Should a govt scientist be advocation a carbon tax?

KLATTU said:

This seems inappropriate.

Gavin Schmidt (NASA) explains the climate change problem and solution – Climate State

Of course the answer is no, but as I've brilliantly and famously pointed out several times, people like Gavin Schmidt have Hope and change and Clinton /Kaine stickers on their cars. Thus all their 'science' must be taken with the same grain of salt as Paul Krugman's economics'.

Click to expand...

That article is from April 2015. Slow day? Or did one of the usual suspects suddenly find out about it?

Anyway: This list is from NASA's page on permitted activities for most employees, per the Hatch Act.

• be candidates for public office in nonpartisan elections
• register and vote as they choose
• assist in voter registration drives
• express opinions about candidates and issues
• contribute money to political organizations
• attend political fundraising functions
• attend and be active at political rallies and meetings
• join and be an active member of a political party of club
• sign nominating petitions
• campaign for or against referendum questions, constitutional amendments, municipal ordinances
• campaign for or against candidates in partisan elections
• make campaign speeches for candidates in partisan elections
• distribute campaign literature in partisan elections
• hold office in political clubs or parties

I.e. since he did not say "in my official capacity as the director of the Goddard Institute, you cannot vote for Trump," it's perfectly appropriate.

In fact, the idea that a climatologist is not supposed to acknowledge or discuss policies to combat climate change / AGW is denialist insanity. NASA has entire departments measuring global temperatures, that release figures on a monthly basis. Did you really miss that somehow?

Office of Chief Counsel - Ethics - Hatch Act/Political Activities

The legal basis for a carbon tax (as well as regulations based on the social cost of carbon) will likely be swept away by the Trump administration.


A must read: Obsolete Climate Science on CO2

Obsolete Climate Science on CO2 by Richard A. Epstein, Stanford University Tuesday, December 20, 2016 The incoming Trump administration has promised dramatic transformations on many vital domestic issues. The best gauge of this development is the fierce level of opposition his policies have generated from Democratic stalwarts. One representative screed is a New York Times…
Continue reading →

Read the entire essay here, it is well worth your time.

. . . The overall picture with respect to the SCC, then, is the exact opposite of that described by Greenstone and Sunstein, and that change in direction has a serious effect on the success of various legal challenges. Greenstone and Sunstein note that a legal decision in 2008 held that ignoring the SCC makes an administrative rule “arbitrary and capricious” and thus requires its reformulation by the applicable agency. They also reference another 2016 decision that upheld an administrative decision of the Department of Energy that explicitly took into account the SCC. But these judicial decisions have a surreal aura about them. The key statute for these cases was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which was passed in the aftermath of the 1973 Mideast Oil Embargo that followed in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The EPCA’s chief finding was that “the fundamental reality is that this nation has entered a new era in which energy resources previously abundant will remain in short supply, retarding our economic growth and necessitating an alteration in our life’s habits and expectations.”
It was on the strength of this 41-year-old statute that the Court in 2008 required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to reissue its rules for the average fuel economy standards for light trucks because they failed to take into account the SCC. The ruling is wholly anachronistic today because the revolution in energy technology has obviated the entire factual premise on which the so-called CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules rest. Given fracking, energy is abundant. Thus, the SCC has to be reevaluated in light of evidence collected outside the EPA, and summarized above, none of which was taken into account when working within the closed universe of the current set of environmental and energy laws. At this time, it appears that virtually all the EPA rules rest on outdated science.
Greenstone and Sunstein are not alone in their refusal to deal with evidence that undermines their claims. But if the SCC looks to be negative, the Trump administration should act to eliminate the current endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, and dismantle the regulatory apparatus that rests upon its highly questionable estimation of the positive value of SCC. The sorry truth is that the EPA and the regulatory process in the Obama administration show no respect for the scientific method they claim to rely on.

Jack Hays said:

The legal basis for a carbon tax (as well as regulations based on the social cost of carbon) will likely be swept away by the Trump administration.


A must read: Obsolete Climate Science on CO2

Obsolete Climate Science on CO2 by Richard A. Epstein, Stanford University Tuesday, December 20, 2016 The incoming Trump administration has promised dramatic transformations on many vital domestic issues. The best gauge of this development is the fierce level of opposition his policies have generated from Democratic stalwarts. One representative screed is a New York Times…
Continue reading →

Read the entire essay here, it is well worth your time.

. . . The overall picture with respect to the SCC, then, is the exact opposite of that described by Greenstone and Sunstein, and that change in direction has a serious effect on the success of various legal challenges. Greenstone and Sunstein note that a legal decision in 2008 held that ignoring the SCC makes an administrative rule “arbitrary and capricious” and thus requires its reformulation by the applicable agency. They also reference another 2016 decision that upheld an administrative decision of the Department of Energy that explicitly took into account the SCC. But these judicial decisions have a surreal aura about them. The key statute for these cases was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), which was passed in the aftermath of the 1973 Mideast Oil Embargo that followed in the wake of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. The EPCA’s chief finding was that “the fundamental reality is that this nation has entered a new era in which energy resources previously abundant will remain in short supply, retarding our economic growth and necessitating an alteration in our life’s habits and expectations.”
It was on the strength of this 41-year-old statute that the Court in 2008 required the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to reissue its rules for the average fuel economy standards for light trucks because they failed to take into account the SCC. The ruling is wholly anachronistic today because the revolution in energy technology has obviated the entire factual premise on which the so-called CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) rules rest. Given fracking, energy is abundant. Thus, the SCC has to be reevaluated in light of evidence collected outside the EPA, and summarized above, none of which was taken into account when working within the closed universe of the current set of environmental and energy laws. At this time, it appears that virtually all the EPA rules rest on outdated science.
Greenstone and Sunstein are not alone in their refusal to deal with evidence that undermines their claims. But if the SCC looks to be negative, the Trump administration should act to eliminate the current endangerment finding for carbon dioxide, and dismantle the regulatory apparatus that rests upon its highly questionable estimation of the positive value of SCC. The sorry truth is that the EPA and the regulatory process in the Obama administration show no respect for the scientific method they claim to rely on.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

A carbon tax would probably be the last straw for many in this country who are already living paycheck to paycheck, so Trump, if he can make it disappear, will be hailed as a hero for this one thing alone, IMO.

polgara said:

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

A carbon tax would probably be the last straw for many in this country who are already living paycheck to paycheck, so Trump, if he can make it disappear, will be hailed as a hero for this one thing alone, IMO.

Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

I think a carbon tax is now highly unlikely for at least four years.

Jack Hays said:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

I think a carbon tax is now highly unlikely for at least four years.

Click to expand...

Aha! That explains the wailing and cursing I've been hearing every time I open the front door! I thought it was the next door neighbor shoveling snow... :lamo

MrPeanut said:

It's not like there are a lot of options. Either you take the word of a scientist paid by the government or one that is paid by private industry. Based on history the government scientist is probably more trustworthy.

Click to expand...

Yes, follow the money.

How much money does the government pay scientists for papers to farther their agenda, of power over the people?

I have read some years back that Exxon et. al. have spend less than 5% of the money that the government powers do.

Jack Hays said:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

I think a carbon tax is now highly unlikely for at least four years.

Click to expand...

I'll bet the number of studies financed going to the warmer agenda are cut also.

Lord of Planar said:

Yes, follow the money.

How much money does the government pay scientists for papers to farther their agenda, of power over the people?

I have read some years back that Exxon et. al. have spend less than 5% of the money that the government powers do.

Click to expand...

...because the more money is spent on research, the less reliable that research is!

MrPeanut said:

It's not like there are a lot of options. Either you take the word of a scientist paid by the government or one that is paid by private industry. Based on history the government scientist is probably more trustworthy.

Click to expand...

By establishing that money has the capability of corrupting research to the desired outcome of the funding organization,
Should not the same standard apply to both private and public funding?

Lord of Planar said:

Yes, follow the money.

How much money does the government pay scientists for papers to farther their agenda, of power over the people?

I have read some years back that Exxon et. al. have spend less than 5% of the money that the government powers do.

Click to expand...

What are the names of the aides and advisors who allocate research funding in the US federal budget?
How exactly do those aides and advisors personally benefit by allocating ~10% of US federal research money into climate science rather than, say, 5%?

What about the bureaucrats who disburse allocated funds to particular organisations and institutions? Do you know their names?
How exactly do those bureaucrats personally benefit if mainstream climate science is validated, or personally suffer if it were disproven?


People who talk about "the government" as some monolithic malevolent entity hell-bent on absolute domination generally look their sharpest in tin-foil hats :lol: Elected politicians sometimes hope to make their country a better place or, more likely, usually just care about being elected back into a cushy job. Telling people that you're going to raise taxes is not an election winner; telling people there's a problem with our cheapest and simplest source of energy is rarely a popular topic. That's why climate change wasn't mentioned a single time in any of the 2016 US presidential debates - and this is at the zenith of three consecutive hottest years on record! Politicians generally try to win elections by giving people and telling people what they want, not telling them that things will have to be a bit harder.

I'm sure there are quite a few politicians driven by some sociopathic, Machiavellian "power over the people" motives; but even then it's utterly ludicrous to suppose that they constitute a majority of representatives, on both sides of politics, unanimously carrying out some master plan across several decades in the hopes of achieving their nefarious ends... which so far have not been met.

Those type of people are more likely to prefer the here-and-now kind of power over the people, rather than funding climate science in the 1990s with the vague hope that thirty years later "the government" will have a little more authority :roll:

Lord of Planar said:

Yes, follow the money.

How much money does the government pay scientists for papers to farther their agenda, of power over the people?

Click to expand...

How much do companies with a financial interest in fossil fuels spend to fund climate change deniers? Unsurprisingly, since those companies can use the system to hide their spending -- while governments are required to be transparent -- no one really knows for sure.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups

Let's get real. The fossil fuel industry, which is one of the largest and most profitable economic sectors in the world, have enormous financial incentives to discredit the science that threatens their bottom line.

I have read some years back that Exxon et. al. have spend less than 5% of the money that the government powers do.

Click to expand...

If you read it somewhere, it must be true. :mrgreen:

The real discrepancy is that governments are the ones doing the hard work -- they have to collect data from around the globe; they need to maintain, store and analyze all that data; they need to launch satellites and ocean buoys; they need to measure glaciers and observe Arctic and Antarctic ice; they need to constantly measure ocean levels....

Meanwhile, the deniers mostly need to bribe Republicans.

Ignoring climate data is a lot cheaper than collecting and analyzing it.

Visbek said:

How much do companies with a financial interest in fossil fuels spend to fund climate change deniers? Unsurprisingly, since those companies can use the system to hide their spending -- while governments are required to be transparent -- no one really knows for sure.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...still-bankrolling-climate-denial-lobby-groups

Let's get real. The fossil fuel industry, which is one of the largest and most profitable economic sectors in the world, have enormous financial incentives to discredit the science that threatens their bottom line.



If you read it somewhere, it must be true. :mrgreen:

The real discrepancy is that governments are the ones doing the hard work -- they have to collect data from around the globe; they need to maintain, store and analyze all that data; they need to launch satellites and ocean buoys; they need to measure glaciers and observe Arctic and Antarctic ice; they need to constantly measure ocean levels....

Meanwhile, the deniers mostly need to bribe Republicans.

Ignoring climate data is a lot cheaper than collecting and analyzing it.

Click to expand...

Please itemize how you think a carbon tax would change the profits of an oil company?
Also state where in the process, (extraction, refining, distribution, retail) the carbon tax would be applied?

longview said:

By establishing that money has the capability of corrupting research to the desired outcome of the funding organization,
Should not the same standard apply to both private and public funding?

Click to expand...

It absolutely should. I consider industry scientists to be less trustworthy based on their track record throughout history. I have no problem believing government funded scientists can skew statistics or even outright lie about things, but so far they have appeared to do that less than their counterparts in private industries.

MrPeanut said:

It absolutely should. I consider industry scientists to be less trustworthy based on their track record throughout history. I have no problem believing government funded scientists can skew statistics or even outright lie about things, but so far they have appeared to do that less than their counterparts in private industries.

Click to expand...

You have not established that the source of the funding has much to do with the potential corrupting influence of the money.
Also most researchers actually work for universities, and funding is in the form of grants.
The proposals for the grants are written in reply to the request for proposals from the organization issuing the grant.

longview said:

You have not established that the source of the funding has much to do with the potential corrupting influence of the money.
Also most researchers actually work for universities, and funding is in the form of grants.
The proposals for the grants are written in reply to the request for proposals from the organization issuing the grant.

Click to expand...

My argument is that historically speaking scientists that have worked for private industry have a worse track record than those using public funding. It isn't necessarily an argument based on strictly the money that is offered to those scientists. It is simply keeping a scorecard. The influence of money itself is a more in depth argument. The only thing I can say about that is that if you are scientist you will make much more money in the private sector than you would in the public sector.

longview said:

Please itemize how you think a carbon tax would change the profits of an oil company?

Click to expand...

No problem.

Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.
How Carbon Tax Works | HowStuffWorks

Can you see how that would be potentially problematic for Exxon? :mrgreen:

Of course, predicting the actual effects is difficult, and would likely require things most people don't want to do -- namely, tweak those carbon taxes to see the effects, and from there estimate the amount of elasticity in the market. The only thing businesses like less than a tax is an unpredictable or constantly changing tax.

It's also pretty clear to me that transportation fuel (gas) demand is fairly elastic, at least to a point. Generally speaking, people drive less when gas prices are high. The effects on emissions do not appear to be very dramatic, but a larger tax than what we've seen in the US over the past few years could have larger effects -- especially if it's a percentage rather than a set cost per gallon.
http://www.nber.org/digest/may09/w14685.html

Also state where in the process, (extraction, refining, distribution, retail) the carbon tax would be applied?

Click to expand...

We could impose carbon taxes wherever we think it's appropriate. The specifics would vary based on the laws we write. Why does that matter? No matter how it's applied, it has the same effect as an increase in the price of oil.

MrPeanut said:

It's not like there are a lot of options. Either you take the word of a scientist paid by the government or one that is paid by private industry. Based on history the government scientist is probably more trustworthy.

Click to expand...

Certainly you are kidding. I should take the opinion of a government employee over on in the private sector? Not likely.

fmw said:

Certainly you are kidding. I should take the opinion of a government employee over on in the private sector? Not likely.

Click to expand...

I mean personally I go with the evidence but you pick whatever you like.

Deuce said:

I mean personally I go with the evidence but you pick whatever you like.

Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that government scientists are more believable than those in the private sector?

fmw said:

What evidence do you have that government scientists are more believable than those in the private sector?

Click to expand...

See, this is the problem with AGW "skeptics," right here.

MrPeanut said:

My argument is that historically speaking scientists that have worked for private industry have a worse track record than those using public funding. It isn't necessarily an argument based on strictly the money that is offered to those scientists. It is simply keeping a scorecard. The influence of money itself is a more in depth argument. The only thing I can say about that is that if you are scientist you will make much more money in the private sector than you would in the public sector.

Click to expand...

And what I am saying is that most of the Scientist both Pro AGW and skeptical, work for Universities, and receive additional funding from grants.
Scientist who work for private industry, tend not to publish much, as their work product is the intellectual property of their employer.

Visbek said:

No problem.

Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.
How Carbon Tax Works | HowStuffWorks

Can you see how that would be potentially problematic for Exxon? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

So please detail why you think this would be problematic for Exxon?
Any increase in the cost of goods sold, by the addition of the tax, would simply be passed on to the consumer.

Of course, predicting the actual effects is difficult, and would likely require things most people don't want to do -- namely, tweak those carbon taxes to see the effects, and from there estimate the amount of elasticity in the market. The only thing businesses like less than a tax is an unpredictable or constantly changing tax.

It's also pretty clear to me that transportation fuel (gas) demand is fairly elastic, at least to a point. Generally speaking, people drive less when gas prices are high. The effects on emissions do not appear to be very dramatic, but a larger tax than what we've seen in the US over the past few years could have larger effects -- especially if it's a percentage rather than a set cost per gallon.
http://www.nber.org/digest/may09/w14685.html



We could impose carbon taxes wherever we think it's appropriate. The specifics would vary based on the laws we write. Why does that matter? No matter how it's applied, it has the same effect as an increase in the price of oil.

Click to expand...

You ask why it matters where the tax would be applied, and then state it will increase the price of oil!
If the tax is applied at the retail point of sale, why would it affect the price of oil?
Oil companies do not sell oil, but rather sell finished fuel products, plastic resins, and lubricants.

longview said:

So please detail why you think this would be problematic for Exxon?
Any increase in the cost of goods sold, by the addition of the tax, would simply be passed on to the consumer.

Click to expand...

Seriously?

You've never seen a demand curve?

As the price increases, demand falls. If the price of gas goes up, people will drive less, or switch to cars that are more fuel efficient. That means Exxon will sell less oil, which reduces their profits.

British Columbia, for example, set up a carbon tax; the result was a per-capita reduction in fuel consumption by 16%, even as other parts of Canada increased use by 3%:
British Columbia's carbon tax: The evidence mounts | The Economist

Ironically, certain types of carbon taxes would actually work in Exxon's favor. A moderate tax will cause serious issues for the already-troubled coal industry, as coal power plants emit more CO2 than oil-based power plants. It's also good PR, though they've undermined much of that potential goodwill by secretly donating to politicians who are climate change deniers. It gives them a possible seat at both sides of the table. And from their perspective, it's preferable to a more strict policy like cap & trade.

You ask why it matters where the tax would be applied, and then state it will increase the price of oil!

Click to expand...

No, I said it varies based on how the law is written. Then I said it probably won't matter (meaning, if it's written properly).

E.g. if we tax oil production, that will affect the price of pretty much everything that uses oil and produces greenhouse gases. If we tax pretty much everything that uses oil and produces greenhouse gases, that's basically going to have the same effect as increasing the price of oil.

Either way, you're increasing the cost of emitting greenhouse gases. And again, we'd have to see specifics of any legislation in order to make any sort of specific claim about whether it will work, whether it's practical, and so on.

If the tax is applied at the retail point of sale, why would it affect the price of oil?

Click to expand...

It won't. It'll reduce demand for oil and/or push consumers to use gas more efficiently, which reduces demand for oil, which reduces emissions and hits fossil fuel companies' bottom lines.

Oil companies do not sell oil, but rather sell finished fuel products, plastic resins, and lubricants.

Click to expand...

...yes, and producing all of that generates greenhouse gases. E.g. the carbon footprint of plastic is approximately 6 kg CO2 per kg.

I don't know offhand the most effective way to levy a carbon tax. Cap & trade is probably more effective. But I'm fairly confident that a carbon tax will make the fuels/products that produce greenhouse gases more expensive, which can reduce demand for those fuels/products and/or push consumers to switch to a more efficient product.

Visbek said:

Seriously?

You've never seen a demand curve?

As the price increases, demand falls. If the price of gas goes up, people will drive less, or switch to cars that are more fuel efficient. That means Exxon will sell less oil, which reduces their profits.

British Columbia, for example, set up a carbon tax; the result was a per-capita reduction in fuel consumption by 16%, even as other parts of Canada increased use by 3%:
British Columbia's carbon tax: The evidence mounts | The Economist

Ironically, certain types of carbon taxes would actually work in Exxon's favor. A moderate tax will cause serious issues for the already-troubled coal industry, as coal power plants emit more CO2 than oil-based power plants. It's also good PR, though they've undermined much of that potential goodwill by secretly donating to politicians who are climate change deniers. It gives them a possible seat at both sides of the table. And from their perspective, it's preferable to a more strict policy like cap & trade.



No, I said it varies based on how the law is written. Then I said it probably won't matter (meaning, if it's written properly).

E.g. if we tax oil production, that will affect the price of pretty much everything that uses oil and produces greenhouse gases. If we tax pretty much everything that uses oil and produces greenhouse gases, that's basically going to have the same effect as increasing the price of oil.

Either way, you're increasing the cost of emitting greenhouse gases. And again, we'd have to see specifics of any legislation in order to make any sort of specific claim about whether it will work, whether it's practical, and so on.



It won't. It'll reduce demand for oil and/or push consumers to use gas more efficiently, which reduces demand for oil, which reduces emissions and hits fossil fuel companies' bottom lines.



...yes, and producing all of that generates greenhouse gases. E.g. the carbon footprint of plastic is approximately 6 kg CO2 per kg.

I don't know offhand the most effective way to levy a carbon tax. Cap & trade is probably more effective. But I'm fairly confident that a carbon tax will make the fuels/products that produce greenhouse gases more expensive, which can reduce demand for those fuels/products and/or push consumers to switch to a more efficient product.

Click to expand...

I know what demand curves look like, but most forms of control taxes deal with discretionary behavior I.E. Sin taxes.
The difference with fuel, is that in many cases the requirement is not discretionary, and there are few viable alternatives.
This discussion really a moot point, as a Trump administration is unlikely to pass a carbon tax.
As I have said for a while, the most likely path, is that the price of fossil oil will exceed the cost
of the refineries making their own carbon neutral feedstock from atmospheric CO2, Water, and electricity.

If the cost of goods sold for a gallon of a $2.25 gasoline is
Oil $ 1.10
refinery .40
Distribution .315
Tax .45
Then Oil will have to be about $90 a barrel for the refineries to see more profit in making their own feedstock.
The Price of the carbon neutral gasoline would end up a little over $3.25 a gallon.

Deuce said:

See, this is the problem with AGW "skeptics," right here.

Click to expand...

AGW skeptics prefer private sector scientists to those in government? How do you know? Personally, I don't believe anything the government says and I have good reason to think that way.