Dear Lord Above, the stupidity

The FT has an article in it this morning from Natasha Landell-Mills, who is head of stewardship at Sarasin & Partners. In it she argues that:

What gets measured gets managed. The climate impact of business and consumer decisions is not being fully measured and thus not being properly managed.

I wholeheartedly agree. And I also agree that a carbon tax is not the solution to this issue – because a tax at $75 a tonne has consequences that are unmanageable in the rest of the economy.

Natasha actually says that politics isn’t ready for a carbon tax. Snippa goes on to say that it would be unmanageable elsewhere in the economy.

Yet Nordhaus and Stern and Weizman and all those economics types say that a carbon tax is the most efficient method. That is, the one which has the least effects upon the rest of the economy for the same reduction in warming – that’s what efficient means here. At which point Snippa insists we use less efficient methods thereby increasing what he already says is unmanageable.

This is where we really agree. I rather hope that Landell-Mills is referring to sustainable cost accounting. I am well aware that she is familiar with it: she chaired a session when I presented the idea to the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum in December. And she is right: Paris-aligned accounting would be catalytic.

Of course it is not all that matters: the other recommendations Landell-Mills makes are also important. She calls on auditors to address climate change issues (but that has to be linked to proper accounting); for shareholders to take on companies; for asset managers to do the same and for credit rating agencies to embrace the issue.

But when it comes down to it all need climate change accounting. And right now sustainable cost accounting is the only proposal there is for putting climate change on the balance sheet. And COP 26 needs to take note.

At which point we get to Snippa’s real opposition. If we had a climate tax at that $75 then of course carbon would be embedded in the accounts of every economic actor. That’s rather the point of it of course. But if that is so then there’s no room for Snippa, grants for Snippa nor carbon accounting.

Thus the opposition to what works.

42 thoughts on “Dear Lord Above, the stupidity”

  1. I know I’m as thick as a brick, but I’m confused over this carbon tax. Who is it paid to? What do they do with the money? How does having received a shedload of money help with this (fake) man made climate change (previously known as man made global warming till the environmentalists realised they were talking bollocks)? In these days of equality, why is this alleged future catastrophe ‘man made’? Shouldn’t females take some responsibility? Why does my head hurt?

  2. Here’s what the argument is.

    The cost of carbon – whatever it is, 5 cents a tonne, $1,000 – isn’t in the prices being paid. So, put it into the prices by adding a tax.

    It’s a tax, it’s paid to the government. The logic is that they should – har har – lower other taxes so that it is revenue neutral.

    But the point isn’t about the tax at all. It’s about adding into prices something that isn’t currently there.

    It’s known as a “Pigou Tax” and Wiki etc is pretty good on it.

  3. So the government gets the money to spaff on Daimlers, first class flights, fine beef dinners, and other carbon-spewing ephemera.

    Net effect: zero. Or quite possibly negative.

  4. Tony Heller is churning them out.

    If you believe that temepratures are rising watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hElTSfQEdsk

    He explains what the temp. record is based on. What the measured temperatures are, the adjustments that NOAA have made to them, the resulting change in TEMPERATURE TRENDS, their justification (morning readings vs. afternoon readingd) which he then dismantles through simple comparison and then why the global temperature record is a load of testicles because most of the data is made up (as is the current US record).

    I know what a Pigou tax is (thanks to you Tim). I know there is NO JUSTIFICATION for applying one to climate and anyway it would merely be a wan*fest for bankers.

    Another day we can look at extreme weather. The results are just as ‘shocking’. It’s all made up!!! FFS

  5. Oh and he also shows why they have made the changes (to get temperature and CO2 increase rates aligned) and the ‘hockey stick’ of manipulation!

  6. “Thus the opposition to what works.”

    You are citing Stern(!) as an authority on ‘what works’ ?

    As other commentators above have indicated, CO2 is not causing the temperature to change. The reason things are ‘not measured’ in Climate Science is that unbiased accurate measurement would show this. So the figures are fudged, or simply ignored.

    Note the Stern Review – an exercise in policy-based evidence making – used ultra-low discount rates. Note the inability to improve on the Climate Sensitivity Index after years of research. Note the blatant adjustment of historical temperature data to enable the claim that modern temperatures are unusually high. This is a fraudulent scam, and discussions of what ‘works’ or doesn’t for it are hopelessly inappropriate…

  7. And you’re missing the point I’ve been making this past decade.

    OK climate scientists. So, even if you’re right, the answer is a carbon tax. You’re proposing something other than a carbon tax? Then you’re not being serious, are you?

  8. Unilateral action by Britain – a Pigou Tax – will do nothing but screw over Britain. Quite efficiently.

    Rather obvious.

    But, please, go ahead. Your economy can shift over here to the States; we’ll be happy to have it. Much better than shifting it to China as you have been.

  9. They have a carbon tax in Canada, but of course the enviros just view it as a first step towards total control of the economy.

  10. No Tim, you are so unutterably wrong on this, that we should ban you from the blog.

    There is no problem, this hoax has been seized by politicians to invent taxes and by corporations to virtue signal. Stuff like Stern is simply waffle based on a false premise. It has no basis in reality, neither economically nor scientifically. Everything related to this subject can simply be ignored.

    No problem, no tax.

  11. Another constant point of mine being missed. The UK already has a carbon tax of the correct size. It’s just concentrated on petrol. The petrol tax should be lowered and that same tax burden placed elsewhere. Then we’re done.

    We’ve already solved climate change that is. As is in fact true too. Even by the IPCC’s own models we’ve already done what is necessary to divert to a boring and chronic problem that will solve itself over the next few decades without further action.

  12. If they renamed fuel duty “CO2 tax”, the Greens would have to glue themselves to buildings for some other reason. In the UK, we are doing our bit already to solve this non-problem

  13. “head of stewardship at Sarasin & Partners”

    Well, that’s one fund manager to avoid. If they’re worrying about this stuff, they’ve got the wrong investment priorities.

  14. When is someone going to start The Completely Unethical Bastard Investment Company? I’d give them all my cash to invest?

  15. Tim: I can see the point you are trying to make, but it’s a pointless point. The climate hysterics aren’t going to listen to you, as they want ‘carbon’ gone from the world and nothing less than disruptive crap like we’ve just seen from BoJo will do. We aren’t going to listen to you on this topic, as we see a non-problem for which a carbon tax is just another boondoggle for governments to screw more money out of us. Do you really think that if they did try it on, that fuel taxes would go down?

    I get the point of externalities, but how do you extract the cost and use it to offset the externality? Just saying ‘tax it and we’re done’ doesn’t really address the problem. Consider, if fuels were taxed extra at $75 per ton carbon equivalent, there are 2640 grams of CO2 per litre of diesel, so at $75 per tonne, that comes to $75*2640/1E6 = 19.8 cents/litre. I think I could afford to pay that and would carry on doing so though complaining all the while. So how does that solve the ‘climate crisis’? It doesn’t stop me burning stuff and the same would apply to everything where process & companies aren’t particularly elastic to fuel cost.

  16. The thing with a pigui tax is your assuming that the price elasticity of demand is sufficient to alter behaviour sufficiently to impact on wobal gloaming. The poor will invariably suffer the most and then will just end giving them sort of subsidy (calls for higher wages or benefits). Will anything really change?

  17. Europeans drive shorter distances in smaller engined cars than Americans. European gasoline taxes are higher than American. Pigou Taxes work.

  18. TimW. Where do you want that bridge your buying delivered?

    (And this comment has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Climate Change is real or even a problem. Tim. You still have never explained where you get the input figure of the cost of a hypothetical climate change the carbon tax is supposed to be compensating for. There’s not even agreement on how much man-made CO² is getting into the atmosphere or what effect it’s having. It’s all made up figures. All you are doing is offering politicians an opportunity to tax with no guarantee it’ll be revenue neutral. Even the concept of revenue neutral is bollocks. What’s your bench mark for neutral when the ambition of politicians is to take as much as they think they can get away with?)

  19. Tim. That Americans drive longer distances than Europeans is the point. I drive longer distances than Europeans. That’s why I drive a big American car. You can’t do it a puddle-jumper. What are you going to do? Make America smaller? Make the roads between towns shorter?

  20. What is this penguin tax anyway, is it because they’re oily little fat fvckers who decimate fish stocks?

  21. Moving to Canada the concept of distance is very different from the U.K., not going to change the geography or demographics through tax over anything beyond massively long term.
    When the carbon tax came in the transit people wanted to increase transit fares as their costs had gone up, apparently letting them have the fuel tax free or a rebate for the tax hadn’t been considered, so much for revenue neutral.

  22. Tom’s doing what, I think, Lomborg’s been doing: play the idiots at their own game – take their numbers and give the best response thereto.

    I’ll accept there’s a place for that, as a kind of intellectual mea culpa for the trebuchet of not giving a didicoy’s phat ariss when swampy and xir’s creepy-culty red-robed priestess singers somehow or other find themselves on the last train to Dagenham.

    O/T, I’ve developed a fucker brush. Seriously. It’s made of all kinds of nonsense and is specifically designed, like a Dyson, to attract, then to sweep up and collect all the rubbish it’s tasked with gathering. Fuckers, specifically.

  23. Tim–there is NO climate change.

    Does it really have to be settled out on the pavement before you accept the truth?

  24. It doesn’t mater whether there is climate change or not.

    There’s a mass outbreak of delusion that it is. You know, Charles MacKintosh stuff. The head of steam is there. We’ve got a Tory government for Lord’s Sake arguing that petrol cars will be banned. How to fight it? Use their own models, their own science, their own words. Show them that what they’re doing is wrong by their own standards even if the beliefs that lead to it are right or wrong.

  25. Bloke in Lower Hutt

    Rob – The maunder minimum stuff is NASA trying to set themselves up so they win each way. Either temperatures rise and that’s cos CO2 or they don’t cos Maunder Minimum offset the temp increase due to CO2 so we got lucky but the ‘science’ is still sound.

    Tom’s approach is the same as Greta Thunberg’s – we must listen to the experts, the ‘science experts’ have told us there is a problem, now we need listen to the ‘economic experts’* to tell us how to implement the solution as lowest cost (I think that is what Greta is advocating). I’m nominating TW for the Nobel Peace Prize because of this.

    How dare you disagree with that?

    * To clarify, I believe TW is advocating that we listen to economic experts, I’m not accusing him of being one himself

  26. ‘We’ve got a Tory government for Lord’s Sake arguing that petrol cars will be banned.’

    Not really. They can ban petrol cars. ‘Will be’ is future. They can’t ban cars from the future. That’s up to the future. So they are blowing smoke.

    ‘How to fight it?’

    Vote ’em out, like you did with Brexit.

  27. “There’s a mass outbreak of delusion that it is. You know, Charles MacKintosh stuff. The head of steam is there. We’ve got a Tory government for Lord’s Sake arguing that petrol cars will be banned. How to fight it? Use their own models, their own science, their own words. Show them that what they’re doing is wrong by their own standards even if the beliefs that lead to it are right or wrong.”

    I think this is wrong. You won’t win like that, because a) they’re not rational, and b) its not really about ‘climate change’ at all, its about destroying the capitalist West, this is just cover. So they aren’t going to listen to you.

    The best way is to urge them on. Ban more stuff, go on! No one needs shoes, ban them! Ban central heating! Ban all food apart from turnips! Because the only way this nonsense is going to be ended is when they’ve fucked off so much of the public there’s a riot.

  28. I’m inclined too agree with Jim. Once you enter into a dialogue with the fuckers you concede there’s a problem needs solving. As the story goes, we’ve established what she is – now we’re only discussing the price. Only, unlike an honest whore, it’s us who pays to get screwed.
    And that’s what it’s all about. It’s really got nothing to do with climate change, whether real or not. It’s an excuse to impose control and screw the public. There’s people making mints out of this. Even the oil industry’s got in on the game. It’s as good for making money as a full scale war.

  29. @Penseivat

    Spot on. It’s Timmy supporting Green Crap lies again

    @Tim W, the “Carbon” externality cost doesn’t exist. Carbon is inert

    @bilbaoboy

    +1

    @Tim W

    No, we’re not missing the point. What you’re doing is supporting their claim that CO2 is killing the planet, but patronisingly saying your solution is wrong and mine is correct

    Guardian in 2002 said “UK will have a Siberian Climate by 2020” – your position supports this nonsense

    @Ottokring, TG, Jim, bis

    Spot on

  30. Pcar: Yes, I saw that. I have a weird vision of La Petite Ourse Allemande du Moins Cerveau going down to an Irish bar in Brussels for lessons…

  31. ‘its not really about ‘climate change’ at all, its about destroying the capitalist West, this is just cover.’

    Zactly. When climate change stops getting traction, they’ll move on to some other cause, and ACT LIKE 35 YEAR CLIMATE HYSTERIA NEVER HAPPENED.

  32. ‘What gets measured gets managed.’

    And what can be measured gets managed. Whether it needs to be or not.

    When metrics become hot consultant meme (1980s), people started metrics on what they COULD measure, not what needed to be measured.

    ‘The climate impact of business and consumer decisions is not being fully measured and thus not being properly managed.’

    Then it is being perfectly managed!

  33. They don’t want a solution with minimum costs, whatever maximises wealth after suffering the costs and motivations of climate change. They want to destroy the western way of life utterly and completely.

    The only question to ask them is “which six and a half billion people do you want dead?”

  34. When you validate the lies and corruption of a group of people by establishing a tax to their cause, you essentially declare that the truth is irrelevant. They may now pronounce on it as priests. What objection could there be once you have already acknowledged their core claims requires no evidence?

  35. Jim,

    Meat should be banned to save the planet. Exception for the RoP because of cultural sensitivity.

Leave a Reply

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