We suggest a solution that rests on four pillars. First, creating a gradually increasing carbon tax. Second, returning the tax proceeds to the American people in the form of dividends. Third, establishing border carbon adjustments that protect American competitiveness and encourage other countries to follow suit. And fourth, rolling back government regulations once such a system is in place.
Ah, a tax!
Who would have thought of that? Actually Al Gore, who did something
similar with the help of some particularly greedy hedge-fund types. They
called it a "carbon exchange" and it is now extinct, although several
of its founders, including Gore, made fortunes. (NOTE: What Gore did was
fraudulent. I don't think Shultz and Baker are suggesting anything
remotely like that, though their proposal has elements of income
redistribution that don't seem especially conservative.)
But
speaking of Al Gore, there is a much bigger "Inconvenient Truth" that
appeared almost at the same time as the Shultz/Baker proposal -- it
seems there may be no significant climate change at all. The whole ball
of wax came crashing down only days before the former secretaries
published their thoughts that were obviously many weeks or months in
preparation.
From last Sunday's Daily Mail, under the headline "Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data":
-go to links-
The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.
The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.
It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.
No comments:
Post a Comment