MSM: Climate Change Act has the biggest ever bill

I left the following comments at
April 4, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I agree, its all very absurd to institute such draconion taxes over an unproven hypothesis.
And it is unproven and easily disproved even by lay persons.
Read my blog

What is even worse is (if your government is anything like ours) that these billions of cash raised by these taxes, may not even end up in, admittedly useless, carbon emission reduction projects, but end up in the government coffers to be spent as seen fit. Probably like our government, on vote getting social welfare schemes.

Never mind about the white stuff though, I read recently there is a 30 year cooling on the way but its all part of CO2 induced climate change so the taxes wont be wasted! haha

Christine said

April 11, 2010 at 4:34 pm

Well, Roger is entitled to his opinion, but who would you rather listen to – Roger or Paul Krugman, the winner of the 2008 Nobel prize in Economics? Krugman says in April 5’s NY Times:
“Like the debate over climate change itself, the debate over climate economics looks very different from the inside than it often does in popular media. The casual reader might have the impression that there are real doubts about whether emissions can be reduced without inflicting severe damage on the economy. In fact, once you filter out the noise generated by special-interest groups, you discover that there is widespread agreement among environmental economists that a market-based program to deal with the threat of climate change — one that limits carbon emissions by putting a price on them — can achieve large results at modest, though not trivial, cost.”
Go to this link to read the whole article:

Thanks Christine,

I read that article already.

Krugman’s credibility for me stopped completely when I read this phrase in his article

“Free markets are “efficient” — which, in economics-speak as opposed to plain English, means that nobody can be made better off without making someone else worse off.”

If I was Krugman I would be sueing the NY Times for that misprint in a big way.
However seeing as he is not apparently making a big fuss I think Krugman better revisit his Econ101 which he has either forgotten or has repudiated.I dont care how many PhD’s he has, if he is seriously saying such a thing, he is setting out to mislead the simple minded.

If you think the statement is true just think who gains and who loses when you purchase an icecream at the corner dairy!

Losses in trading transactions, apart from foolish ones, only occurr when higher powers such as governments intervene. A bit like Obama compelling every American to buy health insurance and then dictating how much coverage the insure must supply and how much he can charge. (Slow learner actually as that has echoes of Fanny Mae in it)

Like the AGW theory itself, a lay person can understand the real cost of carbon emission reduction by being given a few incontrovertible facts and using their heads: not misplaced faith.

Sorry Christine,  You had better find a better source than that to support that emission reductions are not going to make you and your family starve.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: