“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.

Carbon Tax on emitters: Emitters pass cost on to consumers (including usual or increased profit margin): Consumers try to reduce consumption = success relies on consumer action. (Emitters' profits increase.)

Consumers install pink batts, solar hot water and/or solar electric (for philanthropic or cost reduction purposes): Government pulls the plug on subsidies and grid-input rebate rates (because the "schemes" become too popular, and exceed budget) = Consumers left with Government debt and with personal debt for various solar and power-saving measures, and Emitters get free "green" power to sell on at a higher rate to those philanthropists who signed-up for "clean" energy = Consumers carry the can (again). (Emitters' profits increase.)

Government provides additional funding to low income families (hit hardest by flow-on cost increases - electricity, food, fuel, transport), and affluent families say "what me worry": Consumption increases per favour of the Government: Consumption and Emissions go back to "normal" = Emitters' profits increase, emissions increase.

Government provides subsidies to high consumption industry = passing on Carbon Tax receipts = production costs contained, but administration costs added = some increase in local and export product prices. (And no impact on emissions.)

ETS: "Sleight of hand" proposition to save forests, to promote investment in agro-forestry and "green" agricultural measures, and to introduce new low emissions and/or low energy consumption production technology: Permits purchased from "brokers": little money provided to affected native land holders or pre-existing agricultural or logging interests: opportunities rife for ripoff and double-dipping = Government saves on subsidies for relevant R&D and direct investment in renewables, but incurs increased "compliance" administration costs = questionable impact on emissions or innovation, but government "contains" budget. (Brokers make huge profits, Emitters pocket any C-Tax offset savings, the planet and consumers are no better off.)

Direct Action? Or, pacify concerns with "smoke and mirrors"?

(And: Populate or Perish? You've got to be joking.)

Actually, it would be quite practical to use a three term controller
simulation in the model that calculates the tax.
A three term controller is one that uses proportional, integral and
derivative functions and are used to control chemical processes that
react much faster than the climate.
They also do things such as control the flight of rockets, aircraft
and thousands of other processors.

It would form a classical three term control loop.
It would take into account non linear responses and inputs.
Actually from a control systems point of view it is very clever.

Take for instance, one of the inputs, aside from the obvious
temperature, co2 concentration etc, could be the rate of change of
plant growth, which could be measured by a satellite and transmitted
to the control computer.

All automatic and not a politician in sight.

Gezzzzz Bazz, your frighting the voters.....:)

Planet3

The world as one.........

All the best.

Planet3

Planet nice to see you drop in.
But the inane comment the world is one?
Wish it was!
If we leave the economics out of the debate we may then see the problem.
Then we can look for answers.
No frost yet in my area, usual is 22 to 28 a year near half by now.
One at least below zero.
Its the carbon tax what did it? Think not.

I’ve always said that warmists and sceptics should be united as far as action on climate change goes.

It is only the denialists, who delight in erroneously calling themselves sceptics, that should be philosophically disparate. But then, there cannot be any such thing as a credible denialist, because no one can say for sure that climate change isn’t happening or that it is isn’t at least partly anthropogenic.

So even those sceptics who think that AGW is very unlikely should in all logic be aligned with those who think very strongly that it is definitely happening and is of enormous importance. Everyone on this spectrum should be advocating strong action, either because they are convinced that we need to or because it is highly pertinent to err on the side of caution if they are not sure.

I have said this many times on OLO. It doesn’t get much response from the denialists that call themselves sceptics. It seems that this simple logic is just irrefutable. All they can say in response to it is AGW isn’t happening!

What we really need is to make government much more independent of the vested-interest forces that strongly push for business as usual, and ever-more of it, ie; never-ending rapid expansionism.... which the denialists are all strongly in favour of.

If we could make governments properly independent of this enormous bias, then we’d have a chance of addressing AGW, as well as everything else that would take us towards a sustainable future.

The main problem with Professor McKitrick’s idea is that within this hopelessly biased political arena, which is present in Australia and most other democracies and non-democracies around the world, it wouldn’t happen, or at least not in anything more than a token manner.

So perhaps the most important thing with respect to climate change is to push for the real democratic independence of government.

It makes sense. As the temp goes up so does the price of CO2.Satellite records are the best since there is evidence of corruption of stats by some of our weather stations.

In the end we confuse the whole subject.
For some it is about politics.
For others about the costs.
I think evidence is warning us it is taking place.
Weather pattens being reported world wide seem to support me.

Hi Luddie,

I think your final comment sums up the situation beautifully.

<< So perhaps the most important thing with respect to climate change is to push for the real democratic independence of government >>.

Any proposal that seeks to bridge the divide between two opposing views has to be the basis for negotiation and of course compromise.

As a skeptic/denier I have no problem with a CO2 tax on an empirical measure of AGW based upon the IPCC’s reference point. If it goes up we pay more, if it goes down the tax stays at the flat rate. If it is flat and no mitigation costs are incurred the money goes to income tax reductions.

This concept also gives effect to a replacement to Kyoto. It establishes a rationale for the tax globally through international competitiveness and undistorted market forces.

It will also as you rightly point out, take politics out of the game and make any response to AGW both democratic and global. So that is the compromise a skeptic/denier like me would be prepared to make.

On the AGW side this would mean accepting empirical science from much broader sources, it would mean that modeling, predictions and forecasts are out, it would mean that all the government funded NGO’s were taken out of the loop, it would put the renewable energy targets out, it would stop the tariff/subsidies gravy train for the wealthy, it would finish of the renewables industries and end the remnants of CO2 emissions trading unless of course, there was further warming.

It means putting your money where your mouth is. More warming, more pay. It’s really about trusting the sources of your science but it does seem to offer a very acceptable compromise.

You are spot on Belly,

<< I think evidence is warning us it is taking place. Weather patterns being reported world wide seem to support me >>.

If your belief is right there will be vast sums of money tipped into your favorite cause, CAGW.

But if you are wrong according to the IPCC’s datum point, you get tax relief.

How about that for a win-win

It is not clear to me how Ross McKitrick's "evidence based approach" is different to current carbon pricing schemes. McKitrick proposes a carbon tax linked to temperature, which is essentially what is legislated to come into effect in Australia and is already in place in Europe. There is a target level of carbon emissions, based on their predicted effect on temperature. Permits are issued to emit that much carbon and then the market decides on the price. McKitrick's proposal to tie the tax directly to atmospheric temperature changes is not feasible, as the time between the emissions and their effect is too long for a market mechanism to work. It seems to me that McKitrick's paper is not really about market mechanisms for combating climate change, but a disguised attack on climate science. As David Henderson writes in the forward to McKitrick's paper, there is a consensus by governments, guided by scientific advice, that climate change is due to human action. McKitrick does not appear to support this consensus, but rather than argue that case directly, has chosen to disguise it as a pricing proposal.

Spindoc have a look at the extremes within the American republican party.
See how those extremes, the stated view and opinions SOME hold about migrants and minority's.
And know it stopped them winning elections and without change always will.
Liberals, those that think climate change is crap, are about to harm your party.
Polls show most of us believe it is time for action.
I understand it is not all Liberals.
But those who currently lead your party, acting against such as J W Howard a party icon, need to see just how big the impact of not offering something far better than Abbotts excuse for a reduction plan.
Or the simple *climate change is crap* slogan.

tomw said;
as the time between the emissions and their effect is too long

Which is why the control loop has the derivative function.

Planet nice to see you drop in.
But the inane comment the world is one?
Wish it was!

Thanks belly, just dropped in to see how your all going. Oh yes insane comments....Well I don't know about you, but the world is more apart than ever before. The world as one is what it should be, but still a long way to go in my opinion.

Back to topic.....:)

Planet3