Personally, were I still a Warmist, I’d engage Climate Realists by showing them I was doing all I can to live the carbon neutral lifestyle, but, hey, that’s me. The Energy Collectives Tom Schueneman takes another approach
Property Rights: Conservative and libertarian thought are defined by a few basic principles. One of the central tenants of conservative thought concerns property rights. Property rights are a central tenet of conservative thought and may be an effective approach to changing behavior. Property rights may be the key to reaching conservatives and libertarians.
For conservatives and libertarians, property rights constitute the basis of individual liberty and as such they are the primary bulwark against government power. As conservatives see it, property rights are intertwined with the second amendment and go all the way back to the framing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
It is widely recognized in common law that harm done to property warrants redress. The perpetrators of property damage could be forced to assume liability and pay compensation.
This also would apply to impacts from global warming. The property impacts from climate change induced extreme weather or an anticipated sea level rise would entitle owners to compensation. Under such a system, the level of liability would be determined in proportion to the amount of emissions generated.
So, essentially what this certainly Leftist believer in hotcoldwetdry is saying is that any property that is hurt by Mother Nature can and should sue, well, everyone, including Warmists, because pretty much all humans are doing something that causes hotcoldwetdry. Under this doctrine, I think I’ll sue Tom for using energy to publish an article, energy which causes hotcoldwetdry, because some boards on my back deck need to be replaced due to weather exposure. Hey, fair is fair, right?
Furthermore, I find it interesting that Tom thinks that only Conservatives and Libertarians believe in property rights. I’m sure Lefties believe in property rights, too, but only as far as it effects their own property, not Other People’s property.
Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax: Conservatives and libertarians resist regulation on climate issues, but as reviewed on the Volokh Conspiracy, they are likely to be receptive to a revenue neutral carbon tax. Under such a plan, the federal government would impose a price on carbon that is fully rebated to taxpayers on a per capita basis. This tax would be more transparent and it would target energy consumption.
Except, this would never ever possibly happen, because in reality the major point of a carbon tax is to put more money in the hands of Government, and said “rebates” will never offset the cost of living increases from the initial tax, and the debt and deficit, not too mention unpaid liabilities, will skyrocket as politicians use the money for other things, such as to get themselves re-elected.
Ignoring Climate Change Paradoxically, it may be more productive to avoid challenging the confused beliefs of climate deniers. This is the view of director Peter Blyck, the maker of the documentary film ‘Carbon Nation.’ In a recent NPR interview, Blyck expressed his view that the best way to get people to make more environmentally friendly energy choices is to avoid the subject of climate change altogether. Blyck says his “common sense†approach to curbing CO2 emissions is not about changing people’s views on climate change.
Rather than debate the science of climate change, Byck explores common ground on energy issues. For example, he claims that Americans agree on issues like solar and wind energy. According to Byck, 70 percent of Americans claim to love solar energy and 90 percent of Americans like wind energy. Most US citizens also claimed to like geothermal and energy efficiency.
In other words, hide their beliefs. They should have done this long ago. But, they cannot help themselves. Furthermore, they are completely incompetent when they attempt to push solar, wind, etc, and their projects tend to fail because they do them from an ideological standpoint, not an economic standpoint. Oh, and many Warmists block these same projects.
Furthermore, if they could actually prove scientifically that mankind is mostly or solely responsible for this warm period, they wouldn’t have to hide their beliefs. They can’t, which is also why they hide their raw data and methodologies.
