At dinner last night, Jim, Robert, David, Ana Sylvia (visiting from El Salvador), Mom and I were discussing potential candidates in the 2012 elections. Mitt Romney was one of the people we discussed. This morning I was happy to read James Pethokoukis column discussing Romney’s views on climate change:
2) Romney doesn’t sign on to the belief of many conservatives that man-made climate change is the Hoax of the Century. He said this in the 2008 campaign, as well. But it would be easy to change positions in light of the explosive revelations of those climate scientist emails and shoddy United Nations research. But Romney is sticking. As he puts it in the book: “I believe that climate change is occurring — the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore. I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. … Scientists are nearly unanimous in laying the blame for rising temperatures on greenhouse gas emissions.â€
Of course, this doesn’t mean Romney is a cap-and-trader. Like Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg, he believes in remediation and mitigation efforts that make economic sense, not trillion dollar programs to reduce carbon emissions. From that perspective, Romney suggests he would be willing to entertain the notion of a carbon tax whose revenues would be used to offset payroll taxes. This is a favorite idea of many economists, include Harvard’s Gregory Mankiw, a Romney adviser and chairman of President George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.
There have been things I like about Romney and things I don’t like. Reading his position on climate change, I’ll be watching Romney with greater positive interest!
B-Bye, Mitt.
Two big issues:
1) Off-set payroll taxes? Lemme see… Set the carbon tax high enough to actually impact energy use and pretty soon, we will have a huge fraction of the population which neither pays federal income taxes, nor pays much in payroll taxes. Since those same people will be mainly those with modest ‘carbon footprints’, a big fraction of revenue neutral ‘carbon taxes’ would then become (surprise!) a means of wealth transfer. Any truly ‘tax neutral’ carbon tax should be applied uniformly to all Federal revenues, not only payroll taxes.
.
2) Does anybody really believe that a vast new flow of tax money would really ever be used 100% for tax off-sets? If so, I have a bridge in New York you might be interested in buying.
I wonder why slowing down energy production is a good thing? It isn’t like we have a replacement technology we’re allowed to use.
I am in agreement with SteveF.
I’ve never liked Romney. The only thing I have ever even sympathized with about him is when some of the more unsavory evangelicals attacked him for being a Mormon. That’s just low. But on issues I find Romney is either underwhelming or outright wrong.
He can’t win a debate with Obama on healthcare, either. And I’ll tell you why: He has no substantive objections. Hearing him defend Romneycare reveals he really believes the approach was correct, but incoherently only within the borders of the State of Massachusetts. I can hear now Obama saying “well, what exactly about this approach is wrong?” and Romney’s got no answer. Essentially, he will say, each state should be allowed to design it’s own approach to centrally planned healthcare, but the concept of government run healthcare itself will go unopposed. That’s a BIG mistake.
The definition of an externality is a cost exacted on the public that is not represented in the price of the product. In the case of pollution, the public effectively subsidizes polluters. A Pigou tax seeks to eliminate this by requiring that the purchaser pay the actual price of the product. The dividend should be split equally between all affected parties because they have an equal claim to the shared resource that is being damaged (either health, the environment, or both).
This has little chance of becoming law, of course. Although, I see AEI endorsed a carbon tax (and the X-Tax to replace income taxes) in the recent debt conference put on by the Peterson Foundation. That’s encouraging at least. If it were to be considered, stakeholders would immediately start carving out exemptions as was the case for Clinton’s BTU tax which got transformed into a transportation fuel tax with all kinds of exceptions. A carbon tax would transform into Waxman-Markey, except without a trading market.
SteveF–
It’s true that any carbon tax would come disproportionately from the wealthy because the wealthy use more fuel. The only way to reduce CO2 use is to make generating CO2 expensive, and that means those who generate pay.
I also agree offsetting payroll taxes is probably not the best way to offset. In fact, it could backfire relative to offsetting something like income taxes. If one adopts the course of a revenue neutral tax it needs tob e carefully thought out because simply transferring wealth could result in generating more CO2. After all: lots of lower income people who currently might carefully budget transportation costs will turn on the A/C, run lawmowers, drive cars more frequently and buy bigger refrigerators if they have more money. It’s not clear to me that the reduction in usage by the smaller fraction of people in the higher tax brackets would offset the increase in usage to people in the lower tax brackets.
So, that’s something that would have to be considered and I doubt very much Romney has thought about which method of achieving revenue neutral would work better.
I don’t.
What I’m glad to see is a Republican saying that a) climate change is happening, and b) we should consider doing something. I think cap and trade wouldn’t work– so I’d like to see ideas discussed. The only way for ideas to be discussed is for a politician to, well, discuss it. So, this is making me view Romney more favorably that otherwise. But I am hoping to see more Republicans jump in the ring.
JeffId
Well…. this is why I would prefer politicians to start pro-actively saying “Nuclear Energy”. I wouldn’t even mind some of the tax revenue on CO2 going toward nuclear– though, of course, it’s never as simple as that. Taxes go in. Money is spent. New taxes can be made to appear “revenue neutral” at the start. Lotteries can be made to appear “earmarked for education”. But with lotteries we know what happened is once education gets lottery funding, other revenues previously devoted to education got diverted to other things. The same thing will happen with “revenue neutral” taxes. The carbon taxes will tend to stay, and congressional representatives will argue about how high payroll taxes, income taxes etc. will be.
I’m glad to hear Romney would consider a tax on carbon. While this will not set well with laissez-faire Republicans and Libertarians, I doubt it will turn off moderates and independents. Given the current field of GOP presidential hopefuls, Romney’s chances of being nominated look good.
A carbon tax puts a cost on the consequences of burning fossil fuels. It is easier to understand than cap and trade, and I think it would be more effective in reducing the consequences.
I like the idea of the revenue from a carbon tax being used to offset payroll taxes. However, if the tax succeeds in reducing carbon, the revenue from the tax also will be reduced. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Lucia says “…to start pro-actively saying “Nuclear Energyâ€.
Nuclear energy is a political toxin again due to Fukushima. Germany and Switzerland have declared abandonment. Nobody is going to push this button for 2012, especially for an issue – climate change – that barely registers as a concern of voters.
Max_OK
I’m not sure about that. When I moved to Richland, WA, I discovered the existence of quite strong pockets of anti-mormon sentiment. Specifically, Jim and I wandered into a tent display at the Benton-Franklin two-county fair with a obviously “anti-something” aura. We couldn’t identify what they were anti, but they were clearly anti-something.
The next week we read a letter to the editor from someone complaining the fair organizers had permitted an anti-mormon tent. It seems the fair organizers hadn’t recognized the true nature of the group’s mission based on application materials. In subsequent years, no similar tent appeared at the fair. (But I’m sure the group that sponsored the tent still existed.)
Based on this experience, (and a few more) I suspect there are sufficient pockets of people who absolutely positively will not vote for a Mormon. I don’t know how extensive the sentiment is. But let’s say it’s 10% and predominantly evangelicals who tend to vote Republican (as is my impression). If so, Romney would be facing a very strong uphill battle to get the nomination.
Mind you– If my suspicions about voters being unwilling to elect a Mormon are true, I think it’s sad. But I still suspect it might be true. So I’m not really sure that Romney has a good chance of being nominated. (Mind you, I’d greatly prefer Romney to Palin or Trump. But I’m not sure I’d bet on Romney getting the nomination.)
Kan
Yep. And I agree it’s unlikely anyone is going to actively push nuclear in 2012. But if Germany and Switzerland really carry through, I suspect people will push for it in 2016. 🙂
To those concerned about any individual politician’s “positions”, please do not worry about individuals; the problems arise when ‘The Party’ assumes “positions” which are ill-conceived or downright dangerous. Congress is MORE responsible for putting the nation at risk than any President on any day of the week. Presidents get the blame or glory in high school history books, look behind him/her for the real culprits/heroes. The most important parts of any poly-tician is integrity (aka- character) and vision. “Positions” are moments in time.
Lucia,
Two other important factors:
1) Raising the cost of energy via taxes makes US products less competitive with similar products produced where there are no comparable energy use taxes. Only a binding global tax on fossil fuel use would not crush US businesses, and well, uniformly applied taxes on fuels is never not going to be accepted by less developed countries, nor those swimming in petroleum.
.
2) Cap and trade is a terrible temptation for politicians, since it allows them to bestow free carbon credits on favored companies constituents… the potential for abuse/corruption almost boggles the mind. Like most such programs, the stated objective (limiting CO2) would always be secondary in importance to the distribution of political favors and the collection of political obligations (AKA campaign contributions). C&T is by far the worst way to discourage fossil fuel usage.
I rather prefer Roger Pielke Jr.’s suggestion of a low across the board carbon tax to fund research on reducing the cost of alternative energy and advanced (safer) nuclear power plants. The political conundrum of needed global agreement on carbon taxes for them to be practical has one positive consequence… there will be plenty of time for better estimates of climate sensitivity to be developed before the political situation will allow policies to be implemented based on today’s (very poor) understanding of climate sensitivity.
SteveF-
Yes. Unless the national tax is rebated on products that are exported. This would require some accounting costs on the part of businesses, but likely it could be done.
Also, obviously, a US only-tax could result in higher emissions if companies shifted production to China, used coal as the source of power, and then burned fuel to ship them back to the US, while also escaping the carbon tax.
This means to get the tax to result in lower emissions we would need to estimate and levy an appropriate tax on imports. So, if Walmart imported a bunch of sweaters from China, they would need to estimate a carbon tax for those sweaters on more or less the same basis as would have been levied in the US.
Estimating is dangerous — after all, some countries use coal, Denmark has lots of windmills. Also, transportation costs from Northern Mexico to Texas are generally less than those from China to Chicago. So the taxes should, ideally, consider the amount of energy required to make a “thing”, how energy is produced in various countries and consider fuel used during transport to the US. So, fair effective rules for this could be quite complicated.
Absent a global wide taxes, estimating the CO2 footprint of imports (and including transportation) would be the only way to set a national tax on a basis that is both fair and designed to actually achieve the goal of reducing CO2.
“the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore”
What are ‘global ice caps’? But hey, if Lucia likes him I suppose these kinds of stupidities can be safely ignored.
Andrew
Lucia,
.
I do appreciate how import duties could in theory be set to account for lower production costs in countries which do not tax CO2 emissions. But I think it practice it would be essentially impossible to administer this sort of program. I have in the past had to deal with different import tax rates/duties for goods from different countries of origin for businesses operating outside the USA… it is a bureaucratic nightmare that raises the total cost of operations. It also presents huge practical problems with certification of origin of goods, especially goods with sources in several different countries (low energy tax versus high energy tax)… it would appear impossible to control/verify the information; an invitation for cheating. Unenforceable rules are not rules at all.
.
If it becomes clear that reducing CO2 emissions via taxation is needed (and I am far from convinced of that), then I just don’t think anything less than a globally uniform system of taxes would ever work.
Good luck, Lucia, in finding major differences that will actually be carried into practice with the slate of potential political candidates (with the single exception of Ron Paul) and including Obama.
Government meddling will in my judgment only bring into play unintended consequences. Almost all politicians want to think that the government through their guidance can do something positive about a situation such as CO2 emissions. It is difficult to get elected these days by stating that the government should reduce its role as in these matters as its effects are primarily negative most of the time.
That Romney says that many scientists agree that CO2 causes warming and then leaps to the conclusion that the government must consequently do something to control it is every bit in the politician mode I described above. Why does Romney want to use it for reducing payroll taxes? More voters there to pander to. Romney is very much the pragmatic politician who I think will promise just about anything to get elected.
I always get a good laugh when I hear some Civics 101 political commentator take seriously the line that politicians use in taking more from the rich to fund their government programs because that is the equitable thing to do. No, it is actually just the most expedient way of raising revenue for their ideas of a bigger government as the rich have fewer votes. They will take from the less wealthy also if they can find an rationalization that will sell – like sin taxes on products like cigarettes and selling lottery tickets.
Government mitigating CO2 emissions, even if it were shown to be causing future dire consequences, must be considered in the same category as what needs to be done about unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare. Those trust funds that are currently full of government IOUs to fund needed expenditures for future beneficiaries have been spent and any mention of “fixing” the problem gets demagogued to death. Why would a CO2 tax be any different than a source of revenue like SS and Medicare to be spent on the ruling politicians’ favorite government programs? When it came to the true facts of life and costs for CO2 reduction, do we truly believe it will be different this time and these same politicians will not put the onus on future generations – after they have served their terms of office?
“… In the case of pollution, the public effectively subsidizes polluters. A Pigou tax seeks to eliminate this by requiring that the purchaser pay the actual price of the product….”
.
CO2 is NOT pollution. All the hand waving through models does not make CO2 pollution.
The models that show catastrophically increasing world temps due to CO2 levels increasing are showing an increasing lack of reality over time. The models have shown themselves to be worthless, yet warmists continue to point to the models results to “prove” that CO2 “must” be eliminated.
As the models can not account for clouds, which is 95% of weather, why anyone pays any attention to them other than those using them as a means to an end has allways escaped me.
Warmists are also increasingly sounding like religious fundamentalists. If you substitute “devil”, “demon”, “evil spirits”, ect for CO2 on their pronouncements on CO2 and the weather, one notes a distinct similarity in tone and lack of evidence. The latest with tornadoes is a case in point.
Lucia, re your comment #76598
Yes, unfortunately, anti-Mormon sentiment could be an obstacle to Romney getting nominated. If the religious right believes Mormons are going to hell, I can understand why they wouldn’t want to vote for a hell-bound presidential candidate.
But LDS Congressman James Istook represented a district in Oklahoma, so perhaps religious bias doesn’t necessarily mean a Mormon can’t get votes in the Bible Belt. After leaving Congress, Istook ran for governor in Oklahoma, and lost to a Democrat. I don’t know if his religion was a factor in the loss.
“CO2 is NOT pollution.”
Asserting it isn’t doesn’t make it so.
“The models that show catastrophically increasing world temps due to CO2 levels . . .”
Catastrophically increasing? Who says that? Sounds like a straw man to me.
Most scientists seem to be persuaded that global warming is real and likely to be harmful, in which case CO2 is pollution. Have you considered the possibility that the scientists are right and it is you who are mistaken?
Re: Kenneth Fritsch (Jun 4 12:43),
Ron Paul, oh please. In the wildly unlikely case that he was nominated and elected, Congress would ignore him. He wouldn’t be elected because people are for him, it would only be if the perception was that he was the lesser evil, also extremely unlikely. He has no power base. His foreign policy is a bad joke.
I watched Tim Pawlenty’s interview on The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report last weekend. He’s proposing means testing Social Security. Yet another punishment for those of us who actually saved money for retirement. It’s bad enough that my savings may be inflated out of existence to bail out people who made bad choices. Unless everyone over ~35 is grandfathered in his formal proposal, I wouldn’t stay home, I’d vote for the Democrat candidate even if it were someone like Kucinich.
I suggest Republicans start running Mediscare ads of their own. Rather than pushing Grandma off a cliff, fast forward ten years and show someone just turning 65 unsuccessfully trying to find a doctor who will take Medicare patients.
SteveF
True. And I admit to having no experience what-so-ever with these sorts of taxes. It does strike me that they would have to be very complex to work on a national-only level.
Andrew Fl,
As a UK citizen I can categorically tell you that whilst there are, as in every large organisations problems relating to government run health care they are infinitely preferable to the US model. Obama (and Romney?) are right in their analysis.
By the way are you a US doctor or perhaps part of the overweening insurance industry that makes profit out of people’s misfortune?
“It’s true that any carbon tax would come disproportionately from the wealthy because the wealthy use more fuel. ”
Depends on what you mean by “disproportionately”. A carbon tax would, in effect, be a consumption tax and hence would be more regressive than, say, a progressive income tax. I’m afraid I don’t know enough about US payroll taxes to make a judgement as to whether a carbon tax would be more or less regressive – but a carbon tax in principle could operate not unlikely some of the “flat” consumption taxes that some conservatives have advocated as an alterantive way of raising revenue.
SteveF (Comment #76589) June 4th, 2011 at 9:08 am “Does anybody really believe that a vast new flow of tax money would really ever be used 100% for tax off-sets? ”
An American should hope not given the dire straits of your budget but in practice I think the idea is plausible. Tax cuts are handy carrot to offer the electorate so it is quite plausible that a new stream of money will be used to offer electorally popular tax cuts. Also to get the legislation passed would require many sweetners particulalry to offset inevitable (and justified) fears of increased fuel costs.
Max_OK, it isn’t that religious people think Mormons will go to hell. Mormons are no different from atheists or Hindus in that regard, but Christians have far fewer issues with those groups. The problem for Mormons is they are viewed as heretics, and they’re often considered insane. Their beliefs are an affront on Christians due to their bastardization of Christian beliefs, and that is what causes most of the bias.
Personally, I doubt I could ever think a Mormon was a good choice. I don’t trust the rationality of anyone who holds to that faith. On the other hand, politics is rarely about making a good choice, so I could imagine voting for Romney.
Out of curiosity, has anyone seen the Broadway musical The Book of Mormon written by the creators of South Park. It has 14 Tony nominations.
Taxing CO2 as a solution to emissions has the same merit as stacking money on a plane to make it fly. The problem is the solution doesn’t exist.
I know there are a pile of lukewarmers here, but really, is the lukewarming even something we should react to? I don’t see any damage today or in the near future. Is there any evidence that warming isn’t completely 100% beneficial?
Lucia,
Although you usually aren’t sloppy with your vocabulary, the statement Lucia (Jun 04 10:08) “What I’m glad to see is a Republican saying that a) climate change is happening, and b) we should consider doing something†is very sloppy verbiage. To many “climate change†is a meme for AGW. If I says “yes I believe that climate change is happening†it is interpreted by many as supporting AGW. If I say “no I do not believe that climate change is happening†I can rightfully be dismissed as an idiot; certainly the climate is changing and since the LIA it has been in a gradual one way direction. If I explain my position (particularly in the political world which you entered when you wrote “Republicanâ€), I have automatically lost the argument; outside of academia, when you have to explain an answer you have lost the discussion if not the audience. The same argument goes for “we should consider doing something†which is a political (certainly not a scientific) term which can mean anything or everything and in the end means nothing. I visit your blog because I learn a lot, you are scientifically objective, and you don’t use fuzzy or sloppy verbiage. I respect your opinions because I know they are honest (i.e. not political) and based on a clearly articulated rational. I will go away for a while and come back in a week or two when you hopefully will be back to interesting and precise climate analysis and discussions.
Morano is having a major thrombosis.
I’d rather not get into the question of whether Obama/Romney’s opinion on the issue is “right” but I’d just like to point out that the “alternative” you deride is something you have no experience with whatsoever, and pretty much no one alive has, because the healthcare market has not been free for generations, if ever. A government run system may look good to you, but if you are comparing to what the US has now there really isn’t much difference to be expected. That it looks “better” is, in my opinion, pure provincialism on your part.
But whatever. I’m practically gagging on some of the comments here. I need to go somewhere else before I become upset.
Robert (Comment #76608),
There is no doubt that most scientists believe that increasing CO2 will (must!) lead to some warming relative to the absence of an increase in CO2. I believe that! But the EPA action stands on two very shaky legal/political grounds:
.
First, CO2 is (and has always been) a natural constituent of air, and indeed, most people sleep each night (in their bedrooms) breathing CO2 concentrations far higher than any expected/projected atmospheric CO2 concentration. CO2 is nothing like SOx, NOx, ozone, carcinogens, and other ‘classic’ pollutants which cause clear harm, and for which the Clean Air Act was actually written. No application of the Act to regulate CO2 emissions was ever envisioned by the legislation that created the CAA, even though all the legislators knew that fossil fuels emit lots of CO2 when burned. Application of the Clean Air Act to regulate CO2 is simply inappropriate (and I think bizarre) considering the historical definition of “pollutant’.
.
Second, that the EPA finds ‘harm’ from CO2 is tenuous at best. A reasoned argument of the exact opposite (help, not harm from increased CO2) can easily be made.
.
I am not at all surprised that the current administration has chosen to use the Clean Air Act to achieve by administrative rule what is impossible to achieve by legislation (after all, complete control over people and businesses is their wont). But should the Senate change hands in the next election, I think you can count on Congress making some changes to the Clean Air Act to specifically remove CO2 from the EPA’s regulatory jurisdiction.
Ignoring the non sequitur, let me just point out that Lomborg is on record supporting a carbon tax, albeit one set far too low.
So is ozone, yet smog is still pollution. That’s neither here nor there. The basal level of CO2 in the atmosphere is necessary to our survival. But when you add CO2 to the atmosphere, you damage Americans’ health and safety. As the founder of toxicology famously put it, “The dose makes the poison.”
Multiple courts have ruled that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act: it’s a matter of law.
Good luck with that. The president will veto it, so it will make no practical difference, but it will be good to have Republicans on record for repealing the Clear Air Act. The ads can start with that and finish will the Ryan plan to eliminate medicare and replace it with insurance coupons.
“[A]fter all, complete control over people and businesses is their wont.”
And behind it all, pulling the strings . . . the Freemasons.
Robert–
Maybe the president will veto something after the next election. I can’t even begin to guess because I don’t know who will be president after the next election.
PMH–
Of course saying we should do something is political. This blog post is categorized in “politics”. This blog has always included the category “politics” and I comment on political things from time to time.
Robert,
Well, Mr. Obama would for sure say he would veto it. But it might be attached to legislation he really wanted to pass; political compromise is sometimes inevitable. In any case, who knows a) what the exact political circumstances might be after 2012 and b) if Mr Obama will still be president. I assume you do not believe a Republican president would veto that legislation.
.
The application of the CAA to CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion is clearly beyond the intent of the original law. That the law was so loosely written as to allow a bizarre interpretation does not change that. These things tend to be self correcting, given enough time.
Robert,
Hun? I didn’t say anything about Freemasons. I have nothing against the Freemasons. On the other hand, I do not trust those who believe they should dictate how other people live their lives….. look in the mirror if you need an example.
I still have my Pigou Club t-shirt around somewhere…
Zeke (Comment #76638),
Absent overwhelming evidence of harmful ‘externalities’, I would burn any such t-shirt….. or save it for a Halloween costume.
Jeff Id (Comment #76590)
June 4th, 2011 at 9:54 am
When something is cheap, it gets wasted. That is human nature. There are numerous ways to cut consumption, yet not materially affect quality of life. It may mean a more mature approach to our behavior, and not acting like a bunch of spoiled kids. There are also many opportunities in just using half a brain when designing infrastructure and dwellings. We can also get over the idea that the car is going to be sustainable in with our current habits of usage. Building more freeways has proven time and again to just create more problems that they solve. People need to create more decentralized work models. Work close to home, work at home, commute by means other than the car, commute electronically. There are numerous opportunities that we just don’t take advantage of now because we are just used to the existing model, despite all the problems it has even without taking CO2 into account.
Re Brandon Shollenberger’s Comment #76617
Some Christians do believe Mormons are going to hell. A TV evangelists said a vote for Romney is a vote for Satan. I know Southern Baptists who believe Mormons will go to hell, although that may not be the position of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Many religions claim their faithful will go to heaven, but I don’t if many say the same is true for every religion. It might be hard for a religion to hold members and get new members if it says you will go to heaven if you are good, regardless of your religion.
bugs,
Perfect. You have managed, in just a few words, to distill the scolding, holier-than-thou, I-know-what-is-best, this-is-what-you-must-do, POV of the ‘progressive left’.
.
Thanks for that. I always enjoy a good laugh. Leave people alone, and let them live their own lives.
SteveF (Comment #76589) June 4th, 2011 at 9:08 am “Does anybody really believe that a vast new flow of tax money would really ever be used 100% for tax off-sets? â€
Why should we care if carbon taxes aren’t perfectly revenue neutral? Whatever money wasn’t rebated to people would end up either paying for some program that was approved by the legislative branch or reducing the deficit. Why should anyone who doesn’t share Grover Norquist’s particular brand of insanity be disturbed by either of these outcomes?
Bugs,
Yes, building more freeways encourages more suburban sprawl. Americans have exercised their freedom to make choices in housing and transportation, and by doing so have become more dependent on foreign oil and increasingly vulnerable to international competition for this limited resource and paralyzing interruptions in its supply.
I guess collectively we are short on survival instincts.
“Whatever money wasn’t rebated to people would end up either paying for some program that was approved by the legislative branch or reducing the deficit.”
Hows come they aren’t they aren’t reducing the deficit with tax money already?
Andrew
Jon #76645,
Reducing the deficit might be arguably a positive result. Sadly, many years of experience shows that is not the most likely home for more tax revenue. I have found that most programs approved by the legislative branch are, considering all effects, direct and indirect, quite negative (consider the ethanol boondoggle, sugar price supports, “stimulus’ funds to bail out bankrupt companies/banks, unfunded Social Security and Medicare liabilities, etc.). I don’t have confidence that what Congress chooses to do with higher taxes will be, on balance, good for the people. Good for politicians and their supporters? You bet!
Re: Max_OK (Comment #76642)
Max, I think you’ll find that the majority of protestant ‘evangelical’ Christians believe that Mormons are destined for hell. Likewise, an eternity destined for JoHo’s, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics and a strew of other seeming Judeo-Christianish faiths. Of course in the end it depends on their particular interpretation of the infallible ‘word of god’. Those that are’nt so crazy about a supposed loving god consigning the heathen to an eternity of torment circumvent this orthodoxy by claiming that at the moment of death Jesus Christ makes a majestic appearance convincing the unsaved and at the nth moment they are pulled from the jaws of hellfire and brimstone.
Oh, and those Christians that believe this heretical notion are destined for hell also…
Ian, the “majestic appearance” notion is comforting.
@Ian
I think you’ll find that most, if not all of the groups you listed, hold the same belief for those who are not members of their particular sect.
Ain’t that the truth Barry.
So getting back to the potential political ramafications, as far as the Southern Baptist Convention is concerned, Romney is toast…literally.
Ed..“The models that show catastrophically increasing world temps due to CO2 levels . . .â€
Robert (Comment #76608)..”Catastrophically increasing? Who says that? Sounds like a straw man to me…”
———————————
Robert…are you truly this uninformed of the swarms of warmists proclaiming the end of the world as we know it due to warming brought on by CO2? I will give you the benifit of the doubt and accept uninformed as otherwise would be a sad statement on your veracity.
Max_OK, I think you misunderstood me. I don’t doubt many Christians believe Mormons will go to hell. My point was they believe many non-Mormons will go to hell too, but they don’t hate them as much as the Mormons. I made my comment to explain why Mormons are seen more negatively than most other groups, even if those other groups are thought to be going to hell too.
Ed,
If climate sensitivity is 2-4 degrees, then we are looking at several degrees of temperature rise compressed into a century and more after that. The last ice age took about 7000 years to come to an end, and that was a change of about 5 degrees. Needless to say, that was a big change to the climate. So if you don’t consider CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to be a pollutant, that is your right, but it is EPA that has the statutory authority to make that determination.
Personally, I don’t take my scientific advice from the minority report, even if academia is filled with all of those lefty-bleading-heart-greedy-marxist liberals that everyone is supposed to hate. Holding out for a Goldilocks feedback from clouds that, at present, hasn’t yet shown itself is not a particularly responsible course of action. Instead, I suggest we do what Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman suggested and price the externality.
SteveF (Comment #76643)
June 4th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
I used the word ‘our’ not ‘your’. Apart from that, if we are being so rational, why do we have a never ending problem with traffic? No matter what we do in perpetuating the current model, the commute gets slower, and our lives are lived longer away from our families in unproductive down time. We can do better than that, surely.
bugs – what data are you using to support your claims re: traffic? Not wishing to head off OT but your statement needs to be much more carefully framed and supported.
Linking to the current topic, IMO transport modelling is an area with a variable track record – this example shows what can hapen when investment decisions are based on poor models:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/rivercity-collapse-may-take-a-turn-after-class-action-20110414-1df1n.html
There was nothing wrong with the model, in the sense that large cities like Sydney have commutes that take longer and longer, the problem is getting people to face up to the fact that making new roads takes a lot of money. They act like spoiled children, and demand they get them for free.
bugs–
Do you have any basis for claiming there was nothing wrong with the model? From the news article, we know the numerical predictions provided to planners were totally wrong.
Good to hear that Romney, unlike Senator Inhofe and most other Republicans, does not dismiss the findings of climate science. I applaud his courage.
Regarding the discussion of a carbon tax, the goal in my mind would be to drive the cost of fuel high enough to (1) economically drive conservation and (2) make alternative energies more competitive. I would like to see all of the money so collected used to build a new energy/transportation infrastructure (smart grid, high speed rail, etc) to help keep this country competitive.
The market itself is helping to drive up the cost of carbon-based fuel, and that is good for the long term. A recent report by Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-26/solar-may-be-cheaper-than-fossil-power-in-five-years-ge-says.html) indicates that GE sees solar as cheaper than fossil within 5 years. I still don’t trust the all-beneficent market to accomplish this on its own, however.
Also, see (http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm17.htm) which provides 2007 data in Figure 2. The fuel tax (similar to a carbon tax, but for transportation only) for the US was ca. $0.10/Liter in 2007. For Germany, the same tax was ca, $1.10/Liter. In fact, just about every other country listed had higher fuel taxes (Canada fuel tax was ca, 4X higher than US). Figure 3 in the same paper shows a positive correlation between fuel cost and GDP for oil consuming countries.
Higher fuel costs reduce traffic congestion, road and parking facility costs, accident and pollution costs, help maintain a diverse transportation system (walking, cycling and public transport), and reduce sprawl.
The great competitive advantage of the human species is its intelligence to recognize and analyze complex problems and to work together for its common good – all of the rugged individualism talk notwithstanding.
“the reduction in the size of global ice caps is hard to ignore.”
I was under the impression that the Antarctic ice cap was increasing in area. As for a carbon tax: if you really tax heavily enough to reduce co2 production then, given that there is no equally versatile, equally cheap source of power besides fossil fuels, you will cause a contraction of the economy and a concomitant contraction in tax revenues. At that point you either cut programs or increase the national and state debt. Are either of these options acceptable to the American Voter?
bugs (Comment #76660),
.
Actually, I think average commute times in the USA have not changed much in the last 10 years. In places where long recognized commuter bottlenecks have been addressed with added road capacity, commute times have actually dropped considerably (eg. Palm Beach County in Florida). It makes sense to make investments where the payback in time saved can justify the cost. I have no problem with toll systems to have users carry the investment cost if that is needed… although fuel taxes (Federal, State, and local) already do a reasonable job of equitable distribution of roadway costs. I would not oppose some increase in fuel taxes directly linked to improved roadway maintenance and investment to address capacity shortfalls.
.
The reason people choose to drive a car to work alone rather than car-pool or use public transportation (when it is available) is that it usually turns out to be the most time efficient way to go to work. If you raise fuel taxes specifically to force people to car pool or take public transportation, then you will make their quality of life (as they judge it for themselves) worse, not better. The political issue in this case is who gets to choose how an individual will get to work; or more generally (tax rate structures, health care systems, land use/zoning rules, etc.), who controls the choices individuals are allowed to make to maximize their quality of life. For example, I have no doubt that you believe forcing people to buy health insurance (whether they want to or not) is a very good thing. I hope you appreciate that lots of people are fundamentally opposed to that kind of public control over individual choices. BTW, because of this single issue (forced purchases of health insurance), I suspect Romney is toast in the Republican primaries.
“Ron Paul, oh please. In the wildly unlikely case that he was nominated and elected, Congress would ignore him. He wouldn’t be elected because people are for him, it would only be if the perception was that he was the lesser evil, also extremely unlikely. He has no power base. His foreign policy is a bad joke.”
DeWitt, my point in mentioning Ron Paul was that, very much less like other politicians, he does not claim that he, through the government, has answers to a number of problems. That amongst other things about his political philosophy are why he would never be elected in the current political climate.
Contemporary politics are not where the origins of new political ideas come but rather they come from the intellectuals and the changes to politics is gradual. Currently the intellectuals are much more in favor of government actions than the electorate. That also would play against anyone politically advocating less government as the MSM is more in tune with the intellectual consensus.
I am encourage by what I see in changes in the intellectual consensus from a only a few years back and, of course, that we have the some very large and problematic government programs that will in the not so long term future painfully show their inherent weaknesses.
I am very content to no longer to be part of the Civics 101 crowd that goes to polls as though it were a duty and with some unrealistic high minded view of how government operates. We currently have a two party system that allows the partisan part of the electorate to rationalize the same action as good or bad depending on the favored/disfavored parties actions on the matter. Politicians depend on that hypocrisy and, of course, practice it themselves. We have the independent voters who tend to vote based on personality or a pragmatic vision of whether a given politician may help them more than another or who are simply attempting to make a statement about the incumbent as a thumbs up or down and not necessarily favoring/disfavoring the opposition.
Given the current state of politics, that politicians and government would look for an excuse to do something about Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, and in particularly, the nation building part in Iraq and Afghanistan should not be unanticipated nor should finding rationalizations for corporate bailouts, nor should establishing a new government run health care system under supposedly dire emergency conditions and neither should finding a reason to connect CO2 emissions and warming with an opportunity to tax/regulate without a good picture of benefits and detriments.
SteveF–
This is a very heavy load for Romney to be carrying in the run-up to the 2012 election. A very, very large fraction of conservative voters will not vote for him for this reason. Quite a few moderates won’t either. So, even aside from the unfair prejudice against Mormon factor, it difficult to see how he can attract sufficient voters to win.
But I’m glad he’s brought his position on climate change to the forum.
LOL! Did bugs just suggest that PUBLIC ROADS are an example of MARKET FAILURE? You have got to be kidding me!
You know, this idea that one needs to “price” carbon emissions because they represent an “externality” is missing a key element. Demonstrated harm. If there is no harm, there is no “externality” and the only “harm” I’ve heard reference to is projections of future change being really fast. Even if one were to make the leap of taking these projections as fact, this does not constitute harm, it constitutes fear of the unknown. Looking at history seems to indicate that all claims of potential sources of “harm” are entirely baseless. Anyway, why is it we never here calls for “pricing” positive externalities, like the plant growth benefits of enhanced CO2? Oh, right, because forcing the farmers to pay big energy would be moving money in the “wrong” direction. The scheme is to redistribute wealth, not make the rich richer!
bugs:
bugs must be a communist. He thinks that when people act in their own best interest, they are behaving like spoiled children.
If you look at this particular example, they dropped the toll rate and this had no effect on road traffic. They tried increasing the toll rate above the original one, and traffic dropped.
Looks like everything is wrong with the model.
Imposing a carbon tax at punitive levels will only reduce carbon emissions if it causes an economic collapse. It’s also never going to happen. Gas is back to $4/gallon and they’re talking double dip recession. Roger Pielke, Jr.’s suggestion of a low carbon tax to fund research on alternative energy is a more rational choice, assuming that one believes that there actually are low carbon alternatives other than nuclear that could be produced for less than $60/bbl of oil equivalent. Replacing coal with natural gas just kicks the can down the road a few years. Like energy conservation, it only delays the inevitable. There may be political will to do something, but only if it doesn’t cost very much.
On the externality thing: That would be a good argument if you could actually quantify the externality. Good luck with that. IPCC WGII tries to do that and it’s an extremely bad joke. The Stern Review can only justify expenditure on mitigation by assuming a nearly zero discount rate. Over 1 billion people are already at risk from extreme weather events and need access to electricity and technology now, not some small putative reduction in risk a century from now while their descendants still live in grinding poverty.
cce (Comment #76657)
“… Holding out for a Goldilocks feedback from clouds that, at present, hasn’t yet shown itself is not a particularly responsible course of action. Instead, I suggest we do what Freidrich Hayek and Milton Friedman suggested and price the externality…”
cce, I am confused by what point you are trying for. Reading your entire post I believe the “Goldilocks feedback from clouds” you refer to are negitive feedbacks. As the models all use a positive feedback for clouds that has never been proven, any “Goldilocks feedback” would logically be subscribing to a positive feedback.
If the feedbacks are found to have a mostly neutral effect, as looks to be the case so far, there is NO externally to price as a doubling of CO2 will have very little effect on climate.
cce, I call the “goldilocks feedback” the assumption of only large positive feedbacks from many of the models.
It’s goldilocks because market control is a wet-dream of socialists, and they’ll use any excuse they can to grab and maintain control.
DeWitt Payne (Comment #76673),
Wow, I think you are actually more pessimistic than me WRT future energy options, and that is saying something!
.
Replacing coal with natural gas does just kick the can down the road… but pretty far down the road. Thoughtful people need to accept that nuclear power is the most rational option; it is only irrational fears of nuclear power that make it much more expensive than coal and natural gas. Unfortunately, fear is not a rational thought process. Like you, I am concerned that only very bad consequences will motivate people to accept the rational option. The entire country of (low solar power potential) Germany is in mind-lock over nuclear power…bad omen for the economic future of Germany.
Re: SteveF (Jun 5 14:30),
That would be nice if the populace were actually capable of rationality. Consider California. When electricity prices exploded because the government had prevented the electricity companies from building new power plants and forced them to buy peak power on the spot market, who got the blame? The power companies, of course. Look at how so-called Big Oil is demonized when the reserves actually owned by the majors are a tiny fraction of global reserves. Propaganda trumps reason on a regular basis. How else do you explain why Barney Frank, Charles Schumer and their ilk still hold public office?
“On the externality thing: That would be a good argument if you could actually quantify the externality. Good luck with that. IPCC WGII tries to do that and it’s an extremely bad joke.”
The externality thing comes into play primarily where private ownership ends and the public owns something (i.e. nobody owns it) and there arises a cost or benefit, not transmitted through prices in a “free market”. The Chicago school of economics that some consider conservative/libertarian gets very wrapped up in this issue. Unfortunately fixing the externality problem assumes that a government action is not problematic in itself and can “fix” a market limitation. That might work in Civics 101 but seldom or never does in the real world.
Murray Rothbard, I think, handles this problem best by showing the path to removing the externality through enforcement of individual rights and private property rights using tort law. What he prescribes is much too radical to be accepted in the current political climate, but on the other hand these hand waved fixes that involve government cannot be accepted out of hand because there are no politically acceptable alternatives. The government fixes can and have made these situations worse than the problem that needed fixing.
Kenneth-But if, as seems to be the case, no “externality” in the form of damages can even be shown through measurement, isn’t it a moot point what way we address it? No matter what, the “price” or “damages awarded” is zero. Well anyway, I am highly skeptical that our legal system would produce any sane outcome as it presently exists, but in theory Rothbard’s point is quite sound. Unfortunately we have a legal culture in which this approach is open to abuse. Has that issue ever been discussed by tort solution advocates?
Ed, the “Goldlocks” feedback is the feedback that magically negates everything bad and thus returns the climate back to its orginal state. Declare everyone to be idiots and then imagine a negative cloud feedback to serve all ills. Thus allowing people to make ridiculous statements like “doubling of CO2 will have little effect on the climate.” It’s called god of the gaps.
Carrick, the strongest positive feedback is the water vapor feedback. You will have a steep mountain to climb if you want suggest that this is just an “assumption” of the models and not the result of physics. Skeptics have no choice but to hope for a negative cloud feedback, because that is the only thing that will save them.
With respect to “wet dreams of socialists,” you would have a point if there wasn’t overwhelming evidence that pollution regulations work and if most of them weren’t enacted under Republican presidents like Reagan and George HW Bush.
As for the “nonexistence” of alternatives, that is nonsense. People think of coal or oil as cheap precisely because they are sold below cost. That is true even if you only look at the damages due to conventional pollution. Fracking or no fracking, natural gas is far cleaner than either, and spare capacity exists today. That is, right now (although additional connectivity would be needed to fully utilize idle power plants). I’d have some sympathy for all of the talk of how difficult it is to produce “alternatives” if the amount of R&D wasn’t pathetically small in relation to the size of the energy market. But since it’s just a fraction of a percent, I get the picture that they aren’t trying very hard. Probably because they’re free riders of the type libertarians are supposed to hate.
cce:
Oh, piffle.
We don’t even know that an anthropogenically warmed climate equates with net economic or social harm. Making such a claim, as you have, shows just how credulous supporters of market control can be. (I’d put the odds at about equal that there is a net benefit to a warming climate… that certainly has been the case since the
frozen up little ice agegolden age of the 1800s.)Carrick,
Assuming the post-LIA warming was a net benefit, it doesn’t follow that additional warming would be a net benefit.
Among the ill effects of warmer temperatures are reduced yields of staple food crops, such as rice, corn and wheat, which keep most of the world’s population alive.
Carrick (Comment #76675)
June 5th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Crackpot conspiracy theory alert.
If you’re gonna regurgitate NYT opinion pieces, at least put an entertaining spin on it, sheesh…
No not a communist, not by a long way. History is full of great societies that defeated themselves, by failing to see that change is sometimes inevitable.
“No not a communist, not by a long way.”
Bugs, the distance of any sane person from communism when compared to how far you are from it is like the distance from the Earth to the moon compared to the distance to our nearest neighboring galaxy. “a long way” from communism you are not.
cce (Comment #76683)
June 5th, 2011 at 11:33 pm
“..People think of coal or oil as cheap precisely because they are sold below cost…”
This is in error. The US places a high cost to use coal and oil. The cost of regulations and equipment needed to pull out the stuff that is known to cause problems is quite high as a portion of the entire US economy.
The US air quality has been improving steadily for years due to these air regulations. The only reason there are areas that are still listed as in non compliance is due to the compliance baseline that keeps changing to a more restrictive level.
If the conversation is about getting the trash out of the air that actually harms people, I will be right there supporting regulations to do so. But CO2 is NOT a proven pollutant.
jstults,
As an old farm boy, I will be entertained if you tell me a warmer climate will increase my corn yields.
Re: Max_OK (Jun 6 09:53),
The problem with the NYT piece is that the data presented in the piece doesn’t show any decline in yields. It’s speculation about the future. See the discussion at Pielke, Jr.’s. Wheat rust is a bigger threat in the short term than CO2.
Murray Rothbard on pollution and tort law:
http://mises.org/daily/2120
“As an old farm boy, I will be entertained if you tell me a warmer climate will increase my corn yields.”
That might depend on how old a farm boy you are. If you look at crop production in static mode of what is available today or yesterday you might miss how corn has been bred to adapt to conditions that in the past would have been much more detrimental to yields.
This old farm boy is long gone from the farm, but I personally witnessed a Midwest drought a few years back that I thought would produce ruinous yields. The corn leaves curled up during the day and the roots went deep into the soil. Yields were down but far from ruinous.
DeWitt and Kenneth,
I haven’t read the NYTimes piece, so jstults’ comment #76688 was presumptuous.
I know from personal experience that yields benefit if temperature and precipitation stay within a range that’s best for the particular crop. A good explanation of corn’s sensitivity to temperature is presented in the linked YouTube clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGyr7hUupHo
Of course plants can be bred to adapt to different conditions, but that doesn’t mean the yields will be as good. If plants could be developed to thrive in a wide variety of climates, we wouldn’t have to depend on particular regions for our food.
the issue with, for example corn, is drought, not heat.
I live California’s Central Valley and corn production here does quite well at summer temps MUCH higher than the Mid West. Summer temps 100dF to 110dF ( and sometimes higher ) is common.
To make the models work, they have to assume a much higher H2O content in the air to get the multiplier effect for positive feedbacks. This leads to some severe contradictions in the warmists talking points. This is why they talk of both floods and droughts as being prevalent, depending on to who and when they make their statements.
And it is well proven that increased CO2 levels help plants resist drought as they have to use less water for uplift to get their need nutrients.
Max_OK:
Just to follow up on Kenneth’s comments…
As a former farm boy, you should know [*] that in addition to temperature, seed selection for your zone, what pests are present (this includes weeds, pathogenic fungi and viruses in addition to insects and mammals that feed on the corn), fertilization (CO2 probably has an influence there) and probably most importantly how much moisture the plant has received influence the yield of the plant.
AGW forced climate change in the US has led to an increase in annual rain fall, warmer temperatures, a northern migration of insect species (in general) and of course a higher CO2 level (this acts as a fertilizer but also affects the photosynthesis process…evidence is that stomata sizes get smaller as CO2 concentrations increase..which may improve the resistance of the plant to pests).
The question that any honest farmer would pose would be, after adaptation for the changing climate, would you end up with higher yields? And the short answer is almost certainly “yes”.
The problem isn’t the over simplified question posed by Max of whether warmer temperatures, mutatis mutandis, equates with higher yield. That is a meaningless question to ask. The real question is what does AGW-forced climate change pose for farming, and the main uncertainty is whether change will happen too quickly for farmers (and society in general) to adapt to the changes.
[*] Not really. You’d need a real agricultural degree to actually claim any special authority on this subject. Being a farmhand just means you have shoveled and spread manure, maybe picked up rocks and pest weeds out of a field, or the like.
You know, if it really gets to hot to grow corn (which is absurdly unlikely) in a place, you could always grow something else. We don’t “have to depend on different areas” for different crops. We went to those areas and found crops that worked there. Try Sorghum or something. But don’t think for a second you won’t be able find crops to grow in the farm belt a hundred years from now.
Actually, you know something? On such a long time frame as that associated with climate change, we are guaranteed to keep improving yields through genetic engineering and technology, and this will, just as it has in the last century, result in explosively rapid yield increases that will more than soak up any supposed negative effects of future changes. If you argue crop yields will decline in the future, you are arguing against history.
Kenneth: I think Murray may have lost me when he declared that defamation, libel, and slander should be entirely permissible! But overlooking that, I still don’t see the issue of abuse of the system dealt with.
Carrick,
Seed selection, pest control, and fertilization aren’t new concepts. I don’t recall having trouble with mammals getting corn. Perhaps you mean the two-legged kind stealing sweet corn.
Consider the point I made previously. If crops could be developed to do well over a broader range of climates, we wouldn’t need to depend on particular regions for particular crops. But producing regions for wheat, rice, and (you name it) aren’t spreading out. That’s because it’s hard to develop plant breeds that will produce well outside of best environments.
SteveF – #76589, #76600
JeffId – #76590
cce – 76593
Lucia – #76595, #76602
Before responding to comments, I want to thank Lucia for blogging on Romney and providing the info presented. Regarding the issues raised by SteveF, I suggest it appropriate to 1) distinguish between assessing a “carbon tax high enough to actually impact energy use” versus restructuring U.S. tax codes to support multiple objectives, and 2) consider the mechanism of implementation in evaluating revenue neutrality of tax restructuring.
Replacement of all or part of “payroll” taxes with a tax on carbon could most certainly be assured if the levy of carbon taxation is tightly cinched to elimination/reduction of the payroll tax and done in a single bill. Historical payroll tax collections and energy usage are known quantities. And, REPLACEMENT of all or part of employer-paid payroll taxes with a carbon tax would tend to stimulate employment by reducing the cost of labor while encouraging investment in boosting energy productivity (energy conservation). Relative prices of goods and services would change, causing change in demand patterns. Effects on U.S. international competitiveness would be mixed with energy intensive goods becoming relatively more costly and labor intensive goods relatively less costly.
Having looked into the carbon-for-payroll tax substitution policy option last year, I can readily share some estimates on the fuel taxes one would be talking basing the tax substitution on experience over 2007 – 2009. In the aggregate, employers’ share of OASI, DI, HI, and FUTA taxes amounted to $432.2b in 2007, $443.6b in 2008, and $437.1b in 2009. With those tax collections and Energy Information Administration data on U.S. energy use by fuel (quadrillion Btus), one can derive a tax/Btu equivalent tax yielding the same level of payroll taxes collected. Those tax rates amounted to $0.005/Btu in 2007, $0.0052/Btu in 2008, and $0.0054/Btu in 2009.
Market shares of coal, natural gas, and petroleum in total U.S. fossil fuel energy use fluctuated over the period. Using the three-year average for each fuel, I can up with the following tax rates per marketing unit of energy type.
coal – $28.2042/ton
Natural gas – $1.3607/mmcf
petroleum – $7.2945/bl
On the matter of tax incidence (who pays), one might keep in mind that payroll taxes are effectively income taxes on workers by another name. Payroll taxes paid by employers are part of the cost of hiring employees and, hence, employee compensation. Restructuring U.S. tax regimes to directly tax carbon more, and labor less, would change the cost profile of businesses to different degrees. That is, employers would not realize an immediate reduction in cost equal to their reduction in payroll taxes as their costs of energy would rise through higher electricity rates, higher transportation fuel outlays, higher heating bills, etc. Whether a business fared better under the altered tax regime would ultimately depend on the elasticity of demand for its products/services and commercial feasibility of boosting energy productivity.
FWIW
Andrew,
I kind of agree with you that “if it really gets to hot to grow corn (which is absurdly unlikely) in a place, you could always grow something else.”
Of course it might get too hot for the corn to grow abundantly. You can grow almost anything almost anywhere, if you aren’t concerned about good yields(e.g., grapes in England).
Yes, if it gets too hot to grow corn in a region, we probably could always grow something else.
But I’m not sure the something else would replace corn as a food.
Carrick, I have worked as a farm laborer, but your notion of my duties is inaccurate.
“Being a farmhand just means you have shoveled and spread manure, maybe picked up rocks and pest weeds out of a field, or the like.”
I have bailed hay, chopped cotton, pulled bolls, picked beans and sweet corn, thinned apples, and performed other menial tasks, but I have never picked rocks or weeds from fields, nor have I ever observed those activities.
Perhaps I’m too young, or am from a part of the country where farmers don’t hire laborers to pick rocks and weeds.
I’m here for your amusement. I guess you could say that hockey stick shape is an AGW signal. Corn yields as proxy, quick somebody decenter some principle components…
Crop yields have (for many reasons) increased steadily for the last 70+ years. It is beyond absurd to suggest that 1C of climate change over the next half century or century will suddenly reverse that trend. There are indeed legitimate concerns about future warming (like the potential for increase in the rate of sea level rise), but global agricultural productivity is not one of them.
Dave
Which just means that it would be simple (politically) to eliminate payroll taxes (at least for most workers).
But the implication is a large fraction of the population that pays nothing in Federal taxes and nothing in payroll taxes. That is, a complete disconnect for the majority of voters between personal costs and Government expenditures. This could easily happen (from a political POV it is like falling off a log), but it would be even more corrosive to the political fabric of society, and to the potential for political consensus, than the already corrosive tax structure.
.
“Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.â€
.
“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and … breaks up the foundations of society.â€
—Thomas Jefferson
“I live California’s Central Valley and corn production here does quite well at summer temps MUCH higher than the Mid West. Summer temps 100dF to 110dF ( and sometimes higher ) is common.”
Good point, Ed Forbes. I did my own studies on historic Midwest corn yields and temperatures and quickly found that higher temperature growing seasons were often accompanied by drier to drought conditions. The point that others and some scientists were attempting to make was that it was higher temperatures (as in AGW) that reduced the yield.
My Dad was still alive when we experienced that drought season with reduced but not disastrous yields and he said back in the day that year’s weather would have produce little or no corn. I kept hearing that year if we did not get any run within a week the crop was gone. We did not get rain for three weeks and the corn survived.
My point is that the benefits of adaption are difficult to predict. Those predicting future problems based on today’s technology are often wrong and it is why command economies do poorly when dealing a stagnant view of the world. On the other hand command economies often become a self fulfilling prophecy.
I should note however that optimum corn yields do have an upper limit for temperature and as I recall night time temperatures are more important than day time. I also recall a study in Nebraska attempted to determine the ultimate yield for corn (somewhere around 300 bushels per acre compared to normal yields of 150 bushels per acre). Moisture was a major factor followed by night time temperatures.
Kenneth, Ed Forbes is wrong if he thinks corn does quite well at summer temperatures of 100F to 110F.
I don’t think you will find any expert on corn who will tell you the upper limit for optimum growing temperature is above 95 F. I don’t doubt Ed observed corn plants in the field when temperatures were 100F to 110F, but just because the plants were alive doesn’t mean yields didn’t suffer.
See the following links for how higher than optimum growing temperatures reduce yields by causing dark respiration and a loss of carbohydrates in corn. The video is brief. The printed report has more detail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vHS6yeRaBc&feature=related
http://www.icorn.com/Reports/iNewsltr-volume-6.html
The number speak for themselves. Water, not high temps, more control for corn yields. Heat has an effect, but can be controlled if you have water.
My understanding in that for the Mid West, high temps and drought go together. High temps are a normal fact of life in the Central Valley that uses 100% irrigation for corn crops.
The San Joaquin Valley has 86% of the California corn acreage, of which 80% is for dairy silage. The state’s average yield of grain corn for 2006-2008 (the number I have quick to hand) was just over 5 tons per acre. For that same period the average for silage corn was 26.7 tons per acre (70% moisture).
Sweet corn is also raised and tends to be planted between February through June for harvest July through October.
Take a look at the summer temps in the Central Valley. Long periods of max temps over 100d F is common. Min temps are also high.
I forgot to add:
http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/+symposium/2010/files/talks/CAS11_Silva-delRioSilageManagement.pdf
REGIONAL DIFFERENCES OF CORN SILAGE: CALIFORNIA VS WISCONSIN
“..California corn silage differs from corn silage grown in cooler regions of the US. To illustrate
the uniqueness of California corn silage, a comparison with corn silage produced in Wisconsin
(the second largest dairy state in the US) follows…”
“..Yields are approximately 10 tons more per acre in California than in Wisconsin. High yield hybrids with 115 days or more relative maturity can perform very well under California growing
conditions, but not in cooler climates. In the West, corn plants are 10 to 15% taller (personal communication with senior researcher from a corn breeding company). Wisconsin corn silage
production relies on rain, while in California we have the advantage of using timely crop irrigation…”
re- SteveF #76724
Steve, I have no issue with your political perspective regarding people paying no taxes. Our shared belief on that issue prompted me to lobby both sides of the political aisle last December urging elimination from the “Bush tax cut extension” bill of Obama’s price for the deal – suspension of EMPLOYEE share of FICA for one year.
OTOH, I continue to sense you do not consciously recognize that “payroll taxes” are bifurcated between employers and employees with each group paying 50% shares. While the employer share of payroll taxes is part of employer payroll costs, those tax amounts are generally not viewed as income by employees because they a) never see the money and b) the tax amounts are not included in income reported on W-2s just as employer contributions to employee medical care insurance, 401Ks, etc. are not included in taxable income. The employer’s “share” of payroll taxes is nonetheless effectively borne by employees to the extent that existence of the employer obligation depresses employee wages/salaries.
The magnitude of fuel/energy taxes needed to completely eliminate payroll taxes would make the political task anything but easy. Fuel tax estimates I presented earlier were for replacing only 50% of payroll taxes plus FUTA (federal unemployment tax). Any attempt by politicians to replace the employee 50% share of payroll taxes with energy taxes would encounter massive opposition from business interests (on international competitiveness grounds) as well as considerable opposition from individuals believing in personal accountability and out constitutional form of government.
Ed Forbes, the University of California says optimal growing temperature for sweet corn is 60 F to 75 F, with 50 F as a minimum and 95 F as a maximum.
The University doesn’t say the maximum is higher than 95 F if California corn is irrigated.
http://ucanr.org/freepubs/docs/7223.pdf
jstults, I’m glad to know you are here for my entertainment. I need all the entertainment I can get.
I haven’t read the NYTImes article yet, but I did read Pielke, Jr.’s comments on the article. I was puzzled by his statement about wheat rust being a bigger threat in the short term than CO2. Rising global temperatures are supposed to contribute to the spread of the rust.
Ed,
The price of electricity in Wyoming and West Virginia, states which get 98% of their electricity from coal, is about 5 cents per kWh. The recent NRC report on the hidden costs of energy found 3.2 cents per kwh in damages using conservative estimates, and that didn’t look at all of the pollutants and it excluded climate change (the report gives a range of values for climate change). Another study published earlier this year found 3 times as much damage for those same factors, and over 4 times the damage if you include other pollutants and related damages. So, the damages from coal are no less than 3 cents per kwh and as great as 14 cents per kwh. The first number translates into about $60 billion in annual damages from coal, $280 billion for the second figure (2005 estimates). These are damages for the US only (again, no climate change). Both numbers are many times greater than GLOBAL energy R&D, which was $23 billion in 2009, and that figure includes a lot of stimulus money. The same value for 2008 was $15 billion. So please, the cost of coal does not even begin to cover the damages it causes. Not by a long shot.
As for oil, the NRC report found about $56 billion in annual damages from transportation, but a lot of that includes construction of the vehicles, which would exist regardless of the type of fuel the car uses (although, if the car is built using coal fueled energy . . .) I don’t want to get into a debate about foreign policy, but there are other costs to oil dependence not found in, say, natural gas.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12794
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resources_files/epstein_full%20cost%20of%20coal.pdf
http://www.iea.org/stats/rd.asp
Carrick,
I don’t think you know the definition of the word “credulous.” We have a climate that’s served us well since the beginning of civilization. You would trade that which we know for the faith-based fantasy that several degrees of warming compressed into a century will be “good for us.” Leprechauns and unicorns standing in for rational thought.
cce:
“Served us well???”
That’s a real joke. It’s been a harsh environment for the last four centuries, famine, disease, drought, etc.
Like I said, the golden age.
Another way of saying it, people should learn history before they preach about it.
Max_OK:
We grow corn just fine in Mississippi, typical summer temperatures in July are above 95°F.
Better check your climate fantasy handbook again.
Or, “pull the other one.”
(Less snarky: It’s a matter of selection of corn variety, and irrigation does have a huge effect. I wouldn’t be surprised if 95°F were “optimal” for corn, especially for the varieties currently grown in California, but temperature usually isn’t the typical limiter on corn production, it’s other things like nutrient availability, pest weeds and moisture. If you were as versed in agriculture as you are making out, you would know this.)
cce:
Though IMO, it’s precisely foreign factors that are the chief negative factors in over dependence on oil (funding terrorism and terroristic governments for example).
Max:
While we’re at it, corn is a really crappy choice of food in a developed nation. If it weren’t for the huge subsidies
peoplelarge corporate farms would grow other crops (wheat for example).Carrick, said in comment #76765
“I wouldn’t be surprised if 95°F were “optimal†for corn, especially for the varieties currently grown in California…”
No, Carrick, you misread what the University of California said. For growing corn, 95F is not optimal. It’s the upper limit. Optimal is 60 F to 75 F.
The Mississippi State University Extension Service thinks corn yields suffer when temperatures are above 90 F. I can provide a link if you like.
I agree corn is not as nutritious for us as wheat. But wheat is not a substitute for corn. Imagine trying to make corn syrup from wheat, fatten cattle on wheat, or eat wheat on the cob. Also imagine trying to grow wheat in place of corn in Mississippi.
In the UK, the wealthy may disproportionately pay more carbon related taxes than the poor..
YET, the poor disproportionately SUFFER because of the taxes..
ie, if petrol prices double, a low income worker that depends on thei old second hand car, has hade a 50% increase in the cost of fuel. a big hit on net income for the low paid.. Much less a hit on income for the high paid.. Who might just buy an electric car or hyrbid to be fashionable (whilst haveing other cars as well)and holier than thou, at a pirce far beyond low to average income families that just have one old car.
Energy prices electricity have shot up, (due to the windfarm subsidies) which have pushed and will push, it is projected millions more of low income families into fuel poverty..
Whilst the rich may pay more per head, the poor will suffer the most. This is the issue that seems to have motivated MP Graham Stringer (Sci/tech committee) I had a long chat with him at the Spectator debate a couple of months ago.
Dave (Comment #76759),
As both a long time company owner and long-time self employed individual, I am quite aware of how these taxes are paid. Yes, the hidden cost of Social Security and Medicare (hidden in the sense that employees never see the money) does make the system more palatable to most voters. (The same is even more true in many other countries’ tax systems… where VAT’s, import duties, and huge taxes on employers, based on the wages they pay to workers, are hidden in the final price of goods and services.)
The substantial historical diversion of Social Security taxes to pay for all kinds of other Federal programs (with the money replaced by non-marketable Treasury obligations) does mean that a fraction of those taxes are in a sense not much different from normal Federal income taxes… at least to the extent that future benefits will be reduced so that those special Treasury notes are never actually paid off. Is that unfair and deceptive? Sure. So are Ponzi schemes.
.
I did not understand that. I think a replacement of business’s Social Security obligations with energy taxes would lead to screams from the left…. since the net would be to substantially raise profits for all non-energy intensive industries, while increasing cost of living for individuals, and of course, really hurting all energy intensive industries. It is the kind of complex tax regime that rewards some and punishes others… based on political fiat. I would oppose it.
Max, when optimum yields for corn are 300 bushels per acre and the actual levels are 150 bushels per acre as indicated in a Nebraska study linked below, I think we all know that most to nearly all corn is not grown under optimum conditions nor other agriculture produce. That is, of course, not the point, but rather the economics of growing the corn where it is grown. For the economics to work best we need to get this accounting from a free market situation, i.e. no subsidies for the products or the materials used to grow them.
In a more dramatically warming climate than we have today, I would suggest that corn growing in Minnesota would benefit and southern Illinois might suffer given the corn varieties that are currently available. Suffer might mean that the yields in southern Illinois would not increase as rapidly as those in Minnesota.
http://www.plantmanagementnetwork.org/pub/cm/news/unecornyield/
Carrick (Comment #76766) -My memory isn’t so great, but I always thought that terrorist groups’ main sources of income were in the drug trade, especially Opium. At any rate, I’m sure some will disagree with me, but it’s arguably cheaper to bomb he crap out of those despotic governments than it is to starve them of oil money.
Dave when you say:
“Fuel tax estimates I presented earlier were for replacing only 50% of payroll taxes plus FUTA (federal unemployment tax). Any attempt by politicians to replace the employee 50% share of payroll taxes with energy taxes would encounter massive opposition from business interests (on international competitiveness grounds) as well as considerable opposition from individuals believing in personal accountability and out constitutional form of government.”
I think you go to the heart of the silliness we see in trading one tax for another and never making any headway in reducing government spending – which is obviously out of hand and seen to only get worse in the future.
Politicians never ending search for sources of revenues that can be extracted as painlessly as possible, or even under false pretensions, is at the bottom of all this.
If it can be shown that harm has come to individuals, and perhaps as a class action, it is those people who would need to be compensated and by those who have been shown to do the harm. Using government as an intermediate in collecting and deciding who gets those moneys only politicizes the process and definitely picks favorites.
What does the evidence show for the government as a intermediate in “trust funding” for SS and medicare, for state pensions and for the moneys collected from the tobacco industry litigations? We need real world views and not some Civics 101 view that would appear to be holding out hope that the government will do it differently/right this time.
Max_OK (Comment #76760)
You still have not addressed the Central Valley high temps with their high yields.
High temps can work for you, not againt you. Plants seem to love warmth and water 🙂
“..Yields are approximately 10 tons more per acre in California than in Wisconsin..”
Ed Forbes, I think that you and Max are talking about 2 different animals (actually plants) here. Corn yields for silage, where the entire plant minus the roots is consumed, could be very different than corn yields for the ear/kernel as a function of temperature.
The link you provided above was a bit surprising to me, since in IL silage production has decreased dramatically. Although it was at one time grown mainly for dairy cattle it was also used for beef cattle. Many silos in IL and WI have sat unused for a long time now. I thought that was perhaps because silage was not that efficient a feed product, but I see CA, with increases in dairy production, silage production is up. I suspect what I am seeing in IL and WI is due more to the decreased production of beef cattle and dairy than silage as an efficient feed.
SteveF (Comment #
“I think a replacement of business’s Social Security obligations with energy taxes would lead to screams from the left…. since the net would be to substantially raise profits for all non-energy intensive industries, while increasing cost of living for individuals, and of course, really hurting all energy intensive industries. It is the kind of complex tax regime that rewards some and punishes others… based on political fiat. I would oppose it.”
🙂 ‘Screaming hebegebee’ outbreaks among leftists have followed remarks by me on more than one occasion. But then, the opposite end of the political spectrum hasn’t shown immunity.
Profitability of non-energy intensive industries would undoubtedly tend to rise on elimination of employer-share of payroll taxes, but “substantially” strikes me as over statement for multiple reasons. Non-energy intensive businesses costs of operation would on average rise in line with “increasing cost of living for individuals” and relief from 7.65% of payroll expense would only raise profit ‘substantially’ in low profit margin, labor intensive, highly competitive businesses.
Given that energy and labor are substitutes at some level in all economic activity, rewarding some and punishing others based on political fiat is an appropriate characterization of the current payroll tax regime which taxes labor but not energy.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #76790)
“I think you go to the heart of the silliness we see in trading one tax for another and never making any headway in reducing government spending – which is obviously out of hand and seen to only get worse in the future.”
Kenneth, I don’t see how your perspective applies to the idea of restructuring payroll taxes in line with the discussion here. Replacing “employer-share” of payroll taxes with energy taxes based on clear historical relationships would be revenue neutral, i.e. – not generate added revenue. Implementation of the tax regime change would also set the stage for elimination of grant appropriation and “tax expenditure” (tax credits, exemption of income from tax) subsidies for windpower, alternative fuels, etc. ‘justified’ with verbage about “global warming” and “climate change.” It would also 1) take a step toward “leveling the playing field” between U.S. and foreign labor by reducing direct taxation of U.S. labor and 2) tend to incentivize members of Congress to leave social security trust funds alone as the revenue inflow to that trust would shrink as businesses and individuals invested to reduce energy consumption.
Energy and labor are substitutes? You have got to be kidding me! Basically what you are saying is that we use gas when we should get out and push! That’s ridiculous!
Ed Forbes #76797
Pardon for jumping any here but I think you and everybody else maybe overlooking the planting season. Feb-May is the time to plant in most parts of the CV with a harvest in June July .Other areas like imperial valley and riverside county are a little different. I am sure the seasons are much later in Iowa and Nebraska not sure about Miss or Texas.
One other thought. How about two plantings per year in some areas becasue of Climate Change. Iowa and Neb might be able to get 2 in.
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #76801)
“…Corn yields for silage, where the entire plant minus the roots is consumed, could be very different than corn yields for the ear/kernel as a function of temperature…”
May be true, but not relevant. The hot Central Valley still beats out the cooler Eastern and Mid Western States in corn grain yields per acre.
When I compared corn grain yield per acre in the Central Valley vs corn grain yield per acre vs , for example, Kansas, It looks like the Central Valley wins the tons per acre race there also. 5 tons of corn grain per acre is a record year for Kansas, but 5+ tons per acre is considered normal for the Central Valley.
Dave, I think one would have to be god awful naive to think that a tax on energy for the purpose of reducing energy use that worked, i.e. the tax revenues would be reduced in the future, would not lead to politicians increasing the tax rate. In fact, as they got the populace used to these taxes they would surely want to raise the rates to keep SS and Medicare from going bankrupt. Please do not give these politicians ideas on how to raise revenues.
Further even a revenue neutral plan that would miraculously remain neutral would not address the idea of compensating those who can show harm from those who have shown to be doing the harm.
Corn yields for grain by state show that yields are highest for Washington, Oregon, Arizona and California in that order. The acreage grown in these states is small compared to Illinois and Iowa and the other large quantity producing states. I am guessing the differences is due to irrigation, but I would have to zero in on these regions to determine that.
http://search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oGdSEQwO5NDxoAhMBXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE1NjFicm1hBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDA0OV8yMDg
Andrew_FL:
Off topic, but one of Islamic terrorists biggest income sources is from oil money. They do of course also get money from illegal drugs, extortion, kidnapping and outright robbery (e.g., common “arab mafia” thuggery).
Some commentary here:
Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #76819)
June 7th, 2011 at 6:14 pm
“Dave, I think one would have to be god awful naive to think that a tax on energy for the purpose of reducing energy use that worked, i.e. the tax revenues would be reduced in the future, would not lead to politicians increasing the tax rate. In fact, as they got the populace used to these taxes they would surely want to raise the rates to keep SS and Medicare from going bankrupt. ”
Kenneth, there are no panaceas. Attempts to raise taxes in future will occur regardless of any change or non-change in “payroll tax” regime. Those attempts will be dealt with when they occur. Meanwhile, shifting employer-share of payroll taxes to energy would encourage energy conservation, significantly undercut Congressional pork-barreling on energy conservation and renewable energy, act to reduce U.S. oil imports and encourage greater use of U.S. labor across many sectors.
I really see no connection whatever between ‘payroll tax’ financing and “the idea of compensating those who can show harm from those who have shown to be doing the harm.”
Re Ed Forbes’ comment #76797
Ed, the winners of the 2010 National Corn Grower Contest were
Sam Santini, Stewartsville, N.J., non-irrigated category, 306.5 bushels per acre
David Hula, Charles City, VA, no till/strip till irrigated category, 368.4 bushels per acre
N.J and VA rarely have summer temperatures in excess of 100 F.
Not surprisingly, irrigated corn cultivation resulted in higher yields than non-irrigation cultivation among growers in every State. You can see the full results of the contest at
http://www.ncga.com/ncga-announces-national-corn-yield-contest-winners-2010-12-17-10
@Robert (Comment #76632) ,
You have literally no evidence at all that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere have harmed American health or safety.
Why would you state otherwise?
The track record of the US Congress being able to use a tax as described, offsetting payroll with CO2 tax, is not encouraging.
This, like the fantasy that mitigation could work, needs to be dumped. The sooner ideas that will never work or succeed are walked away from the sooner we can get on with things that might work.
If we continue to dwell on fantasy ideas, the sooner we can spend time dealing with real problems and coming up with real solutions.
re – hunter Comment #76832
I disagree with your point of view and suggest “fantasy” is holding any notion that the status quo is a) sustainable or b) less risky than the proposed restructuring of U.S. “payroll taxes.”
Max, the corn yield contest would appear to show that moisture is a more influential factor than temperature in determining yields.
The hybrid variety used by the non-irrigated winner (Hubner) appears to be one of a kind. It would be interesting to look at the genetics of that variety.
“Meanwhile, shifting employer-share of payroll taxes to energy would encourage energy conservation, significantly undercut Congressional pork-barreling on energy conservation and renewable energy, act to reduce U.S. oil imports and encourage greater use of U.S. labor across many sectors.”
Dave, you are obviously selling an government program and, of course, you only mention those implications that you expect to result in a positive manner. I would much rather eliminate all government influences on energy and allow the market place to prevail.
I could just as easily note reactions to higher energy prices in a negative manner. Your method would have to determine at what price level for energy would you obtain your sought after goal for energy use reduction. Would that artificial level cause an economic bust or drag? A permanent state of economic recession would, of course, reduce energy use, but I am not sure if that is what you had in mind.
re – Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #76911)
Kenneth, you err on multiple counts.
I acknowledge the REALITY that abrupt termination or severe curtailment of government programs in sore need of reform would be economically destructive and socially and politically unacceptable. That is a far cry from “selling an government program.” And, I most certainly acknowledged replacement of “employer-share” of payroll taxes by a revenue-neutral energy tax on fossil fuels would raise energy-intensive industry costs as well as prices of the products those industries produce. I take your remark as essential acknowledgement that you have no substantive rebuttal to my arguments.
If you prefer to “eliminate all government influences on energy and allow the market place to prevail”, you could start by eliminating ‘percentage depletion allowances” that permit coal, gas, oil and other mineral producers and geothermal steam operators to deduct a percent of gross revenues without regard to cost basis.