Carbon Tax Revenue

June 16, 2024 rjdavison

PSS-5 First and Foremost, Happy Father’s Day!

This post is loaded with data, but I decided to put it out as a political post. In today’s world, you cannot get much more political than Carbon Taxes and Energy Production. I can also be more liberal in my commentary (liberal as in free to speak, not constrained by woke speak). After reviewing the data, we find that only 26 of the globe’s 201 countries/regions are collecting a Carbon Tax. 19 of the 26 countries/regions also use an Emissions Trading System (ETS, including Canada). Another 21 countries/regions are just using an ETS. Of the 201 countries/regions reviewed only 12.9% of them are collecting a Carbon Tax, and just 23.4% are using some form of Carbon Pricing. The list of those not participating includes the most populous countries (India and China) and most of the largest oil, natural gas and coal producers on the planet (China, the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia (and the rest of OPEC), India, etc.). I do not believe that Justin Trudeau understands (among many other things) that you cannot lead the “Climate Change” fight if no one consequential is following you.

#climatechange #delaythegreen #globalwarming #showusthedata

The discussion will focus on the Carbon Tax Revenue (29.5 B US$ (31%) of the global Carbon Pricing Totals). Global Carbon Pricing Totals (according to the World Bank) were 95 B US$. ETS were responsible for the remaining 65.5 B US$ (69%). I have not found the individual country/region data for the ETS, so Canada’s ETS contribution level is not laid out here. While the Carbon Tax portion is lower, they are very important to the discussion, since they attack the taxpayers/citizens directly regardless of economic status. The Carbon Tax also reduces the ability of countries/regions to compete with countries/regions that are not using Carbon Pricing policies. In 2022, Canada’s Carbon Tax Revenue (CTR) was 7.8 B US$ (26.4% of the CTR collected globally, or alternatively 8.2% of the Total Global Carbon Pricing wealth transfers). France led the world in CTR at 8.9 B US$. The three Scandinavian countries (Sweden, Norway, and Finland) collected 6.1 B US$.

Canada’s 2^nd place finish is ridiculously disproportionate to their impact on carbon emissions and the climate. Why is Canada (in 11^th place and responsible for just 1.51% of the global carbon emissions) collecting 26.4% of the CTR on the planet and/or 8.2% of the carbon pricing totals? The largest 10 emitters accounted for 26.5 of the 38.5 Gt emitted in 2022 (68.8%), but do not collect any CTR. Germany and a minor portion of the United States do use an ETS. Canadians cannot carry the world’s carbon pricing burden even if our economy was running on all cylinders (it is not). The analysis also looks at CTR based on several other parameters (population, land area, and GDP). Canada finished in the top 4 in all four categories. That is not an accomplishment that should be celebrated. We (Canadians) finish on top when the parameters are consolidated (followed by the three Scandinavian countries). No one comes close to Canada in the CTR/citizen/km2 category. We have a relatively small population inhabiting the second largest and one of the coldest countries on the planet. We (as a functional society) will not survive in a Net Zero world.

Canada is a significant player in the world’s energy space. We are the 5^th largest producer of consolidated oil, natural gas, and coal production on the planet but are responsible for just 3.8% of the planet’s total production. We hold down 4^th place for oil production (6.2% of the global total), 5^th place for natural gas production (4.6% of the global total), and 14^th place for coal production (0.68% of the global total). Yet Canadian Taxpayers are paying 26.4% of the global CTR collected. Canada is the only country in the top 10 oil, natural gas, and coal producers that are collecting a CTR. Those other 9 countries (responsible for 70.4% of the oil, natural gas, and coal produced on the planet) do NOT collect a CTR. Why not? Is it any wonder why there is a movement to AXE the TAX in Canada?

We hear plenty of talk about an energy transition, but there is no evidence of that transition in the world’s oil, natural gas, and coal production on the planet. Oil is leading the way at 36.6% of the total hydrocarbon energy production on the planet (and with volumes still rising). Coal is in second place at 34.6% (with volumes still rising) and natural gas is close behind at 28.8% (also with volumes still rising). All categories have continued their rise with a slight dip in 2020 (courtesy the COVID-19 lockdowns). The United States is driving the oil production higher with a noticeable acceleration during the Obama administration and continuation of that trend during the Trump administration. That acceleration was driven by advanced horizontal drilling and multi-stage fracture stimulation completion technologies. The United States is also leading the way in natural gas production with an accelerated profile similar to oil. China dominates the coal production arena at 52.8%. India is in a distant 2^nd place at 8.6%. China is aggressively adding new coal production and generating capacity and will for decades into the future. India is doing the same and will very likely be more aggressive in an effort to get their 1.4 billion citizens on the same economic footing as the 1.4 billion Chinese citizens.

The energy transition (while eventually necessary) will not play out on the time scales proposed by unnecessary ‘green’ initiatives like the 2015 Paris Accords or the more recent economically unachievable Net Zero policies. Oil, natural gas and coal production are all still headed higher. Oil and natural gas production rates will eventually level off. Coal (the black sheep of carbon emissions) will begin to decline (but not until China and India (there are others) decide to allow it to happen). Unfortunately for the alarmist community, the fear induced tendency of Western society to reduce emissions will be overwhelmed by the developing countries need to bring their citizens out of poverty (China and India included). That does not happen without access to cheap, high density, reliable energy sources. Wind and solar do not meet that requirement. Vaclav Smil’s recent report “Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050, Zero Carbon is a Highly Unlikely Outcome”provides a comprehensive and logical review of the Net Zero pathway. He comes to the obvious conclusion that “When we do assess these challenges realistically, we must conclude that the world free of fossil carbon by 2050 is highly unlikely.”

I would add “highly unnecessary” to Vaclav’s closing statement. The unnecessary, unscientific All CO₂, All the Time alarmist narrative does not have the empirical data to back up their alarmist premise. As I have pointed out many times, there is no empirical CO₂/Temperature dataset that shows CO₂ driving the climate on any statistically significant historical time scale. The alarmists use computer model projections and attribution studies that they self-acknowledge “run way too hot” and use unrealistically high emission scenarios to justify their position and they outright lie by saying extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and intense when the empirical data shows that extreme weather event trends are statistically flat or are trending down (i.e.: less frequent and less intense). When the Scientific Method is applied properly, the alarmist narrative disappears. There is NO Climate Emergency/Crisis/Next Scary Descriptor (at least not from warming). It might be time to NIX NET ZERO (courtesy Michelle Stirling, Communications Manager, Friends of Science Society).

There are many papers that show how ineffective CO₂ is as a greenhouse gas (at current and expected future concentrations). A few are listed below for those that would like to get into the detail.

Net Zero Averted Temperature Increase – Lindzen, Happer, Wijngaarden (June 2024)

A Nobel Prize for Climate Model Errors – Roy Clark (March 2024)

Relative Potency of Greenhouse Molecules – Wijngaarden, Happer (March 2021)

Hydrocarbon fuels will be around for a long time (long after I have passed from this realm). And CO₂ will still be having a rather minor effect on our climate. CO₂’s ability to warm the planet (already low) decreases exponentially as CO₂ concentrations increase. CO₂ has little to no effect on temperatures in Greenland and Antarctica. CO₂ has little to no effect on sea levels. The current CMIP6 computer models (the ones that are self-acknowledged to “run way too hot” and use unrealistically high emission scenarios) rely almost exclusively on CO₂ to drive their virtual reality climate. Using realistic solar activity reconstructions, the Modern Temperature Record (MTR, 1850 to the present) can be modelled without CO₂ contribution. Why are extreme weather event trends statistically flat or more often, trending lower? The answer to that question (and the reason the previous statements can be made) is simple. CO₂ is a minor player in the “Climate Change” game. More detailed information and discussion can be found in my CSS-53 – CO₂’s Moneyball Moment and CSS-7 – CO₂ – The FECKLESS Greenhouse Gas posts. To riff off Moneyball, if CO₂ is such a good climate driver, why doesn’t it drive climate good?

CSS-53 also looks briefly at the economic and technical futility of “fighting” climate change. Using the IPCC “science” and the unrealistically high RCP8.5 emission scenario, the 2015 Paris Accord extended commitments (assuming everyone complied) would only reduce the global temperature rise in 2100 by just 0.17 °C (virtually unmeasurable). Spending 2 trillion dollars per year (globally) for 0.17 °C is a fool’s game. Unfortunately, there are plenty of fools in the game that are willing to spend the taxpayer’s money. Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Officer looked at the benefits of the 2015 Paris Accord commitments. He found that Canada’s GDP would be improved by less than 20 billion dollars in the year 2100 (assuming a rather modest 2%/year increase in GDP). That’s close to 200 trillion dollars (with Canada’s share in the low trillions) for a 20-billion-dollar improvement 75+ years from now. Only in a mind like Justin Trudeau’s can you make a business case for the draconian CO₂ emission reductions required by the 2015 Paris Accord and the more recent Net Zero initiatives that have propelled the yearly expenditures into the 10 trillion dollar per year range.

CO₂ is neither a pollutant nor a problem. The wasted capital associated with these unnecessary ‘green’ initiatives is the problem. The current debt and inflation crises have their roots in the whole green movement. We are already leaving our children and grandchildren a huge debt burden and financial mess. Piling hundreds of trillions of dollars on top of the current situation will not improve their situation. So no, Net Zero will not “save the world”. It will destroy our children and grandchildren’s future. That wasted money could be used to fix real world problems like poverty, crumbling infrastructure, and actual pollution (to name a few). We can adapt to “climate change” whether that means warming or cooling (the more likely outcome). We will not be able to adapt to the global totalitarian governments that are being proposed to fight this non-existent problem termed “climate change” (i.e.: global warming, All CO₂, All the Time, etc.).