STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
RINOs Pitch Carbon Tax Plan to Trump Admin
By - February 23, 2017

Top Republicans Propose Carbon Tax Plan To Stop Climate Change … There’s a new climate change prevention plan in town, and unbelievably, it’s coming from some rather senior Republicans, the de facto party of science denial. Two former Secretaries of State – James Baker III and George Shultz – along with former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr., met with Vice President Mike Pence, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump and Gary Cohn, director of the National Economic Council this week in Washington D.C. -IFL Science

These are Republicans that may now be known as RINOs.  They propose a carbon tax, which they called a “conservative climate solution” and claim it is somehow a free-market approach.

A transcript from the Republicans delivered to IFLScience, said it was an alternative to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) caps and focus on renewable energy.

A “gradually rising carbon tax,” would do away with government suggestions on what people needed to adopt. Instead, “100 percent of the proceeds would be given back to the American people in the form of dividends.”

The trio reportedly added that, “America could meet the commitments that it made in Paris without any other policies. That is how effective the power of a marketplace solution can be. 223 million Americans stand to benefit financially from solving climate change.”

The Atlantic has a longish article on this program. In the Atlantic article we learn that while this may be an effective tax, it possibly wouldn’t be the only way of combating climate change. In other words, after the tax, we could, dismayingly, get another tax, or some other sort of economic disincentive. It certainly needn’t be the only one.

The Heritage Action for America think tank has already criticized the proposal, saying it runs counter to what President Trump is trying to do with the economy.

“There is no room in the Republican Party for a carbon tax,” said Michael A. Needham, the organization’s CEO. “Replacing Obama’s destructive regulatory regime with a destructive taxation regime will not make American companies more competitive or bring jobs back to abandoned communities. Beyond the policy implications, the Climate Leadership Council’s carbon tax proposal is just the latest example of policy solutions crafted by and made for cultural elites.”

This plan is being pitched as an incentive for creating jobs in the area of renewable energy. But it will obviously cost jobs as well. In fact, they may be pitching it as a job’s maker because there is no other way to justify it. Those who don’t believe in global warming point to a number of reasons why it may not exist.

There has been no prolonged temperature change since 1997. There is no consensus about global warming even among scientists who believe it to be real. Arctic ice has increased a great deal during the so-called decades of global warming. Climate models are not accurate and don’t predict the future. And the predictions that have been regarding global warming are not accurate.

Even if there is global warming, there is no firm evidence that it will be bad for the planet. The rise of even a couple of degrees could make large part of the planet a lot greener.

But it is just as possible the world is getting cooler rather than warmer. The bottom line is that no one really knows. But it has been proven in numerous ways that those promoting global warming have not been honest about their ideas.

They will calculate temperature changes based on data collected from areas that are warmer than they should be, heated up by ship’s exhausts and the like. To propose massive changes in taxation etc to address something that has a very good possibility of not happening is at least unwise. And even if it is happening, it may be a net gain rather than a net loss.

Conclusion: Unless it is proven with certitude that global warming exits and is making thing worse, the chances are that proposals like this are a non starter. Additionally Trump himself has called global warming a scam. And while he may be wrong on some issues, he probably has a good possibility of being correct when it comes to global warming.

 

Tagged with:
Posted in STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Haywood Jablome

    Baker and Schultz should get together with two other worthless fossils (say, McLame and Grahamnesty) and play some bridge. Leave legislating to the living….

  • Calcinor Jones

    I voted Trump and I am NOT onboard with supporting the folly of RINOs

  • leadfoot320

    In the 70’s it was the new ICE AGE coming. At 2000 it was GLOBAL WARMING since it is cooling down they changed it CLIMATE CONTROL. (it works ether way)
    CLIMATE has been changing for thousands of year, long before man was even here!
    YES WE CREATED SMOG. but THE CARBON IN THE AIR from all the cars in the U.S. for a year doesn’t match what a volcano puts out in 1 DAY!

    ALL THIS IS BS TO GIVE GOVERNMENT THE CONTROL OF EVERYTHING !

    • john cummins

      and they still idolize Barry Commoner, Paul Ehrlich, and Rachel Carson at these silly college campii…send us some coloring books and safe spaces…

    • Shen

      You got that Right!!

  • ThomasJK

    Could these dufouses more fully expose their ignorance about all that is worthwhile?

    • john cummins

      these are the worst of the worst…the howard bakers, the mccainiasses, these doofii, the baker foundation, I’d take the dims over the rinos…add lamar alexander and bob corker…fakeNews, fakeScience, fakeMoney, fakeStatesmen, etc.

  • Raymond Belliveau

    The 3 stooges are back God help us.
    Isn’t Paulson the one who cried the sky would fall if we didn’t give all that bailout money to the elite bankers etc.?

    • john cummins

      wasn’t he on the smothers brothers?

      • Raymond Belliveau

        That was Pat Paulsen who use to run for president all the time.haha he would probably win these days haha

    • Yes, TARP.

    • Maximiliano Plus Adrienne

      ain t that the truth! wer einmal lügt dem glaubt man nicht auch wenn er die “Wahrheit” spricht….

  • Alan

    They’re pitching the fake science to obtain more government control over our lives and, of course, make themselves feel important as they pander for the global warming corporate lobby.

    • James Clander

      It’s also about their ability to TAX $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ if implemented.

  • john cummins

    go away rinos, rinoids, NeoCONs, and dims…go away…

  • Shen

    They think they are going to “rope a dope”? Hope Trump sees through all the hype in spite of members of his family being believers.

    The carbon taxes get redistributed to other countries with some globalists, maybe the IMF and/or the UN, taking a cut.

  • J

    There has always been global warming and global cooling. That is why the Earth has cycles of glaciation and warmer climates. This is a cyclic pattern from the changing Earth’s tilt .”Precession
    The change in the
    tilt of the Earth’s axis (obliquity) effects the magnitude of
    seasonal change. At higher tilts the seasons are more extreme, and at lower tilts
    they are milder. The current axial tilt is 23.5°. ” Also ” Obliquity (change in axial tilt)

    As the axial tilt increases,
    the seasonal contrast increases so that winters are colder and summers
    are warmer in both hemispheres. Today, the Earth’s axis is tilted 23.5
    degrees from the plane of its orbit around the sun. But this tilt
    changes. During a cycle that averages about 40,000 years, the tilt of
    the axis varies between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees. Because this tilt
    changes, the seasons as we know them can become exaggerated. More tilt
    means more severe seasons—warmer summers and colder winters; less tilt
    means less severe seasons—cooler summers and milder winters. It’s the
    cool summers that are thought to allow snow and ice to last from
    year-to-year in high latitudes, eventually building up into massive ice
    sheets. There are positive feedbacks in the climate system as well,
    because an Earth covered with more snow reflects more of the sun’s
    energy into space, causing additional cooling.”
    The carbon dioxide hypothesis producing warmer temperatures is the great lie to promote taxation. The change in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is from 275 ppm (parts per million) to the present 400ppm (parts per million). So what is being proposed is that at 275 ppm carbon dioxide in the past has change to 400 ppm carbon dioxide today which has increased the Earth’s temperature. So the addition of 125 ppm of carbon dioxide has caused the Earth’s temperature to increase. 125 ppm is the same as 125/1,000,000 or 1.25/10,000. If the Earth’s temperature increased by 1 degree then the 1.25 molecules of carbon dioxide are responsible for increasing the temperature of 10,000 molecules of air by one degree. So the 1.25 molecules must get an extra 10,000 degrees from the sun to make every one of the 10,000 air molecules one degree hotter. This is so much bulls__t I can’t believe anyone with a little knowledge of math and physics or chemistry can be suckered by this fraud. Hitler would be proud of these liars.
    We humans do increase the temperature of an area by cementing and asphalting and making cities which covers fields and dirt where water from the ground can turn to fog and cool or warm an area just like the ocean or lakes do. Humans lower the water table so no water may cool seep up to the ground and humans drain swamps, burn forests, cement water ways so they can’t meander and add more ground water to the water table as well as pollute water which keep the surface of the water from evaporating as efficiently. In these cases human cause the Earth’s temperature to increase .

    • ron R

      This statement does not make sense.
      “So the 1.25 molecules must get an extra 10,000 degrees from the sun to make every one of the 10,000 air molecules one degree hotter. ”
      Sounds like you are mixing apples & oranges.

      • J

        Tell me how the carbon dioxide molecules add heat to the other air molecules. When you find that out then you will know.

    • Maximiliano Plus Adrienne

      a voice of reason, well done!

  • Bruce C.

    Another CRITICAL phrase was not included in the DB’s conclusion: “Unless it is proven with certitude that global warming exits and is making thing worse…”

    The critical, ALL IMPORTANT point is whether or not MAN-MADE ACTIONS HAVE OR CAN MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE.

    Even if it were proven beyond doubt that the earth is warming or cooling, it is irrelevant politically unless it is also proved that man’s actions can make a pivotal difference.

    THAT is the argument – or litmus test – that Trump et al should be demanding.

    Forget about arguing over “cooling” or “warming”, or even “the degree.” Make THEM prove that man’s physical actions can make any difference, AND HOW MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE.

    THAT IS WHAT IS POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY IMPORTANT HERE.

  • autonomous

    Unless either the earth is getting closer to the sun or the sun is getting hotter, the earth is not warming or cooling. If scientists are correct in their science fiction accounts of history, the age of dinosaurs was the age wherein the most greenery was present on earth. Why then did the earth suddenly cool off? If, during an ice age, there was no human activity to speak off, why did the earth warm up? I have no problem temporarily suspending rationality while reading fiction, but I see no good coming from doing so when reading science. Is anthropology necessarily anthropology?

  • swemson

    These three traitors should be put on the short list of Elitists who Trump should prosecute and jail.
    fs

  • rahrog

    Some people have no shame.

  • William

    You forget that, for the left, the seriousness of the charge is more important than the validity of the charge.

loading