Warming

No Solvency Carbon taxes fail to decrease emissions and support the economy – BC provesTieleman ‘16 (Bill Tieleman is a former NDP strategist whose clients include unions and businesses in the resource and public sector. “Forget the Praise: BC's Carbon Tax Is a Failure” 8 Mar 2016 http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/03/08/BC-Carbon-Tax-Failure/)

The only problem is that B.C.'s carbon tax doesn't work. Whether you look at greenhouse gas emissions or economic statistics, B.C. carbon tax has tanked. Marc Lee, senior economist for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives in

the province, likes carbon taxes. But "don't believe the hype on B.C.'s carbon tax," he says. "The reality is that since 2010, B.C.'s GHG emissions have increased every year; as of 2013 they are up 4.3 per cent above 2010 levels," Lee writes on the CCPA website.

Even on a per capita basis, emissions have risen. "We see the recession-induced drop in 2009 and 2010, then increases from 13.5 tonnes per person in 2010 to 13.7 tonnes per person in 2013," Lee says. Lee points out that two-thirds of B.C.'s greenhouse gas increase is because of growth in the natural gas industry, which Clark boasts is better than other fossil fuels. And that's without a single liquefied natural gas plant being built. Unfair and regressive OK. Greenhouse gas emissions went up. But

surely there's better news on economic growth? "B.C.'s economy did not collapse due to the carbon tax, but nor did it grow faster than its neighbours," Lee writes. In fact, Alberta's gross domestic product grew 22 per cent from 2010 to 2014.

Saskatchewan's GDP grew 15 per cent, B.C. lagged with 11-per-cent growth. The gap is similar if you compare growth since 2007, before the carbon tax. Nor is the carbon tax fair. It's a regressive tax that benefits big business and the wealthy at the expense of lower- and middle-income earners. The Liberals pledged to offset the

carbon tax with reductions in other taxes. But those have favoured businesses, not families. "Most of the carbon tax revenues (2/3) have been in support of corporate income tax cuts, plus 17 per cent to personal income tax cuts, 12 per cent to a credit for low-income households, and small amounts for a bunch of boutique credits, some of which have nothing to do with carbon," Lee writes. "The low-income credit, in particular, offset the carbon tax for the

bottom 40 per cent when it was first introduced in 2008," Lee writes, "but as the tax has gone up, the credit has not, making that whole regime regressive -- that is, low-income households pay a greater share of their income to the tax than higher-income households." That low income tax credit amounts to up to $115.50 a year per person -- little more than a couple of tanks of gas.

Unilateral action by the United States does nothing to curb global emissions from the biggest polluters like China – other countries’ economies are dependent on fossil fuels which means they won’t transitionMorgan ’12 (Derrick – The Heritage Foundation 08/21/2012“A Carbon Tax Would Harm US Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without Helping the Environment” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment)

Even if one assumes that rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to higher global temperatures, a carbon tax in the United States that reduces emissions domestically would have zero direct effect on foreign emissions if we acted alone. In fact, unilateral action by the U.S. would have very little effect on total global emissions. The EPA analyzed a cap-and-trade proposal and projected global CO2 concentrations in a baseline and under legislation, demonstrating the effects graphically.[16] (See Chart 1.) The Administrator of the EPA testified on July 7, 2009: “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels….”[17]

The analysis showed that even if the U.S. adopted stringent carbon caps under that legislation [18] and the international community did not, global CO2 concentrations would decrease 25 parts per million (with concentrations equaling 694 ppm in 2095). International action, by contrast, would decrease concentrations by 202 ppm. Just

as in a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade system, a unilateral U.S. carbon tax would likely further increase foreign emissions because of a phenomenon called “carbon leakage.” As energy-intensive industry

relocates from the United States to other nations such as Mexico, Vietnam, or China (already the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases), GHG emissions and toxic pollutants could increase more than they would if those industries remained in the United States.[19] China’s role in emitting GHGs can hardly be overstated. From 2000–2008, its emissions doubled from 3.4 gross tons (Gt) to 7 Gt of CO2. By contrast U.S. CO2 emissions remained about 5.7 Gt in 2000 and 2008. [20] China overwhelmingly relies on coal for electricity generation—accounting for about half of the world’s annual coal consumption.[21] For

those who lament an increase in global GHG emissions, China’s carbon-footprint increase in the past few decades has been a disaster, but the Chinese people have seen a nearly sixfold increase in per capita gross domestic product (GDP) from 1990 to 2011.[22] Hundreds of millions of Chinese have been lifted from poverty

thanks to agricultural and free-market reforms that have led to economic development.[23] It is important to remember that environmental policy must ultimately be good for people, any country’s most important resource. Moreover, economic growth also creates the wealth necessary for countries to make real environmental improvements in the long run. [24] Unilateral action by the United States to tax carbon emissions is unwise because it would not achieve its stated environmental goal: material reduction of global GHG emissions.

Bad ModelsTheir warming predictions are based on flawed computer modelsBeisner ’10 (“A Carbon Tax Would be Bad for the Poor, and Everyone Else” U.S. News 10/07/2015 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/2015/10/07/a-carbon-tax-would-be-bad-for-the-poor-and-everyone-else)

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests "climate sensitivity" (atmospheric warming in response to doubled CO2 concentration) of 1.5 C to 4.5 C. That estimate of rests solely on the output of computer climate models. Their output is not data (raw observations of the external world) but hypotheses. So climate models' simulations aren't evidence of anything, they're guesses to be tested. And they fail. On average, they simulate twice the warming observed over the relevant period. Over 95 percent simulate more warming than observed, so their errors are not random (evenly distributed above and

below observations) but driven, intentionally or not, by bias. And none simulated the complete absence of warming over the last 18 years and 8 months. Not surprisingly, top climate scientists have, as Georgia Tech climatologist Judith

Curry has tracked on her blog, been reassessing "climate sensitivity," basing their estimates not on models but on empirical observation. They're tending, as the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation reported last year, toward estimates in the range of 0.3 C to 1.0 C (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) or 1.25 C to 3.0 C with a best estimate of 1.75˚

(Lewis and Crok). With those lower ranges , the "impacts" of "climate change" dwindle, and benefits might well outweigh costs. So the models are wrong. Therefore they provide no rational basis for predicting future "global average temperature," or for calculating the "social cost of 'carbon' [dioxide]," or for any policy.

Not AnthropogenicCO2 is not the primary climate factor. Singer 08 S. Fred American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia. Unstoppable Global Warming: every 1,500 years/S. Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery. Copyright 2008. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. [Shoell]

First, satellite and high-altitude weather balloon data confirm that the lower atmosphere is not trapping lots of additional heat due to higher CO2 concentrations. It is hard to know how fast the Earth's highly variable surface is

wanning, but it is warming faster than the lower atmosphere where the CO2 is accumulating. This is strong evidence that CO2 is not the primary climate factor. ¶ Second, the Antarctic ice cores tell us that the Earth's temperatures and CO2 levels have tracked closely together through the last three ice ages and global warmings . However, CO2 has been a lagging indicator, its concentrations rising about 600 to 800 years after the temperatures warm. Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor

explains the significance of this fact:¶ Early Vostok analysis looked at samples centuries apart, and concluded (correctly) that there is a very strong relationship between temperatures and CO2 concentrations . The

conclusion for many was obvious: when CO2 goes up, temperatures go up, and vice-versa. This became the basis for a number of scary-looking graphs in books by scientist Stephen Schneider, former Vice President Al Gore, and others, predicting a much-warmer future (since most scientists agree that CO2 will continue to go up for some time). Well, it's not as simple as that. When the Vostok data were analyzed for much shorter time periods (decades at a time rather than centuries), something quite different emerged. [Huburtus Fischer and his research team from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography]

reported: "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years." In other words, CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes.

Warming is not anthropogenic—comparative climate models prove a) the climate is not as sensitive as previously though and b) Co2 concentrations can’t explain past warmingSpencer 8 (Roy, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, former senior scientist for climate studied at NASA and now leads the U.S. science team for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS on NASA’s Aqua satellite. [http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/global-warming-as-a-natural-response/] “Global Warming as a Natural Response to Cloud Changes Associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)”/December 29)

A simple climate model forced by satellite-observed changes in the Earth’s radiative budget associated with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is shown to mimic the major features of global average temperature change during the 20th Century – including three-quarters of the warming trend. A mostly-natural source of global warming is also consistent with mounting observational evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to carbon dioxide emissions than the IPCC’s climate models simulate. 1. INTRODUCTION The main arguments for global warming being manmade go something like this: “What else COULD it be? After all, we know that increasing carbon dioxide concentrations are sufficient to explain recent warming, so what’s the point of looking for any other cause?” But for those who have followed my writings and publications in the last 18 months (e.g. Spencer et al., 2007; Spencer, 2008), you know that we are finding satellite evidence that the climate system is much less sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007)

climate models suggest that it is. And if that is true, then mankind’s CO2 emissions are not strong enough to have caused the global warming we’ve seen over the last 100 years. To show that we are not the only researchers who have documented evidence contradicting the IPCC models on the

subject of climate sensitivity, I made the following figure (Fig. 1) to contrast the IPCC-projected warming from a

doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide with the warming that would result if the climate sensitivity is as low as implied by various kinds of observational evidence.The dashed line in Fig. 1 comes from our recent apples-to-apples comparison between satellite-based feedback estimates and IPCC model-diagnosed feedbacks, all computed from 5-year periods (see Fig. 2). In that comparison, there were NO five year periods from ANY of the IPCC model simulations which produced a feedback parameter with as low a climate sensitivity as that found

in the satellite data.The discrepancy between the models and observations seen in Figs. 1 and 2 is stark. If the sensitivity of the climate system is as low as some of these observational results suggest, then the IPCC models are grossly in error, and we have little to fear from manmade global warming. [I am told that

the 1.1 deg. C sensitivity of Schwartz (2007) has more recently been revised upward to 1.9 deg. C.] But it also means that the radiative forcing caused by increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is not sufficient to cause PAST warming, either. So, this then leaves a critical unanswered question: What has caused the warming seen over the last 100

years or so? Here I present new evidence that most of the warming could be the result of a natural cycle in cloud cover forced by a well-known mode of natural climate variability: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). While the PDO is primarily a geographic rearrangement in atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns in the North Pacific,

it is well known that such regional changes can also influence weather patterns over much larger areas, for instance North America or the entire Northern Hemisphere (which is, by the way, the region over which the vast majority

of global warming has occurred). The IPCC has simply ASSUMED that these natural fluctuations in weather patterns do not cause climate change. But all it would take is a small change in global average (or

Northern Hemispheric average) cloudiness to cause global warming. Unfortunately, our global observations of cloudiness have not been complete or accurate enough to document such a change…until recently.

Generic Impact DefenseNo warming impact—lack of evidence, their authors are biasedAllegre et al. ’12 Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” Wall Street Journal, 1/27/2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to

the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is

that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2. The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing,

many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death. Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?"

Or the modern update, "Follow the money." Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Warming is natural- even if it’s the result of the greenhouse effect that is caused by water vaporJaworowski 2004 [Professor Zbigniew M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. is the chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw. Winter “Solar Cycles, Not CO2, Determine Climate” 21st Century Science Tech http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf]

In fact, the recent climate developments are not something unusual; they reflect a natural course of planetary events. From time immemorial, alternate warm and cold cycles have followed each other, with a periodicity ranging from tens of millions to several years. The cycles were most probably dependent on the extraterrestrial changes occurring in the Sun and in the Sun’s neighborhood. Short term changes—those occurring

in a few years—are caused by terrestrial factors such as large volcanic explosions, which inject dust into the stratosphere, and the phenomenon of El Niño, which depends on the variations in oceanic currents. Thermal energy produced by natural radionuclides that are present in the 1-kilometer-thick layer of the Earth’s crust, contributed about 117 kilojoules per year per square meter of the primitive Earth. As a result of the decay of these long-lived radionuclides, their annual contribution is now only 33.4 kilojoules per square meter.10 This nuclear heat, however, plays a minor role among the terrestrial factors, in comparison with the “greenhouse effects” caused by absorption by some atmospheric gases of the solar radiation reflected from the surface of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the average near-surface air temperature would be –18°C, and not +15°C, as it is

now. The most impor- tant among these “greenhouse gases” is water vapor, which is responsible for about 96 to 99 percent of the greenhouse effect. Among the other greenhouse gases (CO2 , CH4 , CFCs, N2O, and O3 ),

the most important is CO2 , which contributes only 3 percent to the total greenhouse effect.11, 12 The manmade CO2 contribution to this effect may be about 0.05 to 0.25 percent.13 .

Models exaggerate climate trajectories—new data shows it’s not anthropocentricHapper ’12 William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton, “Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again,” Wall Street Journal, 3/27/2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

During a fundraiser in Atlanta earlier this month, President Obama is reported to have said: "It gets you a little nervous about what is happening to global temperatures. When it is 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March, you start thinking. On the other hand, I really have enjoyed

nice weather." What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years. Monthly values of the global temperature anomaly of the lower atmosphere, compiled at the

University of Alabama from NASA satellite data, can be found at the website http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-

temperatures/. The latest (February 2012) monthly global temperature anomaly for the lower atmosphere was minus 0.12 degrees Celsius, slightly less than the average since the satellite record of temperatures began in 1979. The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2 which is released when fossil fuels are burned. The burning of fossil fuels has been one reason for an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to around 395 ppm (or

parts per million), up from preindustrial levels of about 280 ppm. Getty Images CO2 is not a pollutant. Life on earth flourished for hundreds of millions of years at much higher CO2 levels than we see today . Increasing CO2 levels will be a net benefit because cultivated plants grow better and are more resistant to drought at higher CO2 levels, and because warming and other supposedly harmful effects of CO2 have been greatly exaggerated. Nations with affordable energy from fossil fuels are more prosperous and

healthy than those without. The direct warming due to doubling CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be calculated to cause a warming of about one degree Celsius. The IPCC computer models predict a much larger warming, three degrees Celsius or even more, because they assume changes in water vapor or clouds that supposedly amplify the direct warming from CO2. Many lines of observational evidence suggest that this "positive feedback" also has been greatly exaggerated. There has indeed been some warming, perhaps about 0.8 degrees Celsius, since the end of the so-called Little Ice Age in the early 1800s. Some of that warming has probably come from increased

amounts of CO2, but the timing of the warming—much of it before CO2 levels had increased appreciably—suggests that a substantial fraction of the warming is from natural causes that have nothing to do with mankind.

Frustrated by the lack of computer-predicted warming over the past decade, some IPCC supporters have been claiming that "extreme weather" has become more common because of more CO2. But there is no hard evidence this is true. After an unusually cold winter in 2011 (December 2010-February 2011) the winter of 2012 was unusually warm in the continental United States. But the winter of 2012 was bitter in Europe, Asia and Alaska. Weather conditions similar to 2012 occurred in the winter of 1942,

when the U.S. Midwest was unusually warm, and when the Wehrmacht encountered the formidable forces of "General Frost" in a Russian winter not unlike the one Russians just had. Large fluctuations from warm to cold winters have been the rule for the U.S., as one can see from records kept by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. For example, the winters of 1932 and 1934 were as warm as or warmer than the 2011-2012 one and the winter of 1936 was much colder. Nightly television pictures of the tragic destruction from tornadoes over the past months might make one wonder if the frequency of tornadoes is increasing, perhaps due to the increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. But as one can read at Andrew Revkin's New York Times blog, dotearth, "There is no evidence of any trend in the number of potent tornadoes (category F2 and up) over the past 50 years in the United States, even as global temperatures have risen markedly." Like winter temperatures, the numbers, severity and geographical locations of tornadoes fluctuate from year-to-year in ways that are correlated with the complicated fluid flow patterns of the oceans and atmosphere, the location of the jet stream, El Niño or La Niña conditions of the tropical Pacific Oceans, etc. As long as the laws of nature exist, we will have tornadoes. But we can save many more lives by addressing the threat of tornadoes directly—for example, with improved and more widely dispersed weather radars, and with better means for warning the people of endangered areas—than by credulous support of schemes to reduce "carbon footprints," or by funding even more computer centers to predict global warming. It is easy to be confused about climate, because we are constantly being warned about the horrible things that will

happen or are already happening as a result of mankind's use of fossil fuels. But these ominous predictions are based on computer models. It is important to distinguish between what the climate is actually doing and what computer models predict. The observed response of the climate to more CO2 is not in good agreement with model predictions. We need high-quality climate science because of the importance of climate to mankind. But we should also remember the description of how science works by the late, great physicist, Richard Feynman: "In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong." The most important component of climate science is careful, long-term observations of climate-related phenomena, from space, from land, and in the oceans. If observations do not support code predictions—like more extreme weather, or rapidly rising global temperatures—Feynman has told us what conclusions to draw about the theory.

Tipping point and runaway args are wrong—mitigation and adaption solve—large-scale impacts are centuries awayMendelsohn ‘9 Robert Mendelsohn, Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” World Bank Commission on Growth and Development, June 2009, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTPREMNET/Resources/489960-1338997241035/Growth_Commission_Vol4_Globalization_Growth_Ch12_Climate_Change_Economic_Growth.pdf

The heart of the debate about climate change comes from numerous warnings from scientists and others that give the impression that humaninduced climate change is an immediate threat to society (IPCC 2007a, 2007c; Stern 2006). Millions of people might be vulnerable to health effects (IPCC 2007a), crop production might fall in the low latitudes (IPCC 2007a), water supplies might dwindle (IPCC 2007a), precipitation might fall in arid regions (IPCC 2007a), extreme events will grow exponentially (Stern 2006), and between 20 and 30 percent of species will risk extinction (IPCC 2007a). Even worse, there may be catastrophic events such as the melting of Greenland or Antarctic ice sheets,

causing severe sea-level rise, which would inundate hundreds of millions of people (Dasgupta and others 2009). Proponents argue that there is no time to waste. Unless greenhouse gases are cut dramatically today, economic growth and well-being may be at risk (Stern

2006). These statements are largely alarmist and misleading. Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves

attention, society’s immediate behavior has an extremely low probability of leading to catastrophic consequences. The science and economics of climate change are quite clear that emissions over the next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require a century (or two, according to Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume that there will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to unfold, and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long-range climate risks. What is needed are long-run balanced responses.

Econ

AT: Green TechA Carbon Tax does nothing to spur a green tech marketTrembath and Stepp ’12 (Alex and Matthew“Why a Carbon Tax is a Bad Idea” Energypost 11/12/2013 http://www.energypost.eu/carbon-tax-bad-idea/) KG

Carbon taxes are in vogue. Economists’ predilection for price signals as the universal solution has fused with environmentalists’ impulse to punish Big Oil and Big Coal to make carbon taxes the darling of the climate change debate. It’s the elegant solution climate hawks have been looking for since the death of cap-and-trade. But as Dr. Rob Gross, the Director of the U.K. Imperial College Centre for Energy Policy and

Technology stated, this idea is, “so simplistic it is absurd.” Carbon taxes are doomed to fail because they do little to drive what is needed most: innovation that generates affordable clean energy that all 7 billion humans will want to adopt, not out of altruism or coercion, but out of self-interest. The only path to cheap and reliable clean energy is innovation: better batteries, better solar cells, better biofuels, better nuclear reactors, etc. Economists’ attraction to a carbon tax was on full display recently when economist Greg Mankiw wrote in the New York Times, calling a carbon tax a climate policy “America could live with,” compared to the grab bag of regulations and fuel standards targeted by the Obama

administration. Carbon tax supporters believe it will lead consumers to use less dirty energy . Mankiw writes, “When making everyday decisions, people would naturally look at the prices they face and, in effect, take into account the global impact of

their choices.” Global pollutant If greenhouse gases were a pollutant like sulphur dioxide that largely stays within national borders such a policy might make sense. But they are not. It’s a global pollutant. That’s why we talk about addressing global warming, not American warming. Mankiw’s preferred climate solution aims at getting U.S. consumers to buy slightly more fuel efficient cars or turn off light bulbs more regularly because energy prices are modestly higher. This will have little impact on global emissions because virtually all their growth will be in rapidly growing developing nations like China and India. While Europeans buy smaller cars

and take more mass transit, they don’t buy more electric vehicles Moreover, greenhouse gases are not like traditional pollutants in another sense: they are cumulative, essentially filling the atmospheric “bath tub.” We therefore can’t afford to simply slow their growth; we need to dramatically cut emissions. This gets to the second major problem with the carbon tax. The only way to get to dramatic cuts in global emissions is by developing significantly cheaper and better clean energy technologies. Current clean energy alternatives cost significantly more than conventional energy. Expecting consumers and businesses, especially in poor

developing nations, to pay a large price premium for clean energy is wishful thinking. The only path to cheap and reliable clean energy is innovation: better batteries, better solar cells, better biofuels, better nuclear reactors, etc. Unfortunately, few economists focus on innovation and to the extent they do they see it as “manna from heaven,” something that just happens. To the extent a carbon tax induces innovation it is through the magic of the market: higher prices provide an incentive for entrepreneurs to develop a better energy mousetrap. Economists have built a cottage industry out of comparing carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, and conventional pollution regulations. But an innovation strategy to develop cheaper, better clean energy technologies doesn’t make the cut. Frankly, this shouldn’t be a surprise as innovation is not part of neoclassical economists’ lexicon. In Mankiw’s seminal textbook Principles of Economics, the word “innovation” is

barely mentioned in almost 900 pages of text. But breakthrough technologies like jet aircraft, gas engines, computers and cell phones have never emerged because their competitors’ price increased . Steve Jobs didn’t develop the PC because the price of a typewriter went up.

Generic Impact Defensepolitics is not an effective framework to scientific cooperationDickson ’9 Dave Dickson, Director of SciDev, SciDev, June 4, 2009, http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html

Perhaps the most contentious area discussed at the meeting was how science diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific capacity in the developing world. There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine desire for partnership. Indeed,

partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the new buzzword in the "science for development" community. But true partnership requires transparent relations between partners who are prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role: to promote and defend their own countries' interests. John Beddington, the British government's chief scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when

he told the meeting that a diplomat is someone who is "sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve.

Science diplomacy doesn’t spill over to political changeDickson ’9 Dave Dickson, Director of SciDev, SciDev, June 4, 2009, http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html

Only so much science can do Recently, the Obama administration has given this field a new push, in its desire to pursue "soft diplomacy" in regions such as the Middle East. Scientific agreements have been at the forefront of the administration's activities in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. But — as emerged from a

meeting entitled New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) — using science for diplomatic purposes is not as straightforward as it seems. Some scientific collaboration clearly demonstrates what countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan is rapidly becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork

in the Middle East. But whether scientific cooperation can become a precursor for political collaboration is less evident. For example, despite hopes that the Middle East synchrotron would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been reluctant to support it until the Palestine problem is resolved. Indeed, one speaker at the London meeting (organised by the UK's Royal Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) even

suggested that the changes scientific innovations bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context, viewing science as a driver for peace may be wishful thinking.

No SolvencyA carbon tax creates a “tax interaction effect” and hurts the economyMurphey et al ’15 (Robert P. Murphy Patrick J. Michaels Paul C. Knappenberger “The Case Against a Carbon Tax” September 4, 2015 CATO WORKING PAPER No. 33)

In short, Goulder is saying that the bulk of research finds that even a theoretically ideal revenue neutral carbon ‐tax would probably not promote conventional economic growth (in addition to curbing emissions). The only way such a result is even theoretically possible is if the original tax code is particularly distorted in a certain dimension (such as taxing capital much more than labor), and if the carbon tax revenues are then devoted to reducing that distortion. It is important for libertarian and conservative readers—concerned about the economic impacts of a new carbon tax—to understand what Goulder means when he explains that the “narrow base of green taxes constitutes an inherent efficiency handicap.” If we put aside for the moment

concern about climate change, then generally speaking it would be foolish (on standard tax efficiency grounds) to raise revenue by taxing carbon dioxide emissions rather than taxing labor or capital more broadly. The tax on CO2 would have a much narrower base, meaning that it would take a higher rate of taxation to yield a given dollar amount of revenue. Since standard analyses suggest that the economic harms of taxes (the “deadweight losses”) are

proportional to the square of the tax rate, these considerations mean that even a dollar for dollar tax swap, in ‐ ‐which a new carbon tax raised $x which was then used to fund rate reductions in labor or capital taxes, would nonetheless increase the economic drag of the overall tax code.The technical phenomenon in the literature

driving these results is the “tax interaction effect,” in which a new “green” tax (such as a carbon tax) interacts with the pre existing, distortionary taxes on labor and capital and makes them more damaging‐ . Note that

the carbon tax raises consumer prices and effectively reduces the after tax earnings of labor and capital, ‐acting as its own (implicit) tax on labor and capital, but with the difference that it is concentrated in particular areas, rather than spread uniformly over all labor and capital. This is the intuition behind the results found

in the literature: as a general rule, even a dollar for dollar carbon tax swap deal will hurt the conventional economy. Thus ‐ ‐ we see that the typical “pro growth” case for the carbon tax gets things exactly backwards: Generally speaking, to the ‐extent that the U.S. tax code is already filled with distortions, the case for implementing a carbon tax of a particular magnitude is actually weaker, not stronger, even if we are assuming full revenue recycling ‐by reduction of those pre existing, distortionary taxes. ‐

Carbon taxes increase unemployment and poverty - Australia proves that the costs outweigh any minimal benefits Murphey et al ’15 (Robert P. Murphy Patrick J. Michaels Paul C. Knappenberger “The Case Against a Carbon Tax” September 4, 2015 CATO WORKING PAPER No. 33)

On July 1, 2012, the Australian government instituted a carbon tax of $23 (Australian dollars) per ton of CO2‐equivalent, and raised it to $24.15/ton a year later. The tax proved so unpopular that in the September 2013 elections, Leader of the Opposition Tony Abbott won on a campaign which he explicitly billed as a referendum on the carbon tax. (The carbon pricing scheme was formally ended in July 2014.43) Dr. Alex Robson, an economics professor from Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia who has published peer reviewed papers on the interaction of fiscal and environmental ‐policies, authored a 2013 study critical of the Australian carbon tax. Robson’s study shows that the introduction of the Australian carbon tax went hand in hand with a spike in household electricity prices (the “highest quarterly increase on

record,” p. 39) and unemployment, while many Australian business owners anecdotally reported that the carbon tax was a key factor in their decision to lay off workers or shut down entirely . Yet beyond these

drawbacks—which help to explain the voters’ embrace of Tony Abbott in 2013—Robson’s study reveals that none of the pillars in

the “conservative case” for a U.S. carbon tax swap came true in the case of Australia. For example, contrary to the promise that a U.S. carbon tax could be used to provide “pro growth” tax reform,‐ in Australia the carbon tax was accompanied by so many give aways (to mitigate the negative impact on various groups)‐ that the Australian government actually raised effective marginal income tax rates on 2.2 million taxpayers, compared to income tax reductions for only 560,000 taxpayers. In the same vein, rather than allowing for a reduction in top down environmental policy as is promised in the U.S., the Australian ‐carbon tax was not accompanied by any reform of their inefficient wind and solar subsidies, or Renewable Energy Target (RET) mandates. On the contrary, Australia’s carbon tax was instituted along with a “Clean Energy

Finance Corporation.” 29 Finally, advocates claim that a U.S. carbon tax will establish a predictable “price” for carbon that firms can incorporate into their long term investment plans. Yet in Australia, the carbon tax ‐was a comedy of errors. Originally the government promised during the 2010 campaign that it would not implement a carbon tax in the next 3 year cycle. This promise was abandoned, as the carbon tax was in fact introduced in July 2012, with a planned transition to a cap and‐ trade scheme in 2015. Later the government proposed to move to the cap and trade scheme a year ahead of time, but this was never formalized, leaving the business community uncertain. And of course, with the September 2013 election of Abbott, the policy was upended

again, with Australia’s carbon tax being abolished in July 2014. The real world case of Australia shows that achieving a ‐carbon tax most certainly does not provide “policy certainty” to allow businesses to confidently make long term decisions. ‐

Generic Impact DefenseNo risk or impact to economic declineDrezner ‘11 Daniel W. Drezner, professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, “Please come down off the ledge, dear readers,” Foreign Policy, 8/12/11, http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/12/please_come_down_off_the_ledge_dear_readers

So, when we last left off this debate, things were looking grim. My concern in the last post was that the persistence of hard times would cause governments to take actions that would lead to a collapse of the open global economy, a spike in general riots and disturbances, and eerie

echoes of the Great Depression. Let's assume that the global economy persists in sputtering for a while, because that's what happens after major financial shocks. Why won't these other bad things happen? Why isn't it 1931?

Let's start with the obvious -- it's not gonna be 1931 because there's some passing familiarity with how 1931 played out. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve has devoted much of his academic career to studying the Great Depression. I'm gonna go out on a limb therefore and assert that if the world plunges into a another severe downturn, it's not gonna be because central bank heads replay the same set of mistakes. The legacy of the Great Depression has also affected public attitudes and institutions that provide much stronger cement for the current system. In terms of [public] attitudes, compare the results of this mid-2007 poll with this mid-2010 poll about which economic system is best. I'll just reproduce the key charts below: The headline of the 2010 results is that there's eroding U.S.

support for the global economy, but a few other things stand out. U.S. support has declined, but it's declined from a very high level. In contrast, support for free markets has increased in other major powers, such as Germany and China. On the whole, despite the worst global economic crisis since the Great Depression, public attitudes have not changed all that much. While there might be populist demands to "do something," that something is not a return to autarky or anything so [drastic]. Another big difference is that multilateral economic institutions are much more robust now than they were in 1931. On trade matters, even if the Doha round is dead, the rest of the World Trade Organization's corpus of trade-liberalizing measures are still working quite well. Even beyond the WTO, the complaint about trade is not the deficit of free-trade agreements but the surfeit of them. The IMF's resources have been strengthened as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. The Basle Committee on Banking Supervision has already promulgated a plan to strengthen capital requirements for banks. True, it's a slow, weak-assed plan, but it would be an improvement over the status quo. As for the G-20, I've been pretty skeptical about that group's abilities to collectively address

serious macroeconomic problems. That is setting the bar rather high, however. One could argue that the G-20's most useful function is reassurance. Even if there are disagreements, communication can prevent them from growing into anything worse. Finally, a note about the possibility of riots and other general social unrest. The working paper cited in my previous post noted the links between austerity measures and increases in disturbances. However, that paper contains the following

important paragraph on page 19: [I]n countries with better institutions, the responsiveness of unrest to budget cuts is generally lower. Where constraints on the executive are minimal, the coefficient on expenditure changes is strongly negative -- more spending buys a lot of social peace. In countries with Polity-2

scores above zero, the coefficient is about half in size, and less significant. As we limit the sample to ever more democratic countries, the size of the coefficient declines. For full democracies with a complete range of civil rights, the coefficient is still negative, but no longer significant. This is good news!! The world has a hell of a lot more democratic governments now than it did in 1931. What happened in London, in other words, might prove to be the exception more than the rule. So yes, the recent economic news might seem grim. Unless political institutions and public attitudes buckle, however, we're unlikely to repeat the mistakes of the 1930's. And, based on the data we've got, that's not going to happen.

No incentive to escalateFravel ’10 M. Taylor Fravel, associate professor of political science in the MIT Security Studies Program, “The Limits of Diversion: Rethinking Internal and External Conflict,” Security Studies 19:2, 2010, pp. 307-341

The lack of support for diversion raises a simple but important question: why is diversion less frequent than commonly believed, despite its plausible intuition? Although further research is required, several factors should be considered. First, the rally effect that leaders enjoy from an international crisis is generally brief in duration and unlikely to change permanently a public's overall satisfaction with its leaders.128 George H. W. Bush, for example, lost his reelection bid after successful

prosecution of the 1991 Gulf War. Winston Churchill fared no better after the Allied victory in World War II.129 Leaders

have little reason to conclude that a short-term rally will address what are usually structural sources of domestic dissatisfaction. Second, a selection effect may prevent embattled leaders from choosing diversion. Diversionary action should produce the largest rally effect against the most powerful target because such action would reflect a leader's skills

through coercing a superior opponent. At the same time, leaders should often be deterred from challenging stronger targets, as the imbalance of military forces increases the risk of defeat and thus the probability of losing office at home.

Although the odds of victory increase when targeting weaker states, success should have a much more muted effect on domestic support, if any, because victory would have been expected.130 Third, weak or embattled leaders can choose from a wide range of policy options to strengthen their standing at home. Although scholars such as Gelpi and Oakes have noted that embattled leaders can choose repression or economic development in addition to diversionary action, the range of

options is even greater and carries less risk than the failure of diversion. Weak leaders can also seek to deepen cooperation with other states if they believe it will strengthen their position at home. Other studies, for example, have demonstrated that

political unrest facilitated dtente among the superpowers in the early 1970s, China's concessions in its many territorial disputes, support for international financial liberalization, and the formation of regional organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the Gulf Cooperation Council.131

No diversion—economic decline creates political focus on regaining growthTira ’10 Jaroslav Tira, Associate Professor in the Department of International Affairs at the University of Georgia, “Territorial Diversion: Diversionary Theory of War and Territorial Conflict,” The Journal of Politics, vol. 72, issue 2, April 2010, pp. 413-425, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0022381609990879

Empirical support for the economic growth rate is much weaker. The finding that poor economic performance is associated with a higher likelihood of territorial conflict initiation is significant only in Models 3–4.14 The weak results are not altogether surprising given the findings from prior literature. In accordance with the insignificant relationships of Models 1–2 and 5–6, Ostrom and Job (1986), for example, note that the likelihood that a U.S. President will use force is uncertain, as the bad economy might create incentives both to divert the public’s attention with a foreign adventure and to focus on solving the economic problem, thus reducing the inclination to act abroad. Similarly, Fordham (1998a, 1998b), DeRouen (1995), and Gowa (1998)

find no relation between a poor economy and U.S. use of force. Furthermore, Leeds and Davis (1997) conclude

that the conflict-initiating behavior of 18 industrialized democracies is unrelated to economic conditions as do Pickering and Kisangani (2005) and Russett and Oneal (2001) in global studies. In contrast and more in line with my findings of a significant relationship (in Models 3–4), Hess and Orphanides (1995), for example, argue that economic recessions are linked with forceful action by an incumbent U.S. president. Furthermore, Fordham’s (2002) revision of Gowa’s (1998) analysis shows some effect of a bad economy and DeRouen and Peake (2002) report that U.S. use of force diverts the public’s attention from a poor economy. Among cross-national studies, Oneal and Russett (1997) report that slow growth increases the incidence of militarized disputes, as does Russett (1990)—but only for the United States; slow growth does not affect the behavior of other countries. Kisangani and Pickering (2007) report some significant associations, but they are sensitive to model specification, while Tir and Jasinski (2008) find a clearer link between economic underperformance and increased attacks on domestic ethnic minorities. While none of these works has focused on territorial diversions, my own inconsistent findings for economic growth fit well with the mixed results reported in the literature.15 Hypothesis 1 thus receives strong

support via the unpopularity variable but only weak support via the economic growth variable. These results suggest that embattled leaders are much more likely to respond with territorial diversions to direct signs of their unpopularity (e.g., strikes, protests, riots) than to general background conditions such as economic malaise. Presumably, protesters can be distracted via territorial diversions while fixing the economy would take a more concerted and prolonged policy effort. Bad economic conditions seem to motivate only the most serious, fatal territorial confrontations. This implies that leaders may be reserving the most high-profile and risky diversions for the times when they are the most desperate, that is when their power is threatened both by signs of discontent with their rule and by more systemic problems plaguing the country (i.e., an underperforming economy).

SolvencyA carbon tax looks good on paper but in practice it raises the price of goods, harm the environment and create double taxationGreen ’12 (Kenneth “Why a Carbon Tax is Still a Bad Idea” 08/28/2012 AIE.org https://www.aei.org/publication/why-a-carbon-tax-is-still-a-bad-idea/) KG

Once again, the New York Times has published an article calling for a carbon tax, and not a little baby one either: This would be a carbon tax with teeth: Early studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a carbon tax of up to $80 per metric ton of emissions — a tax that might raise gasoline prices by 70 cents a gallon — would eventually result in climate stability. But because recent estimates about global warming have become more pessimistic, stabilization may require a much higher tax. How hard would it be to live with

a tax of, say, $300 a ton? If such a tax were phased in, the prices of goods would rise gradually in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide their production or use entailed. The price of gasoline, for example, would slowly rise by somewhat less than $3 a gallon. Motorists in many countries already pay that much more than Americans do, and they seem to have adapted by driving substantially more efficient vehicles. And this particular carbon taxer doesn’t even pretend to revenue neutrality, or to reducing other taxes that might stimulate the economy: A carbon tax would also serve two other goals. First, it would help balance future budgets. Tens of millions of Americans are set to retire in the next decades, and, as a result, many budget experts agree that federal budgets simply can’t be

balanced with spending cuts alone. We’ll also need substantial additional revenue, most of which could be generated by a carbon tax. So let us, once again , review why a carbon tax is a bad idea: 1) Taxes on carbon are not simply taxes on consumption,

they’re a tax on production as well, since energy is a primary input to production (and is a growing share because of

increasing automation). Taxing both production and consumption seems like a poor way to stimulate your economy, reduce your costs of production, or make your exports more competitive. 2) Carbon taxes are regressive. Poorer people spend a higher portion of their household budget on energy than do the better off. If you were to posit redistributing the tax to the poor, you could deal with this, but if your tax is just a new revenue stream for government (which it will become sooner or later regardless of the initial design), higher energy costs and higher costs for goods and services are going to slap the lower-end of the income spectrum hard. 3) Taxing carbon gets you virtually no climate or health benefit unless it exists within some binding, international carbon control regime, which is unlikely to occur – even the author of the NYT article acknowledges this. China and India will dominate global carbon emissions for the next century, while emissions in the U.S. and developed world are already level or in brisk decline . And, global negotiations over carbon controls have become an utter farce in which developing countries go fishing for wealth and intellectual property transfers, while developed countries mouth platitudes and make promises they have little intention of keeping. 4) Carbon taxes engender industry and capital flight, and become highly contentious. As for the idea of border adjustments, some argue that such adjustments would violate international trade accords and would be hard to deal with given current international institutions. Others argue that even if you could implement them, border adjustments aren’t useful. 5) Carbon taxes are really quite disingenuous, as we know that there’s likely to be no climate-related or carbon-impact-related benefit. Why not be honest and just call for a VAT tax? How about

some transparency? Why not just say, “we think you’re consuming too much, and are going to tax you until you stop?” 6) Carbon taxes would put a share (potentially a large share) of the U.S. tax system under the influence of bureaucrat-scientists at the U.N., who gin up more and more scary scenarios in order to justify their existence. Climate scare-mongering by the IPCC is a one-way ratchet: things are always “worse than we projected.” You can guarantee that there would be steady pressure to tax carbon at ever-higher rates (and transfer some of that booty to developing countries!) every time a new report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change comes out. Get ready to hear “the consensus of scientists now feels the carbon tax is too

low” every few years. Do we really want “the science” of climate change as developed by the United Nations and interpreted by the EPA setting our tax rates? 7) As we already have a vast array of regulations which are aimed at reducing carbon emissions, new carbon taxes would represent double-taxation. You’re already paying carbon taxes in the additional costs of new vehicles with higher fuel emission standards,

more expensive appliances that aim to conserve energy, renewable energy standards that raise your cost of electricity, etc. Nobody in the environmental movement is talking about trading these rules and regulations for a carbon tax. For the record, I’m a “lukewarmer” (as best described at the tail end of this recent article), and I’ve written (since 1998) that some resilience building actions would be wise in the face of climate risk, but a carbon tax? Carbon taxes may look good as an abstract exercise in economics, but in the real world, like other eco-taxes, they would quickly morph into just another form of taxation that feeds the ever-hungry maw of big government.

Their measurements of the success of carbon reduction are based on a flawed model of measurementCass ’16 (Oren “More Carbon Tax Hand Waving” Nation Review 05/02/2016 http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432236/british-columbia-carbon-tax-lessons-not-learned)KG

Over at the New York Times, Eduardo Porter is touting the success of British Columbia’s carbon tax as proof the policy works and should be adopted in the United States. I’ve rambled at great length about the shell games played by carbon-tax proponents, constantly changing their proposals to combine large benefits from some with small costs from others. Porter’s rendition of the “look at British Columbia!” argument is a particularly egregious example. “The most important takeaway for American skeptics,” writes Porter, “is that the policy basically worked as advertised. British Columbia’s economy did not collapse. In fact, the provincial economy grew faster than its neighbors’ even as its greenhouse

gas emissions declined.” The only problem is that the tax did not reduce emissions. True, emissions declined upon implementation of the tax in 2008. But something else happened in 2008 – a global recession that sent GDP (and, with it, energy use) declining in British Columbia and around the world. Emissions then grew in 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. The better way to measure a policy’s effect is to look for declining emissions intensity — that is, emissions per unit of GDP. This typically declines over time regardless of climate policy, as an economy becomes more energy-efficient. But an effective carbon tax would need to accelerate that decline. Here is British Columbia’s greenhouse-gas emissions per unit of GDP since 2000. Try and spot where the

carbon tax went into effect: But was British Columbia doing better than the rest of Canada? No. Here are emissions across Canada’s provinces. Try and guess which one implemented a carbon tax between the dark blue bar of 2005 and the light blue bar of

2013: We could also compare British Columbia’s progress with that the United States. From 2007 to 2013, British Columbia improved the efficiency of its emissions (that is, emissions per dollar of GDP) by 11 percent. Over the same period, the U.S. improvement was 13 percent (emissions, GDP). Sure, by implementing a carbon tax so weak that it doesn’t change the trajectory of greenhouse-gas emissions, one can also avoid significant economic damage. (Though, as Porter acknowledges, some industries have been hurt —

imports of U.S. and Chinese cement grew from 5 percent to 40 percent.) But what’s the point of that? And what kind of model does it provide? Porter’s column devolves into a bizarre set of excuses that seem more like anti-tax arguments. The failure “is not entirely British

Columbia’s fault” because of “a collapse in the prices of oil and gasoline.” Obviously, anyone contemplating a carbon tax would be facing that exact same price collapse. “British Columbia could do with some help from its neighbors,” because it is losing out to competitors who do not have such a tax. That hardly suggests the U.S. should jump into the same boat, in a world where its own economic competitors do not. We are left with a policy that doesn’t work and whose economic obstacles would equally obstruct a U.S. effort. Could a much larger tax produce larger impacts, on both emissions and the economy? Yes. But British Columbia seems in no rush to try that. Maybe that is the better lesson to learn.

Food Prices DA

A Carbon Tax decreases crop yields because an abundance of CO2 is necessary to support plant growthBeisner ’10 (“A Carbon Tax Would be Bad for the Poor, and Everyone Else” U.S. News 10/07/2015 http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/letters-to-the-editor/2015/10/07/a-carbon-tax-would-be-bad-for-the-poor-and-everyone-else)

Critics of policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions often argue, as Chad Stone summarized at the start of a recent U.S. News article defending a "carbon tax," that "such steps will hurt the poor ." ["Good Climate Policy Doesn't Hurt the Poor," Sept. 25] But Stone and others have a response. A "carbon tax … raises revenues that policymakers can use to offset that hit to the budgets of those low-income households." Well, yes, but there are problems with the reasoning, bigger than the dubious assumption that Washington will keep a "carbon tax" revenue neutral or the moral-political question of whether we really want to make even more people even more dependent on government subsidies than we already have or expand our already considerable system of wealth

redistribution. Let's focus on a more fundamental point. Stone writes of a "carbon tax," just as many speak of "carbon pollution." But carbon dioxide (CO2) is not carbon – and the difference is more than just a matter of knowing enough chemistry to distinguish an element from a compound. It's a matter of distinguishing a black solid that, in the form of fine soot particles, can cause respiratory diseases from an odorless, colorless gas that is non-toxic at any concentration and non-dangerous at concentrations 20 times the current 400 parts per million (ppm) in our atmosphere. To call CO2 "carbon pollution" is not only bad chemistry and toxicology but also bad biology. Carbon dioxide is essential to plant growth . The higher its concentration, the better plants grow. A study by researchers at the Technische Universität München found forests around the world growing up to 70 percent faster today than 50 years ago because of increased CO2. As thousands of empirical studies have found , on average, every doubling of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere causes about a 35 percent increase in plant growth efficiency. Plants grow better in wetter and drier soils and in warmer and colder temperatures, widening their ranges and increasing their adaptability to climate changes, reducing the risk of biodiversity loss. They make better use of soil nutrients, resist diseases and pests better, and improve the ratio of fruit to fiber. The consequence is more food for people and animals. Most important, it means more affordable food for the poor. A review of refereed literature on the subject found the "monetary value of this benefit amount[ed] to a total sum of $3.2 trillion over the 50-year period 1961–2011. Projecting the monetary value … forward … reveals it will likely bestow an additional $9.8 trillion on crop production between now and 2050." So any argument to reduce CO2 emissions must offset the fact that increasing CO2's concentration in the atmosphere enhances food production. Advocates have their answer. It's all the negative "impacts" (note the pejorative) of the warming rising CO2 will cause. That takes us to the nub of the controversy: How much does added CO2 warm the atmosphere? The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggests "climate sensitivity" (atmospheric warming in response to doubled CO2 concentration) of 1.5 C to 4.5 C. That estimate of rests solely on the output of computer climate models. Their output is not data (raw observations of the external world) but hypotheses. So climate models' simulations aren't evidence of anything, they're guesses to be tested. And they fail. On average, they simulate twice the warming observed over the relevant period. Over 95 percent simulate more warming than observed, so their errors are not random (evenly distributed above and below observations) but driven, intentionally or not, by bias. And none simulated the complete absence of warming over the last 18 years and 8 months. Not surprisingly, top climate scientists have, as Georgia Tech climatologist Judith Curry has tracked on her blog, been reassessing "climate sensitivity," basing their estimates not on models but on empirical observation. They're tending, as the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation reported last year, toward estimates in the range of 0.3 C to 1.0 C (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) or 1.25 C to 3.0 C with a best estimate of 1.75˚ (Lewis and Crok). With those lower ranges, the "impacts" of "climate change" dwindle, and benefits might well outweigh costs. So the models are wrong. Therefore they provide no rational basis for predicting future "global average temperature," or for calculating

the "social cost of 'carbon' [dioxide]," or for any policy. Reducing CO2 emissions would require less dependence on fossil fuels, which now provide over 85 percent of all the energy humans consume and are likely to continue to do so through probably the end of this century. But they are our best source for the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to any society's growing and staying out of poverty. Forcing the substitution of wind, solar and biofuels means raising

the cost and reducing both the quantity and the reliability of energy available, which means slowing, stopping or reversing mankind's growth out of poverty. It follows that we shouldn't embrace any such policy.\

Carbon tax substantially raises food pricesEdis ’13 (TRISTAN EDIS Food prices and the carbon cost myth Business Spectator November 12, 2013 http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/business-spectator/food-prices-and-the-carbon-cost-myth/news-story/e5a5c3281453303cb8ccc0a53822acea)

Yesterday I highlighted that the Coalition’s carbon tax repeal bill specifically excludes the ACCC from ensuring we see price reductions at the

supermarket checkout from the repeal of the carbon emissions trading scheme (Abbott's first broken promise, October 12). Instead, the ACCC will only be tasked with ensuring price reductions flowing from carbon price repeal for electricity, gas and refrigerant gases. Still, one might argue that energy is an input to just about everything in the economy, so this should ultimately end up flowing through to the prices of food on supermarket shelves.

That is true but you’d be extremely lucky to notice any change. The Australian Food and Grocery Council recently claimed in a submission to the government that its member businesses had been largely unable to pass on cost increases associated with the carbon price and therefore: "...there will not be an across the board reduction in food and grocery prices once the carbon tax is repealed." One should always be sceptical of any claim made by an industry association to government. Nonetheless, there are good reasons to believe that this is accurate. One reason is that food processors have come under increased competitive pressure from overseas suppliers due to the rise in the Australian dollar. But the most important reason is because the carbon price’s ultimate impact on food prices is tiny because energy represents a very small fraction of the cost involved in food supply.

High food prices and shortage of resources cause instability in every region of the worldHarvey 11 – environmental correspondent for the Guardian(Fiona, February 2011, “Failure to act on crop shortages fuelling political instability, experts warn,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/07/crop-shortages-political-instability)

World leaders are ignoring potentially disastrous shortages of key crops, and their failures are fuelling political instability in key regions, food experts have warned. Food prices have hit record levels in recent weeks, according to the United Nations, and soaring prices for staples such as grains over the past few months are thought to have been one of the factors contributing to an explosive mix of popular unrest in Egypt and Tunisia. The crises in those countries have served as a stark example of what can happen when food prices spiral out of control and add to existing political problems, said Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute. "It's easy to see how the food supply can translate directly into political unrest," he said. Richard Ferguson, global head of

agriculture at Renaissance Capital, an investment bank specialising in emerging markets, said the problems were likely to spread. "Food prices are absolutely core to a lot of these disturbances. If you are 25 years old, with no access to education, no income and live in a politically repressed environment, you are going to be pretty angry when the price of food goes up the way it is." He said sharply rising food prices acted "as a catalyst" to foment political unrest, when added to other concerns such as a lack of democracy. While food was not the biggest cause of the Middle East protests, there has been widespread discontent over rampant food price inflation that has left millions of poor families struggling to find enough to eat. Egypt is the world's biggest importer of wheat. The UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation said this week that world food prices hit a record high in January, for the seventh consecutive month. Its food price index was up 3.4% from December to the highest level since the organisation started measuring food prices in 1990. Cereal prices are still about 10% below the peak they hit in April 2008, but have risen about 3% in the past month, after problems with last year's harvests caused by fires in Russia and bad weather. A poor harvest this year would be catastrophic, said Brown, as global grain reserves are unusually low at present. Brown warned that the longer term outlook was also bleak. Many arid countries have managed to boost their agricultural production by using underground water sources, but these are rapidly drying up. He cited Saudi Arabia, which has been self-sufficient in wheat for decades but whose wheat production is collapsing as the aquifer that fed the farms is depleted. Water scarcity, combined with soil erosion, climate change, the diversion of food crops to make biofuels, and a

growing population, were all putting unprecedented pressure on the world's ability to feed itself, according to Brown.

This would fuel political instability and could lead to unrest or conflicts, he said. "We have an entirely new situation in the world. We need to recognise this." Richer countries such as China and Middle Eastern oil producers have

reacted by buying up vast tracts of land in poorer parts of the world, such as sub-Saharan Africa and parts of south-east Asia. Rising food prices in the next few months could trigger a wave of reactions from governments that would exacerbate the current problem, argued Maximo Torero, of the International Food Policy Research Institute. "The big danger is that you get political pressure on countries to put in place restrictions on food, such as export bans on grains. We need to be very careful, as the situation is very tight and any additional pressure could take us to a very similar position to the one we had in 2007 and 2008." There were widespread food riots in 2008 in Africa, Latin America and some Asian countries, as soaring grain prices put staple foods out of reach of millions of poor people. Camilla Toulmin, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development, urged politicians to begin to tackle some of the root causes of food

insecurity. "It's not surprising that you are seeing people coming out on to the street to protest, given the price rises. You are going to see a lot more of this unless governments start addressing the fundamentals, such as climate change, water scarcity and dependence on oil. We need to create more resilient systems of agriculture for the future." The problem could not be more urgent,

added Brown, who warned that politicians around the world had ignored food security and water scarcity for years. "We are quite literally on the edge of chaos. Whether we can draw back from the edge, and create food price stability – I don't know."

Resource conflicts are the most likely to escalateHeinberg 2004 Richard Heinberg. (Senior Fellow of the Post Carbon Institute, Author of Eight Books and widely regarded as one the world's foremost Peak Oil Educators). "Book Excerpt: Powerdown: options and actions for a post-carbon world." 2004. Online.

Last One Standing – The path of competition for remaining resources. If the leadership of the US continues with current policies, the next decades will be filled with war, economic crises, and environmental catastrophe. Resource depletion and population pressure are about to

catch up with us, and no one is prepared. The political elites, especially in the US, are incapable of dealing with the situation. Their

preferred “solution” is simply to commandeer other nations’ resources, using military force. The worst-case scenario would be the general destruction of human civilization and most of the ecological life-support system of the planet. That is, of course, a breathtakingly alarming prospect. As such, we might prefer not to

contemplate it – except for the fact that considerable evidence attests to its likelihood. The notion that resource scarcity often leads to increased competition is certainly well founded. This is general true among non-human animals, among which competition for diminishing resources typically leads to aggressive behaviour. Iraq is actually the nexus of several different kinds of conflict – between consuming nations (e.g.,

France and the US); between western industrial nations and “terrorist” groups; and – most obviously – between a powerful consuming nation and a weaker, troublesome, producing nation. Politicians may find it easier to persuade their constituents to fight a common enemy than to conserve and share. War is always grim, but as resources become more scarce and valuable, as societies become more centralized and therefore more vulnerable, and as weaponry becomes more sophisticated and widely dispersed, warfare could become even more destructive that the case during the past century.

Impact Turn: EconomyHigh food prices cause inflation that ultimately creates a wage-price spiral and destroys the economyJohnson 8 - Consulting economist with interests in international finance and monetary policy. Her previous position was as director of the Division of International Finance at the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (Karen H., July 2008, “Food Price Inflation: Explanation and Policy Implications,” http://www.cfr.org/economics/food-price-inflation-explanation-policy-implications/p16729)

With respect to monetary policy, a switch from a persistent, if only slight, downward trend in the global relative price of food to an upward trend (or even to an unchanged relative price) calls for a change in central bank tactics. The overall policy objective of price stability remains for

central banks as does the fundamental central bank responsibility for whatever inflation outcome occurs over the medium term. If the relative price of food continues to move upward over an extended period, it will impart upward pressure on inflation; this is not a one-time shock that moves the price level but drops quickly out of measured inflation. If central banks are to achieve goals of moderate or low inflation over the medium term, they will need to adjust

their tactics to allow for rising food prices. One tempting but counterproductive tactic for controlling inflation of food prices is price control. Often the intent of the controls is not to be an inflation-fighting tool but a social policy. In some countries, governments use price controls on particular food items, usually local staples, as a subsidy to lower-income households (similar policies are also

used for fuel). In other countries, price controls have been put on in an effort to moderate a sudden sharp jump in prices. In the event that the relative price of food does continue to rise for a time, such policies can prove very expensive for the government budget and usually will have to be abandoned. At that point, the jump in the price of the previously protected item is large. The result is a sharp rise in the measured inflation rate and political outcry over the shock to household budgets. As a tactic for addressing the inflationary consequences of a change in the trend of global food prices, such controls are ill advised. For most central banks, the challenge is to incorporate the outlook for global food

prices into the forecast for the domestic economy and the overall inflation rate. Food prices pose particular risks to price stability because of their visibility and importance to households. Inflation expectations are central to stabilizing the trend in overall consumer prices and, should they become unanchored, can be very difficult to bring back down. Households do business in food markets more frequently than in any other sector and update their information about what is happening to food prices continuously. If the relative price of food does rise for an extended period, households will need to see convincing evidence that it is only a relative change, and that other prices

are declining, if they are to maintain stable inflation expectations. Otherwise, the perception of a step-up in inflation is likely to lead to upward pressure on nominal wages. Once a wage-price spiral sets in, the cost to the economy for the central bank to regain control over prices is higher still.

High food prices are hurting the economic recovery – they are drawing consumer dollars from growth areasDoane 11 – Peabody Award winning domestic correspondent for CBS (Seth, May 2011, “Cost of food and gas slowing U.S. economic growth,” http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-20065057.html)

While the grocery business is great for sellers right now with food prices up six to seven percent nationwide, shoppers like Jane Aschular say they have no choice but to spend more. Her bill was $40 dollars higher than usual.

"Prices have really jumped just in the last few weeks...we've been shopping here for ten years and I just know the prices of everything and they're

noticeably different," Aschular said. Roughly 70 percent of the U.S. economy is driven by consumer spending, but a closer look at the numbers reveals that, these days, people are spending more on what they have to buy - necessities like groceries and gasoline. Gas prices are up more than a dollar from this time last year. People are saying they used to be able to fill up for half the price they do now, and that prices are making people reconsider what kind of gas they buy and where they go to buy it. The economy is no longer

on the critical list, but it's still in serious condition. Retail sales are up more than 7 percent from last year, but economist Peter Morici says gas and food prices are a drag on the economy. "A lot of the consumer dollars are absorbed by higher gas and

food prices, which means that they're not buying shirts, going to restaurants as much, things of that nature, which would drive more growth," Morici said. After a deep recession, it's normal to see the economic grow at around 5 percent, but now, economists are seeing just around 3 percent growth.