Wednesday, May 27, 2009

"Carbon tax" is just doublespeak for "more taxes"

A few months ago, I took my daughter to the petting zoo here in San Francisco. Near an old tractor, they have an image like this:

FarmersFeedWorld

The point of the image is that since the beginning of the industrial age, the number of people that a single farmer can feed has grown nearly exponentially. (Note: the diagram here has a shorter timeline than the one at the zoo)

When you look around at efficiency charts like this for many topics in the last 100, 150 years, there is almost always a common element: the efficiency is directly connected to use of carbon based fuels like coal and (especially) oil.

This is why it amuses me when we talk about a “carbon tax.” If we want our airlines to produce a product and fly people around, they have no alternative but to emit carbon. If we want a farmer to farm his land, he has no alternative but to emit carbon. Basically, no one has any choice but to emit carbon if they want to accomplish anything with any kind of efficiency. If you do not agree with me, please, point me to the electric airplane or electric combine that can do the job. Even for cars, it’s a loss. If you bought an electric car today, what percentage of your power would be supplied by nukes, wind or solar? 10-20%? Tops.

In short: “carbon" taxes just another way of saying “raising taxes”. Why do you think so many people who believe in large socialist governments are for this idea? Now there’s a correlation I’d be interested to research more.

No comments: