Carbon Taxes Aren’t Punitive Or Something

Carbon taxes are apparently about changing your behavior – as written by people who refuse to change their own (via Watts Up With That?)

Are Carbon Taxes The Solution To Global Warming?

There is a belief that taxes (such as carbon taxes) are punitive or punishing, hence the misconception that carbon taxes aren’t part of the solution set useful for climate change.

This is a common misconception, especially in the USA where taxes have been demonized and cut for decades, and politicians bend themselves into all sorts of silly shapes to avoid putting a tax on something. However, it’s a false assertion.

Taxes are a necessary mechanism for governments to raise money for their actions. They are also a key lever for changing consumer and corporate behavior, along with regulations. In behavioral economics, there’s something referred to as induced demand. This is a directly observable behavioral trait of groups. If something is cheap, people will figure out how to use it and more of it will be used. You can see this with building new roads which become congested almost immediately and you can see it with dumping sewage into rivers instead of treating it where that is allowed by lack of regulation and penalty.

Yet, taxes are not meant to be either punitive or for modifying the behavior of the citizenry. At least not in the American system. But, this is what Progressivism is about. Using Government to force compliance. They should remember one thing: what goes around comes around. What happens if Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, decide to impose a tax that is meant to modify the behavior of liberals? One that, say, taxes green energy projects in Democrat cities and states? Or lays a higher tax on mass transit? Who will this affect the most? Or, how about a moving tax for people who move from Blue states to Red states?

A couple are considering the purchase of a car, the second largest single expense most people have after their home. They want the most car for the money, they need to balance status with practicality, they need to balance her desire for an insanely fast corner carving beast with his relative timidity behind the wheel and the like. The price of gasoline and projected future price of gasoline is part of the conversation. A 20 mile per gallon car might cost a couple close to $1,600 in annual gas bills at $2.40 a gallon. A carbon tax might raise that to $3.00 a gallon which would increase their annual gas costs to perhaps $2,000, about $400 more. Meanwhile, a 50 mpg PHEV or a full electric car could drop their annual gas expenditure substantially. Filling up with electricity is half as expensive as filling up with gas at $2.40 a gallon on average in the USA, and closer to a third as expensive at $3.00. That means that buying an electric car might save them $800 without a carbon tax or up to $1,200 with a carbon tax. $1,200 is $100 a month. For most couples that’s material. They’re more likely to make a decision to buy a Chevy Bolt or a Nissan Leaf or a Tesla Model 3 instead of a gas car. They have a choice and are incentivized to make one choice over the other. This doesn’t penalize them, but it does shift behaviors to preferential ones.

This is Government forcing people to behave in a certain manner for essentially Wrongthink. This is why we have a 10th Amendment, and a Constitution that restricts the actions of the federal government. And, don’t forget that “what goes around comes around.”

Read: Carbon Taxes Aren’t Punitive Or Something »

If All You See…

…is an area that is drying out from carbon pollution, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Pacific Pundit, with a post on CNN having a case of the sads over the Ossoff loss.

Read: If All You See… »

Funniest Fallout From Georgia Special Election: Democrats Live With Their Parents

And the get out the votes folks had a bit of a problem

(Daily Caller) A precinct captain for Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff’s congressional campaign complained recently that many of his constituents are hard to reach because they still live at home with their parents.

“Those were the angriest people,” Jessica Zeigler told Slate, referring to the Republican parents of the young Democrats. “When you are targeting their child, or heaven forbid their child might not think the same way as them, it becomes ugly.”

Ziegler, who has been quoted in a number of Slate articles and a NYTimes piece, added that the police had even been called on Ossoff volunteers on a number of occasions.

One would think these young people who are stuck living with their parents because they cannot get jobs (while sitting on tons of college loan debt) allowing them to do the whole Adulting thing would be tired of the Democratic Party policies that helped put them in this position, but, they’ve been indoctrinated into caring about things that are stupid.

Then there’s this

Read: Funniest Fallout From Georgia Special Election: Democrats Live With Their Parents »

We Have A Winner In The “Tropical Storm Cindy Is Climate Change” Sweepstakes

Remember when members of the Cult of Climastrology would tell us that weather was not climate? Of course, that was before the CoC manufactured a talking point that allowed them to blame all winter weather on warming and CO2, which allows them to now screech “this is what climate change looks like! Yeaaaaaaargh!” Hence, we have Warmists Eric Holthaus pulling the normal Warmist schtick

TROPICAL STORM CINDY COULD BECOME AMERICA’S LATEST FLOODING NIGHTMARE
The Gulf Coast is preparing for the sort of rainstorm that is supposed to come only once in a lifetime.

…..

As with virtually every weather event at this point, there’s a clear link between Cindy and climate change. Since a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor (thanks to enhanced evaporation and other factors), rainfall rates during extreme events have become more intense. To prove the point, this morning, the atmosphere over New Orleans was the wettest it has ever been for the date. The one-in-200-year or one-in-500-year calculations include only historical rainfall data and don’t take into account changing trends resulting from climate change. Weird rainstorms are happening more often now.

With pronouncements like that, I and other Skeptics are fully empowered to call Warmists (or whatever your refer to them as) members of a cult. And what Holthaus means by climate change is anthropogenic, where “carbon pollution” from mankind is causing all these changes. Except for the Great Pause, of course, where nature was the driver.

As you can guess, there are plenty of Warmist droppings regarding #Cindy all over Twitter

But, here’s my favorite

That’s funny.

Read: We Have A Winner In The “Tropical Storm Cindy Is Climate Change” Sweepstakes »

NY Times Admits There’s Pretty Much No Evidence Against Trump Over Collusion

At least one NY Times employee has come to a soul sucking conclusion

(Daily Caller) NYTimes columnist David Brooks challenged the paper’s dominant narrative in a Tuesday op-ed in which he cautioned critics of President Donald Trump to show restraint in light of the absence of evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian officials.

“There may be a giant revelation still to come. But as the Trump-Russia story has evolved, it is striking how little evidence there is that any underlying crime occurred — that there was any actual collusion between the Donald Trump campaign and the Russians,” Brooks wrote.

There may be a giant revelation, but it is highly doubtful. After all this time, after all these talking points, after all these investigations in Congress and by the same media which mostly refused to investigate Obama and his team, if it hasn’t shown up yet, we can bet with confidence that there isn’t any evidence for a giant, or even tiny, revelation.

Brooks’ explicit admission that there is no evidence to suggest the Trump campaign colluded with Russian officials to interfere in the 2016 presidential election represents a significant departure from what has been the NYTimes editorial position since the multiple ongoing investigations began.

This is because there never was any “there there.” This was all a Democratic Party freakout that started even before he won the GOP primary, around the time he was gaining steam and winning primary elections, and exploded when he won the general election, and outcome that the Democrats just cannot accept.

Brooks examines one of the central arguments that Trump’s critics, his own NYTimes colleagues among them, have introduced in an effort to implicate him in nefarious activity and quickly dismisses it.

“There were some meetings between Trump officials and some Russians,” Brooks wrote. “But so far no more than you’d expect from a campaign that was publicly and proudly pro-Putin. And so far nothing we know of these meetings proves or even indicates collusion.”

Was there Russian interference, or at least attempted interference? 100% yes. Nations muck around in other nation’s elections all the time. The United States certainly does it. What would you call Obama taking the side of the Remain group during the Brexit vote, and even backing Macron during the recent French elections, among others? Sure, on the latter Obama was out of office, but, he’s still an ex-president with a lot of sway. One report states that the Russia interference was about being anti-Hillary, not pro-Trump. It was payback for her actions against Russia, and they would have done the same thing regardless of who the GOP chose.

Brooks concludes by suggesting Trump may be vindicated in his criticism of special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.

“Unless there is some new revelation, that may turn out to be pretty accurate commentary,” Brooks wrote referring to Trump’s tweet.

It’s time to end this charade, and leave Democrats to their conspiracy theories. The Republicans need to shut this down and move on to their agenda. And have the fortitude to call the Democrats out, take control of the narrative. Which, we have to admit, is pretty difficult for Republicans. They’re not real good at that.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: NY Times Admits There’s Pretty Much No Evidence Against Trump Over Collusion »

Washington Post Pimps Carbon Tax Again

We’ve already touched on this plan by so-called Republicans and a few liberals, who are essentially pushing a Big Government solution to a problem that cannot be proven. Now we have George P. Shultz and Lawrence Sanders pushing the pimp

This is the one climate solution that’s best for the environment — and for business

President Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord has induced a fateful pessimism about what can be expected of the country on this critical issue. Yet our long experience in Washington has taught us that the transition from the inconceivable to the inevitable can sometimes be very rapid.

The pressure on the administration to find an alternative to Paris will only mount, and its foundations have already been laid in the reasons the president cited for withdrawing. That is, any viable climate solution must promote growth and jobs, be fair to ordinary Americans and prevent other economies from taking advantage of us. It must also meet the broader test of American politics: the ability to appeal to the general public, corporate America and leaders in both parties.

Such a climate plan is not only feasible but is now gaining traction. On Tuesday, the Climate Leadership Council announced its founding members, a group of companies, opinion leaders and nongovernmental organizations who have joined forces to promote a consensus climate solution based on carbon dividends. We are proud to be part of this distinguished group.

The interesting part here is that most Warmists refuse to voluntarily purchase carbon offsets (nor give up their own big carbon footprint ways, but, that’s a different story). The Rich folks who are Warmists purchase offsets rather than give up their own Bad Behavior. And the want Everyone Else to be forced to join in on this little plan of marching up and down the square investing more power and money in the hands of the Federal Government. Constitution schmonstitution!

Our carbon dividend strategy has four interrelated elements that account for its strength: a gradually rising and revenue-neutral carbon tax; carbon dividend payments made equally to all Americans, to be funded using all the carbon-tax revenue; rollback of costly command-and-control regulations that were implemented because the environmental costs of carbon fuels have not been incorporated into their price; and border adjustment to ensure a level playing field and U.S. competitiveness.

Each and every one of these things gives the Central Government more control of citizens, private entities, the energy sector, and the economy. Furthermore, it makes citizens more reliant and dependent on government, because the Helpful Hand of Government will refund some of the money lost to the taxes, fees, and cost of living increases.

A carbon tax set at $40 per ton would achieve substantially greater reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions than all of the regulation now on the table.

First, remember that is the starting point. Second, the average American has a carbon footprint of around 19 metric tons per year. So, another $760 a year lost to government directly, which doesn’t account for all the higher costs associated with all businesses having to pay more and passing the costs to the consumers. Guess who gets hurt the most? The middle class and lower class.

Read: Washington Post Pimps Carbon Tax Again »

If All You See…

…is an evil gun made more prevalent because carbon pollution makes more war, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The First Street Journal, with a post on the death of Otto Warmbier and agreeing with Salon.

Read: If All You See… »

Party Made Of 5 Year Olds Declares Quintuple Red Alert

Republicans in Congress need to start treating Congressional Democrats like the (feral) children they are

(The Blaze)  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced Monday that Democrats would be utilizing new tactics in order to protest the Senate health care bill from the Republicans.

Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called it a “quintuple red alert.”

Like this

“Radical departure from normal procedure on a bill of such consequence,” Schumer announced from the floor, “leaves the Senate minority little choice but to depart from normal procedure as well.”

“Starting this evening,” he added, “Democrats will begin objecting to all unanimous consent requests in the Senate, save for honorary resolutions. We will seek, in as many ways as we can, in as many times as we can, to refer the House-passed health care bill to committee. Where it can be vetted, debated and amended in the open, for the American people to see, as is their right.”

One has to wonder where all the news outlets are regarding the Demokids telling us that they are going to go beyond obstruction into tantrum.

BTW, just to be clear, the GOP needs to put their so-called repeal and replace bill out in the public domain. We’d like to see it, especially if it is as bad as the stupid House one, which didn’t repeal, and essentially dinks around the edges of Ocare while making things worse.

Read: Party Made Of 5 Year Olds Declares Quintuple Red Alert »

The New Consensus: The Global Warming Hiatus Was Real

This will leave a mark on all the Warmists who proclaim that the Hiatus, otherwise known as the Great Pause, was not real

(Daily Caller) A scientific consensus has emerged among top mainstream climate scientists that “skeptics” or “lukewarmers” were not long ago derided for suggesting — there was a nearly two-decade long “hiatus” in global warming that climate models failed to accurately predict or replicate.

A new paper, led by climate scientist Benjamin Santer, adds to the ever-expanding volume of “hiatus” literature embracing popular arguments advanced by skeptics, and even uses satellite temperature datasets to show reduced atmospheric warming.

More importantly, the paper discusses the failure of climate models to predict or replicate the “slowdown” in early 21st century global temperatures, which was another oft-derided skeptic observation.

“In the early twenty-first century, satellite-derived tropospheric warming trends were generally smaller than trends estimated from a large multi-model ensemble,” reads the abstract of Santer’s paper, which was published Monday.

“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed,” reads the abstract, adding that “model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Many Warmists did actually say there was a Pause, then would provide all sorts of excuses as to why it occurred and why this totally doesn’t mean that we’re not all doomed in the future. Usually, their excuses would involve things like it being caused by nature, which brings to mind a significant question: “if the Pause was caused by natural variation, why can’t most of the warming be due to natural variation?”

What is notable here is that they are admitting that the models are, in a simple word, crap. 95% of them were wrong. Warmists are fond of throwing out a talking point about if 97% of your doctors telling you you’re sick, why would you ignore them? Well, if 95% of your doctors were wrong, would you listen to them?

As Powerline notes “The lead author, Ben Santer, is one of the leading climatistas, so this article can’t be written off as “denier” distortions. (One of the co-authors is Michael Mann.)”

Let’s note yet again that the debate is not about warming: there was warming, it started in the mid-1900’s. The debate is on causation. If the models, based primarily on the release of carbon dioxide from the works of Man, what the Warmists un-scientifically refer to as carbon pollution, are mostly wrong, that would mean that their whole Cult of Climastrology is based on a lie.

Read: The New Consensus: The Global Warming Hiatus Was Real »

On Free Speech, Washington Post Finds That “Constitutional And Decent Are Not The Same Thing”

By now you may have heard that the Supreme Court ruled in a manner that Free Speech is actually Free Speech. That government may not regulate it because someone got the vapors, such as, say, with the name of the Washington Redskins. The NY Times took to the Editorial Page to hail this decision, writing

The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position.

One has to wonder why the NYTEB has suddenly changed their position. WIIFT (what’s in it for them)? Did they suddenly realize that their own freedom of speech could be in jeopardy because some people find it offensive, a position that Leftists have been pushing for years? Will they now support people saying things that Leftists consider “offensive” on campus? How long till they decide to change their opinion again?

Then we get to the Washington Post Editorial Board, which ends on a doozy

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech

THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.

Not mentioned is that it is Liberals, Democratic Party voters, who are attempting to shut down speech that Offends them, with Republican voters standing foresquare in attempting to protect Free Speech.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning.

The justices were obviously, and properly, influenced by the fact that the Asian American members of the Slants took the name in a bid to “reclaim” that slur as something more positive and prideful. To apply the existing disparagement proviso in the statute despite the band’s expressive intent would not merely have exercised government control over government expression, implicit in trademark registration, as the Obama administration argued when the court heard the case shortly before Inauguration Day this year. It would, as the justices ruled, have put the government in the business of picking and choosing among points of view, a role that the court has repeatedly forbidden it to perform.

Not a bad start for the WPEB, though it’s a cute spin about trying to “reclaim” that slur by using it. They then note this quote (among others)

The concurring opinion followed with the rationale underlying that jurisprudence: “A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all.”

Perhaps the WPEB is starting to realize that what’s good for the good is good for the gander. That what goes around comes around. That the Special Tiger Of Being Offended they let loose could turn around and take a bit out of the people who set it free.

But, here we go

This is strong medicine, both in terms of the support it offers free speech and in terms of what it requires of those who do take offense at expressions likely to enjoy court protection as a result of this opinion — specifically the Washington football team’s name, which was also the subject of a suit against its trademark. The answer, in our view, is to redouble all lawful efforts to get that name changed, even if a federal lawsuit probably can’t be one of them. As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing.

That’s an interesting turn of phrase. What are we to read into it? Is is simply an acknowledgement that Free Speech is Free because it can offend you, and governmental entities are restricted from doing anything? Or is it something deeper, something more Progressive, a belief that the Constitution is profoundly wrong because it should allow government to restrict certain speech? Liberals have long had a problem with the Constitution, especially when it goes against the things they are trying to accomplish, and this ruling makes it harder for them to restrict any and all Free Speech they disagree with.

This could mean very bad things for Leftists who want to ban speech they do not like, that they consider “hate.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Read: On Free Speech, Washington Post Finds That “Constitutional And Decent Are Not The Same Thing” »

Bad Behavior has blocked 4556 access attempts in the last 7 days.