“A Canadian economist has an idea to tackle global warming so simple, it’s stunning no one has thought of it before.

Full report here
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/07/McKitrick-Carbon-Tax-10.pdf

Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph in Ontario, an IPCC expert reviewer and one of its leading critics, proposes a carbon tax with the rate tied to climate response. He explained the idea at the House of Lords yesterday before an audience that included the architect of the UK’s Climate Change Act.

The idea of an evidence-based tax alarmed some in the audience. And it was fascinating to see who was most alarmed by it.”

Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 4 July 2013

“Sceptics who do not believe in global warming will not expect the tax to go up, and might even expect it to go down. Those convinced we are in for rapid warming will expect the tax to rise quickly in the years ahead,” McKitrick explains in a paper outlining the idea”.

“Nobody has an incentive to ignore the forecasts – while everyone has an incentive to check them for accuracy… As a scientist, instead of complaining that nobody’s listening to you, you could put your pension in it. If a scientist can’t persuade himself to put his pension on his own science, he shouldn’t try to persuade other people to”.

So, now we can all be right? All we have to do is put our money where our mouth used to be!

Could this be the circuit breaker that brings the skeptics and the warmers into the same save the planet camp

The idea of taxing CO2 emissions based on their measured effect appears very sensible. Unfortunately linking the tax to a somewhat obscure, and not very well understood mechanism, suggests that the authors are not genuine.
Quote:
"All climate models in use today predict that, if CO2 drives climate change, the strongest and most rapid response will be an amplified warming trend in the tropical troposphere: the vast region from near the surface up to 16 km altitude, spanning the tropics 20 degrees"

Why not simply tie the tax to sea level rise? which is relatively easy to measure and truly reflects the how fast the climate is warming. There are plenty of other measures, which more accurately reflect the effects of global warming such as the global temperatures increases, or total ice loss.

There is also a further problem with this idea and that is the proposed tax becomes retrospective ie it only reflects the damage done by previous emissions and not the likely damage caused by current emissions. In the end the tax would not prevent the problem it would only provide a mechanism for paying for some of the damage already done.

I'm always fascinated when "skeptics" trot out the old "IPCC expert reviewer" line to give a bit more oomph to their case.

Monckton does it all the time.

He's the "skeptic" with a degree in classical architecture and an impressive fictitious coat of arms featuring a pink portcullis - topped with a crown.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/05/monckton-caught-making-things/

To be an IPCC expert reviewer one simply has to sign up, resting on their own cognisance as being knowledgeable on the subject.

have we not moved on to the next 'scientific' fraud yet?

warmair,

Basing this tax on sea level rises seems fine with me but I’m not a climate scientist. I can only refer you to the reasoning articulated in this report. Firstly any sea level rises would be a “consequence” of global warming and as such would have a delayed effect. Something much more responsive is needed as McKitrick points out on P8,

“The ideal one (tax) should respond quickly to CO2 emissions, and not be expected to respond much to other changes in the climate system. Which makes sense to me, as in early warning”.

McKitrick points out that “I consider temperature levels in the tropical troposphere to be an ideal place to see the general magnitude of CO2 emissions on the climate. Which as you can see on P9 is what the IPCC uses as its reference point.

Your point about retrospectively is already addressed by McKitrick, see p7 para 1.

I’ve just heard from a colleague in the UK who is a constituent of MP, The Hon. Heaton- Harris, who is the leader of a cross party group of 100 + rebel MP’s who are opposing the energy poverty imposed by the de-carbonization policies in the UK. He tells me that this proposal is being taken very seriously as a circuit breaker in both the UK and EU.

Like I said in the title, this could satisfy both sides of the debate, a tax on CO2 and control of its negative impact on the economy.

It may well best serve your party if you say nothing about this subject spindoc.
It is apart from Abbott himself, the biggest Peiping wound in your policy.
No chance exists and slow turn around [hoping the change in views goes unnoticed will wash]
Climate change is talking to us every day as world wide reports confirm it.
Tax it or price it but do not ignore it.