This post is short. It's to show how inconsistent deniers can be.
Anthony Watts, who rejects global warming because he doesn't like paying tax, has a new post up (archived here). He is praising the incoming Australian government for shifting to a taxpayer-based carbon reduction program. Anthony Watts is a closet socialist.
Australia adopted a market-based scheme where the polluter pays and it doesn't cost most taxpayers a penny. They get any costs passed on to them as a result of the scheme, reimbursed through a tax cut and for those who don't earn enough to pay tax, through an increase in social security. (People on high incomes do pay more but the majority of people don't.)
This new government has pledged to get rid of that market-based program and replace it with one paid for directly by taxpayers. That means that either the tax cuts will have to go and our tax will go up, or services will have to be cut which is effectively the same thing. We'll have to buy services elsewhere or do without - both of which will come at a huge cost.
The government is also going to recruit a green army to go and plant trees on land, presumably purloined from farmers, for the purpose. That won't work too well as studies have shown, which will mean taxpayers will have an even bigger burden down the track.
The main ones to benefit as far as I can tell will be the polluters, who will be able to claim money from the government if they reduce emissions while they go to the bank laughing. In other words, it's we taxpayers who will be paying the polluters that reduce emissions. (This is the opposite from the current scheme whereby polluters pay for polluting.) The ordinary person will be out of pocket where they weren't before.
Should we complain as long as the carbon emissions get cut? Yes, I think we should. The direct action plan will cost more and there is no guarantee of results. It's a very risky path and the risk burden falls squarely on the shoulders of the taxpayer.
Deniers are really and truly weird.