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and storing them underground, the government said on Wednesday, putting two major projects at risk of being canceled.

Paris Climate Deal Calls for America to Transfer Wealth to 'Developing' Countries.  The draft of the international agreement to deal with climate change, which is being considered today in Paris by representatives from 195 countries, calls for the developed nations of the world (which include the United States) to transfer wealth to developing nations, including through "public funds."  "Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention," says Article 9 of the draft agreement.

Ginning up war on prosperity, liberty.  Yes, nothing says concern for the planet quite like the world's potentates jetting to Paris at Christmastime with the notion of carving up the riches of developed nations whose successes are based in the rule of law and individual property rights.  As India environment minister Prakash Javadekar remarked, scoffing at the U.S. pledge of a $100 billion annual fund to salve the shift to green energy among emerging economies, "The cost of action ... is trillions; $100 billion is just a reparation."  So, yeah, science.  What I do know is the last time anyone in the majoritarian side recommended prosecuting anyone with a contrary opinion — as climate scientists and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse have urged — Galileo was fiddling with his telescope.

Money and Power Drive Obama's Climate Agenda.  Obama's green energy plan put the coal industry on life-support, targeted oil and gas as the enemy and sought to impose restrictions on power plants that generate electricity to homes and businesses.  What the president reportedly hides behind the curtain is his alliances with international green elites, a select group of political and Wall Street cronies, and energy regulatory czars who have orchestrated a CO2 carbon-taxing scheme that would put billions of dollars into their own pockets. [...] The media neglect the real reason Barack Obama wants your hard-earned dollars to flow into a global green machine.  Barack Obama continues to push, at the expense of America and beyond all logic and recent scientific data, for a long-term and massive financial commitment to global warming.<>/p>

The Real Climate Crisis that the Global Warming Scammers are Ignoring.  The real reason to impose carbon taxes and similar nonsense is to disadvantage the west and our modern society for the purpose of control while giving huge sums of money to favored people to redistribute under the guise of "leadership."  What it really amounts to is theft at gunpoint used for "global welfare payments."  Nothing more or less.

COP 21 climate deal hinges on cash payouts to developing countries.  Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa was explicit earlier this year when asked what it would take for developing countries to sign up for the emerging U.S.-led climate deal:  "Money."  His candor was recounted in an April email between two of the Obama administration's top global warming officials, who called the succinct wisdom from Mr. Kutesa — at the time the president of the U.N. General Assembly — the "best answer of [the] night."

China Cap-and-Trade.  The Obama Administration is leveraging China's commitment with his own Clean Power Plan to try to get other countries to sign on to a global accord in Paris this December.  But these are paper promises by sovereigns who surely know that there is no guarantee that the next Administration — or Congress — will have any appetite for continuing the futile crusade to 'save' the climate.  What is happening now is "good PR for China, but a bad deal for the US."

Climate Change's Great Legacy: International Wealth Redistribution.  India says it needs $2.5 trillion to meet its energy-and-climate policy goals.  Okay, some of that will come from within India itself, but a big portion, it's clear, will have to come from the US and other rich countries — or it won't happen.  The Philippines says that without major cash influx from rich countries, it won't be able to make any CO2 emission cuts.  This is all good news for those of us who know that increased atmospheric CO2 won't warm things much but will improve plant growth, and hence crop yields, and hence food supplies, around the world.

EPA Targets Methane Emissions, Provokes Ire From Congressional Republicans.  The Obama administration made major waves on Tuesday [8/18/2015] when it proposed the first ever federal regulations that would require the nation's oil and gas industry to cut emissions of methane.  Congressional Republicans contend it's further proof of the administration's collusion with environmental lobbyists to advance its climate-change agenda despite the lack of science to support it and regardless of the significant economic impact it is expected to have.  The proposal aims to cut methane by 40 to 45 percent by 2025 and would require drillers to stop leaks and capture lost gas in wells intended to extract only oil, as part of a larger push by the Obama administration to cut emissions.  Earlier this month, Obama unveiled the Clean Power Plan to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 32 percent by 2030 and increase the proportion of the nation's electricity generated by renewable sources to 28 percent.  According to The Hill, that regulation is "one of the most expensive EPA regulations ever," as states will have no choice but to implement a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, or dramatic energy efficiency mandates in order to achieve this target.

Tesla gets $295M in cap & trade credits for technology not offered to customers.  Tesla Motors has earned more than $295 million in state cap and trade emission credits during the past three years for a battery-swapping technology customers weren't getting, a Watchdog investigation reveals.  In fact, the electric car company, owned in part by billionaire Elon Musk, may have earned credits up to nearly half a billion dollars in value from the 11 states that use the Zero Emission Vehicle barter as part of a green auto industry mandate.  California created the program and leads the pack, doling out $173 million in credits to the Silicon Valley-based Tesla.

The Chicago Treason Network.  [Scroll down]  The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is a carbon credit exchange that purports to help the environment by helping to cap carbon emissions and providing a platform on which they can be traded.  In reality, the CCX monetizes capped "carbon emissions" and gives financial value to the carbon credits.  If you've ever wondered why it is that the myth of global warming/climate change persists despite an avalanche of empirical evidence against it, it is for one reason alone: personal enrichment of a clique of no-growth frauds and liars.  Once carbon emission caps are passed into law in the United States or through a treaty via the United Nations, the value of carbon credits will increase exponentially.  The scale of this operation could potentially rival the total existing financial derivatives market and be valued in the trillions of dollars.

The Mask Slips on the Climate Scam.  We're always told that revenue from emissions trading or a carbon tax will be used for energy and climate change adaptation purposes.  But Inslee has let the mask slip and made obvious that it is a lie.  Liberal politicians especially are drooling for a carbon tax as a new revenue source.  It isn't going to be rebated to taxpayers.  It isn't going to be used as a bargaining chip for a decent tax reform.  It's going to be used to pay for more government goodies.

Study: Cap-and-trade kills jobs.  Cap-and-trade programs kill manufacturing jobs, according to new research published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.  The study says that manufacturing jobs were reduced by 1.3 percent in affected areas after the EPA implemented a cap-and-trade program in 20 eastern states in the 2000s.  Cap-and-trade cost over 110,000 jobs total in the affected states.

Global Warming, Global Schooling and Governor CO2.  The Cap and Trade program Governor CO2 wants is not a program to actually do anything to change the world's climate.  "Little state of Washington fixes world climate" is not really going to be a future headline and even Governor CO2 knows this (I think.)  Instead, however, his plan is to tax bad guys and reward better guys.  And he knows where the better ones are.

California's Cap-and-Trade Scam to Spike Gas Prices as Much as $.70 a Gallon.  Thanks to their religion of global warming, Democrat politicians will cause gas prices in California to rise as much as $0.70 a gallon next year.

Taxing Carbon in the Name of Climate Change.  Not counting the non-enforced southern border and the hordes of new and lawless Democrat citizens who demand their fair share of the American dream now turned into a welfare nightmare, the national debt is most likely to sink the economy sooner than any other variable and that includes climate change that has been changing for millennia.  [Former Treasury Secretary Robert E.] Rubin asserts that, since the "scientific community is all but unanimous in its agreement that climate change is a serious threat," we have to include climate change risks in economic policy, fiscal and business decisions, even though we cannot define climate change risks with precision.

Australia kills off carbon tax.  Australia's carbon price has been repealed, leaving the nation with no legislated policy to achieve even the minimum 5% greenhouse emissions reduction target it has inscribed in international agreements.  After eight years of bitter political debate, during which climate policy dominated three election campaigns and contributed to the demise of two prime ministers, after last week's Senate drama in which the repeal was again defeated and this week's lengthy last gasp debate, the Senate has now finally voted to make good Tony Abbott's "pledge in blood" to "axe the tax".

Australia repeals controversial carbon tax. Will others follow?  Australia has become the first nation in the developed world to wind back legislation aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, after the Senate voted to scrap the controversial carbon tax on Thursday [7/17/2014].  The vote has delivered a major victory to the conservative government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who went into last year's election promising to abolish the "toxic tax" which he said threatened the nation's economy, the world's 12th largest.  After days of tense negotiations the repeal bill passed the Senate 39 to 32.

States Fighting Obama EPA's Global Warming Decrees.  The "climate" regulatory regime unveiled by the EPA last month calls for massive reductions in emissions from power plants.  Under the scheme, described as "ObamaCare for the atmosphere," emissions of what scientists refer to as the "gas of life" — exhaled by humans and required for plants — must be slashed by 30 percent from 2005 levels by 2030.  Obama explained the economic effects of his plot in a 2008 interview:  "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket."  At least in that instance, he was telling the truth.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimated that the scheme could cost $50 billion per year in lost GDP and over 200,000 jobs annually, in addition to a plunge in household disposable income of over half a trillion dollars a year.

Why did Al Gore help Clive Palmer announce the end of the carbon tax?  Gore has either been duped into thinking Palmer is an environmentalist or he has been handsomely paid for his bizarre appearance.  Or both...  Does Gore know that Palmer claims to have a deal to export $60 billion worth of coal to China over the next 20 years from his big holding in Queensland's Galilee Basin?  Does Gore know Palmer's Waratah Coal was given approval late last year to build a thermal coal project near Alpha in central-west Queensland?

Capturing Carbon Drives up Energy Costs.  Yes, China's communist government is "pouring serious money into carbon capture projects."  But this is supposed to be a role model for the American economy?  The Obama administration should be following communist China's lead and massively subsidizing the fossil fuel industry by "pouring serious money" from taxpayers into developing carbon capture technology?  This doesn't sound like a rational free market approach.

Australian PM introduces bill to repeal carbon tax.  Prime Minister Tony Abbott reintroduced legislation to the Australian Parliament on Monday [6/23/2014] that would repeal a carbon tax that the nation's worst greenhouse gas polluters have to pay.

Tony Abbott seeks alliance to thwart President Obama on climate change policy.  Tony Abbott is seeking a conservative alliance among "like-minded" countries, aiming to dismantle global moves to introduce carbon pricing, and undermine a push by US President Barack Obama to push the case for action through forums such as the G20. [...] The combined front would attempt to counter recent moves by the Obama administration to lift the pace of climate change abatement via policies such as a carbon tax or state-based emissions trading.  It is a calculated attempt to push back against what both leaders see as a left-liberal agenda in favour of higher taxes, unwise interventions to address global warming, and an unhealthy attitude of state intervention.

EPA To Unilaterally Push Cap And Trade On Carbon Emissions.  Despite being soundly rejected a few years ago, cap-and-trade will soon get its U.S. encore — but not in Congress.  The Obama administration will likely use its executive power to unilaterally impose carbon dioxide emissions trading systems.  The Environmental Protection Agency will unveil regulations for existing U.S. power plants early next month.  For months, onlookers have been speculating about what could be included in the EPA's rule for existing power plants.  But over the past few days it has become clear that the Obama administration will use the EPA to push cap-and-trade systems and other anti-fossil fuel policies on U.S. states.  Administration insiders have told news outlets that cap-and-trade will likely be one of the options the EPA gives states to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

White House to propose rule giving states free rein to meet emission reduction goals.  The Obama administration will next week unveil a cornerstone of its climate-change initiative with a proposed rule aimed at allowing states to use cap-and-trade systems, renewable energy and other measures to meet aggressive goals for reducing carbon emissions by existing power plants.  Energy companies and others affected by the proposal will be watching for key details, including the percentage by which companies and states must reduce carbon emissions, which is expected to be proposed in a range instead of a single number.

The Editor says...
The states have "free rein" to comply and submit to Obama's industry-killing regulations any way they like.  That's tyranny.

Washington Governor Imposes Cap-and-Trade Through Executive Order.  Washington Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee is not waiting for the state legislature to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, but instead has issued an executive order to implement a cap-and-trade program, eliminate coal power and fund green energy projects. [...] Inlsee argues that more action is needed if the state is to meet climate goals passed by the legislature in 2008.  Those goals call for the state to lower its carbon dioxide emissions by certain amounts by 2020.

California eyes plan to speed bullet train using cap-and-trade program proceeds.  As envisioned, California's $68 billion bullet-train system, the nation's first, would take passengers from Los Angeles to San Francisco at speeds of more than 200 miles an hour.  The project, though, has been beset by planning delays, fluctuating cost estimates and court challenges that have threatened to kill or delay it indefinitely.  Gov. Jerry Brown has proposed using one-third of funds raised annually through cap-and-trade auctions to help pay for high-speed rail.

Gas Prices May Jump From California Emissions Law.  California's greenhouse gas reduction law already has shaken up the state's industrial sector, costing it more than $1.5 billion in pollution permit fees.

The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and Broadly Wrong.  The standard assumption about the superior efficiency of a carbon tax relative to bans and energy consumption standards is deeply problematic for both scientific and political reasons.

Podesta's Climate And Environmental Agendas Will Add To Obama's Executive Disorders.  President Obama's promise to be the most transparent administration in history is proving to be true with regard to the recent appointment of John Podesta as his high profile congressional circumvention strategist.  Podesta's belief in government by fiat is clear. [...] Never mind that having witnessed the past 17 years of flat global temperatures despite ballyhooed record atmospheric CO2 levels, John Podesta is hell-bent to reheat regulatory assaults on carbon emissions.

The Climate Change Climate Keeps Changing, but the Carbon Tax Is Eternal.  Confronted with more data that contradict climate change orthodoxy, climate change alarmists still advocate a carbon tax, but with new rationales.

A Carbon Tax on Everything.  Many taxes start out as modest only to be goosed up over time.  The implications of initiating a carbon tax are broader and deeper than [Robert J.] Samuelson cares to address, and could pose quite a burden on the nation's already overregulated and multi-taxed economy.  And what watermelon truck did Samuelson fall off of when he wrote that a carbon tax could reduce budget deficits?

When your own police label you a terrorist.  I moved from Maryland to New Hampshire in 2010.  Why?  I walked into my corner grocery store in Maryland and all the lights were off.  Reason:  the small-business owner couldn't afford the new countywide carbon tax.  That was the last straw for me.

House slams door on carbon tax.  The House approved an amendment to legislation Friday that would prevent the White House from imposing a carbon tax without congressional approval.  The lower chamber agreed to Rep. Steve Scalise's (R-La.) amendment by a 237-176 vote, with 12 Democrats crossing the aisle to support it.

Obama's Climate Five-Year Plan.  Way back in January 2008, when he was just a senator running for the presidency, Obama told the San Francisco Chronicle that he "was the first to call for a 100 percent auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter."  That way, he explained, "if somebody wants to build a [conventional] coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."  Five years later, Obama is doing what he said he'd do.

The zero-emission vehicle myth.  Auto enthusiasts were thrilled last week as green automaker Tesla made it into the black, earning $11 million profit on revenue of $562 million in the first quarter of 2013.  "I'd be lying if I said it wasn't somewhat surprising to see they've been able to turn a profit so quickly," Alec Gutierrez, an industry analyst, told Bloomberg News.  A closer inspection of the numbers, however, reveals that the Palo Alto-based carmaker made its profit by selling $68 million in carbon credits to other automakers.

Obama Quietly Raises 'Carbon Price' as Costs to Climate Increase.  Buried in a little-noticed rule on microwave ovens is a change in the U.S. government's accounting for carbon emissions that could have wide-ranging implications for everything from power plants to the Keystone XL pipeline.  The increase of the so-called social cost of carbon, to $38 a metric ton in 2015 from $23.80, adjusts the calculation the government uses to weigh costs and benefits of proposed regulations.  The figure is meant to approximate losses from global warming such as flood damage and diminished crops.

The Editor says...
Warmer weather would produce longer growing seasons, not "diminished crops."

An obscure new rule on microwaves can tell us a lot about Obama's climate policies.  Last week, the Department of Energy announced a little-noticed update to its energy-efficiency standards for microwaves, requiring newer models to use less power in stand-by mode.  But there was a surprise buried in the fine print:  The agency is now using a higher figure for the "social cost of carbon" in calculating the benefits of the rule.

The Editor says...
Outside your house, there is a big power transformer that consumes power 24 hours a day (if you're lucky), and dissipates more power than all the idle appliances you own.  And the power company knows about it, and can't do anything to fix it, and nobody cares.  And that problem doesn't cause global warming, either.  Once again, global warming stopped, all by itself, in 1998.

Obama officials raise 'social cost' of carbon in federal regulations.  The Obama administration has increased the "social cost" of carbon emissions in federal regulations, a move that could lay the groundwork for new rules on climate change.  The order, handed down by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with little fanfare, bumps the so-called social cost of carbon — a monetized estimate of health, property and environmental damage — to $35 per metric ton, up from $21.  The directive requires all federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, to use the new figure when crafting regulations.

Green energy on the back foot after carbon trading blow.  A new report from the International Energy Agency (IEA) says that progress towards carbon-free energy production has basically stalled.

Carbon Tax: Are Republicans Really That Stupid?  As much as I admire former Secretary of State George Shultz, and because I do, I was totally flummoxed by a recent Wall Street Journal article he co-authored with economist Nobel laureate Gary Becker.  Incredulously, the two senior fellows at Stanford University's conservative Hoover Institution expressed support for a "revenue neutral" tax on carbon.

The missing costs of carbon policies.  Carbon trading and clean energy policies fail because costs exceed benefits.

A Carbon Tax Would Destroy America.  If you want to know what a carbon tax on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) would do to America you need only look at the destruction of industry and business in Australia, along with the soaring costs for energy use it imposes on anyone there.  "The carbon tax is contributing to a record number of firms going to the wall with thousands of employees being laid off and companies forced to close factories that have stood for generations", Steve Lewis and Phil Jacob reported in a March 18 issue of The Daily Telegraph, a leading Australian newspaper.

Senators: 'Far-left' group pushes EPA to implement cap-and-trade without congressional approval.  Republican senators urged the Environmental Protection Agency not to participate in a "sue-and-settle" arrangement with a law school policy institute that is trying to require the agency to develop rules implementing cap-and-trade, even though Congress refused to pass the law.  The New York Institute for Policy Integrity told the EPA in November that it plans to file a lawsuit over the agency's failure to respond to IPI's request that it create a rule implementing a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

Al Gore says now is the time for a carbon tax.  Former Vice President Al Gore published a blog post on his website entitled "'The time has come' for a carbon tax," which includes excerpts from an editorial from the Financial Times which endorses a carbon tax.

Obama's misguided carbon tax plans.  President Obama and many other politicians continue to insist that carbon dioxide emissions are changing Earth's climate and that we need to take immediate action to prevent catastrophes predicted by computer models, Al Gore and fellow alarmists.  Above all, they want to tax carbon dioxide emissions to force people to use less hydrocarbon energy and "save vital federal programs" from wanton budgetary axes.  Their dreams of $100 billion windfalls from regressive taxes on job creation and economic growth are dangerous hallucinations.  They would bring intense pain with no climate or economic gain.

The Greatest Threat to Peace.  [Scroll down]  So now we have the global-warming hysterics insisting that U.S. national security and world peace depend upon restricting carbon use.  Nothing could be more false.  What the world needs most for its stability, and what the U.S. needs for its national security, is economic growth, which is driven first and foremost by expanded carbon use.  Nothing could be more regressive than carbon taxes.  Nothing could do more to help the world's poor than to make fossil fuels cheap and plentiful.  Nothing could do more harm to America's national security than a carbon-restricted depressed economy that would make funding our military impossible.  Nothing could do more to ensure the wherewithal for our national security than a cheap, carbon-enabled economic boom.

Bicycles to Be Taxed for Causing Global Warming.  The triumph of moonbattery means that there is no longer any limit whatsoever to government greed or tyrannical absurdity.

Obama trading Keystone XL for a carbon tax?  There are apparently some bad ideas which never die, no matter how many stakes you drive through them.  One of these is the carbon tax, not so subtly invoked during the State of the Union address, and now making a comeback with some of the usual list of suspects in Congress.  But this time it may be coming with a twist.

Obama Admits: 'Energy Is Going to Be a Little More Expensive'.  This is not the first time Obama has admitted to supporting price-raising energy policies.  In 2008, then-candidate Obama said he was fine with soaring energy prices so long as they helped curb green house gas emissions.  "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket," he said.  Obama supporters in 2008 also applauded the prospect of rising gas prices because they would "force us to think about changing the culture to create more emphasis on mass transportation."  Following the sustained applause, Obama praised Europe for its rail system.

Boxer Introduces Carbon Tax Bill Three Months After WH Promised 'We Would Never Propose' One.  Today, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced a bill to levy a carbon tax. But, back on Nov. 15 of last year, Pres. Obama's press secretary promised the administration would "never" do so.  According to Reuters, the new tax law "would set a $20 tax for each ton of carbon dioxide equivalent a polluter would emit beyond a set limit, which would rise 5.6 percent annually over a 10-year period."  Last November, however, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that would never happen.

Obama Unveils His Economy-Killing Cap-And-Tax Plan.  A nonexistent crisis is a terrible thing to waste, and in justifying his proposal for a cap-and-tax scheme, President Obama claimed in his State Of The Union that "the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15."  He was lying.  The fact is, according to new data released quietly last October by Britain's Met Office, the world's natural post-Ice Age warming trend stopped about 16 years ago.  From the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.

Why his Cap and Trade threat to Congress is Obama's — and America's — Rubicon.  First came the warning:  Congress must pass a cap-and-trade bill to combat global warming because, Obama said, "the 12 hottest years on record have all come in the last 15.  Heat waves, droughts, wildfires, floods, all are now more frequent and more intense."  (Set aside that, as the Climate Depot's Marc Morano documents, the facts make it abundantly clear that the president is quite wrong on each point in that sentence.)  Then came the threat:  "And if Congress won't act soon to protect future generations, I will.  I will direct my Cabinet to come up with executive actions we can take."

In Ireland, Carbon Taxes Demonstrate Global Left's Radical Environmentalism in Action.  Taxes are added by as much as 36 percent of a car's market price at the point of sale, factored into the sticker price.  And additional taxes are billed directly to drivers, often adding thousands of dollars to annual vehicle operating costs.  And because people at lower incomes are less able to afford newer cars with all the latest "green" technologies, the tax system is heavily regressive.

For his next crisis.  Saving the planet isn't easy — or cheap — especially in California.  The state's anti-global-warming cap-and-trade program is the latest gimmick to leave it with yet another big hole to fill in its budget.  The Golden State's new carbon-trading program is the world's second largest, after the European Union's.  The stated goal is to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and another 80 percent by 2050.  But California held its very first "carbon credit" auction last month — and it was a big disappointment.

Obama Plans for Climate Deal as Fiscal Cliff Talks Rage.  As leaders in Washington obsess about the fiscal cliff, President Barack Obama is putting in place the building blocks for a climate treaty requiring the first fossil-fuel emissions cuts from both the U.S. and China.  State Department envoy Todd Stern is in Doha this week working to clear the path for an international agreement by 2015.  While Obama failed to deliver on his promise to start a cap-and-trade program in his first term, he's working on policies that may help cut greenhouse gases 17 percent by 2020 in the U.S., historically the world's biggest polluter.

Bias alert:
Whether carbon dioxide is called a pollutant or not (and it is not), the United States is not "the world's biggest polluter."  That would be India, China, Bangladesh, Mexico or the Philippines.  Or maybe one of those African countries where people burn firewood and dung to stay warm and cook dinner.  Or some country with a lot of active volcanoes.  There is no place in America like Baguio City, Bombay or Mexico City.  Not one of The 10 Cities With the World's Worst Air is in the United States.  World-wide, the poorest countries are the worst polluters.

Carbon Tax Will Kill The Economy, Boost Inflation.  Climate alarmists hope that Hurricane Sandy and President Obama's re-election will coerce panicky congressional Republicans into a "carbon tax" deal in 2013.  But simple math shows the tax would have no effect other than an inflationary one.

Pulling billions out of thin air.  As home to the entertainment industry and the land of make-believe, California is known for embracing fads.  The latest rage among the Democrats who just won a supermajority sway in the Sacramento Statehouse may prove to be the most costly.  California is starting its own cap-and-trade program, which taxes carbon-dioxide emissions and other "greenhouse" gases through a convoluted permit system.  The Golden State could end up suffocating its golden goose with this scheme.

Obama's Next Move: the Global Warming Tax.  This week the United Nations begins two weeks of climate talks in Doha, Qatar.  The primary goal of these meetings is to draw President Obama into accepting a redistribution plan designed extract money from the U.S. economy in the form of a global warming tax and doling out the cash to Third World nations.

Carbon Tax Could Come After Fiscal Cliff Deal.  According to one former member of the White House Climate Change Task Force under President Clinton, President Obama may have plans to implement a carbon tax as soon as the fiscal cliff negotiations are settled.  Forget the fact that Obama and his minions have repeatedly protested that they won't press for a carbon tax [...]

U.S. Carbon Tax to Shovel Dollars to U.N. Bureaucrats?  It appears there will be an international dining section for hogs at the carbon-tax trough.  Any new tax that promises hundreds of billions of dollars per year, as a carbon tax does, would bring out the special-interest hogs, and one of the interests likely to be fed by any federal carbon tax is the U.N.'s Green Climate Fund.

Obama Administration Gets Sued Over Carbon Tax E-mails.  President Obama's Treasury Department is facing a lawsuit for stonewalling a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request relating to a planned carbon tax on fossil fuels.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a watchdog group focused on energy and environmental regulations, filed suit Tuesday ]11/13/2012] in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., announcing in a press release that it expects Obama's congressional cronies to propose the tax in the upcoming lame-duck session.

Did the U.S. Constitution Promise a Chicken in Every Pot? [Scroll down]  Cap and trade is a tax on commerce.  Obama and the commies want to hinder U.S. Commerce in the name of carbon emissions.  Aren't these the same idiots that said the hole in the ozone was going to melt our children!  Bottom line is they want to tax you and American Businesses that have not been sent to China yet, so we can send this money to under-developed countries.

The Right Time for a Carbon Tax Is Never.  The hope among carbon-tax proponents is that they can sugar-coat the tax and make it palatable to conservatives, or at least to enough conservatives.  This proposed confection has two ingredients.  First, the carbon tax is to be a revenue-neutral swap for some even more harmful tax.  Second, a carbon tax would obviate the need for regulation of carbon dioxide and for subsidies to low-carbon energy.

The Coming Environmental Battles.  With China, India and other developing countries massively increasing their greenhouse gas emissions, EPA's actions would do nothing to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels.  In fact, by 2013, China will emit twice as much carbon dioxide as the United States.  The EPA regs would, however, put government in charge of our entire economy, sharply increase energy prices for every business and household, kill millions of jobs, ensure that net tax revenues never materialize, and hurt poor families most.

Grover Norquist Abruptly Reverses Pro-Carbon Tax Position.  On Tuesday, Grover Norquist walked back his comments about a possible carbon tax swap (which would reduce income taxes while taxing carbon emissions), one day after the staunch anti-tax advocate suggested it would not violate his famed Taxpayer Protection Pledge.  Norquist now says there "is no conceivable way to add an energy or VAT tax to the burdens American taxpayers face that would not violate the pledge over time."  He added, "it would be [a] foolish and economically destructive thing to do."