Obviously you invested some effort into this topic. I respect that. Please excuse that my answer will be considerably shorter.

Legitimacy:

1. I have, in my own private review, found no causality for temperature in CO2 levels. Its the sun, my friend.

2. IPCC: Take the number of “expert” supporters, subtract the bureaucrats, activists and the factually dissenting scientists quoted. A con job if there ever was one.

Effect:

The tax itself will solve none of the pressing environmental problems. It will however, increase the price and decrease the viability of production and agriculture. The biofuel debacle was a taste of things to come.
Demographic developments in Europe display that birthrate reduction is compatible with economic activity. Yes, the global population growth is disasterous, but the answer is not the “back to Gaia” delusion. I bet on nuclear energy technologies, productive industry and birth control instead of green jobs and even more speculation. Do you have any idea what levels of violence will come with this global austerity movement?

I’m actually aware of Lomborg’s novel, as well as the quite large amount of criticism it has garnered. I’ll have to say, there is valid fundamental criticisms of science and the present scientific consensus process that involves not only economists like Lomborg, but post-structuralists ideologically opposed to Lomborg. While this is helpful from a sociological viewpoint, I think you’ll agree it doesn’t detract from their general findings and principles. Something that is crucial to taking into account is the actual criticism leveled at the IPCC. The serious criticism takes two forms of attack, one against the methodology and one against the inherent conservatism.

The methodology concern you should find familiar as an economist (I am similarly trained), it is the political-consensus model. Not only are representatives handpicked by governments driven by ideology, but have to field thousands of experts continuously and without progress, drafting and redrafting and then remodeling the data to what is politically expedient. That is the nature of the UN though, isn’t it? The other criticism is related, but I think you’ll find it very unencouraging. It’s the conservative bias to the actual reports, which are continually underestimating dangers, risks, and reporting lowest common denominator findings. The IPCC, with all of its supposed environmentalist hysteria, did not foresee the very serious melting of the polar ice in the summer of 2007 for one simple reason, it severely underestimated damaging trends. Had they decided to factor in more recent, more pessimistic reports (since it operates on independent scientific reports, yet not ones that are as up-to-date as possible), they would have been able to better forecast such a dramatic event. The concern with the IPCC isn’t ‘alarmist’ (Reagan’s words) radical/religious environmentalism, but the very beauracratic and politically-dictated structure and actions it undertakes.

I like that you hit on the tangent of deindustrialization, because it may be what will happen involuntarily if we are to maintain this trajectory. Many of our comforts ARE due to the industrial revolution, including our longer lifespans. Many of our problems, however, are also a result of it. Ignoring the vast phenomenon of global warming, industrialization and the last couple of centuries have introduced very new and very unnatural conditions to humans as well as virtually every ecosystem planetwide. We hardly have begun to understand the ocean and we are already slated to destroy most fish species in our lifetime. Not to mention that enormous vortex of plastics drifting in an area of the Pacific Ocean twice the size of Texas. That little landmark to human ingenuity is ending up in marine birds and animals, turtles, spreading catchy-sounding pollutants such as DDT, PAHs, and PCBs. We are, of course, unable to solve this or even stop it in any meaningful way.

Not to mention the mass psychosis of humans living in industrial society, spreading their genetic social capacity far, far beyond its limits of a few dozen. It’s tribes living in cities, and it ain’t pretty. We are also a biological population, which have a very clear limit, both within the terms of populations, as well as the terms of its environment. But we keep expanding exponentially not unlike bacteria (which, by the way, also have a populational limits). We can’t keep expanding like this, we are a population of hairless apes after all. It may not be a Malthusian crash, but the principles are the same.

I used to be ideologically opposed to their viewpoint, but it seems to me those crazy environmentalists are much more correct. Economics is useful, but it has fundamentally unsound biases, towards a model of the human actor (a sociopathic invention that is more comfortable in the era of the Enlightenment rather than modernity) as well as the model of resources and growth (growth does not continue indefinitely if it is unsustainable).

I understand this is a broad response, but I believe it has pertinent information.

Thank you for your comment. My academic background is in the field of economics, so my research into environmental issues is limited to the statistic and econometric analysis of public data. I make no claims about the scientific models or predictions. This I leave to the growing number of actual scientists, many of whom express their doubts about the IPCC quasi-religious consensus. Note I was referring to the effect of the tax, not its legitimacy. And yes, there are environmental problems, yet I advise Lomborgs book “Skeptical Environmentalist”.

In Europe, the green nutjobs have already done massive damage to our energy security. Axing nuclear plants in favor of wind mills and solar panels, then buying the necessary electricity from foreign plants is not an sign of particular realism, sorry. If you are serious about deindustrialising the world, you better be ready to get rid of people. Lots of them. That is the reality. Radical envirnmentalism is an exercise in genocide.

The simple truth is: Your physical comfort rests on industrial agriculture and the manufacture of commodities.

Do you really think that profit and manufacturing will come to a halt because of the insubstantial commitments being banded about to “going green?” Concurrently, do you believe that if we actually did stop destroying our own habitat (since we’re not actually destroying the earth itself, but our own complex web of ecosystems instead), that foregoing a Barbie doll and a new Ford is bad?

It seems to me there’s a heavy bias of production at all costs that runs in this society. Perhaps it’s based on the broader fallacy of progress, maybe it’s the mark of a Faustian civilization that Spengler outlined. But it’s just not “Realist,” my man. You can say all you want about what you believe to be the conspiracy of global warming, but we’re doing very enormous damage. In hindsight (if there will be one), GDP and production capacity curves will seem like a cruel pantomime.

It will be poverty, but at least green poverty.

Ever heard of Africom?

The newest shining addition to the Pentagon. A little prediction: We will soon see “Humanitarian Interventions” on this godforsaken mess of a continent. Kick out the Chinese for good.

I agree on your notion of Obama Mugabenomics. This is a tried and true classic. While the economy will take a nose dive for sure and leave the majority of the population out in the rain, I would not underestimate the US capability for some serious loan collection.

That may be but: How is the IMF et.al. supposed to collect on any collateral?

Go to war?? With an army made of accountants – ferrice cakes!!!

The US will just do like any other banana republic has done so many times before:

Print metric tonnes of bonds then default on them when they run out of suckers buying negative-yield USD-denominated paper; Obummah is Da Man for Da Job

Anyway, I would not call the exiled authors nihilistic. They are more like manic-depressed alcoholics slouching through the darks alleys of fringe journalism, screaming the truth during their fits of cynicism at pedestrians like only the blessed mad could do. Nihilism is Mens Health.

Anyway a good article. The most detailed piece on the “stress tests” I have seen.

Well written analysis Mr. Walker.

This is a hive our planet and now there’s a humming sound are Americans worth 1/3 1/15 of their present value? Maybe we should KILL THEM ALL?

The same scam the IMF and World Bank has running in developing nations for decades is now coming to America (and any other “nation” on fiat currency).

If you want to gain some glimpse into the future, read lending agreements of these institution, especially the collateral agreements. Feudalism, anyone?

im glad we have one of them on our side
reminds me of that anonymous finance guy confiding to a reporter that he believes marx more by the day