In what is one of his saner opinion pieces, Washington Post writer Robert Samuelson notes a few interesting things
Climate change: We have no solution yet
It would be healthy — in the sense of promoting honesty — if every report warning of global warming and climate change (the two terms are interchangeable) came with the following disclaimer:
Despite our belief that global warming poses catastrophic threats to many of the world’s 7 billion inhabitants, we acknowledge that we now lack the technologies to stop it. The purpose of our analysis and policy proposals is to create the political and economic conditions that foster the needed technologies. But there is no assurance that this will happen, and much time and money may be invested in futile and wasteful efforts.
(Warmist blather)
It’s useful for environmental groups to have global warming “deniers†(and, of course, behind them the sinister oil companies) as foils. The subliminal message is that once the views of these Neanderthals are swept away, we can adopt sensible policies to “do something†about global warming.
The reality is otherwise. The central truth for public policy is: We have no solution.
Of course, what he recommends is typical
My own oft-stated preference is for policies that might dampen global warming but would also address other problems. The most obvious idea is a carbon tax to help finance government and stimulate energy-saving technologies and new forms of non-carbon energy. If these technologies went global, the gap between rich and poor countries would narrow.
And there you go: more taxation, more Big Government. Standard boilerplate from the Cult Of Hotcoldwetdry. But, wait, it gets better, because those evil third worlders
Worse, almost all the projected increases in global emissions come from poorer countries, half from China alone. By contrast, U.S. emissions (and those of most rich nations) are projected to stay stable over the three decades. Economic growth is slowing; energy efficiency is increasing; and, in Japan and some European countries, populations are declining. Because poor countries understandably won’t abandon their efforts to relieve poverty, any further U.S. emissions cuts would probably be offset by gains in China and elsewhere. This dims their political and environmental appeal.
And there is another typical Warmist trope: those in developing countries must be forced to continue living a third world shithole life. Warmists know they already have theirs, and now want to deny others. I know what my recommendation is: Warmists should live the lives they want Everyone Else to live.
Everyone loves it whenever people get together and share thoughts.
Great website, keep it up!
my weblog … ลดต้นขา
Samuelson is a hack pseudo-economist who is consistently wrong in his writings on issues economic. He is certainly no climate realist. In fact, he’s a “soft denier” – “mankind is causing global warming but there’s just nothing we can do about it.”
He’s wrong on that too. Since the current and continued global warming is caused by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, we can reduce the amount of CO2 we dump. Since we waste 1/2 of the energy we transform from fossil fuels it doesn’t even have to “destroy economies”. One way to do this is to enact a conservative idea, a market-based carbon cap-and-trade system. This was THE conservative Republican plan until 2008 when an ignorati coup captured the GOP – about the time Palin was selected as the VP running mate. Cap-and-trade became cap-n-tax the GOP dementia was complete.
Samuelson is on the side of the deniers.
3rd world people are already benefiting from the rapidly dropping price of solar electricity.
Cleaner energy is constantly getting cheaper, dirty energy (fossil fuels) is constantly getting more expensive.
Hey Jeff and John Little above and those that think they understand
News flash for Mr. C Little…… Water is wet… Ice has been found to be cold… And next up some breaking news for true believers.
CARBON IS A FUNDIMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK OF EVERYTHING IN AND ON THIS LITTLE BALL WE CALL HOME.
We are a part of it. It is a part of us.
How can we collectively or individually ascertain that science is settled on the issue of everything? While attempting to use data that is entirely riddled with errors then massaged into a preconceived hockey stick model that demands all people return to a life style not enjoyed since the late 1800’s? People with a real non political agenda would not continue to scream for the last 60 years about forces we at the present cannot control, understand and build reliable models to emulate.
My answer to all climate Chicken Little’s in every first world nation.
I shall follow your example due to the fact that your words do not match your actions!
Stan,
Carbon and carbon dioxide are not good or evil, but as we add more CO2 to the atmosphere the Earth’s temperature is increasing and will continue to increase.
And yes, our proteins, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and lipids are mostly made of carbon, but that fact is irrelevant to global warming.
It’s interesting that you understand the organic (carbon-based) nature of biological entities, i.e., the remains of 100 million year old plants converted to coal, oil and gas – yet you can’t make the connection that our burning of these materials is what is adding gigatons of ancient CO2 to the atmosphere.
“I shall follow your example due to the fact that your words do not match your actions!”
I see you believe Teach’s transparent falsehood about liberals emitting more CO2 than regressives. Evidence suggests otherwise. In addition, you have no idea how much carbon dioxide others emit. You many choose to not behave in a responsible manner, but don’t blame it on others.