This is the same NRC that has pushed to create one sided “climate change” education standards, despite there being a 15+ year pause in warming, which the models haven’t predicted, and even fail when the models are applied in hind-sight. Oh, and the NRC relies on public grant money. They have a vested interest in keeping the money train rolling
(Politico) A federal report is endorsing a carbon tax as a far better method to combat climate change than the current web of energy tax provisions.
Despite spending billions of dollars on energy subsidies, the federal government’s Tax Code has done little overall to cut greenhouse gas emissions, according to a National Research Council report out Thursday, which concludes that a carbon tax or cap-and-trade system would be much more effective.
“In order to meet ambitious climate-change objectives, a different approach that targets GHG emissions directly through taxes or tradable allowances will be both necessary and more efficient,†the report concludes.
First, the tax code is not meant to be a means to modify behavior. Second, it’s completely unsurprising that The Government has wasted what is really tens of billions of dollars dealing with Hotcoldwetdry, because most of the projects seem to be linked to scratching the backs of big campaign donors. Third, carbon tax programs around the world have failed. And if California is any indication, we would simply see the money that was supposed to be used for Bad Weather prevention programs used for everything else but the Bad Weather prevention programs.
Fourth, has anyone else noticed that most, if not all, of the policy prescriptions from Warmists tend to model themselves around far left Progressive doctrine, such as increasing taxation and reducing liberty?
That conclusion is far from surprising; the prospect of a carbon tax swirled heavily in Washington recently, even drawing interest from conservative groups such as the American Enterprise Institute. And many economists have said a carbon tax would be the most efficient way to address emissions.
Poltico writer Alex Guillen makes it seem as if the AEI supports a “carbon tax”, but the only interest was in debating the merits, which is what adults do, rather than fools who proclaim “the science is settled!!!!!” Their conclusion was that it would be a Bad Idea for quite a few reasons, one of which is that any carbon tax would be regressive, and seriously burden the middle and lower classes. So, it seems that a carbon tax is good for the 1%ers, but no one else. They would be up for one if income taxes were reduced across the board, or even eliminated. Same with government regulations.
“Although it may seem obvious that subsidizing biofuels should reduce CO2 emissions because they rely on renewable resources rather than fossil fuels, many studies we reviewed found the opposite,†the report says. “As structured, the biofuels tax credits encouraged the consumption of motor fuels because they lower prices, and this effect appears to offset any reduction in the GHG intensity of motor fuels that occurs because of the incentives to blend biofuels with gasoline.â€
Actually, it shouldn’t be obvious, because most of the biofuels actually put out more CO2, while needing more water and land to produce them, while costing more and being less powerful. But what the NRC wants is super-duper high gas prices. I bet those who work for the NRC haven’t given up their own fossil fueled travel.
Contributors to the report include David Hawkins, the Natural Resources Defense Council’s director of climate programs; Yale University economics professor William Nordhaus; and Drew Shindell of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Ah. So the main contributors are all far far left Warmists. Color me surprised.
