“The term ‘buyer beware’ might provide an appropriate warning; but that term implies the buyer has a choice. Therefore, we will just leave it ‘beware’.”
The purpose of this document is to provide a rough estimate for some of the economic costs of moving American consumers away from the direct use of fossil fuels per the objective of “deep decarbonization” and show the math involved. First, we need to define what “deep decarbonization” and “electrification” are. “Deep Decarbonization” is the term-of-art for climate stabilization through the decarbonization of the World’s energy systems. Replacing consumers direct consumption of natural gas and gasoline, along with other forms of fossil fuels, and on to renewable-dominated electricity, is the means of achieving this global objective.
The concept officially started with a June 2015 G-7 goal “to end their dependence on fossil fuels.” In December 2015, the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) adopted this goal.…
“No jurisdiction in Canada has implemented the academically-ideal carbon tax that is revenue neutral, replaces regulations, is based on a properly deflated social cost of carbon, or eschews governmental dictates in energy markets.”
“The belief that governments will not adapt the ‘textbook’ carbon tax (which is revenue neutral, offsets regulations, and does not intervene in energy markets or technology selection) is not skepticism or cynicism—it’s historic fact.”
The Internet is abuzz over a report by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) that shines some light on the potential impact of the federal carbon tax plan on Canada’s economy.
Specifically, the report shows that the carbon price the federal government is mandating all provinces to impose on businesses and residents in the years ahead could create substantial headwinds for the Canadian economy.
For example, under one set of assumptions in the PBO analysis, where the provincial governments simply rebate all carbon price revenue, provincial cooperation with the federal floor would reduce the size of the Canadian economy to the tune of 0.5 percent in 2020.…
[Editor Note: Today, Moynihan Prize winner John Holdren will give a public lecture in Washington, DC at the Willard Intercontinental (1401 Pennsylvania Avenue) at 4:00 pm eastern. What might he say about I = PAT and his fishing hobby?]
He loves to fish. His is a motor boat, not a kayak, a row boat, or canoe. AND he has employed his very own electronic fish finder.
As such, he violates all three independent variables of his own I = P A T equation! But then like most others in the Malthusian intelligensia, and a few others like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, the equation just does not apply to him.
His name is John Paul Holdren, Obama’s eight-year science advisor, Harvard Professor of Environmental Policy, MacArthur genius (one of the first), and overall “powerhouse.” But another designation might be Dr.…