Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Next
Comments 17551 to 17600:
-
nigelj at 05:39 AM on 5 October 2017Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores
MA Rodger, thanks for the links. I agree prediction is not the best word.
There still seem to be many unknowns about exactly what caused rapid temperature fluctautions during the ice ages. The article says essentially that one 'possible' cause is due to the extensive land based ice caps melting and in turn affecting temperatures, and of course theres less ice now to trigger the same things. Hopefully then that was the cause. But there are still unknowns about what really caused the abrupt fluctuations, so we cant be entirely sure such things could not occur in our future.
No criticism of anyone intended. The research work that has been done is mindboggling and people should read some of it explained in popular science types of articles.
-
michael sweet at 03:02 AM on 5 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
NorrisM,
This New York Times article documents current damage from sea level rise and the decline in sales of real estate threatened by sea level rise. These are not "speculative" damages, they are already realized damages. Since the sea continues to rise, these damages must increase. The issue is how much the damages will increase to. Miami Beach is currently spending hundreds of millions of dollars in a futile attempt to hold back the sea.
Articles speculating on a collapse of real estate values threatened by sea level rise are becoming common. Just the possibility of a collapse is damaging to the economy and costs everyone else money. The fossil fuel industry should pay for the damage they currently cause.
-
michael sweet at 02:27 AM on 5 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Here is a link to a free copy of the article Scaddenp refers to at 51. The supplemental information (free) documents how they calculate subsidies to oil production. They do not include environmental damage as a subsidy of the oil industry.
-
Dcrickett at 00:43 AM on 5 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
"Pluralistic Ignorance" is a helpful concept here. The great contribution by Frank Luntz to Denialism's staying power was straight from Gen'l Nathan Bedford Forest's alleged dictum: "Get there fustes' with the mostes'." The part about the credibility of scientists and their concensus is important but fairly obvious.
Thus, propagandize that there is no concensus first, then "everybody" will believe that "everybody else" believes it. "The rest is commentary."
Separately, I love that comic strip linked in #4.
-
RickG at 00:21 AM on 5 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Scaddenp @4
Absolutely, I agree.
One approach I would like to see taken "full throttle" is to use one of the skeptics own tactics against them, and yes skeptical science does an excellent job of that by showing what is being said and pointing out what is wrong and showing why. However, my suggested approach is to address the sources specifically. Who they are, a list of their deliberate falsehoods and how easy it is to show that such claims are false. And I think those falsehoods in particular should be the ones that accuse scientists and climate organizations of manipulating data. True, there is a lot of confirmation bias performed by the skeptics, but in all honesty, I think the ones that cause the most public doubt are the ones who "deliberately" accuse scientists and organizations (NASA, NOAA, HadCRUT, etc., of misdeeds, when it is they who are the ones engaged in misdeeds.
-
MA Rodger at 19:52 PM on 4 October 2017Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores
nigelj @1,
Climate science is not unaware of the potential for abrupt change. Of course, back in the ice-ages there was more ice sat on more bits of land available to inject fresh water into northern oceans. So, even though their cause is not understood, the chances of a Dansgaard–Oeschger event or a Heinrich event happening today is not a serious consideration. Yet there remains the melt-event described in Hansen et al (2016) which would see this coming century's warming replaced by rapid sea level rise and superstorms. Hansen et al acknowledge they are at variance with IPCC ARs, stating:-
"These predictions, especially the cooling in the Southern Ocean and North Atlantic with markedly reduced warming or even cooling in Europe, differ fundamentally from existing climate change assessments. We discuss observations and modeling studies needed to refute or clarify these assertions."
Myself, I would say "prediction" is the wrong word to use.
-
NorrisM at 18:29 PM on 4 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob Loblaw @ 25
Tom13 is discussing the US tax situation regarding subsidies under the US tax code. I am in Canada and can only reference the Canadian situation. In that I am involved in the Canadian oil and gas business, I can certainly say that the only "subsidy" that the oil and gas industry receives is by receiving a "deduction" for exploration and development expenditures which, in accounting terms" is on capital account and not ordinarily deducted from income in calculating same for accounting purposes. But, in accounting, capital ultimately gets deducted from the calculation of income from deductions for depreciation (buildings) and resources (depletion).
So the only "subsidy" is the accelerated deduction received from deducting depletion at a faster rate under the Income Tax Act in Canada through deductions of oil and gas expenditures (CEE, CDE, COGPE). With the exception of dry hole drilling expenditures (CEE), these have to be deducted over a number of years, usually on a 30% per year on a declining balance basis.
Therefore, the only "subsidy" is the difference in the "time value of money" which certainly is not irrelevant. But logically, deducting dry holde expenditures, as and when expended, seems to be the right thing. In Canada, the Trudeau government is gradually whittling down the 100% CEE deductions, but retaining the 30% per year CDE deductions.
As for Bob Loblaw's point, when it comes to a carbon tax on fossil fuels, I think you have to make a distinction between the costs of fossil fuels in harming the environment from a pollution standpoint from those unkown and speculative calculations of rising sea levels etc. My understanding is that the IPCC ballparks this former cost at something around $18 per tonne. Even Bjorn Lomborg agrees with a carbon tax at this level.
Carbon taxes beyond this level are proposed for an entirely different purpose. They are imposed to discourage the use of fossil fuels. Whether this is the proper approach is an entirely different issue. Lomborg and others suggest that it is not.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 14:15 PM on 4 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Based on my experience as a Professional Engineer with an MBA, I offer the following more specific response to Tom13's Econ 101 'efficiency' promotion.
Professional Engineering 101 is the pursuit and application of constantly improved awareness and understanding to develop new things, governed by Ethics 101 which is to protect the public interests from the potential harm of competitors in Econ 101 and PoliSci 101 (particularly when those competitors try to temporarily be perceived to be the Winners by abusing Marketing 101).
The constraints on Engineering 101 by Ethics 101 include ensuring that only the options that do not impede or harm the achievement of public interests, including all of the interests presented in the Sustainable Development Goals, get to compete in evaluations to determine the 'best option'. An unsustainable or harmful activity would not pass that Ethics 101 screening in Engineering 101 no matter how much cheaper or quicker it was (no matter what the Econ 101 and PoliSci 101 want to believe or what popular support they can develop through the abuse of Marketing 101). And any already developed item/activity that is discovered to be unsustainable or harmful would be taken out of service or repaired.
Econ 101 has to be Ethically externally constrained because it is understood that the competitors and consumers (the players in the game) in Econ/PoliSci/Marketing 101 can be expected to push to get the most competitive advantage they can, including pushing to benefit from behaving as unethically as they think they can get away with.
The global effort to figure out how to develop a lasting constantly improving future for humanity has its origins many decades ago.
- In 1965 the Scientific Advisory Panel to US President L.B. Johnson formally warned about the global warming/climate change impacts of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
- The 1972 UN Stockholm Conference formalized the global effort to better understand the required restrictions on the results of competition in Econ 101 and PoliSci 101, including restricting CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
- The 1987 UN report "Our Common Future" included the blunt statement that "... We borrow environmental capital from future generations with no intention or prospect of repaying. They may damn us for our spendthrift ways, but they can never collect on our debt to them. We act as we do because we can get away with it: future generations do not vote; they have no political or financial power; they cannot challenge our decisions".
- The most comprehensive presentation of that pursuit of increased awareness and better understanding is the Sustainable Development Goals established by the UN in 2015.
All of that robustly developed better understanding has still failed to stop the unjustified damaging Winning in the games of Econ/PoliSci/Marketing 101 because of the lack of constraint of those activities by Ethics 101.
The real problem is how far things have been allowed to develop in the wrong direction in many of the supposedly 'most advanced regions of the planet - the perceived Winners'. Further development in the wrong direction only makes the required responsible correction larger and more rapid, understandably perceived to be more of a Loss, but incorrectly perceived that way because 'the starting point for the correction' was an increasingly unsustainable and damaging delusion of prosperity and opportunity.
-
scaddenp at 13:30 PM on 4 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Hmm, just noticed this paper in Nature energy on whether US new oil could survive without subsidies. Definitely considers subsidies that arent specific to FF, but interesting study nonetheless.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 11:16 AM on 4 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
A fee and dividend plan would indeed be unpopular. And undeniably it alone will not bring about the required rapid termination of excess CO2 creation. But it is undeniably a helpful action.
My MBA training in the 1980s, and life experience as a Professional Engineer, leads me to understand that people trying to be the biggest winners in the competition to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels have developed a massive mistaken perception about burning fossil fuels, incuding the mistaken claims of 'efficiency' based on 'measures of profitability', and including mistaken perceptions of personal prosperity and opportunity.
The future of humanity requires a correction of human activity so thta all of it is truly justifiably sustainable. The 2015 Sustainable Development Goals are undeniably what needs to be achieved for humanity to have a better future.
Fossil fuels are a finite resource that will only get more difficult to decently benefit from. And ultimately it will not be practical for anyone to benefit from the activity.
A new understanding that solidified in the 1960s, and has strengthened since then (with the 2015 SDGs being the latest compilation of the developed awareness and understanding), is that competitions for popularity and profit can be damagingly successfully, being won/misdirected in many ways including through the abuse of deliberately deceptive marketing that exploits triggering anxiety and knowing that many people will 'believe an unjustified claim they emotionally/anxiously respond to' more readily than they will 'accept a better understanding that is contrary to their developed desires/interests'.
-
nigelj at 09:18 AM on 4 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Scaddenp @4
Agreed. Debates are often won on inflammatory slogans, appeals to emotion, generalisations, cherrypicking,and plain falsehoods, sadly to say, as opposed to facts and reasoned argument. This is particularly the case with talk back radio. Another debating tactic is sophistry.
The frustrating thing is real scientists cannot afford to engage in inflammatory rhetoric or anything that could be interpreted as dishonest, or their jobs could be under threat. And shouldnt anyway of course goes without saying.
In contrast you get certain sceptics who get away with the most incredible falsehoods and inflammatory rhetoric, because they are assured of a job or funding from think tanks lurking in the background. Not naming names or the moderator will have a fit.
Its a most unfair pack of cards, and I dont know the answer, although I think the general public are mostly aware of this, and do make some allowances. Anyway scientists should stick to sound fact based debate I think or it will be chaos. The truth wins in the end.
People do seek out places that confirm their views and yes we are all vulnerable. The internet has amplified this, however I make an effort to look at all sides of debates and find it interesting to explore this.
The internet bubble phenomenon is also now generating fake news, and a real distortion of reality, and the answer is indeed elusive, but I can see most people getting heartily sick of this confusion, nonsense, conspiracy twaddle and and the lack of a solid base of facts, and things may swing back to the centre like the pendulum of a clock. Dont understimate the basic sanity of the silent majority. It can't happen soon enough.
-
scaddenp at 08:15 AM on 4 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Debates tend to be won by the best debater not the best argument and even if not, you "win" if you make points that appeal to your target audience and can throw doubt on your opponent even if with blatent lies. The problematic bit of our current world is that people choose media sources which give them a reality tailored to their prejudices and a symbiotic relationship sets in which polarizes views. Left and right are equally at fault. Internet makes it worse. I wish I knew the answer. The problem is that reality is not actually a consumer choice and treating it as such bites us.
And I think this comic makes courageously true statements about the problem. Well worth a read.
-
nigelj at 06:49 AM on 4 October 2017Inside the Experiment: Abrupt Change and Ice Cores
So the future could bring abrupt climate change. I have a bad feeling that it could. The whole climate system is complex, and hard to fully predict beyond the fact that considerable warming and sea level rise is certain.
But getting beyond feelings, this abrupt change is apparently based on the evidence that ice ages lead to abrupt changes and ice ages are associated with various feedbacks, so warming could lead to abrupt change through feedbacks as well. The nature of the feedbacks is different, but the big thing changing is the direction of travel. Its hard to see why only ice age feedbacks would cause abrupt change but not warming feedbacks. Why would only ice age feedbacks cause instability and abrupt changes?
It's interesting that the sub prime crisis was partly caused by poor application of some statistical distribution functions related to risk and stability (gaussian copulas but im not familiar with these whatever they are). Climate scientists are very meticulous, careful, dedicated people but could there be a mistake in the climate modelling equations somewhere that has missed something related to feedbacks, and potential for abrupt change?
-
John Hartz at 04:37 AM on 4 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Because the Trump Administration and the US Congress are now discussing possible revisions to the US Tax Code, the isue of fossil fuel subsidies is now a very hot topic. Two more articles of interest were posted today:
Dirty Energy Dominance: Dependent on Denial – How the U.S. Fossil Fuel Industry Depends on Subsidies and Climate Denial by Janet Redman, Oil Change International, Oct 3, 2017
High Oil Subsidies Ensure Profit for Nearly Half New U.S. Investments, Study Shows by Neela Banarjee, InsideClimate News, Oct 3, 2017
-
Johnboy at 01:35 AM on 4 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
I read that as many as 10 times more people watch the network evening news than cable evening news. Particularly the age 50+ demographic, including myself. Cable has more viewing overall because it's there 24/7. FOX gets the biggest share but the others have a fair share to.
Point is, can't there be a way to get some of what we see in these postings and others more regularly out to these audiences, obviously geared to a generally uninformed public. The "it's natural", "climates always changing", "humans couldn't possibly affect nature", etc., etc. needs to be countered, especially for this group of more senior folks. I think it's essential to address the disturbingly low recognition or acceptance of the conscensus. How about the red/blue debate on prime time TV, or is that bridge too far?
-
John Hartz at 00:00 AM on 4 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Must reading for everyone participating in this discussion of fossil fuel subsidies...
Explainer: The challenge of defining fossil fuel subsidies by Jocelyn Timperley, Carbon Brief, Jun 12, 2017
-
scaddenp at 13:17 PM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Bob makes a good case. Perhaps Tom13 could clarify his position by answering:
1/ Does he accept that burning FF creates externalities not included in current price? (ie moving your infrastructure because of sealevel rise is a cost FF is not currently paying). Ie if Tom13 is full on AGW-denier then this discussion is moot.
2/ Does he accept that relative economic efficiency of FF versus renewables could be better assessed if no government subsidies were in play for either?
-
John Hartz at 12:05 PM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Another recent article about fossil fuel subsidies...
European countries spend billions a year on fossil fuel subsidies, survey shows by Fiona Harvey, Guardian, Sep 28, 2017
-
Bob Loblaw at 12:02 PM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
All of this discussion of what is and is not a subsidy under any particular country's tax law ignores Tom13's unwillingness to acknowledge that a carbon tax corrects for the failure of the economic system to account for externalities.
-
nigelj at 10:08 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 @40
Thanks for the details.
" The broader point on the fossil fuel subsidies - is that most of what is labeled as subsidies by various advocacy groups, etc are simply not subsidies by any economic definition. "
No thats not the broader point, that is a narrow point of how subsidies are made up. The broader point is fossil fuels are subsidised, and that it doesn't make much sense economically, and / or in relation to climate change.
"Many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are tax deductions for the cost of doing business. Additionally many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are deductions which are allowable to all industries and are not subsidies carved out to benefit the fossil fuel industries."
So what tom? Some are not, so we are left with tax subsidies specific to the fossil fuel industry at some level.
But fair comment that some of the tax deducations apply to many industries. Its not sensible to include those particular ones.
"There being two exceptions.... "
Thanks for the detail, but I would need to see full souce material to be aure its only two exceptions.
"In summary, most of what the advocates characterize as subsidies are non existent or greatly stretch the true economic definition of a subsidy."
Remember some of the comments made above by various people refer to America which you are describing, and some are considering the global picture. And granted it can be confusing. However I know for a fact some developing countries have big subsidies by any definition of a subsidy, and also some European countries. You appear to be referring to America, and the subsidies in America are complicated to untangle. Thanks for trying to clairfy it. And I agree its absurd to include business tax deductions all business receive.
However a simple search on the internet and in America fossil fuels are subsidised with a combination of essentially direct cash grants and also tax subsidies specific to the fossil fuel industry (as opposed to general business deductions) as follows:
"A 2011 study by the consulting firm Management Information Services, Inc. (MISI)[28] estimated the total historical federal subsidies for various energy sources over the years 1950–2010. The study found that oil, natural gas, and coal received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars)"
Subsidies and tax concessions specific to fossil fuels (not just general business deductions) are certainly around 4 billion each year from the source material.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_subsidies
Anyway the wider point is the use of subsidies in principle, and not nit picking too much about the exact figure. A bad subsidy is a bad subsidy, regardless of the ammount.
-
Tom13 at 09:48 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
41 - John
From the citation you provided
Item 1 - IDC - The current year expenses vs capitalization and recovery via cost depletion - Repeal of section 263c is only a timing issue, the so colled subsidy reverses itself in the subsequent years, ie a negative subsidy.
Item 2 percentage depletion in excess of costs basis - this is an actual subsidy which only applies to royalty owners and independent producers, It does no apply to the majors
Item 3 Domestic production deduction - This deduction applies to all manufacturing. It is not unique to the oil and gas industry
Item 4 - 2year amortization of geological and geophysical costs - this like IDC is only a timing issue, It only accellerates the collection of tax, it does not increase or decrease the total tax.
Item 5 6 7 dont work in that area, so I cant comment
Item 8 expensing tertiary costs - This is an operating cost, - calling it a subsidy is absurd.
Item 9 Passive loss limitation - Again - this is only a timing issue. It does not increase or decrease the total tax revenue
Item 10 & 11 are not applicable in the current economic enviroment
Item 12 as previously noted, MLP's have as a rule been losing money since 2014. Due to operating losses, the lost tax revenue is zero.
-
nigelj at 09:17 AM on 3 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Good article thanks. Consensus is vitally importantant, and we need to know about the consensus. Clearly over 90% of scientists agree we are altering the climate from various studies, and this alone is obviously important, and at least in that it should be getting our strong attention or we are idiots.
Nothing good comes from hiding information, at least not from adults.
This is partly why consensus is important as follows. Consensus at least gives us an indication of where the general thinking is going, and what is most likely to be the correct answer. The general public often struggle with scientific detail and obviously dont have the time to read the detailed science. As a result the first question many people ask is what do the experts think? The general public do this, politicians do this. As part of this process its important to be sure we get the thoughts of a wide range of scientists, and particularly the consensus view. We don't want to be listening to just one dissenting sceptical voice, not realising that voice may be in a minority. We need context, and dont want to get fooled into thinking opinion is divided if it isnt.
If the majority of scientists agree on something, that is cause to at the very least pay attention, while a 50 / 50 split would suggest more work is needed. But it also depends on how serious the threat is, because a very serious threat (like an asteroid heading our way) might suggest even a 50 / 50 split of opinion on the matter should still suggest precautionary action is desirable.
I disagree with the view by Pearce in the Guardian that publicising the consensus view is counter productive. Only had time for a quick scan through the article, but straight away he bases his view that we don't need to publicise the consensus because reasonably good numbers already think climate is changing, its a problem, and we should do renewable energy . Those are correct figures, but omit the fact that only low numbers in America think humans are causing climate change. This is very significant, because this line of thinking will colour the totality of our response to climate change. And the consensus goes right into causation.
However Pearce makes a good point that arguing too much about the exact level of consensus is a waste of time. Ideally we want more awareness of the consensus in the general media, but to avoid getting bogged down to debating exact numbers too much, etc etc.
There are indeed a whole lot of other things to focus on as well as others point out. I agree with JW Rebel the challenge is around dealing with responses and uncertaity of outcomes etc. One thing that may help is much more specific information on how much transitions to renewable energy will cost the averagre person per year in dollar terms (and the data suggests not actually very much). Right now the numbers on this are not front and centre of debate, and are quoted in terms of gdp, which half the population don't even understand or find hard to visualise. Lack of clear, simple information creates uncertainty and fear.
-
Ian Forrester at 08:28 AM on 3 October 2017The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change
NorrisM @53
"It just confuses the people you are trying to convince."
It only confuses people who do not want to be convinced. Anyone who even reads a little bit of the accurate and honest information out there, not the dishonest stuff from well known AGW denier sites, will not be cofused with the things you claim to be confused about.
-
Postkey at 08:13 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
“Energy subsidies are projected at US$5.3 trillion in 2015, or 6.5 percent of global GDP, according to a recent IMF study. Most of this arises from countries setting energy taxes below levels that fully reflect the environmental damage associated with energy consumption. “
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2015/NEW070215A.htm -
John Hartz at 07:27 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Recommended supplemental reading:
Forget the Paris agreement. The real solution to climate change is in the U.S. tax code. by Tim McDonnell, Wonkblog, Washington Post, Oct 2, 2017
-
JWRebel at 06:43 AM on 3 October 2017Why the 97% climate consensus is important
Pearce's line of argumentation is not being completely represented here. He is not trivializing or belittling the important contribution that consensus awareness can make, nor stating outright that there is nothing left to accomplish on this score, but stating that public discussion about the exact method and numbers to establish consensus accuracy can divert attention into politicized discourse that detracts from a much more urgent question, viz., how to get more support for policy measures. Better consensus awareness does not necessarily lead to more preparedness to support the needed policy measures (e.g., carbon taxes), and how to fuel such motivation is a trickier and more urgent question. The 97 number can become a fetish, depending on precisely which question is being analyzed. The fact that there are no creditable attempts at explaining comprehensively the many lines of evidence speaks to me like 100%.
In terms of policy measures, the uncertainties with regard to outcomes is obviously much greater than the basic science about the problems we face. Overcoming that uncertainty in order to still get something done is a challenge of a different order, and one not addressable by science alone: it is more akin to persuading someone not to light up that next cigarette, knowing that one cigarette less is not exactly a matter of life or death.
-
Tom13 at 06:35 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#38 - The broader point on the fossil fuel subsidies - is that most of what is labeled as subsidies by various advocacy groups, etc are simply not subsidies by any economic definition. Many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are tax deductions for the cost of doing business. Additionally many of the so-called "tax subsidies" are deductions which are allowable to all industries and are not subsidies carved out to benefit the fossil fuel industries.
There being two exceptions - percentage depletion in excess of basis which only applies to royalty owners and independent producers. (US title 26 section 613A). Second , the deduction for IDC which that subsidy reverses itself in subsequent years and becomes a negative subsidy and which after a period of years becomes an net wash. See for example most any of the majors annual report, where the annual DDA generally exceeds the net oil & gas properties current year additions. (the majors will use either successfull efforts or full cost accounting whereby the idc is capitalized for GAAP purposes, and amortized over the life of the properties).
In summary, most of what the advocates characterize as subsidies are non existent or greatly stretch the true economic definition of a subsidy.
-
Tom13 at 06:09 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael - to assist you with some general information
Lifo
www.diffen.com/difference/FIFO_vs_LIFO
returns on mlp's
performance.morningstar.com/funds/etf/total-returns.action?t=amlp
Note there is not a good single source for the taxable income flowing through mlps - though this report should give you a sense of the income of the mlps over the last few years.
-
nigelj at 06:08 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 @32
I respect you may have some expertise on fossil fuel financing, but I can't help but think you are missing the point on fossil fuel subsidies. Fossil fuels are subsidised. The exact level is hard to be sure of, but doesn't matter. None of the subsidies make much sense in terms of genuine economic justification. They certainly dont make sense in the era of climate change. End of story.
-
Tom13 at 05:55 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#35- Michael -
A) you cited an article from an advocacy website, even individuals without expertise should be able to recognize the bias.
B) The errors are readily apparant to anyone with a basic level of taxation
C) my explanations, coupled with a basic knowledge of accounting, should be sufficient for most individuals to quickly grasp the errors.
You state that you rely on experts, though it should be pointed out, that experts wouldnt make such glaring errors.
-
nigelj at 05:52 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 @29
"Armed with the knowledge of the tax policy definition of "revenue neutral", it should now be apparant why a wealth transfer from an efficient producer to an inefficient producer is not revenue neutral - If the receiver of the subsidy was efficient, it would not need a subsidy."
With respect you clearly dont understand the legal definition of revenue neutral. The only thing that counts is whether theres a significant change in government revenue, nothing to do with "efficiency". This is clearly the view of the politiicans involved in the matter from the discourse I have read. None of them are talking about efficiency in the way you are in relation to the fee and dividend idea.
You also continue to fail to understand the recepient is not inefficient.
You also fail to understand the reasons for subsidies. Efficiency is not the criteria on which subsidies are properly based. Subsidies are properly used wheren there is some public benefit and / or to encourage new enterprises to get started, when the enterprise is desirable, but faces market difficulties. Therefore it is legitimate to subsidise inefficient industries in their formation period. This includes some elements of renewable energy notwithstanding some of these are efficient, and some less efficient at this stage.
It is not sensible to subsidise ongoing profitable companies because they dont need help, and it would not be possible to subsidise all such companies even if you wanted. This is why its doubtful that its sensible to subsidise fossil fuel companies. And they currently receive all sorts of subsidies. The only possible reason might be a subsidy for the risks of exploration, but given how profitable the companies are, even this doesn't make much sense. And given climate change, there is now no reason to subsidise fossil fuel companies left at all. Its complete madness to continue to subsidise fossil fuels on the one hand while for example having renewable energy subsidies and cap and trade on the other.
The following link will give you some brief indication of how subsidies have been used historically, and when they are properly used for good purposes, especially helping new companies get started:
-
michael sweet at 05:43 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13,
I do not claim expertise at tax accounting, I rely on experts to provide summaries like the one referenced .
You have demonstrated your level of expertise by being unable to locate the data in the appendix of the report and claiming that it was "A 103 page report and virtually no info on what the actual subsidies the fossil fuel companies receive." The appendix was cited several times in the report as containing the data. Please provide a citation of an expert to support your wild claims.
-
nigelj at 05:27 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Tom13@4
"As noted by Vecchi, there has been little to no discernable difference in ACE after adjusting for observational limitations since the late 1800's"
Its always difficult reconciling your statements with the sources you then quote. You seem to have it wrong. Maybe Im missinterpreting it, but your link says the following and people can make up their own minds.
"The sensitivity of North Atlantic tropical cyclone frequency, duration, and intensity is examined for both uniform and nonuniform SST changes. Under uniform SST warming, these results indicate that there is a modest sensitivity of intensity, and a decrease in tropical storm and hurricane frequencies. On the other hand, increases in tropical Atlantic SST relative to the tropical mean SST suggest an increase in the intensity and frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes."
"The second point is that using a single data point - such as the month of Sept 2017 will most often lead to erroneous conclusions."
I agree.
"the noaa, geophysical fluid dymanics lab frequently mentions that lack of any discernable differences in ACE."
But the following source says the intensity of N Atlantic hurricanes has increased. I guess its just a contested issue, and only more and better data will fully settle whats happened historically.
-
Tom13 at 03:50 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael - Try to actually refute the points I made. As I previously stated, the errors in the report are obvious for anyone with knowledge of oil and gas taxation. I have limited my comments to US oil and gas taxation which is where my area of professional expertise.
Just two examples of the errors is the first line listing MLPS and a tax subsidy of $3.931B. Its difficult to claim a tax subsidy in an enviroment where the MLPs have been showing net losses, the majority of which have in both 2015 and 2016.
The second example is the LIFO being claimed as a subsidy. Lifo reduces the tax liability in an inflationary market, but results in greater tax in a deflationary market. 2014 was the year of the drop in oil prices from $100 per bbl down to the $40's, yet the report shows an increase in the tax subsidy from $857m to $1.152b. That is mathematically impossible.
-
michael sweet at 03:16 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
tom13,
You are apparently an expert on everything since you always rely on your own intpretation and never cite expert opinion.
You should be forced to cite experts for your claims since this is a scientific blog. You are only a denier who is too ignorant to understand expert evaluations and think you know better than everyone else.
Hopefully all the other readers here will dismiss your claims since you obviously do not know what you are talking about.
Moderator Response:[JH] Inflamatory tone snipped. Please keep it civil.
-
Tom13 at 03:04 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Michael - Thanks for the link.
www.odi.org/publications/10086-g20-subsidies-oil-gas-coal-production-united-states
The errors in the computation and logic of the data provided are easy to stop - at least for those with knowledge of oil and gas taxation. Lets start from the top
1) corporate tax exemption for MLP's - A) the income tax is being paid at the individual partner level, instead of the corporate level, net result is a small reduction in tax paid. B) The $ amount of tax subsidy is show as $3,931 for 2013, 2014 and 2015. Using the same $ amount for the three years belies reality. With declining oil prices, most of the MLPs are lost money, especially in 2016.
2) IDC - intangible drilling costs - this is a deduction for the cost of production, Secondly, it is only a timing difference. In year 1, there is a tax deduction, year 2-year 10, there is no deduction, in other words, after a few years, the deduction/benefit becomes a wash, so no net "tax subsidy.
3) domestic manufacturing deduction - Every manufacturer receives this deduction, - it is not unique to oil and gas.
4) Lifo inventory - Lifo only saves tax money in an economy when prices rise. Oil prices are by their nature volatile. Quite frankly absurd that lifo is treated as a subsidy, more absurd is the computation.
5) Percentage depletion in excess of basis - granted this is the only true subsidy - however, it only applied to royalty owners and independent producers. The computation of the amount is obviously incorrect. They have computed the same $ amount for all years even though prices have dropped which would reflect lower depletion allowable.
I just pointed out the first 5 obvious errors.
Moderator Response:[DB] Inflammatory snipped.
-
michael sweet at 01:29 AM on 3 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13,
I went to the linked report. It has appendices that contain all the specific data for the subsidies. You have simply not read the part of the report that you claim is missing. Here are the first 6 lines of over 119 from an Excell spreadsheet that document USA domestic direct subsidies. (to access the data go to the report, click on the appendices and then direct subsidies for the USA)
Corporate Tax Exemption for Master Limited Partnerships Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Cross-cutting 3931 3931 3931 OCI [WOULD BE 1.2 billion if we used JCT estimates for FY14 in JCX-97-14.pdf - vs. 3.9 billion estimate for 2012 (most recent year) from OCI/EarthTrack report. Differentiated tax treatment of distribution streams, incorporating dividend rates, tax deferrals on return of capital
Lost Royalties on Offshore Drilling (Outer Continental Shelf
Deep Water Royalty Relief Act) Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Relief on royalties 576.2 2120 1348.1 GAO Used GAO high estimate since it is closer to the 2013 and 2014 U.S. oil and gas market (high production and $100 per barrel) of $53 billion of foregone revenues over the remaining life of the leases (~25 years in 2008) - NOTE THAT THIS MAY NEED TO BE REVISED FOR FUTURE YEARS (post-2014) if oil prices are at a lower sustained level
Intangible Drilling Oil & Gas Deduction Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Exploration and field development 3490 1663 2576.5 OMB Used the budget estimate for repealing the deduction from the relevant FY budget (ie. consulted FY14 budget for 2014 figures, FY15 budget for 2015 figures, etc.,) rather than using projections from one earlier budget
Powder River Basin not designated as a Coal-Producing Region Federal Tax expenditure Coal Relief on royalties 1046.5 1046.5 1046.5 Institute for Energy Economics & Financial Analysis 2012 was latest estimate (from IEEFA). This allows coal companies to get leases of land in this region for a low cost - used Figure 3 data to arrive at this number
Domestic Manufacturing Deduction Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Cross-cutting 574 1119 846.5 OMB Used the budget estimate for repealing the deduction from the relevant FY budget (ie. consulted FY13 budget for 2013 figures, FY14 budget for 2014 figures, etc.,) rather than using projections from one earlier budget
Excess of Percentage Over Cost Depletion Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Extraction 1100 1000 1050 JCT Used JCT figures from S-1-13 and JCX-97-14. Alternative method building on OECD methodology could be taking FY14 expected income tax expenditures for excess of percentage over cost depletion from FY16 budget (see LINK) = 660. Apportion 660 to the ratio of oil, gas and coal production used by OECD for 2011 figures (did not revisit IEA source data for production) - this was 36.6% gas, 24.7% oil, and 38.7% coal. 660*0.366 = 241.56 for gas, 660*0.247 = 163.02 for oil, and 660*0.387 = 255.42 for coal
Last-In, First-Out Accounting for Fossil Fuel Companies Federal Tax expenditure Oil & Gas Cross-cutting 857.3 1152.69 1004.995 OMB, Friends of the Earth (FOE), Green Scissors Calculated share of subsidy for oil & gas (33%) based on FOE Green Scissors report. Used the respective FY year budget (ie 2013 estimate is from FY13 budget; 2014 estimate is from FY14 budget)
Temporary Expensing of Equipment for Refining Federal Tax expenditure Oil Refining 610 0 305 OMB Appears to have expired Dec. 31, 2013 according to JCX-100-14 - https://www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=4667The formatting was lost in the transition. It is your responsibility to read the reports cited. When you claim that the report does not contain information it actually contains, that makes your argument weaker. In the report they sumarize the data because the data take up too much space to repeat everywhere.
Your claim "I do not believe this report" is simply false, you have not done your homework. You often do not do your homework before you make wild claims.
-
MA Rodger at 01:24 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
magellan @2.
I assume you are asking about the OP item "September is the most energetic month for hurricanes ever recorded in the Atlantic" and asking 'Most energetic since when?' (By the way, I am not aware of any new sovereign state being formed in 1776. I would guess the date you should be quoting is 1781.)
September 2017 saw Atlantic hurricanes for the month top the Accumulative Cyclone Energy (ACE) record set in September 2004 (ACE=155) with an ACE value for the full month of ACE=176. While historical tropical cyclone data in the Atlantic is more complete than in other ocean basins, it is still subject to inaccuracy prior to the satellite era, pre-1970s. However, with the data available it is possible to say that the ACE=176 for Sept 2017 is certainly the most energetic since before 1950, there being no other month that comes close to that value since then.
As far as the 2017 hurricane season so-far, it has racked up ACE=202 by the end of September and for the time-of-year sits in second place (1950-to-date) behind the 2004-season-to-the-end-of-Sept (ACE=220). It is possible this is =2nd as 1950 is not far behind. 2017 has so-far topped the ACE for all complete years bar five back to 1950, and bar eight back to 1850. This is set out graphically here (usually 2 clicks to 'download your attachment').
-
Tom13 at 00:35 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
#3 - prior to the satellite error, the ability to accumulate the data to accurately compute ACE was quite limited. As noted by Vecchi, there has been little to no discernable difference in ACE after adjusting for observational limitations since the late 1800's
this citation below is just one example.
The second point is that using a single data point - such as the month of Sept 2017 will most often lead to erroneous conclusions.
journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00146.1
the noaa, geophysical fluid dymanics lab frequently mentions that lack of any discernable differences in ACE.
-
Eclectic at 00:19 AM on 3 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Nigelj @1 , thanks yes, the video is amusing. After all, when you boil it down, the denialists have absolutely nothing valid to support themselves with . . . unless you count validly-wacko Conspiracy Theories !
Magellan @2 , please state clearly the point you are trying to make. Is science comparative to voodoo and "Alternative Facts"? Is black comparative to white? I reckon so — but what is the point?
-
magellan at 23:33 PM on 2 October 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #39
Isn't science comparative? Relative to what? As opposed to what? One year of storms in 13 billion years, or in 241 years of a country's history is not science.
What is the distribution of record breaking hurricanes years between 1776 and 2017 or best data thereof.Moderator Response:[JH] Sloganeering snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments ar
-
Tom13 at 23:03 PM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#27 - A 103 page report and virtually no info on what the actual subsidies the fossil fuel companies receive.
Page 68 mentions the reduction of the severance tax on oil & gas produced in Alaska - Severance tax is a tax that only the owners of the oil and gas properties (and other mineral and mining interests) incur. No other industries are subject to this tax. A reduction in a tax that is only imposed on a few is not a subsidy, but instead a reduction of a wealth transfer.
P 82 - The article calls the tax deduction for the cost of operations a subsidy. All industries receive tax deductions for the cost of operations - so by that articles definition, every industry receives subsidies.
-
Tom13 at 22:49 PM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
#26 - Nigelj
Armed with the knowledge of the tax policy definition of "revenue neutral", it should now be apparant why a wealth transfer from an efficient producer to an inefficient producer is not revenue neutral - If the receiver of the subsidy was efficient, it would not need a subsidy.
-
jgnfld at 20:20 PM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
The "tragedy of the commons", which is what is at base here w.r.t. the harm fossil fuels cause the globe, is a clear example of market failure. I'm not sure it's useful to talk about this failure in terms of "subsidies" and "wealth transfers", however.
A small group can exploit a large resource with impunity. However once the exploitation is at a level that all are affected negatively while at the same time there is no clear market feedback to those exploiting the resource, a crash is a typical outcome.
The fossil fuel age is presently exploiting the atmosphere beyond its abillity to stay in a safe range. If there are no market feedbacks that producers and users directly feel w.r.t. staying in that range, a crash of some sort is pretty much inevitable. Hopefully one that can be accommodated to a great degree.
We don't want a crash to occur with the climate, really, any more than we want collapses of any critical common resource. Even our most libertarian-spouting commenters should realize that. (There is a libertarian literature on this point, but freshmen libertarians tend not to be aware of it.)
-
Tom Curtis at 20:04 PM on 2 October 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
magellan @90, before Darwin went to Cambridge, he studied to become a doctor for two years at Edinburgh. While he neglected his formal studies, he hung out with scientists, and most of his extra curricular studies was in biology. He was a member of the Plinian Society, and a regular companion of Robert Edmond Grant, a biologist. It was at the Plinian Society that he made his first two original contributions to science, both in the field of biology.
At Cambridge, he again neglected his formal studies, but became closely attached to a group of scientists. The closest of those attachments was to John Stevens Henslow, who was best known as a botanist. The attachment was so close that Darwin's nickname at Cambridge was "he who walk's with Henslow". It was on Henslow's reccomendation that Darwin was offered a position on the Beagle.
Darwin's interest in geology came late at Cambridge, and mostly consisted of a walking tour of Wales with Adam Sedgwick. That education in geology was expanded on by reading Lyell's "Principles of Geology" while onboard the Beagle.
As you can see, you have the facts regarding Darwin exactly reversed. It was biology that he had more extensively studied when he first came on board the Beagle, an area in which he had already made two, minor discoveries. It is unlikely that his late interest in geology would have much influenced Henslow's recommendation, given that the recommendation was made while Darwin was still touring Wales (and hence before Henslow could assess what he had learnt thereby).
This is often forgotten because Darwin's most initially celebrated accomplishments were in the field of geology - first in the form of a detailed description of the effects of an earthquake on local sea level in South America, and then, most famously, in his description of who coral atolls are formed, and what explains their distribution.
But following those acheivements, he was heavilly involved in classifying his biological finds; and then published a major contribution to biological systematics in two volumes before turning to witting The Origen of Species.
Your argument would be better if reversed, but even then it would be wrong, for by the time Darwin made his geological contributions, he had accompanied Sedgwik on the tour of Wales (as a result of which, and possibly other tours, Sedgwick discovered the Cambrian); and read Lyell's Principles while carefully comparing those principles to geological phenomenon around the world. -
MA Rodger at 19:50 PM on 2 October 2017Temp record is unreliable
The recent discourse about absolute global temperature appears to have ground to a halt but one aspect of this remained unmentioned and it might be appropriate to introduce it now - the Berkeley Earth temperature analysis. I was mindful that BEST would overly-complicate things for that enquirer. Yet as Rohde et al (2013) says "The Berkeley Average analysis process is somewhat unique in that it produces a global climatology and estimate of the global mean temperature as part of its natural operations." Thus mean absolute temperatures are to hand from the BEST data.
As a result, not only does BEST graph its global land temperature record using absolute values, it also provides within the data the absolute mean value of the anomaly base used (1951-80) for individual months and annually, the annual value being +8.7ºC. But this isn't entirely the end of this story.
Regarding the Land Only record, Rohde et al state "The global land average from 1900 to 2000 is 9.35 ± 1.45°C, broadly consistent with the estimate of 8.5°C provided by Peterson (et al 2011)." So the +8.7ºC value in the BEST data is a little different in Rohde et al. Further, this 8.5°C Peterson et al value is only re-quoted by Peterson et al, the value being taken from an NOAA FAQ table (on the 'mean temperature estimates' page), itself based on New et al (1999). Yet the true Global Land average temperatures are far far more dependent on local factors than the anomalies are. (Consider altitude - the average land altitude is 840m thus some 5ºC cooler than a sea-level average would be).
Note that while there are two different anomaly base periods in play here, the difference between them is tiny. The 1901-2000 mean is cooler than the 1951-80 mean by just 0.024°C in NOAA, with an almost identical tiny difference in BEST Land (and also BEST Land&Ocean).
Yet, while BEST Land temperatures may produce a global land absolute mean temperature "as part of its natural operations," that is not so clear with its Ocean data.
When combined with its Land Temperatures to create a full global Land&Ocean temperature series, BEST still provide the absolute value of the anomaly base (1951-80) within the data, that value being +14.720ºC or +15.305ºC (dependent on treatment of sea ice). Sea ice aside, the derevaton of an absolute value for SST is mostly trivial compared with the Land exercise. So if the quoted Land anomaly value of BEST & NOAA land temperatures is very close (+8.7ºC and +8.5ºC respectively) why are the global Land&Ocean values so different (+14.7ºC/15.3ºC and +13.9ºC respectively)? (And without an answer, this may have seen our recent enquirer running away shouting "I told you so!")The SST data used by BEST is HadSST3 but the documentation on BEST's use of HadSST3 appears a little sparce. HadCRUT4 also uses HasSST3 but their average global mean anomaly value is roughly the same as NASA/NOAA and lower than BEST (although note the source of this HadCRUT4 data similarly give a BEST Land value as +9.17ºC).
So no answer is apparent to me. Yet, whatever its cause, the discrepancy makes not a jot of difference to the anomalies in the various SAT/SST records which are unaffected by anomaly base values and provide global temperature records that are pretty-much peas in a pod.
-
Eclectic at 12:59 PM on 2 October 2017Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
Magellan @90 , it is a strawman argument to say that: "Ivar Giaever is not fit to address the issue because its [sic] not his field of expertise". And I'd love to know who are the "very smart people on both sides of the isle [sic] here". And which island are you referring to?
Magellan, you entirely miss the point about criticism of Giaever. It is irrelevant which "field of expertise" he previously came from.
Giaever's incompetent assessment of climate science is being criticized because
(A) He got it wrong. And got it wrong bigly !
(B) He had the hubris to think that a few hours of googling the topic of climate science would gain him enough knowledge to make a worthwhile contribution to the public discussion.
(C) He had the arrogance to think that a few hours' reading on non-specialist websites would qualify him to declare that all the experts were wrong.
(D) At the age of 83 , he had the chutzpah to lecture a formal gathering of Nobel Laureates (and also of many bright young scientists) about how science is done properly — while at the same time demonstrating his own failure to think logically about science! What an embarrassing performance in front of the young scientists (not to mention in front of the Laureates). Truly cringeworthy stuff !
(E) And he had the lack of insight to recognize the above.
~ Magellan, possibly you do not recognize/comprehend Scaddenp's euphemism of "Gone Emeritus" about Giaever. "Gone Emeritus" is a term used about some retired professors or retired eminent scientists — it represents a pathological fusion of hubris & mild senile dementia. It shows itself as wacky beliefs and/or a maverick's disregard of the evidence base of mainstream science.
If Giaever were 50 or 60 years younger, then scientists would simply call him a silly young fool. Yet still have some hope that he would come to his senses as he got a bit older.
Magellan, possibly you are not aware of the insidiously corrupting effects of small amounts of money or other inducement. Money etc that Giaever receives from propaganda organizations (e.g. his payments from the Heartland Institute in his role as an apologist for Big Tobacco) might not appear to you as very much or very likely to influence a famous/wealthy person to any great degree. But psychologists' experiments show that a small amount (such as $25,000*) can be more effective than a large amount (say $500,000) in maintaining & entrenching a person's adherence to a particular line of thinking. So for rather small amounts, the propaganda paymasters get very good value for money!!
[ * I mention this figure because it is an example: of a sum paid to the science-denier Richard Lindzen by Peabody Energy. I have not seen the size of the payments / stipends / gratuities / subsidies received by Judith Curry or her like, from paymasters such as Heartland, the GWPF, or under-the-counter industry slush funds. ]
-
scaddenp at 11:12 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 - to test "economic efficiency", are you prepared to support complete removal of all tax-payer subsidies from the fossil fuel industry? Starting with direct producer subsidies.
-
nigelj at 10:50 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
Tom13 @25,
"No its not revenue neutral - wealth transfers are never a zero sum game, especially with the transfer is from efficient sectors of the economy to less efficient secotrs - basic economics 101."
I think you are mostly wrong about that.
"Revenue Neutral Law and Legal Definition. The term Revenue Neutral implies changes in the tax laws that result in no change in the amount of revenue coming into the government's coffers. In other words, a tax proposal is revenue neutral if it neither increases nor decreases tax revenues when compared to existing law."
definitions.uslegal.com/r/revenue-neutral/
The tax and divedend idea does not increasing tax or decreasing tax by this definition. The claim that the fee and dividend idea somehow allegedly sends a subsidy to allegedly less efficient energy producers is therefore clearly irrelevant and another issue entirely.
Certainly the sheme is revenue neutral enough and nit picking about the issue becomes foolish. It should be acceptable to fiscal conservatives etc.
And as I pointed out you are incorrect to claim wind power is less economically efficient or that electric cars are less economically efficient, in fact electric cars are more economically efficient after about 5 years of ownership. And as I pointed out your definition of economic efficiency is far too narrow as it fails to consider long term environmental costs. So your assertion fails these tests as well.
There is also the point that if the subsidy on renewables could be funded by removing a subsidy on fossil fuels. This should alleviate concerns some people have about additional subsidies, and is also obviously revenue neutral in the sense that funding simply swithches from one thing to another that we want more of, which is renewable energy.
-
Tom13 at 10:04 AM on 2 October 2017Climate and energy are becoming focal points in state political races
24 - Nigelj
Its also revenue neutral, well justified, sensible, practical, and well targeted.
No its not revenue neutral - wealth transfers are never a zero sum game, especially with the transfer is from efficient sectors of the economy to less efficient secotrs - basic economics 101.
Prev 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 Next
