Bloomberg News Advises Democrats That Americans Won’t Pay Their Carbon Taxes

This is an amusing piece by Ramesh Ponnuru, since it is in a news source owned by hyper-Warmist Michael Bloomberg, himself a believer in carbon taxes.

Democrats: Americans Won’t Pay Your Carbon Taxes

Much has been made of the willingness of Democratic presidential candidates to risk taking positions that aren’t popular with voters at large in order to boost themselves in the primaries. Democratic politicians and strategists are aware that most people don’t want to see private health insurance banned, for example, but such leading contenders as Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have come out for it anyway.

There has been less focus on the political risks of the candidates’ approach to climate change. In part that’s because so many Republicans have taken their own unpopular stance on the issue: denying that there’s a problem. Gallup finds that nearly two-thirds of voters believe that human activity is causing the globe to get warmer, and that percentage has been rising over the years. Young voters are especially concerned about the issue. It’s part of the reason that some Republicans, such as Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida, have broken with many of their colleagues on the matter. “I think history will judge very harshly those who are climate deniers,” he said.

But the Democrats may be getting overconfident. At last week’s “climate town hall” on CNN, Senator Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden, and South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg all endorsed a carbon tax. Senator Kamala Harris did, too, although she called her tax a “fee.” All of these candidates are breaking with past Democrats. Neither President Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton endorsed a carbon tax. A memo for the Clinton campaign estimated that a carbon tax of $42 per ton on greenhouse-gas emissions would raise annual energy costs by $478 for the average household, and by $268 for the poorest fifth of households.

Don’t forget, those increased energy costs would lead to an increase in the cost of everything else, as those costs are passed on from companies to consumers.

When considering that number, keep in mind another poll finding. In November 2018, the AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research ran a survey about climate change that found, in line with other polls, that most Americans believe it is happening and that human activity is causing it. Nearly half of respondents said that recent extreme weather events had influenced their thinking on the issue. But 68 percent opposed paying even $10 extra in their monthly utility bills to address the issue.

Belief is great, right up to the point you actually have to pay for it, eh?

Even a tax increase on the top fifth of households is a heavier political lift than Democrats have been prepared for. A household with an annual income of $130,000 is in that fifth. The tax increases of the last two Democratic presidents kicked in at a much higher threshold. And the gross cost may matter politically, not just the net cost. Even if the Democrats promise a rebate, Republicans can sow doubt that voters will actually see one.

So, Democrats are continuing to lower the threshold of what they consider “rich.”

Washington State’s relatively liberal electorate has rejected carbon taxes twice in recent years. In 2016, a carbon tax was paired with a sales-tax cut and drew the opposition of 59% of voters. In 2018, on a generally good day for liberal causes, 56% opposed a carbon tax with no rebate.

I’ve mentioned that a few times. And, remember, the governor of Washington, Jay Inslee, bombed “bigly” while his campaign focused almost solely on ‘climate change’.

The journalists at Vox did one of those round-ups of who won and lost from the climate town halls. (Winner: CNN; loser: meat.) But they ignored someone who might turn out to be the biggest winner: President Donald Trump, who will surely hit the cost issue hard as we get closer to the election.

You think? Trump won’t hold back, and will paint any carbon tax scheme as one that will cost American citizens a lot of money. And if he can get people who had zero chance of voting for him to refuse to vote for whomever the Democratic candidate is in swing states and even “lean Democrat”, he has a much better chance to win the 2020 election. He doesn’t have to convert them. Just keep that vote from going Democrat.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

67 Responses to “Bloomberg News Advises Democrats That Americans Won’t Pay Their Carbon Taxes”

  1. John says:

    When will we get a first person report from Teach about the visit to his state by his savior Trump ?

    • formwiz says:

      Pick up a newspaper.

    • Kye says:

      Trump isn’t his savior, John. We’re not like you commies, Christ is our savor Trump is just the President. We don’t believe politicians are saviors, in fact just the opposite.

      Trump 2020 Stop the heathens.

    • david7134 says:

      John,
      Why were you in jail? Did it have to do with farm animals. That’s my bet.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        davey,

        You continue to be the 2nd sickest fuk here (after LilBish).

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          Do you really think I give a flip what you think?

          As to John, I give him the respect that he deserves with his idiot questions, idiot attacks and commenting and taking strong positions with absolutely no background knowledge or desire to educate himself. Much like you.

  2. John says:

    A carbon tax of $20 per ton of CO2 would raise the tax on gasoline by ……15 cents per gallon or about 6%

    • gitarcarver says:

      As usual, John not only gets the stats wrong, but distorts the data leaving whole parts out.

      1) A carbon tax that starts at $20 per ton would raise $1.2 trillion in the next decade. More precisely: “A price of $20 per metric ton on greenhouse gas emissions in the United States in 2012 and raising that price at a nominal rate of 5.6 percent per year would yield a total of $1.2 trillion in revenues over the 2012–2021 period.”

      2) That same carbon tax would hike gasoline prices by about 20 cents a gallon: Since the United States is so reliant on fossil fuels, any carbon tax would raise the price of stuff: “The burden imposed by a tax of $20 per ton on CO2 emissions would amount to 1.8 percent of before-tax income for households in the lowest quintile and about 0.7 percent of before-tax income for households in the highest quintile.”

      That carbon tax would also hike U.S. electricity bills by 16 percent on average, though coal-heavy states would see bigger hikes: “Households in Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, West Virginia and Wisconsin would see the biggest rise in electricity prices (27 percent), and households in California would see the smallest rise (7 percent).”

      3) A carbon tax would have some ripple effects through the economy.

      A carbon tax, the CBO notes, “would be likely to reduce both real wages and profits on investment to some extent, but the relative changes in wages and profits would be uncertain.”

      source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/23/seven-thrilling-facts-about-carbon-taxes-from-the-cbo

      It’s the perfect plan for people like John. It will cost more to drive, heat homes, etc. It will raise prices on products. It will lower wages.

      John and the left have nothing but hate as they want people to pay higher taxes, work for less money and get less for their dollar.

      • Kye says:

        I don’t think it’s hate that drives John and the radical left, gitarcarver, at least not on a personal level. I think it is blind devotion to a political theology and a massive dose of naivety. Their political theology manifests itself by being for every single tax known to man and some not yet devised and by siding with every anti freedom idea produced by the minds of evil men.

        Their naivety derives from their lack of experience and mostly wisdom and not realizing that any idea will by nature become more than it was originally estimated. Experience would have them realize this just by comparing the promises made when programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare/food stamps, Income Tax, Obamacare, etc. and the never achieved “results” of these programs as well as the fact they NEVER stay on budget or even close to budget.

        Their lack of wisdom comes from believing “the next time will be different”. No, John, the next time will end up the same or worse. Case in point the newest “socialist” sate: Venezuela.

    • formwiz says:

      Said carbon tax would raise the price of everything.

      And Americans will never stand for it. Especially for a problem they know doesn’t exist.

    • Jl says:

      “A carbon tax would raise the price…..” And do absolutely nothing to the climate.

  3. david7134 says:

    Yes, let’s tax us, take our wealth, destroy our economy to satisfy a few emotional fools who have fallen for a hoax.

    John is an example. In his childish logic he believes that a small tax is all we face. This shows a complete lack of knowledge of the effect of these taxes that once put into effect ripple through the system. For What? To reduce the horrible CO2? Even the people proposing this are truthful enough to say it would do little to the environment. Instead it places much more power in the hands of central powers. And there is zero chance that India and China would do a thing.

    It is beyond clear that this climate concern is a power grab. Does any influential advocate lead a truly green lifestyle and thus showing how easy it would be? No.

  4. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The American right displays no more ignorance on any topic than on global warming.

    gitarcarver: Do you understand that the Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 that we humans are adding to the atmosphere?

    • Bill589 says:

      “Do you understand that the Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 that we humans are adding to the atmosphere?”
      Do you understand that the Earth has stopped warming even though CO2 levels continue to rise?

      Believe the facts, not the politicians.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        The Earth is still warming.

        You can see for yourself: https://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

        0.18 degree C/decade since 1970.

        Do you have evidence to support your claim that the Earth stopped warming??

        • alanstorm says:

          No, it’s not. You can see right here:

          https://www.realclearenergy.org/articles/2019/08/23/climate_alarmists_foiled_no_us_warming_since_2005_110470.html

          BTW, CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor – which we have very little control over, if any – is much more important.

          The American displays no more ignorance on global warming than any other topic. IOW, complete ignorance coupled with unbridled arrogance.

          • david7134 says:

            Alan,
            All Jeff does is to comment on order to get people upset. He does not understand and only uses Dem talking points.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Actually your link is wrong. Even the US (which represents a mere 2% of the Earth’s surface) has warmed.

            You are right that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, but you probably realize that humidity varies greatly from time to time and region to region.
            Anyway, did you know that as temperature increases so does the atmosphere’s water vapor capacity? It’s one of those positive feedback loops that climate experts try to scare you with.

        • formwiz says:

          Do you have anything better than another goofy Lefty website?

          I mean, real science. .18C is 32F. We’d all know it if the temp had changed that much.

          If you’re going to lie to people, try something believable.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You are too, too ignorant, Dumbass.

            Do you really think an increase of 0.18C is the same as an increase of 32F??

            Arithmetic tells us that an increase of 0.18C is the same as an increase of 0.32F. You’re only off by 100 fold.

            Surely, you can’t be serious.

            You flunked chemistry and arithmetic.

            All you do is deny, shout “Is Not!” and lie.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Oh wow he misplaced a decimal point!
            Nothing gets past the whining little sissybitch.
            She’s soooo smart.

            Oh wait…
            Lolgfy loser. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            The difference between 0.32F and 32F is significant, don’t you think? Haha, like you ever think.

            Pure willful ignorance.

            Now, fuk off, asswipe.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            The difference between 0.32F and 32F is significant, …

            Why yes, yes it is!
            Thanks for pointing that out, little sissybitch.

            You’re so smart!

            Oh wait …
            Lolgfy loser. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff,
      Even your 97 scientist are backing down on their positions. People clinging to your climate religion are pathetic and all their positions have been destroyed. I tried to watch a panel discussion on this and almost threw up it was so bad. One liberal made the case for climate change in that her friend was able to swim in August in Australia. Then the main guy for the religion just kept putting up grafts but his lines clearly demonstrated warming occurring followed by CO2 rise.

      In the end you have zero evidence of humans doing a thing, there is no consequence to warming, you have not proved the needed scientific proofs with the scientific methods, you call for massive changes in our way of life with zero indication of benefit. All elements of the Climate debate point to this being a hoax. I told you years ago to look at the cholesterol problem as a parallel to what is happening here and you can’t understand or want understand the issue.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        davey,

        None of what you typed is true.

        Why lie about everything?

        And again, you try to link serum cholesterol to global warming. Not related.

        • david7134 says:

          Jeff,
          As I said, you don’t have the intellect or educational background.

        • formwiz says:

          Because chemistry is chemistry, whether in the body or in the atmosphere?

          • david7134 says:

            Formwiz
            The issue of cholesterol goes way back in comments with Jeff.

            To make it short, cholesterol has zero to do with any disease state. But just like the climate issue, the the experts spoke, the literature is a fraud, the discourse forces doctors to accept a negative result and doctors have to treat patients when the treatment does nothing. On top of that, the politicians and their wives jumped in and made policy. Was this a conspiracy. No. It is a discourse that got momentum and can not be stopped, just like the climate situation, except with climate the politicians get unlimited power.

    • formwiz says:

      Of course, we add to the atmosphere. We exhale CO2. And why was this summer so cool?

      Sometime next year, Bernie’s idea of thinning the herd will be justified as too many people exhaling. Just wait.

      And three guesses who’ll be banging the drum loudest.

      PS It’s not ignorance, it’s science. Y’know, the stuff that can be proven.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        Um, no, it’s ignorance.

        Plants use atmospheric CO2 and light energy to incorporate CO2 into complex carbohydrates. Humans (and the animals we eat) eat the plants, and exhale CO2. It’s a cycle and in balance!

        On the other hand, when we burn oil, coal and gas we’re releasing CO2 that was incorporated into plants millions of years ago, causing atmospheric CO2 to increase.

        Are you arguing that our burning of fossil fuels is not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2? That would be ignorant even by your standards.

        • formwiz says:

          And it still falls to earth and takes part in photosynthesis, but the idea of “legacy CO2” is rather amusing, as if it doesn’t behave like any other CO2.

          Are you arguing that our burning of fossil fuels is not responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2? That would be ignorant even by your standards.

          Of course it isn’t as Michael Mann’s lawsuit proves. There is no increase because it’s all a fraud.

          And it’s your standard in ignorance that’s off the charts.

    • gitarcarver says:

      gitarcarver: Do you understand that the Earth is warming rapidly from CO2 that we humans are adding to the atmosphere?

      Whether or not I accept that premise is not the issue or the point of my post.

      The point of my response is that John misrepresented the facts as he often does.

      One must wonder why the left, who has nothing but hate, feels the need to lie about the issue over and over.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        You do what you always do, deflect, distract and derail.

        Oh, and you say all the left has is hate.

        The right is ignorant and cruel.

        • formwiz says:

          Only if you consider facts ignorant and cruel (talk about projection!).

          Oh, and you say all the left has is hate.

          You do realize not only is that incorrect, it has nothing to do with your previous statement.

          You do what you always do, deflect, distract and derail.

          When they say stupid people never learn, they’re talking about you.

        • gitarcarver says:

          You do what you always do, deflect, distract and derail.

          So John makes a really stupid and deceitful post on the costs of carbon taxes upon which I commented and stayed on point.

          You came in with a totally different point and then have the gall to say that I am the one that is not staying on point.

          The left can’t stand anyone standing up to their hatred, because that is all they have.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You consistently miss the forest for the trees. You focus on minutiae. It’s what you do.

            All you have is hate.

          • gitarcarver says:

            You consistently miss the forest for the trees.

            As the forest are made of trees, looking at the health of one tree (the lies you, John, and the left tell) is an indication of the health of the forest.

            You focus on minutiae.

            For want of a nail, the shoe was lost……

            All you have is hate.

            See? There you go again? Showing your hate to the world. It is all that the left has.

            After all, you hate the fact that I pointed out John was wrong. You hate conservatives for being correct and exposing the lies of the left.

            So instead of actually discussing an issue, the left just hates.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            You’ve always been a slippery little eel!

            Here you go, Minutiae-Man.

            John says:
            September 10, 2019 at 12:02 pm
            A carbon tax of $20 per ton of CO2 would raise the tax on gasoline by ……15 cents per gallon or about 6%

            John said the carbon tax would raise gasoline 15 cents per gallon, and you claim “about 20 cents per gallon”. With that evidence you declare “lie”. Overreact much?

            Minutiae. There, the “issue” is discussed.

            Do you think the Earth is warming from CO2 humans are adding to the atmosphere?

            All you have is hatred for reason and truth.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Typical. Run and hide…

          • gitarcarver says:

            You’ve always been a slippery little eel!

            And you have always been frustrated and lash out illogically at those with whom you disagree.

            John said the carbon tax would raise gasoline 15 cents per gallon, and you claim “about 20 cents per gallon”. With that evidence you declare “lie”. Overreact much?

            So, you think a 33% increase in John’s “fact” is not significant? Perhaps you need a different standard of truth.

            Secondly, as was pointed out, there is more to the carbon tax than just increase in gas prices. It is an increase in prices overall.

            Query: do you think that a carbon tax would be a regressive tax, thereby harming poor people more?

            Third, as we pointed out, the tax will hurt employment.

            Query: Do you think that people – presumably those in middle and lower classes – will be harmed by the loss of jobs?

            It is clear that John put forth a “lie by omission,” and you support him in that effort.

            Because all the left has is hate, they hate the truth and wish only to support the lies that harm others.

    • Jl says:

      Do you understand the earth isn’t warming any faster than it has in the past?
      Either way, the rate is really irrelevant, as it would be the effect of warming that would matter. All dire effects so far are unsubstantiated computer model assumptions.

  5. formwiz says:

    Actually your link is wrong. Even the US (which represents a mere 2% of the Earth’s surface) has warmed.

    You are right that water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, but you probably realize that humidity varies greatly from time to time and region to region.

    He said it’s a weak greenhouse gas (BTW, CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas. Water vapor – which we have very little control over, if any – is much more important), so that’s another lie in which you’re caught (thought you could slip it in).

    Anyway, did you know that as temperature increases so does the atmosphere’s water vapor capacity? It’s one of those positive feedback loops that climate experts try to scare you with.

    So? Humidity has been a part of climate since climate.

    Your stupid little non sequiturs make make you think you sound intelligent, but they show you for the fool you are.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      No one said water vapor was a weak greenhouse gas, so you’re caught in another lie, Dumbass.

      So fukking ignorant.

      • formwiz says:

        alan said it and you have it flung right in your face (that quote in bold).

        But you try to lie about it, anyway.

        Go away, you fool. You’re too stupid even to be a Lefty, even a troll. Go molest something, preferably inanimate, and hope the rock or whatever it is doesn’t hit you with a restraining order.

        Get out of here. You aren’t fit to communicate with bacteria.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          He didn’t say water vapor was a weak greenhouse gas, Dumbass.

          Why are so obsessed with molesting something?

          • formwiz says:

            I quoted him verbatim. First you lie and then try to change the subject.

            Why are so obsessed with molesting something?</i.

            You are.

  6. formwiz says:

    You are too, too ignorant, Dumbass.

    Do you really think an increase of 0.18C is the same as an increase of 32F??

    You made the statement. You and your little Lefty brethren prove yet again the Left stinks at math.

    Arithmetic tells us that an increase of 0.18C is the same as an increase of 0.32F. You’re only off by 100 fold.

    Surely, you can’t be serious.

    You flunked chemistry and arithmetic.

    The formula says otherwise. Where do you get this stuff? The same place you got that jackass chemical “formula” you tried to pass off last night?

    For God’s sake, don’t be just another Lefty and try to think for yourself. Check this stuff out on a science site, not some Lefty propaganda site.

    Idiot.

    All you do is deny, shout “Is Not!” and lie.

    Like Michael Jackson, he’s looking at the man in the mirror.

    The difference between 0.32F and 32F is significant, don’t you think? Haha, like you ever think.

    Pure willful ignorance.

    Now, fuk off, asswipe

    The bear suit can’t stand being contradicted with the facts. Find yourself a converter and work the formula yourself.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      We gave you a chance to correct your error.

      By all means, Dumbass, show as how an increase of 0.18C is equivalent to an increase of 32F.

      So fukking ignorant. So fukking ignorant.

      We suspect you used 9/5C + 32 = F. Sorry dummy, that doesn’t apply in this case.

      • formwiz says:

        Unfortunately, name-calling doesn’t make you right.

        The universal formula doesn’t work? Tell us, O please, how it does work.

        Get real. You really are that stupid.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          trumpsucker,

          Do you really believe that an increase of 0.18C is equivalent to 32F?

          Are you really sticking with that?

          Goddamm, you’re so Donald!

          • formwiz says:

            Show us your formula that says otherwise.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Recall, we’re talking about an increase of 0.18C, not that the temperature is 0.18C. Therefore, (9/5) X 0.18C = 0.324F

            Recall that the range from freezing to boiling (of water) is 100C (0-100) and 180F (32 to 212). That ratio is 180/100 which is equal to 9/5.

            There’s no need to correct with the 32F offset.

            According to you, if the temperature increases from 10C to 20C, that represents an increase of (9/5) x (20C-10C) + 32 = a 50F increase. Since the original temp was also 50F, the increase would be to 100F!

            Yet, 20C is actually, (9/5) x 20C + 32 = only 68F! The difference between the correct 68F and your incorrect 100F is exactly the 32F offset.

            When your looking at changes in temp you don’t need the 32F offset.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Commenters here are prone to pounce on errors of syntax or a few percent, yet ignore one of your own as he keeps promulgating a 10,000% error in his temp increase calculations.

            Cult.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            Dumbass,

            Do you understand now?

  7. formwiz says:

    Well yes. It’s easily calculated. How ignorant of you to even ask.

    But you can’t do it, so the ignorance is yours.

    Oh, God, this is hilarious. There’s only only formula to convert Centigrade to Fahrenheit, recognized throughout the world, but not in KeeneLand.

  8. formwiz says:

    You consistently miss the forest for the trees. You focus on minutiae. It’s what you do.

    All you have is hate.

    You think the trees are the source of global warming.

    All you have is ignorance and petulance.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7597 access attempts in the last 7 days.