Via The Daily Bell
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 Republicans propose a carbon tax that 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.
Go to Source