I always find it amusing that Leftists, who are primarily the people pushing the climate change hoax, tend to always think that taxes are the solution. In this case, the NY Times pushes a carbon tax, rather than suggesting that all Warmists should practice what they preach. Warmists do not want to have their own lives affected. After a lot of fluff and silliness we get
According to the respected M.I.T. global climate simulation model, there is a 10 percent chance that average surface temperatures will rise by more than 12 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. Warming on that scale could end life as we know it. Smaller increases would be less catastrophic, but even the most optimistic projections imply enormous costs.
More prognostication from hysterics, despite the temperatures being statistically insignificant over the past 15 years even though CO2 levels have risen.
The good news is that we could insulate ourselves from catastrophic risk at relatively modest cost by enacting a steep carbon tax. Early studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a carbon tax of up to $80 per metric ton of emissions — a tax that might raise gasoline prices by 70 cents a gallon — would eventually result in climate stability. But because recent estimates about global warming have become more pessimistic, stabilization may require a much higher tax. How hard would it be to live with a tax of, say, $300 a ton?
If such a tax were phased in, the prices of goods would rise gradually in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide their production or use entailed. The price of gasoline, for example, would slowly rise by somewhat less than $3 a gallon. Motorists in many countries already pay that much more than Americans do, and they seem to have adapted by driving substantially more efficient vehicles.
A carbon tax would also serve two other goals. First, it would help balance future budgets. Tens of millions of Americans are set to retire in the next decades, and, as a result, many budget experts agree that federal budgets simply can’t be balanced with spending cuts alone. We’ll also need substantial additional revenue, most of which could be generated by a carbon tax.
A second benefit would occur if a carbon tax were approved today but phased in gradually, only after the economy had returned to full employment. High unemployment persists in part because businesses, sitting on mountains of cash, aren’t investing it because their current capacity already lets them produce more than people want to buy. News that a carbon tax was coming would create a stampede to develop energy-saving technologies. Hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment might be unleashed without adding a cent to the budget deficit.
So, raise taxes for a fictional issue which will accomplish nothing but causing prices across the board to rise, but “could” balance the budget and might help with “green” energy. Interestingly, the rest of the article also fails to mention how this would stop the temperature rise and “extreme” weather. Wouldn’t that be the point of a carbon tax? All the Times’ is doing is finding a way to directly move more money from the private sector to the public sector.
Read: Fish Wrap Pushes Carbon Tax »
