Carbon Credits=Profits and Tax Revenue

http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/398427-oil-industry-and-climate-activists-agree-on-one-solution-carbon

Both groups, however, may find something to like in the same kind of climate policy: a carbon tax. Last week, Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-Fla.) released a carbon tax bill that has already gained endorsement from these unusual bedfellows. What’s going on here?

Speaking from experience living in a local municipality that is part of the sustainable development initiative:
1). The structure is based on government-energy public-private merger meaning your labor has a tax lien at X amount of hours, and the Energy Company charges the cost of the added overhead through both taxes and service charges. And, this isn’t even counting the adjustments of overhead of the Energy Company or supply-demand is evaluated.
2). These public-private mergers are considered out of jurisdiction of most Federal aid if you run into affordability troubles. No non-cash assistance will be able to help you. Not now, not ever.
3). The utilities is bundled meaning your home or apartment’s utilizies from energy, heating, water, and refuge (trash pickup) is as of now under one bill payable to your local government.
4). Failure to comply for extended periods of time enables the Bank to foreclose on the mortgage and the local government to declare the home or apartment abandoned, or they can involve the Department of Health Services to have the home declared condemned resulting in resell or lease termination.
5). The carbon credits systematically are added to the Local Government’s General Fund.

I bet adding to tent cities and extortionist practices of racketeering-profiteering results in “cost effective cutting emissions”. As Williamson stated in the National Review, if you don’t benefit or benefit little from globalization Move or Die referred to as the Williamson Doctrine. Discussed here https://theproblematicmy2cents.wordpress.com/2017/07/28/the-williamson-doctrine/

Back to the link. http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/398427-oil-industry-and-climate-activists-agree-on-one-solution-carbon

Columbia University’s Center for Global Energy Policy and partners from some of the country’s leading economic and energy think tanks and universities recently took a detailed look at how carbon tax would affect the U.S. economy, energy system, and environment.

In a series of four research papers released last week, we analyzed the effects of a federal carbon tax starting at $14, $50, or $73 per ton, through a hypothetical first decade of policy implementation. Last week, we released a separate analysis of the effects of Curbelo’s carbon tax proposal.

Economists like carbon taxes because they are efficient. They incentivize emissions reductions wherever and however they can be achieved at the lowest possible cost. Our analysis suggests that over the next decade, those low-cost opportunities are overwhelmingly found in a shift away from coal-fired power plants, which still produce over a quarter of our electricity.

In fact, the combination of the shale revolution and the remarkable progress of solar and wind means that a large-scale shift away from coal would be cheaper than ever.

Under a carbon tax starting at $50/ton, our analysis shows total oil and natural gas production would stay roughly flat over the next decade. But there is an important caveat: The price on carbon emissions from these sources would raise significant revenue and spur investments in lower-carbon alternatives.

(Bold emphasis mine)

Here is the link from the Hill Opinion Piece’s linked study http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/july-2018-carbon-tax-research-series

Columbia University’s SIPA Center on Global Energy Policy launched the Carbon Tax Research Initiative earlier this year with the goal of providing data-driven research on carbon taxes to policymakers, business leaders, students and the general public.

1). The studies referenced is quoted above that means those studies are designed to promote Carbon Taxes.

2). When they say cost effective, they mean through governmental funding that in turn by public-private merger via Government-Energy, those funds go directly to the City’s General Fund.

3). Each alternative to fossil fuels requires a fossil fuel ignition and backup meaning; they increase their profits by adding to the burden of Demand without effecting supply, which means costs for average people goes up while the laws of supply-demand are price fixed.

Sadly, environmental activists never seem to bother to examine the policy structures and catalysts:
1). Alternatives requiring an fossil fuel ignition and backup, and those being “subsidized” are automatically subsidized out the door.

2). The cost and affordability given they are through governmental fiefdoms, public-private partnerships, and public-private mergers between government and energy corporations is under the cost and affordability of government and energy corporations. It effectively makes it like Russia energy infrastructure under Putin and China’s energy infrastructure under the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) security command.

3). The environmental costs of alternatives actually worsens environmental impact than fossil fuels does.

Read the policy structure, policy catalyst, verify the information, and examine their rhetoric. The rhetoric and structure-catalysts do not match. You’ve been conned.

Bare in mind, today’s GDP is mainly measured in spending treating money not as a medium of exchange for labor but treating labor as profits through treating money as capital.

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s