White House puts final nail in coffin: "We would never propose a carbon tax."

[wtmusic]

"Directly taxing emission of carbon dioxide to thwart its effect on climate has been much talked about post-election, but a spokesman for the president said it's off the table.

<>

At a press conference Wednesday, President Barack Obama emphasized a need to address climate change, but White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said that something would not be a 'carbon tax.'

'We would never propose a carbon tax and have no intention of proposing one,' Carney said in a press briefing. 'The point the president was making is that our focus right now is the same as the American people's focus, which is on the need to extend economic growth, expand job creation.'"

http://www.statejournal.com/story/20108999/obama-spokesman-we-would-never-propose-a-carbon-tax

What says I love you more than this big valentine to Obama's big coal contributors?

[phantom power]

1. we're all going to pay a carbon tax, it's just a question of how:

[wtmusic]

3. Well stated. nt

[joshcryer]

9. Nice.

[MH1]

25. Yes, well said. nt.

[Laelth]

27. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[GliderGuider]

2. So we are now at least 12 years away from any effective climate policy.

4 more years of Obama, and at least two more terms after that. Then another 8 years to actually get something working, another decade for it to have any effect, at which point we discover ... what? That we've burnt fossil fuels faster and faster for the last 30 years, and we no longer recognize the climate, or even much of the planet.

Thank the goddess I'm an apocaphile.

[phantom power]

4. Our climate policy is going to be written for us by the four horsemen SIG.

[GliderGuider]

6. It's gonna be a party...

[DreamGypsy]

29. Ignorance, Intolerance, Greed, and War

From 2008...

http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2008/04/29/have-the-four-horsemen-of-the-apocalypse-begun-their-awful-ride/

With the impact of global warming, prospects of imminent starvation resulting from the current food crisis and continuing wars and terrorism in many locations world-wide, it is increasingly looking as though the Four Horsemen of the Book of Revelation. War, Famine, Pestilence and Death have been unleashed on the earth.

snip

The health of millions, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), will be damaged if world temperatures continue to rise in the train of climate change. Increasing temperatures will aid the spread of water-borne diseases, and those carried by insects, it forecasts. This means an increase in malaria, dengue fever and SARS, West Nile, hantavirus, Ebola, Nipah, Hendra, AIDS and many other infectious diseases. Climatic changes could even lead to more outbreaks of bubonic plague among human populations, a study in August, 2006, suggested.

Then we have the spectre of the Black Horseman, famine and mass starvation caused by recent escalation of global food prices, already posing a very real threat, not to mention the continual threat posed by the Red Horseman of War, especially with ominous warnings by presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton’s that in the event that she was elected she would “obliterate” Iran in the event of its attacking Israel. That’s not even counting Iraq, Afghanistan and ominous sabre rattling by Russia over Georgia. The upcoming scenario for the world does not look too promising!

[PamW]

17. Point of no return

I bet we pass the "point of no return" that many climate scientists speak.

It's a little like taking a fatal dose of poison. After taking the fatal dose; you don't immediately die; but your fate is sealed in any case. You eventually will die.

Climate scientists point out that at a certain point that we should be reaching in a very few decades; it won't matter if we are able to completely shutoff the introduction of CO2 into the environment. We, or more correctly, the planet; will already have taken a fatal dose of CO2 and the climatic results will be inescapable.

When the planet needed a real leader that could have turned things around at a pivotal point in our history; we ended up getting Obama.

PamW

[cprise]

5. The message is: Carbon tax would be anti-growth

Don't expect a well reasoned (or any) explanation of this position.

In a way, its a big opportunity that was missed. The hubris of the neocon tax cuts could have played into a plan to introduce a carbon tax.

[NoOneMan]

7. It could have completely unpredictable results, that may not impact emissions positively at all

Making the average cost of energy more "expensive" requires one to produce more money (something created by consuming energy) to purchase it. To keep at a constant growth rate of X would require a much more energy intensive environment up to that point to support (than currently), would it not? It may accelerate growth and energy consumption, while decreasing surplus created through that consumption. Honestly, Im not sure how the hell it would pan out in a closed system with our current quasi free-market policies.

In any case, I find the entire notion of a carbon tax as stupid. It puts no cap on emissions, but simply introduces a new variable into an amazingly intricate and complex economic system, and hopes it all shakes out for the best.

[CRH]

8. I think theoretically the carbon tax, ...

is supposed to be more than punitive, it is proposed as funding for the transition to a clean energy economy. The reality of US politics it appears, is the clean energy economy will rely mostly on market forces for development and expansion. But market forces seem only interested in developing the remaining 2700 GT of carbon emissions using all known reserves of fossil fuels. That should cook us to extinction easily.

So in effect the Obama administration not just passed on limiting emissions, but as well has passed on a large scale funding of renewables research and incentives. It appears any incentives will come out of discretionary budget and no thoughts of a Manhattan project for a low or no carbon economy.

[AverageJoe90]

10. Not extinction. Not for mankind anyway. n/t

[wtmusic]

23. I'd be very surprised if you can justify that with numbers.

Here's someone who presents a fairly convincing argument for it.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/six-degrees-mark-lynas/1100833125?ean=9781426203855

[AverageJoe90]

37. Re: Lynas.

The overview does say that much of humanity could fall by the wayside, according to the book. but it doesn't say anything about extinction; for extinction to occur, as we all know (or should know) by now, every single living member of a species must die before it can become extinct.

[wtmusic]

38. The book itself is explicit

I don't have it in front of me, but this is an accurate summary:

"Ostensibly, we will die due to the effects of global warming. By 2100, according to the IPCC consensus report (see Table SPM.3 on page 13 and footnote 5 on page 2 which explains the ranges in the table), there is a 5% chance that the average temperature of the planet will rise by more than 6.4ºC. That's in the report, clear as day, but nobody talks about it because only a few people understand exactly what that means to our planet. But one guy from the UK (who has hardly gotten any press in the US) Mark Lynas, has done the research on what this means. Lynas spent 3 years of his life poring over 10,000 scientific papers and found that, although it doesn't sound like a lot, a 6ºC temperature rise will pretty much wipe out just about every life form on the planet, us included. Although IPCC scientists had previously projected that there was only a 5% chance of more than a 6.4ºC warming by 2100, the assumptions on which those projections are based have already been exceeded, which is pointed out in this paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper points out that the assumptions in all 6 emission scenarios considered by the IPCC have already been exceeded. So that's why I am using the numbers from the A1FI scenario, which gave a 5% chance of exceeding 6.4ºC by 2100. If it doesn't happen by 2100, it will not be long after. I wrote a short web page "Why global warming should be every candidate's #1 priority" describing this in detail."

http://www.skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/Extinction.htm

[AverageJoe90]

40. Well, I guess the summary ought to be rewritten, then.

And, btw, contrary to Steve Kirsch's assumptions, virtually no scientist of any particular distinguishment, is seriously talking about human extinction(other than Hansen and a few other exceptions, from time to time), nor has anyone outside Hansen and a few people on the fringes suggested that 6*C necessarily = human extinction. Major population reduction? Yes, there's been research that suggests that possibility, but not extinction.

It is indeed true that 6*C by 2100 would present many steep challenges to overcome, and would indeed put a terrible strain on civilization in many ways, but outright extinction, by itself? Absolutely not. Even Yellowstone erupting tomorrow couldn't quite accomplish that.

[wtmusic]

41. If billions die, does it really matter if humans are "extinct"?

Too many hypotheticals to be sure, but put it this way: when air temps are occasionally hot enough to boil water at the equator (and they would be, with a 6º average increase), survival could very possibly take on a hellish reality that is terrifying to contemplate.

Is the important thing that a few rich white people survive at the poles, or that we give climate change the attention that it deserves?

[AverageJoe90]

42. Are you serious?

Too many hypotheticals to be sure, but put it this way: when air temps are occasionally hot enough to boil water at the equator (and they would be, with a 6º average increase), survival could very possibly take on a hellish reality that is terrifying to contemplate.

Uh, hot enough to boil water? That's 212 degrees. That didn't happen even during the Eocene when temps were, at times, up to 12*C hotter than today, so how could it possibly occur even if the worst case of 6-7*C does occur by 2100? Quite frankly, it's a bunch of baloney. Even the Sahara desert doesn't ever get that hot.

Is the important thing that a few rich white people survive at the poles, or that we give climate change the attention that it deserves?

Definitely the latter, of course, but constantly promoting misconceptions and half-truths without bothering to look at all the research(yes, some people are guilty of that!), hasn't been helping. And what's even more disturbing is that a few have actually had the gall to label me a "denier" simply because I don't buy into Apocalypse type scenarios.

[wtmusic]

43. I guess I have gall too then.

You're denying that a mass extinction is apocalyptic. I would call you a denier too.

There are many scenarios being floated out there, and Lynas' is one that hasn't been debunked. Why don't you read it, and tell me what's wrong with it? I want to live in your rosy world.

[AverageJoe90]

44. Stop twisting my words.

You're denying that a mass extinction is apocalyptic. I would call you a denier too.

Since when have I said, or even implied that a mass extinction wasn't apocalyptic? Come on, man, that's practically borderline dishonesty right there.

There are many scenarios being floated out there, and Lynas' is one that hasn't been debunked.

Just because someone hasn't tried debunking something yet, doesn't mean it's immune from said thing.

Why don't you read it, and tell me what's wrong with it? I want to live in your rosy world.

Because I really haven't got the money to spare, and I'm really not sure if it'd be worth the cash anyhow. No shit.

[wtmusic]

48. A 6ºC increase would, by most accounts (not just Lynas)

result in extinctions at or greater than the number of extinctions during PETM (likely much greater, due to the fact it is predicted to occur in a time span less than 1/100 of the PETM).

The scientific consensus in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is that

Anthropogenic warming could lead to some impacts that are abrupt or irreversible, depending upon the rate and magnitude of the climate change." "There is medium confidence that approximately 20-30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5-2.5 °C (relative to 1980-1999). As global average temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40-70% of species assessed) around the globe.

If 3.5ºC results in 55% of species going extinct, it's pretty obvious that 6ºC would be disastrous and GliderGuider's 10ºC model describes a future which would be nothing short of apocalyptic.

For someone who is critical of those who "don't bother to look at the research", you seem remarkably un-versed in the research yourself. I suppose if you want to discuss climate change intelligently you're going to have to drop $10 on a book once in awhile - most of the people around E/E are familiar with Lynas, Hansen, Michael Mann, et al and they've been discussed here a lot (if you don't want to read Lynas, at least read Hansen's Storms of my Grandchildren). Alternatively, you can find dissenting opinions that you believe and present those, but just declaring man "absolutely" won't go extinct, without a counterargument, doesn't carry any weight.

Everyone knows Lynas isn't a scientist. But like Nate Silver, who was never trained as a pollster - he's smart, he came into his field from outside, became fascinated with it, immersed himself in it, and ended up bringing an entirely new perspective to it. Scientists are reluctant to make general predictions about the future because they are by training conservative. They don't stray outside what they know. But that's why looking at the future from a perspective like Lynas's is valuable. Climatologists can tell us how hot it might get; zoologists might tell us how animals might adapt to it; anthropologists tell us how man might adapt to it; economists know how macroeconomics affect survival. If someone puts a cross-disciplinary picture together carefully and intelligently, gathering as much good data as they possibly can, and that picture is one of humankind standing on the tracks and a freight train is coming - is that not something which is worth further examination? Doesn't the precautionary principle tell us with those stakes, it's worth taking the utmost precaution to make sure it doesn't play out?

[CRH]

52. Very well said, thank you, ...

Is is easy to be distracted from cohesive rebuttal, when faced with conviction of an unwilling mind to present opinion over fact, all couched within desultory discourse.

[cprise]

16. Carbon tax advocates are proposing a shift away from income tax

at the same time. That's why I mentioned a missed opportunity in the context of the Bush tax cuts... the momentum of that misdeed could have been redirected into a positive policy.

Overall, people might come out even or save money in a deal that shifts taxes to carbon emissions. Its a possibility that needs to be explored.

[NoOneMan]

19. But bottom line:

Is it going to reduce carbon emissions or just shift revenue streams around?

Yes, while cap-n-trades can be "gamed" as they are setup intentionally to be, carbon taxes produce no firm cap or mechanism--other than the quasi free market--to reduce emission levels. Therefore, in regards to actually solving the problem, they are beyond merit conceptually.

Should corporations that hurt the environment pay more (thereby reducing the need to tax people)? Sure. But thats besides the point. As long as they are willing to pay, they'll be allowed to pollute.

In any case, *any* mechanism created regionally (not globally) will do nothing for our situation. Further, any mechanism written with the help of big business will have more holes in it than our ozone.

[cprise]

22. You seem to be saying that Globalization needs to go away first

Limiting how much corporations can do on foreign soil would seem to be a necessary step to go along with any scheme to limit emissions.

I disagree about regional schemes being ineffective. They allow people to gain experience with the legal mechanisms, gain confidence in the process, and signal an intention to mitigate the problem.

And all-or-nothing approach would be more likely to suffer a backlash or break down.

[NoOneMan]

28. The problem with unilateral regional approaches:

Production can merely be moved somewhere else (globablization).

It only takes one small, poor nation to make a statement that they will never, ever tax carbon, and they will be flooded with every manufacturer under the sun looking to setup shop. Then the regional mechanisms will simply hide the fact that carbon is being burned somewhere else.

Its not difficult to envision this happening, as its already the status quo (though labor costs are the deciding factor)

[wtmusic]

31. If carbon is taxed at the source, it doesn't matter.

Small, poor nations are dependent on carbon imports. We have to make it too expensive to pull out of the ground in the first place.

[NoOneMan]

33. It has to come out of the ground

Where are you going to get the energy to build the "green" energy infrastructure?

[wtmusic]

34. Why zero-carbon nuclear, of course. nt

[NoOneMan]

39. Haha. Oh, we are so screwed.

Mankind will do anything it can to continue to build shit it doesn't need

[wtmusic]

24. Fee-and-dividend not only taxes carbon, but rewards not using it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_and_dividend

As suggested by James Hansen.

As long as they are willing to pay, they'll be allowed to pollute

Still the case - but if the fee is high enough there would be absolutely no reason to.

[cprise]

35. +1 Thank you. n/t

[AverageJoe90]

11. Wouldn't hurt to start putting Washington's feet to the fire again.

To be honest, much of this can probably be rightly blamed on the Republican's MASSIVE obstruction of Congress these past 4 years and their extreme attempts to sabotage this nation, all in favor of just getting 'that guy' out of the White House.

There is a bit of good news, though:

Carney said he would not lay out more details about Obama's plan, but he pointed to an increase in renewable energy production, investment in research and a doubling of fuel efficiency standards.

Wednesday, Obama called for a national conversation about climate change and emphasized the need for jobs and economic growth to be a part of that discussion.

Even so, it's definitely a good idea to start putting Washington's feet to the fire again, as we did during this year's elections. And if too many people start getting too cynical about this issue, then guess what? There's a far higher chance that nothing will be done. Is that a risk we want to take? IDTS. So let's do what we can.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Turn out the lights, the party's over...

Where is Dandy Don Meridith when we need him?


Seriously this is not unexpected and those acting surprised should not be. This president is focusing on rebuilding the economy and will not address these kinds of issues until he believes that it will represent little political risk.

[PamW]

18. A real leader...

This president is focusing on rebuilding the economy and will not address these kinds of issues until he believes that it will represent little political risk.

A real leader doesn't worry about the political risk. A real leader does what is right; and attempts to bring along those who don't see it his way.

Once again, we have a "pseudo-leader" that "leads" from the rear.

In other words; he not really a "leader" but a "follower".

He follows the pack to where ever the pack is going; and then steps forward and says, "I lead you here."

As usual, we have a leader that only wants the self-serving trappings of his own power and place in history; rather than doing what is right for the people, their descendants, and the planet.

Perhaps historians will look at him as the leader that had a chance to set things right; and FAILED

PamW

[NoOneMan]

20. A real "leader", as far as the president is concerned...

Leads people to believe/embrace the predetermined policies that the economic powers have already committed to. A president with high leadership is essentially a turd polisher; at that, Obama truly excels.

[CRH]

30. OK Pam, assuming everything you said is true, ...

From the pool of candidates in 2007 - 2008, to the present, who if anyone, would have been a leader? Or is a 'leader', with the qualities you describe above, impossible to elect in the present media driven political structure?

It seems whoever the candidate, by the time they have been vetted by the system, they are guaranteed to be ineffectual of change of the status quo, except within very narrow, pre determined, boundaries.

Thanks.

[PamW]

32. I don't see any...

I agree with you that by the time the "system" vets the candidates; it culls out the real leaders.

Evidently, we the people don't like to be told things that we don't want to hear; like the sacrifices we will all have to make.

What we want from our politicians is for them to deliver "goodies" to us from the government; with someone else paying the tab.

I have to go back farther than your 2007 / 2008 time frame to find a real leader.

How about a President who told us in his inaugural address:

Ask NOT, what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.
--John F. Kennedy

Now there was a leader. Where are those like him?

We don't get leaders like him anymore. The "system" excludes people like JFK because they are not in the business of giving us "free" goodies.

PamW

[CRH]

36. Agreed, n't

[XemaSab]

13. From the back of the envelope, 1 cent per ton would be 58 million dollars a year

Not a huge amount of money, but enough to get a few projects up and running.

[AverageJoe90]

45. And we can certainly do plenty better than that, I think. n/t =)

[YankeyMCC]

14. Just heard a story about a carbon tax this AM on Living on Earth radio show

Turns out that based on evidence of the experience of other nations that have imposed carbon taxes since the 90's it has actually been a boost to the economy in addition to helping to reduce emissions.

The speaker in the show seemed to have some optimism that there might be a political window for proposing it because if you make it effective enough you might be able to reduce the pressure to raise payroll taxes or touch sacred tax deductions.

I guess the interview was prior to this statement from the WH.

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=12-P13-00046&segmentID=4

[NoOneMan]

21. The problem with the evidence

Countries' economic systems are not closed systems. Some of these countries have incredibly high export rates (like Sweden with 40%+), which have only risen under this legislation. While their GDP has increased under a carbon tax, it is entirely dependent upon selling products to countries that generate wealth by burning dirty energy. There is no way to say that the aggregate emissions necessary to have grown their country have increased or decreased under a carbon tax; carbon may simply been burned somewhere else to prop up their economy and purchase their goods.

What we do know is that global emissions continually increase, despite all these isolated "green" improvements that are happening piece-meal across the globe.

[AverageJoe90]

46. Damn straight.

Of course, some people around here will use the "But it's not a closed system!" excuse......hmm, sounds like something Christopher Booker would say, don'tcha think?

[NoOneMan]

54. Sounds like a fact

[hatrack]

15. Yes, that's pretty much it - a carbon tax was really the only sensible approach . . .

Cap-and-trade is too easily gamed, and why go for the unnecessary complications of C&T when a tax is that much simpler?

Oh, but wait! We can't do that, because that would be a "tax", and taxes are always bad, and every penny you pay in taxes makes Baby Jesus cry, and Grover Norquist told me so.

Maybe in twenty years this will come back around in some form. However, since it's already too late now to prevent large-scale, society-wide disruption, it'll just be shoveling shit against the tide when the way, way, way too-late response comes as an attempt to bargain with full-on collapse.

We'll get serious about climate breakdown at a time and place that reveals once and for all how deeply unserious we were.

[XemaSab]

47. My NR Economics teacher was a HUGH fan of C&T

specifically because it's cheaper for industry to implement while still accomplishing the same goals, but the examples that we talked about were mostly things like SOx and NOx and mercury and whatnot.

[hatrack]

50. Ah, yes - SOX and NOX and HG - things that can be removed in baghouses and scrubbers . . .

As oppose to the principal product of combustion.

[XemaSab]

51. Exactly

[cilla4progress]

26. Stupid.

They better have another plan then.

[Nihil]

49. Well that's a surprise from the pro-coal president ...

Change that gullible cheerleaders can believe in.

[ellenfl]

53. this admin should campaign hard for the opposite of what they really want.

the repubs would be all over what the admin really wants like white on rice! i don't know why the admin doesn't do this now that there is nothing to lose. by the time new elections come around it could be too late to reverse some dem gains.

if repubs want to be contrarians, beat them at their own game!