Skip to content

Me, I’m laughing like a drain

So, social cost of carbon. A judge has said this – for the US, obvs – must be determined according to the law. Seems obvious enough. Except the law says a discount rate of 3 and 7% – the two so as to capture the range. But the social cost of carbon is only above a $ or 2 a tonne if the discount rate is much lower than that. But they can’t use the lower rate because the law says 3 and 7%. So, the US social cost of carbon needs to be $ or 2.

The laughter comes from the fact that it’s the progressives who say there must be a law about everything. So, there is. But the law then stops the progressives from doing what they want.

Tee hee.

Sure, sure, appeal and all that. But still petard etc.

6 thoughts on “Me, I’m laughing like a drain”

  1. I had a similar laugh when Victoria passed a law to ban smoking in outdoor cafe/restaurant areas. It got worded, to get it through, as smoking is not allowed where food is being served. Places that felt that food was their profit center immediately banned smoking. But quite a lot of cafes and pubs which relied on coffees and booze just said, fine, no food outside then. Which led to a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the anti-smoking lobby about spirit of the law, etc. They were stupid enough too to define a distance that smokers had to be from food service, there’s a place in Melbourne that has a big enough balcony to divide into thirds and bought signs – ‘No smoking past this point’, ‘No eating past this point’, and in the middle ‘No smoking or eating in this area’ 🙂

  2. Ltw, you mean when waybackwhen I had a girly in Queensland where her 12-13 yr old kids did their damnedest to get every Horror Show Pic from the fag packs to make the complete set, along with their school mates?

    Some deterrent that was…..

  3. As far as the discount rates and social cost of carbon figures are concerned, I am surprised not to see the square root of -1 in there. Because that is the way to distinguish imaginary numbers.

  4. I would like to see a detailed explanation and description of and value put to the tangible cost to society being caused by ‘carbon’ – do they mean soot?

    I can see and pay a very tangible cost to society of trying to get rid of fossil fuels.

    If Pigou Taxes are supposed to improve the lives of those ‘suffering’ external costs, how is my life being improved by this ‘carbon’ Pigou Tax?

    It seems to me ‘environmentalism’ carries huge externalities, therefore it and all the stupids in it should be taxed – we could call it an Attenborough Tax.

  5. “If Pigou Taxes are supposed to improve the lives of those ‘suffering’ external costs, how is my life being improved by this ‘carbon’ Pigou Tax? ”
    You should get a warm satisfied glow knowing Tarquin & Jocasta have found interesting & rewarding employment

  6. Would these costs be just the latest predictions of ecological disaster that are being rolled out after the previous ones failed to happen? Since, as being mentioned elsewhere currently, these predictions have been failing consistently since the year 1970, how do they represent a cost?

Leave a Reply

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