9 June 2016
The Spectator editorial of today admitted that British Columbia's effort to reduce carbon dioxide output, by means of a tax on carbon, has failed. And it squandered the revenue. It lamented that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne's cap-and-trade proposal, made in agreement with Quebec and California (of all places), is going to get a rough political ride.
The editorial challenged those who would fight cap-and-trade to come up with an alternative that would combat climate change.
Tax a different element! That’s the better idea.
Instead of taxing carbon, tax oxygen consumption
instead. After all, it takes oxygen to make carbon dioxide; the
parties of science may have condemned the wrong element.
Tax the O 16 and leave the C 12 alone! It has a
progressive ring to it, don’t you think?
Not everyone is fooled by talk of climate change or agree
that climate control can, or should be, a goal of government. King Canute
had good advice about the latter.
The proper focus of the debate is anthropogenic global
warming – the warming of the planet due to the activity of man – and the
hockey stick graph that purports to show it. The climate is always
changing; nobody is fooled by the bait and switch. Global warming
theories have been debunked by the satellite temperature data, which shows no
change in global temperature since 1998. The hockey stick graph was
debunked well over a decade ago by Ross McKitrick. Mark Steyn has done
yeoman service in exposing the hockey stick graph and Michael Mann as
frauds. None of this is addressed by the climate change talking heads
because the possibility of doubt undermines their policy goals. Actual facts
and truth in science don’t fall within their policy goals.
If you don’t believe in the fraud of “climate change,” there
is no reason to offer better alternatives to economically destructive policies
in support of the god of progressivism. Nevertheless, in honor of Baal, I
offer the proposal to tax a different element.
Tax oxygen instead of carbon.
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment