“Substituting CO2 taxation for existing levies is not the tax debate from the conservative/free market side. The debate is about the flat tax versus a consumption tax as fundamental tax reform. And, hypothetically, if Malthusian decarbonization were to come about, what would be revenue-neutral?”

“In Neeley’s defense, he switched sides assuming that Obama energy policy would continue at the federal level. That way, he could argue [in his lucrative new position] that a CO2 tax was the least worst policy compared to cap-and-trade and existing command-and-control (still a weak argument). But Trump won, and the tide went out… [leaving] Neeley exposed an energy/climate progressive (statist).”

“The conservative/libertarian position is to not price or otherwise regulate carbon dioxide. Eliminate intervention, do not introduce it. Reject Mathusianism’s ultimately anti-humanistic, deep-ecology worldview.”

In “Confessions of a former Carbon Tax Skeptic,” Josiah Neeley of the pretend free-market R Street Institute, pens his latest case for supporting a federal tax on carbon dioxide (CO2).…

“When President Reagan decontrolled prices in January 1981, the regulatory arbitrage was over…. The strangest regulatory episode in US history was done.”

Economist Robert Murphy has summarized what I believe is the most unique, confounding, consequential regulatory episode in American history in his piece: “The Crazy Crude Oil Price Controls of the 1970s.” [1]

Yes, it happened some decades ago. But if you want to know why no economist in recent history has espoused price controls for crude oil and petroleum products, this experience rings loud today.

Basically, a large group of opportunistic middlemen seized profits that federal price and allocation regulation kept from the rightful industry parties (wellhead producers, in particular). It is the story of the unintended consequences of government intervention. Or entrepreneurial gaming in the face of regulatory constraints (with positive social outcomes in this case)–what Israel Kirzner called superfluous entrepreneurship.…

[Editor note: This exchange at the R-Street Institute website (no longer visible) is posted here and here.]

“From the Club of Rome to the present–with scientific models and articles in Science magazine from the ‘consensus’–the verdict has been wrong, wrong, wrong, and trending wrong. And this is before even considering (non-libertarian) public policy of taxes, tariffs, equity adjustments, private/public cronyism, etc.”

So why have neo-Malthusian natural scientists been so incorrect for so long? We have nearly a half-century of (falsified) doom-and-gloom.

Josiah Neeley of R-Street, once a critic of climate alarmism and wind power (see yesterday), is now desperately trying to make a case to libertarians and conservatives that the climate is in crisis and a carbon tax (and all the global government that goes with it) is necessary.…

“Mr. Anderson and the Energy and Policy Institute marginalize themselves by assuming what must be debated. Thinking persons want to know about tradeoffs: economic and environmental. And what about the fact that Tom Stacy has been and mostly is a volunteer for his cause, unlike Anderson who gets a nice full-time, six-figure salary for his?”

It is strange to read a perfectly normal, accurate biography of someone only to realize that the other side is using facts to try to smear someone for doing a sensible thing.

And for Tom Stacy, that “thing” is pushing back at the grassroots level against monstrous industrial wind turbines that are environmentally invasive, anti-consumer, and anti-taxpayer.

Yet mainstream environmentalists, favoring high prices and less reliability for the master resource of energy, not to mention environmental energy sprawl, pretend that there is an inherent social good in renewable energies that are inferior in every which way.…