Categories: world

Follow the money behind climate alarm and carbon dioxide tax proposals

M editing of the recently published National Climate Assessment proposes that unless political decision-makers intervene to limit the use of…

M editing of the recently published National Climate Assessment proposes that unless political decision-makers intervene to limit the use of fossil fuels, disastrous climate change could extract a heavy cost from the economy. It is the central message New York Times Washington Post and other major media offers conveyed to readers in recent days. However, the report is due to several incorrect assumptions that fail to take into account technological innovations, the effects of robust natural gas development and the costs of climate policy.

The United States Global Research Project is responsible for producing the reports presented to Congress every four years. The release of this latest assessment coincides with the 24th Conference between the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change currently in Katowice, Poland. The U.N. meeting, commonly known as COP24, accepts the prerequisites for theories that link human activity with dangerous levels of global warming, as well as USGRP. But updated scientific research shows that there is no consistent agreement on the role human activity plays in climate change and that natural influences are largely responsible for heating and cooling trends.

NCA is based on theoretical climatic pathways known as “representative concentration paths” developed by the U.N Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There are four different ways numbered for changes in radiation fluctuation 21

00 in relation to pre-industrial conditions. Without getting into minutia, what is important here is that NCA settled on the path that develops the highest heating level. NCA assumes that the technology will remain static while carbon consumption increases and the world’s population doubles.

What’s wrong with this image?

At the beginning, NCA has full views of the US Gas Revolution, which has already had a transforming impact on the economy. After examining new trends in the energy sector, the International Energy Agency has decided that natural gas continues to replace coal as an important source of energy in the next few years. When this change is incorrupted, the calculated heating level decreases significantly.

While NCA focuses on the potential costs of climate change, it sets a serious analysis of the economic and financial downturn of mitigating efforts to the United States. The UN has also refrained from discussing the serious costs of climate policy. The subject may be inevitable now that the French government has been forced back from its plans to introduce a coal tax in response to “Yellow Vests” which has organized some of the biggest and most dramatic protests that the country has seen for decades .

Robert Murphy, economist of the Institute for Energy Research, has taken a hard look on the potential impact of US consumption on proposals to limit global warming. It would have very little impact on the climate but significant damage to the economy, he explains.

Another great takeaway from NCA as Nick Loris, an energy and environmental policy analyst with the Heritage Foundation, has seized . Apparently, the study was partially financed by Tom Steyer, billionaire’s hedge fund manager and environmental activist. It is also worth noting that a former Obama administration official had a hand in the design of the report.

It is obvious that there is an agenda that stands behind alarmy predictions that lack a scientific basis. The National Competition Authority argues that it is neutral in politics, but it is assumed that the cost of climate change would be greater than the cost of mitigating proposals like coal taxes. This is a dubious proposal that Loris dismantles in his latest comment.

“Just last month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change proposed a carbon tax of between 135 and 5,500 dollars in 2030,” he writes. “An energy tax of that size would bankrupt families and businesses, and undoubtedly catapulate the world to economic despair. These policies would simply divert resources from more valuable use, such as investing in more robust infrastructure to protect against natural disasters or invest in new technologies . “

Here in the US, some congressmen have moved their own version of a coal tax, which would increase energy costs across the board while increasing the IRS strength.

Yet there are some organizations that describe themselves as conservative or libertarian as back the proposal. How could it be?

The Niskanen Center, a Washington, D.C.-based tanker, has marketed itself as a Libertarian outfit that supports coal taxes as a potential substitute for regulatory incentives for energy consumers that are beneficial to the climate. There are good reasons to be skeptical that politicians should abolish regulations when the tax came into force. There are also good reasons to be skeptical about the Niskan Center’s efforts to market itself as a center right tank. Follow the money and that’s what it shows.

Niskanen Center received $ 350,000 from the Energy Fund in 2015 and 2016 for clean energy and climate work and $ 1,050,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, some for public operations and some for energy and climate programs. Especially $ 300,000 of this was received for its “Climate and Justice Program” on November 7, 2017. The Niskan also received $ 200,000 for two years in March 2018 from Rockefeller Brothers Fund. These are all inclined fundamentals that benefit major city solutions in energy and environmental policy.

It should be an open and powerful debate about the benefits of carbon tax, how much it will cost and what benefits it may have for the environment. But it is important to know that the funding behind the groups, organizations and studies that makes the case for a coal tax has common denominator in the form of left-wing foundations.

Kevin Mooney ( @KevinMooneyDC ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is an investigative reporter in Washington, D.C., who writes for several national publications.

(function (d, s, id) { where js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName (s) [0]; to (d.getElementById (id)) {return;} js = d.createElement (s); = id; js.src = “”; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore (js, fjs); } (document, “script”, “facebook-jssdk”)); The function (f, b, e, v, n, t, s) {om (f.fbq) returns; n = f.fbq = function () {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply (n, argument): n.queue.push (argument)} if (! f._fbq) f._fbq = n; n.push = n; n.loaded = 0 ;! n.version = & # 39; 2.0 & # 39 ;; n.queue = []; t = b.createElement (e); t.async = 0 !; t.src = v; s = b.getElementsByTagName (e) [0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore (t, s)} (windows, document, & # 39; script & # 39 ;,'); fbq (& # 39; init & # 39 ;, & # 39; 224132531296438 & # 39;); fbq (“track”, “PageView”);
Source link

Published by