Amazing really

….let alone understood that supply side reform is a euphemism for losing the battle against climate change.

This being Spud of course “supply side” just means changes in tax rates.

Which is really very odd. Because absolutely every economist who has studied climate change…William Nordaus, Nick Stern, Richard Tol, John Quiggin, Marty Weizman, Greg Mankiw and even hte non-economist James Hansen have all said exactly the same thing. The solution to climate change is a change in the tax rate.

Specifically, the imposition of a carbon tax.

Is there nothing our Snippa does know?

9 thoughts on “Amazing really”

  1. ‘The solution to climate change is a change in the tax rate.’

    It’s the purpose of climate change.

  2. The climate system is non-linear and dynamical.

    Changing the tax rate doesn’t change that, and the fact that the pack of “Social Science” PhDs you cited all have overlooked that obvious fact points to the validity of said fact.

    “Climate change” forecasting is bullshit, and it’s bullshit for the same reason economic forecasting is bullshit.

  3. And let’s be clear about another fact: No one has actually proved that elevated carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere cause AGW. (Let’s overlook the fact that no one has actually ever proved AGW is actually possible, much less in existence.) Correlation is not, in and of itself, causation.

    Imposing taxes on the off chance that there may be a causal link between carbon dioxide levels and AGW seems to be the sort of thing one would expect from Murphy.

  4. “Correlation is not, in and of itself, causation.”

    And there isn’t even correlation.

    Imposing taxes – and controlling behavior – is the goal. Climate change is a pseudo scientific tool to get people to accept it. As people realize now that the whole schtick was a lie, they are trotting out new pseudo scientific tools to get people to accept more taxes and government. Like the absurdity of ocean acidification.

    Their marketing will change, but the Left isn’t going to go away. You can’t defeat them with science, because it really isn’t about science.

  5. The Chinese are laughing at Western governments increasing taxes on Western businesses who then ship their production to China instead, where they’re building new coal-fired power plants every day.

    All because of some fairy story about ‘climate change’.

  6. Some facts about Climate Change:

    1) Climate Changes. It’s what it does. Nobody denies this.

    2) Temperatures may go down as well as up. There are serious scientists with proper qualifications who’ve done experiments at CERN and everything, who believe that the sun is heading for a Dalton type minimum and that this will mean global temperatures will plummet. Then there is the possibility of a massive volcanic explosion of the type that is believed to have caused the ‘year without a summer’ and which caused global temperatures to fall massively and crops to fail all over the world.

    3) The Climate Change Act will not Change the Climate! It is, however, making our energy supply system more expensive and less reliable.

    4) The Paris agreement, if all of the partners carry out their commitments, will, according to the figures from the IPCC models, make a massive difference of two or three tenths of a degree in global temperatures by the end of the century.

    5) Since nothing we do can seriously alter the Earth’s climate in any predictable way, our only recourse is to adapt.

    6) As has been proved throughout history and even in the present, wealth is the most essential ingredient to adapting to climate change.

    7) Energy is a major input to wealth creation therefore a cheap and reliable energy source is essential to our ability to adapt to whatever nature chucks at us.

    In short, taxing energy in some useless attempt to change the climate is absolutely the stupidest and most destructive thing you could do.

  7. bloke in france

    I don’t trust climatologists as far as I can kick them.
    Expecting me, with all due respect to you, Timmy, to believe economists understand the climate better, is a step too far.

  8. Kevin B,

    2) Past performance is not a guide to future performance. That said, there was an event, maybe 10,000 years ago? – not sure, where it appears that ice sheets advanced really quite rapidly, over a couple of decades or less. Can’t remember what it is called.

    5) If there’s one thing that really, really pisses me off with the whole thing, it’s the never addressed underlying assumption that the current period, say from the end of the little ice age to date, is somehow uniquely optimal for the entire planet, and must be preserved at all (indeed any) costs. This assumption strikes me as highly dubious, at best.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *