Pirate's Cove

The Baltimore Sun has posted this “letter” from a reader

Thank you Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. John Delaney for introducing “a resolution that calls for 50 percent of the nation’s energy production to come from renewable sources by 2030” (“Cardin, Delaney seek boost in renewable energy,” March 4). Given the science, we know we need to move at least that quickly in order to advert the worse of climate change.

Many who are against this resolution are rightly concerned about the economic impact of energy regulations on the coal industry. But rather than just say no, as has occurred way too often with partisan resolutions in Congress, I urge those who are concerned about regulations and economic transitions to investigate what economists are saying about a 100 percent revenue-neutral, border-corrected, carbon fee and dividend system. It would lead to fewer regulations since there is a price on carbon placed at the source of fossil fuels extraction, leading us to innovatively think about how to live with less fossil fuel. Since most of our regulations are about the pollutants that come with processing, shipping, piping and burning fossil fuels, with all the resulting pollution to land, water and air, a market signal to get off using fossil fuel would mean there will be less fossil fuel activities to regulate.

In the place of dirty fossil fuels, Americans will find ways to live comfortable lives with alternative energy sources, conservation, and using nature, such as with passive solar heating and cooling. Putting a price on carbon allows us to acknowledge the economic and social consequences that come with burning fossil fuels and use the market to drive our transition to cleaner sources of energy.

First, one must wonder whether letter writer Sabrina S. Fu has given up all use of fossil fuels and only uses alternative energy sources. We know the answer, and it’s surely “no”. Rarely does any member of the Cult of Climastrology practice what they preach. But, since the Baltimore Sun decided to publish this support for a carbon tax, let’s refer back to this post

Now, something interesting occurred to me: all the carbon taxes and such that the Credentialed Media calls for would not apply to the TV, Internet, and paper news business. This always applies to Other People. Yet, think of the vast amounts of energy, resources, and fossil fuels needed for the news sector to do their jobs. The Toronto Star Baltimore Sun needs vast amounts of fossil fuels to gather the news, then deliver their papers. They use vast amounts of paper, which comes from killing trees, to publish their paper. Think of all the energy needed to gather the news, produce the news, then disseminate it, both in dead tree edition and on the Internet. Think of all the resources needed to keep the reporters up and running, as well as the buildings and vehicles. This is all super-bad for climate change.

Hence, I suggest that any news organization that has recommended any sort of carbon tax and/or a cap and trade scheme be subject to

• a carbon tax of $45 a metric ton of carbon pollution
• a surcharge of 35 cents per liter/gallon of gasoline purchased by a news organization
• a road tax of 2 cents per mile traveled for all employees during their work day and on company vehicles
• a tax of $1 per pound of paper used to make newspapers
• a requirement that all news organizations upgrade their buildings so that they are 100% LEED compliant
• all helicopters used to gather news can only use biofuels
• and none may raise the cost of their services/products

Those are very modest proposals, are they not? Reasonable, right? Surely, those who advocate for carbon taxes and/or cap and trade schemes would be willing to participate, right?