'Warmer's' Carbon Tax A Public Theft : Tax Payer Ignorance

'Warmers' defy common sense and logic. Some say they are part of a religion like that of Charles Manson and others with similar endeavors that believe strongly in fantasies they make up and they then demand others believe as they do. And the consequences for not believing, they claim, can be catastrophic.

Even in the face of over whelming evidence that contradicts their ideology, they still believe they are right. It would be one thing if they would just reserve themselves to their own church pew and sing their songs and be happy, but this is apparently not enough, they are not satisfied with just their own religious fervor, they insist that everyone must believe as they do and pay a huge price in contributions if we are to be saved. After all, we can't expect them to save us for free, right? 

Then to, isn't it the money that is the 'mothers milk' for most religious insanity? The 'trueborn' fanatic member will accept nothing less then complete acceptance of their most basic precept from the general public which is, 'humans are killing the planet and everyone has to sacrifice some part of their humanity to stop the destruction.

What they mean is the general public must pay the cost of the church members hard work to save the planet so everyone will live happily ever after. Except the problem that arises is the work that is needed to save the planet can never end. Humans can not be eliminated so payment must be extracted on a regular basis to continue the work of those that know the future better then most. That makes good sense especially if you are the one pocketing the money.

Now it might just be just a coincidence, but it seems that the fever for the religious planet saving member's need for replenishing their fund reserves rises to a fever pitch in September, and that just so happens to be when the new Mercedes Benz models are released for sale. Just a Coincidence? Sure, why not - 

A Carbon Tax Is Not More Efficient
Source: Benjamin Zycher, "The Efficiency of a Carbon Tax: Broadly Accepted and Broadly Wrong," The American, January 31, 2014.

February 11, 2014

Many economists believe that a carbon tax is the most efficient way to reduce greenhouse gases, but such an argument is incorrect, says Benjamin Zycher, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

Even assuming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's consistently wrong record on climate predictions are actually correct, the amount of warming that the United States and the industrialized world could prevent is miniscule. Even reducing gases by 100 percent, the United States would only be able to avert a warming of 0.173 degrees Celsius by 2100.

As such, a carbon tax, Zycher says, would actually have no impact on temperatures over the next 100 years. It makes no sense to call a policy that results in no measurable impact "efficient."
Those who support a carbon tax see it as more efficient than a ban or a consumption standard.

• But the cost of a carbon tax would ultimately be borne by consumers in the form of higher-priced goods and services.
• Voters, however, would have a hard time measuring that economic cost, and electoral pressures and political competition would not be as effective in constraining the size of the tax.
• The long run effect of such a policy would be a carbon tax that is too high, and that is definitely not efficient.

Is there any reason to think that such a policy would be better than "command and control" policies, such as bans or performance standards? When a consumer's favorite light bulbs are no longer available, he is at least likely to see the cost of the policy that took that light bulb away.