Skip to content

Deeply confused thinking at The Guardian

So, lots of money to poor countries for climate change. Which isn’t what they need, at all. Rather, they need the tech to be able to grow. Which is what capitalism and free markets do provide and which bureaucratic transfers of cash do not.

But anyway:

Rich nations should deliver on the promise of previously committed funds – such as the $100bn a year from 2020 – to signal their seriousness. As a bare minimum, a windfall tax on the combined profits of the largest oil and gas companies – estimated at almost $100bn in the first three months of the year – needs to be enacted.

Note that leap there?

The moral point is that all we rich world folks have caused the problem. Well, mebbe. So, it’s us rich world folks who should pay. Well, mebbe. But that point only works because it’s us rich world folk who have all the money because we
use fossil fuels and thereby create the emissions. Tasxing the profits of the people who provide fossil fuels doesn;t tax the same group of people at all.

That is, to gain what The Guardian demands, that the people who emit get taxed to pay for the poor requires a carbon tax, not a profits tax.

14 thoughts on “Deeply confused thinking at The Guardian”

  1. Without circular logic and filling enormous gaps with fake statistics, the whole climate scam wouldn’t exist. It will eventually collapse under its own contradictions but only aftet having done immense damage to the world economy and stunted growth in the Third World.

    Meanwhile the Millibands’ nanny will still be able to se the second kitchen.

  2. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/environment/2022/11/07/china-pumps-pollution-eight-years-uk-since-industrial-revolution/

    China has emitted more carbon dioxide over the past eight years than the UK has since the start of the Industrial Revolution, figures have shown.

    Between 1750 and 2020, the UK emitted 78 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, compared with China’s emissions of 80 billion tonnes since 2013.

    Another inconvenient hate fact.

  3. Taxing people who provide fossil fuels doesn’t tax the people who use fossil fuels, you say in order to prop up the justification for carbon taxes.

    Until you demonstrate that a large number of shareholders in Shell live in unheated mud huts illuminated with tallow candles, dress in hides and eat their food raw I shall assume that the goups are in fact the same, which is not of course to agree that either form of tax is justified.

  4. TMB

    Maybe you need to borrow Murphy’s expertise with Venn Diagrams to illustrate the link between the two groups….

  5. Curious this obsession with money. Money is only a token exchangeable for goods or services. So the poor nations need goods or services they don’t currently have? So maybe it’s necessary to address the shortage of goods & services. Simply giving them money will just leave them competing for what’s currently available. Increasing the money supply > inflation. So wouldn’t it be better to address the actual problem? Incentivise the production of what they need?

  6. Yeah BiS. They should be encouraged to build up their industries to make what they want or pay others to provide it.

    This’ll take quite a bit of energy. But most of these places have plenty of coal and lots louts who can be used to dig it up.

  7. @Boganboy
    Well I certainly don’t see a reason to increase taxes on the oil companies. The profits don’t stay with them. They get distributed to the shareholders & enter the wider economy. So it’s an effective increase in taxation across the entire economy. Increased taxes are a disincentive to production. So less production of goods & services, not an increase. Which is what they were saying is required.

  8. At the time of partition, 75 years ago, poverty-stricken Pakistan had 34m people. Today it has 231m, a near 7-fold increase. There’s no sign of that growth slowing. Climate change is not the problem here.

    The Bahamas, another oft-cited innocent victim of climate change, has seen a 500% population growth over the same period.

    In fact every country where people find themselves living on marginal land (vulnerable to flood, hurricane, drought, etc.) is a country where rampant population growth has pushed people into living on the worst land.

  9. ” 75 years ago, poverty-stricken Pakistan had 34m people. Today it has 231m, a near 7-fold increase.”
    But think how many they’d be if you hadn’t filled your cities with them. Some might say you’ve already done your bit.

  10. The end game of the climate change crap is the significant reduction in consumption – to ‘save the Planet’s resources’ and ’save‘ the Environment, the birds and bees and sycamore trees by reducing the energy available, to stop industrial scale production in Western Countries and prevent it starting in non-developed Countries.

    So it’s not only a question of how the West will produce the wealth to transfer, but what would the recipients buy with it anyway?

    The aim, as ever with Socialism and the evil filth behind it, is to impoverish the successful and wealthy just out of spite, grab power and take plunder to live a life of luxury whilst ruling over the peasants.

  11. Bloke in the Fourth Reich

    No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!

    The money needs to be taken off you to pay for mid-air service of filet mignon and foie gras on private jets to people flying to important conferences in luxurious resorts to tell us that we cannot eat burgers or fly economy.

    Absolutely consistent the Guardian’s prescription for all modern ills.

  12. TMB:
    1) How do you plan to tax either Saudi Aramco, or its shareholders? Ditto for China National Petroleum Corporation and its shareholder?
    2) There are fossil fuel consumers who are not Shell (Exxon, Chevron, BP, etc) shareholders – why do they escape tax, just because oil company shareholders are also energy consumers?
    3) I can point to any identifiable group in the west and argue that they are energy consumers; by your logic that justifies tax on that group.

  13. Carbon Tax, one of the famous Six Worstall Fallacies. Doesn’t the fact that Spudman advocates it tell Tim anything?

Leave a Reply

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