Carbon Taxes Explained (NOT) by a Professor Carbon Himself

The Paranoid Goy presents to you the ‘reasoning’ behind carbon taxes, as explained by some …entity important enough to be quoted as The Authority on Wikipedia. It may amuse the reader to research the solutions originally proposed back in the ‘seventies, when the problem of industrial pollution started to attract formal scientific attention. We talked about filters, and chimney scrubbers, which “scrubbed” the smoke of poisons before it left the chimney. We designed elaborate but permanent solutions to contain the pollution we release into the environment. Designers were building garden ponds for factories, where biological processes were supposed to precondition waste water before release, engineers were competing to make the biggest, cheapest, most compact filters humanly possible. This would put the cost on the polluter directly, and this is where it died.

The reason companies cannot filter their filth, is because they need that money for dividends, to prop up their stock value, to pay executive bonuses. Of course, they could raise prices, but in the ‘seventies, that was not an option. They used to have customers, these captains of industry, and anyone who knows about customers, knows the customer is always right. The customer demanded good products, good service, and good behaviour. In return, he paid good money, for which he worked a good day’s labour. The poor industrialists felt besieged, threatened, and they decided to ‘do something’.

First, they started demanding ‘relevant legislation’, which has led to court cases and enquiries and task teams and cost a whole lot of money, and a lot of lawyers are still getting filthy rich off this pretend-process, because, until all the cases have been heard, and concluded, and sentence pronounced upon, they have to do nothing. This ‘process’ continues to this day, but the captains of industry and their lawyers have not been idle; they have progressed… they had to, the scientific evidence of their destructive behaviour was rolling in fast, and We the People were noticing the sudden increase in chronic ailments. We were all assured that all is well. Things like cancer, dementia and allergies are not increasing, we just have better ways of detecting them.

This excuse of improved technology is never used when talking about the lack of improvement in weather prediction. Even though they really have a million times more sensors all over the world, many of them a billion times more sensitive. Literally, from one Volt to one microVolt is a million times finer resolution, and they do much finer than that these days. Yet we still have “a 40% chance of precipitation over the next few days”? Am I watching some seventies weatherman show on repeat, forever? For some interesting facts on that farce, read any of our rants on climate change, for now we follow the ‘process’ towards a cleaner earth.

While we were awaiting The Court’s decision, we were educated to accept a new universal truth: You government is too stupid, corrupt and inefficient to run the country at a profit. I so wish I was more educated about checking my dictionary those days, but never you mind, one of the first things we learned can be done better by Big Business, was Academia. Schools and Universities were so appreciative of this wonderful new source of funds, they happily embraced Montessori educational standards, where the truth is subject to majority opinion, which is the real Truth. The good professors did not realise yet, but with a little PR, any Truth can become the Public Will. The first of these new Truths about the destruction of the environment, was the hole in the ozone layer…

The Paranoid Goy, being reasonably unencumbered by formal education, thought they were making a joke. So, there is this place near the south pole, where the atmosphere gets sort of thin? Hmm. Take a clear glass, half filled with water. Stir in usual circular motion. Observe vortex forming in centre. Repeat experiment without spoon, by wiggling cup in circular motion to form vortex. The earth, at the equator, measures 40 000 kilometres or so. This turns round once every 24 hours. The ‘spoon’ stirring the atmosphere around the edge of the cup (the equator) moves at more than 1600 kilometres per hour, that’s faster than Mach 1, the speed of sound. I waited a number of years, arguing heatedly with everybody around me, and eventually, circa 2010, someone finally admits the mistake. Yet, most people still believe that hole to be man’s doing! We plebs were using too much under-arm deodorant!  At least we got CFC’s banned, for what that’s worth. Back to good old flammable methane gas for our spray cans. This was also the time when pharmaceutical companies decided that the public interest will best be served if their medications and preparations are inspected and regulated by themselves. WHEN WAS FDA FORMED?

The corruption of science to the service of the Economy has so far produced its best attempt at diverting us from the continued, nay, increasing destruction of our environment: Global Warming. The real scientists who “signed” the original report to the UN, had great fun suing the authors for using their names without permission. The fake scientists who are still forcing this rubbish down our throats, all agree that facts have no place in a crisis. They did have to change their tune though, and now they call their charlantry Anthropogenic Climate Change. “Man-originated Climate Change”. Yes, sort of, but once again, this takes the focus off the dirty factory process, and places it at the door of the customer Consumer. We plebs are destroying the environment with our plebian overconsumption. We are consumers, not clients or customers, just consumers, parasites upon The Economy. Seeing as we are all a bit hungry and sick and living below the standards our parents did, it must be due to Market Forces. The Market requires at least 95 % of us eff off and die.

So there you have it; the climate is changing, because we plebs are making consumptive demands on the economy. To make us pay for our sins, all sorts of new economic theorems were developed, one of which is the idea of Carbon Taxes. I let the Expert speak from the soap box called Wikipedia:

Yale University economics professor William Nordhaus argues that the price of carbon needs to be high enough to motivate the changes in behavior and changes in economic production systems necessary to effectively limit emissions of greenhouse gases.

Raising the price of carbon will achieve four goals. First, it will provide signals to consumers about what goods and services are high-carbon ones and should therefore be used more sparingly. Second, it will provide signals to producers about which inputs use more carbon (such as coal and oil) and which use less or none (such as natural gas or nuclear power), thereby inducing firms to substitute low-carbon inputs. Third, it will give market incentives for inventors and innovators to develop and introduce low-carbon products and processes that can replace the current generation of technologies. Fourth, and most important, a high carbon price will economize on the information that is required to do all three of these tasks. Through the market mechanism, a high carbon price will raise the price of products according to their carbon content. Ethical consumers today, hoping to minimize their “carbon footprint,” have little chance of making an accurate calculation of the relative carbon use in, say, driving 250 miles as compared with flying 250 miles. A harmonized carbon tax would raise the price of a good proportionately to exactly the amount of CO2 that is emitted in all the stages of production that are involved in producing that good. If 0.01 of a ton of carbon emissions results from the wheat growing and the milling and the trucking and the baking of a loaf of bread, then a tax of $30 per ton carbon will raise the price of bread by $0.30. The “carbon footprint” is automatically calculated by the price system. Consumers would still not know how much of the price is due to carbon emissions, but they could make their decisions confident that they are paying for the social cost of their carbon footprint.

To sum up the bits highlighted in red, it goes like this:

  1. The consumer will guide industry towards better practices by choosing to pay extra for carbon wastage or not.
  2. Natural gas and nuclear power has no carbon footprint, go preach that to the consumer. If they won’t believe you, start with the children in primary school.
  3. “Ethical consumers” of today has no way to measure his carbon footprint.
  4. Let’s put a tax on carbon, that will solve all our problems. The consumer will still have no clue how much carbon he has paid for or used.

This is the guru trusted to collect fees for finking? I had a pee the other day that stank of sour salt, and I knew that suspicious (nitrate-infested) ham sandwich was indeed a bit off.  I got more useful information from that urine than from professor Nordhaus. In his system I would still not know how much carbon I am paying fake taxes for. Am I paying to have a mediocre tomato flown in from Zionistan, or am I paying for a real, real good tomato grown down the road? Or am I paying carbon tax on all tomatoes regardless of where they come from? Eh? This will soon not matter anyway, one day soon all tomatoes will come from Zionistan or its Undeclared Soviet in America, because your kitchen garden is unsustainable and a drain on the economy.

So, what purpose does carbon tax serve, other than removing yet more money from the public purse, and turn it into debt towards the One Holy Bank Account that will soon redeem the world, after 96% of human scum are gone? Economic science and climate science has this in common: Fake theorems with fake formulations and fake predictions, but they both have dogmatic insistence on the validity of their theories. Like sin, poverty is the fault of the sufferer, their system of redemption has been discussed by the very best minds money can buy, and if you disagree with that, you are probably one of the ambitionless plebs with no stock portfolio. The good professor has proven it with his economics formula, stupid! Here are some formulae to think about:

If Lord Bill will allow 300 million people to live, and only the “top” 4% make it, that means the world has to have  (300/4)x 108 before the Great Cleansing? That means we will start eating each other the day the world officially has 7,5 billion people on board?

So, the chimneys have to be kept clean of poisons, but “who will pay for it?”. This is the capitalist’s version of the naughty boy’s first reaction to anything: “I didn’t do it!”. Now, any way you look at this, it will eventually be the customer that pays for this. The capitalist cannot let that go by without taking interest; if We the People are willing to share in the cost of cleaning up the environment, then there must be a way to profit off this. Raising prices on goods is assured, but how to maximise that profit?  If we can collect one cent every time somebody worries about the end of the world, and we can get everybody on earth to worry three times a day, that is 3x7,5 x 109 cents, is 22,5 billion cents, is 8,2 trillion cents a year. 82 billion dollars, every year, tax free, paid from taxes, to people who have appointed themselves the guardians of our concerns over the devastation caused to our ecosystem by those collecting taxes to reward themselves for polluting the environment enough for us plebs to give them free money from our taxes to make everything go away. It makes more money to keep us sick, scared and too poor to complain, than all the money we would save on health and welfare costs because of this pollution…

Wait… every cent we spend on “health care” goes into the same pockets! Why the hell should our ‘masters’ clean up our environment? It would be bad business for their health care industry investments! Silly little me, hoping for a clean breath of air over here…