It’s so utterly easy, according to Warmist Andrew Eil. Of course, it’s not what you’re thinking, namely, that Warmists should practice what they preach and give up their own use of fossil fuels
This Is the Easiest and Least Costly Way to Fight Climate Change
Everyone knows that reducing carbon emissions is hard. Republicans like former presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio (with little evidence) contend that acting on climate “would be devastating for economy.†Even more reasonable, less apocalyptic opinions on the subject recognize that reducing emissions–particularly fairly quickly–isn’t easy. Why else would it have taken 23 years after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and the creation of the UN’s climate change body in 1992 to get all countries to advance plans to reduce emissions?
We’ve all heard the doom and gloom story. But you might not have heard that for many countries, there is a secret trap door and chute to lower emissions: eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, the goodies and discounts that governments worldwide dole out to the oil, gas, coal, and petroleum fuels value chain, and especially to consumers. And the best part: eliminating subsidies, 1and even raising fossil fuel taxes, might not even raise costs much if at all for consumers.
Of course, they aren’t subsidies, they are tax breaks, the type of tax breaks that are offered to any company. We’ve had this discussion numerous times, but, of course, you cannot separate a deluded left winger from their talking points once they take hold. Ever. Warmists are entirely too rigid in their dogma.
But it turns out delivering on promises to remove fossil fuel subsidies is not easy. It’s often the middle class that gets hit first and hardest when fuel prices rise. Many countries, particularly in the developing world, have been hit by waves of protests when governments have eliminated or rolled back subsidies, as in Nigeria andIndonesia in 2012. In many cases, governments have beaten a hasty retreat and re-imposed fuel subsidies in the face of political pressure and public unrest.
Oh, wait, I thought it was easy and would mean barely a blip in the cost for consumers? No? Here’s how this is defended
The elephant in the room, from the climate standpoint, is not only eliminating subsidies, but actively pricing carbon in fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Roughly three dozen countries do this, as do California and nine U.S. states in the Northeast. None has seen its economy tank as a result; most have flourished, while those that haven’t can hardly show the carbon price is to blame. In fact, raising prices on fossil fuels by removing subsidies and imposing taxes, as most European countries have done, can actually be good for consumers: rising prices lowers demand, which over time helps push prices back down. Furthermore, higher prices condition consumers to seek alternatives so that they are less vulnerable when price spikes hit. Ask the Europeans how much harder their lives were when oil was $100 per barrel of oil than now, with cheap oil. Answer: not much.
Except, the cost of living is higher in those areas, as is the base cost of energy. Furthermore, the carbon markets are failing, and are basically at junk bond status. But, hey, it’s good for consumers, because things are so expensive they they cannot afford to purchase them. Which doesn’t mean prices will fall to meet consumer demand, not when that would mean selling the produce for a loss. It means jobs go away, and companies fail.
When will Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels?
There is actually a very easy way to lower carbon emissions, and it would not hurt the common man at all. That would be for all the believers in the religion to begin practicing what they preach. So, if you think carbon is such a bad thing, don’t drive, don’t use electricity, don’t use gas, don’t use heated water, etc. This would reduce carbon use by at least 30% or more. Then, the government can begin there own austerity program, so that all government agencies would follow the same tenets. Imagine, no cost to anyone and all these people good be moving to do their good thing without hurting the rest of us.
I know youse guys don’t understand what “subsidy” means, but there was this from the article:
That $5.3 trillion with a “T” number is why oil, gas, and coal industries continue to Deny the unDeniable. It’s why their useful idiot minions line up to attack climate realists. That’s $5.3 trillion with “T” in unearned profit (what economists call “rents”) that they want to keep.
Jeffery, to no one’s surprise, still doesn’t see the difference between subsidies and tax breaks. And the magic unicorns add “unpaid damage from CO2 and exhaust fumes on our health..” Exhaust fumes and unpaid damage? Totally an assertion, like most “gw” is, with no facts to back it up. Just a guess. Gee, who would have thought that? Climate clowns seem back in their desperate mode again
j,
Tax breaks are subsidies.
Now put your dress on and head to girl’s locker room.
The oil companies take deductions from their gross income just like all corporations, drug companies do the same. This is not taxpayer money or a direct contribution as the solar industry receives. It is silly to argue the point unless you want to change tax laws and regulations, which is fine with me. Then we don’t have stupid conversations like this.
All J had to do was a quick Google search to keep from looking like an idiot, but then this is what idiots do. Webster’s Dictionary of subsidy: “Money paid by a government to keep the price of a product low or to help a business continue to function.” For the stupid among us, and that would be Jeffery, notice how the flow of money goes. It goes FROM the government to a business. With a tax break, there is no exchange of money. The person, or business who made the money just gets to keep more of it. Two very different things. Wind and solar get government subsidies- money handed to them from the government, because they’d fail on their own. Fossil fuel companies, thousands of other companies, and you and I receive tax breaks as in the mortgage interest deduction. Notice the government doesn’t give you anything with the interest deduction, rather you’re able to keep money that Was Already Yours To Begin With (caps lock on for Jeffery). The media and most people use the term in the completely wrong way, but that’s no excuse for not looking it up. Sorry, J, told you this a hundred times, but you just can’t fix stupid.
My carbon emissions are way up over the last month and a half because I’ve got a regular girlfriend now. It’s a combination of causes: she’s half Thracian, so, you know, she needs it all the time so I’m always driving to her; she lives on the other end of a canyon traffic bottleneck so I get sh!t mpg crawling to her place on the freeway; we go out to dinner a lot, barbecue steaks, drive to get massages; lots of indoor romance with fireplaces and electric blankets; when she comes to me she drives a turbo-V8; we watch Neflix and chill on her 60″ TV; and more.
So the moral of the story is to cut out sex as the best way to lower your carbon footprint. Liberals should start that immediately. It’s their duty.
Tax breaks are subsidies.
End of story.
Jeffery doubles down on stupid, by not refuting…a thing. Still can’t fix stupid. If you’re shy this month I could send you a Webster’s Dictionary, or just do the intelligent thing and look it up. While you’re browsing Websters, also look up “the first rule of holes.”
We get it. As semi-pro Semanticians you use language as a shillelagh. Tax breaks are subsidies, too. The Too Big to Fail non-policy given to Wall Street banks and the auto industry is a subsidy. Not paying for the damage your economic activities cause is a subsidy.
But we get it. Your objection is not to the concept; your objection is to the word, “subsidy”. Why? Because you don’t want your own advantages to be labeled as “subsidies”? You just like to argue? Fair enough. We will no longer call “tax breaks that reward a particular corporation or industry” a “subsidy”, from now on we will label these policies as “tax breaks that reward a particular corporation or industry”. Feel better now, Spunky?
We burn fossil fuels such as oil, gas and coal to generate energy for transportation, heating, cooling, lighting our way, building roads, buildings, NFL stadiums and bridges. Your Deny it, but each year, this generates gigatons of CO2 that we dump into the atmosphere. You Deny it, but this CO2 is causing the Earth to warm, and although you Deny it, this is changing the way we humans live now and in the future. Who will pay for the environmental remediations necessary? Big coal? Big oil? LOL. No, the taxpayers will pay for all the damages done to humans and to our societies. And that, little Spunky, is a big fat
subsidytax break to a particular industry.We won’t refer to you as stupid, although daily you make a good case for it, but you are rigid like most conservatives.
Let’s say you open a little goat farm in your neighborhood. You raise goats for meat and milk, butcher them yourself, and pile up the offal, goat poop and pee in a pit along your property line. Your neighbors complain and the city steps in and forces you to contain the noxious odors and runoff, costing you greatly and you pass these costs on to your customers. Your neighbor on the other side of you gets an exemption (her husband happens to be the mayor) from the rules and opens her little goat farm and sells meat and milk for much less! Your competition has an unfair advantage, doesn’t she? The government might as well be paying her to bring her operation up to snuff. But it’s not in any shape or form a “subsidy” but rather a “policy exemption to a particular company”. We get it.
Warmists want everyone to reduce not end carbon pollution
It is far better for all to reduce some rather than a few to reduce a little
Expecting other people to lead perfect lives is a characteristic of narcissism
Short selling and green energy…
Oh my!
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/03/30/curse-of-delingpole-worlds-biggest-green-energy-company-collapses/
J triples down on stupid. Websters-“subsidy is money given by the government to keep the price of a product low or to help a business continue to function.” Tax Breaks- “Anything that reduces the amount of total tax that a business or individual must pay.” You know why there’s two different definitions? Because they’re two different things. Hello! You’re walking down the street and a man robs you of the 20 dollars in your pocket, but then reconsiders and only takes ten. Did he “give” you 10 dollars? No-it was yours to begin with. That’s a tax break. The next day you’re walking down the street and you see a homeless person you want to help out so you Give him the 20 dollars. That’s a subsidy. Those in no way are the same things, except in J’s head.