Pirate's Cove

One of the problems with having an interest in the ‘climate change’ debate is the constant re-recurring themes that crop up on a constant basis. The same things get discussed time after time, because Warmists keep bringing up the same ideas again and again, regardless of how much the science is against their beliefs. Because this is not about science, it’s about politics, namely, the far left Progressive politics Warmists push

To Stop Climate Change, Don’t Just Cut Carbon; Redistribute Wealth

This year’s Democratic platform has the fingerprints of progressive movements all over it. A $15 minimum wage, a pathway to cannabis legalisation, improvements to social security, police accountability, and financial reforms — including a tax on speculation — all make an appearance.

The platform also highlights the critical link between climate and the economy. In particular, it argues that “carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gases should be priced to reflect their negative externalities”.

That’s a complicated way of saying that the cost of the harm done to people and the planet should be calculated into the price of energy generated by burning coal, oil and gas. If these costs were factored into the price consumers pay at the pump or in their utility bills, it could make dirty energy expensive enough to change both consumer and industry behaviour. And that, in turn, would make renewable energy much more cost-competitive.

It could also — potentially — raise a lot of money.

Of course, at that money raised comes at the expense of the middle and lower classes, who’ll pay more for pretty much everything. Warmists conveniently ignore that part.

But a clean energy economy catalysed by a carbon tax is only a progressive victory if it’s also a just economy. That means the policies to fight climate change also have to help end inequality. Why? Because the two are inextricably linked.

Sure, wealthy people may be in a better position to buy an electric car, cover their roofs in solar panels, and pay a premium for energy-saving appliances. But studies, including one by economists Thomas Piketty and Lucas Chancel, show that the rich are actually super-polluters. In the US, the top 1% of income earners have an average carbon footprint two orders of magnitude bigger than someone in the bottom 10 percent of income earners.

A carbon tax could help transfer wealth from people at the carbon-intensive top to less polluting middle and lower-income households, and ensure the costs of addressing climate change are distributed equitably. But it this won’t happen automatically. It will take thoughtful and inclusive policy design and implementation.

So, take from the rich to give to the poor in order to cover the extreme costs of living increases from the Warmists policies. The article ends thusly

A successful approach to climate change would be one in which taxpayers eventually accept the true costs of dirty energy, and actively demand and work towards a cleaner future. Though by no means a silver bullet, a truly climate justice-driven carbon pricing scheme should be part of the equation.

It’s interesting how most Warmists not only want Someone Else to pay the penalty for their beliefs, but to be given the largess from Other People being successful.