No matter that low energy prices reduce the cost of living for the middle and lower classes, that it allows them to look for better paying jobs further away from home in this weak jobs market, that it allows them to heat their homes so as not to freeze to death. The Cult of Climastrology has a narrative
(Daily Caller) The International Monetary Fund’s economists are worried that coal, oil and natural gas prices are so cheap, they’ll reduce the willingness to invest in politically-favored green energy technologies they say are necessary to fight global warming.
“Fossil fuel prices are likely to stay ‘low for long,’†wrote two IMF economists for the organization’s blog.
“Notwithstanding important recent progress in developing renewable fuel sources, low fossil fuel prices could discourage further innovation in and adoption of cleaner energy technologies,†wrote IMF economists Rabah Arezki and Maurice Obstfeld. “The result would be higher emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.â€
In many parts of Europe, particularly England and Germany, the cost of energy had gone up so much that citizens could not afford to heat their homes during the brutal winters that have occurred 5 of the last 7. They are also switching to the use of wood pellets, which helps increase deforestation.
Yet, strangely, these same people who complain about the low cost of fossil fuels refuse to give up their use themselves. But, what to do about other people?
(UK Guardian) Expressing the hope that the Paris meeting would “open the door†to a future international agreement on carbon prices, the IMF has said such a deal would generate substantial fiscal revenues by eliminating fossil fuels subsidies and by charging for the damage caused by emissions.
“A tax on upstream carbon sources is one easy way to put a price on carbon emissions, although some countries may wish to use other methods, such as emissions trading schemes,†it said.
It added that without global coordination on carbon prices, “the cost to the world economy of whatever aggregate emissions reduction is achieved will be unnecessarily highâ€.
In other words, artificially make low cost energy expensive via Government. Which will only hurt the poor and middle classes.
Of course the warmists are upset that energy prices are coming down: the ones who have the time to be the professional warmists also have the money to be professional wamists, so higher energy costs don’t particularly bother them. And they are so egocentric that they cannot see or understand that not everybody is able to just laugh off higher energy prices; that’s why the Democrats have pretty much lost the white working class voters.
But there’s more involved here. As you noted, the warmists don’t like the idea that people might move further out from where they work, which means, overall, that people are moving out of the cities to the suburbs . . . and it’s the cities where the left get their votes!
Moving to the suburbs means moving to an area where more of your friends and neighbors will be Republicans, and where conservative values simply go more normally with the lifestyle. The more the left can cram the middle class back into urban areas, the fewer of them will be voting Republican.
Warmists are really going to be upset with this.
The odd thing is that people like john touted China as going more green and how the US needed to adopt their economic and energy model.
Good luck with that argument now.