What a Difference a Tax Makes- To Climate Change, Practically None

Andrew Bolt has been sending the high priests and priestesses of climate change into impotent stuttering rages over the last few weeks by asking them two simple questions. What is the dollar cost of plans to combat climate change, and what is the result expected?

The watermelons cannot answer of course. Cost benefit analysis? What, don’t be silly old chap, its only taxpayer money. Well Dr David Evans, whose credentials are posted below*, has done a chart that at least answers half of this question. Can someone take this to Nick Smith and/ or John Key and ask them if, given NZ’s much smaller contribution (overall) than Australia’s, do they still think it is all worth it?

This table shows that if Australia stopped every CO2 emission in the country right now, (in other words ended civilisation) and never allowed another emission to occur, that by 2050 the temperature would only show a drop of 0.0154 of a degree.

Suppose Australia reduced its emissions over what they would otherwise be. The effect, according to the IPCC’s theory of man-made global warming, is:

Notice that if Australia shut down entirely, and emitted no CO2 starting today, it would lower the temperature in 2050 by just 0.0154 °C (on IPCC figures).

*Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.