The Cult of Climastrology often comes up with talking points to counteract reality when reality is making a mockery of the original CoC talking points. Take for instance this whole notion that greenhouse gases are now causing the Arctic to shift and make it cold and snowy. By this measure, it would mean that the last glacial age was super warm. And, it conveniently forgets that the Southern Hemisphere has seen the same thing. Oh, and did you know that D.C.’s largest April snow was all the way back on 4/1/1924, with 5.5 inches? What caused that?
Now we have this from the always Nutty Vox, by their hyper-warmist David Roberts (who’s actually a pretty nice guy)
It’s time to think seriously about cutting off the supply of fossil fuels
There is a bias in climate policy shared by analysts, politicians, and pundits across the political spectrum so common it is rarely remarked upon. To put it bluntly: Nobody, at least nobody in power, wants to restrict the supply of fossil fuels.
Policies that choke off fossil fuels at their origin — shutting down mines and wells; banning new ones; opting against new pipelines, refineries, and export terminals — have been embraced by climate activists, picking up steam with the Keystone pipeline protestsand the recent direct action of the Valve Turners.
But they are looked upon with some disdain by the climate intelligentsia, who are united in their belief that such strategies are economically suboptimal and politically counterproductive.
Now a pair of economists has offered a cogent argument that the activists are onto something — that restrictive supply-side (RSS) climate policies have unique economic and political benefits and deserve a place alongside carbon prices and renewable energy supports in the climate policy toolkit.
Well, of course they have. Alternate headline: People who use lots of fossil fuels recommend getting the government (which uses lots of fossil fuels) to cut off fossil fuels for Other People and dramatically increase the cost of living while doing vast harm to Black and brown people in 3rd world nations. Too long?
Here’s what they propose
Climate policies can apply to the supply side (production of fossil fuels) or the demand side (consumption of FF), and they can be restrictive or supportive. That creates a grid with four quadrants:
- Restrictive supply side: policies that cut off FF supply, including declining quotas, supply taxes, and subsidy reductions
- Restrictive demand side: policies that restrict demand for FF, including carbon prices and declining emission caps
- Supportive supply side: policies that support the supply of FF alternatives, like renewable energy subsidies and mandates
- Supportive demand side: policies that support demand for FF alternatives, like subsidies for purchase of energy-efficiency appliances or favorable government procurement policies
It’s always interesting that the CoC’s policies always revolve around giving Centralized Government lots and lots of power over people’s lives and private industries and economies. And then they’re shocked when they’re called Marxists and Fascists.
The article attempts to portray just how all of this has positive economic benefits. I’ll let you read that in full and in context to see the idiocy they attempt. It boils down to “if you ban them you’ll make it easier for government to ban them and hit people with carbon taxes.” Let’s move to this
Cutting off fossil fuel supply has unique political benefits
This is all about the politics of control, the antithesis of freedom.
Yet, these same people refuse to give up their own use of fossil fuels. Go figure.
In economics, the negative or even harmful, adverse societal effects associated with a market transaction are referred to as negative externalities (societal costs not incorporated into the market price). The epidemic of lung cancer associated with smoking is a prime example, as is the epidemic of opioid addiction associated with the over-prescription of opioids, and pollution associated with various manufacturing processes.
As a society there are various remedies available to reduce the negative externalities, e.g., outright bans (some pollutants), making the offending party pay for any and all damages, or taxes on the product (called Pigovian taxes) to capture the true cost of the transaction.
Fossil fuel interests have pushed their market negative externalities (air pollution, acid rain, global warming) onto to society at large.
Except as fossil fuel usage has increased, pollutants have decreased. https://twitter.com/iluvco2/status/958613828626890752?s=21
Seriously, you’re denying that burning coal, oil and gas adds pollutants to the atmosphere?
Thanks to government regulations (e.g., The Clean Air Act, opposed by industry and conservatives) the damage has been limited. Unfortunately, CO2 was not included in the regulations.
CO2 is not a pollutant, little dipshit nignoramous.
pollutant (pÉ™-l t’nt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
Must you be so nignorant?
Adjective
1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: a Nignorant African man.
2. specifically relating to African Americans or similar descent; whether abuser or accuser.
3. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training: a Nignorant statement.
nignorant = nigger + ignorant
Got it, thanks!
pollutant (pə-l t’nt)
A substance or condition that contaminates air, water, or soil. Pollutants can be artificial substances, such as pesticides and PCBs, or naturally occurring substances, such as oil or carbon dioxide, that occur in harmful concentrations in a given environment. Heat transmitted to natural waterways through warm-water discharge from power plants and uncontained radioactivity from nuclear wastes are also considered pollutants.
Unfortunately, the pollutants listed have been decreasing as shown in the chart. CO2 is not shown for a simple reason-it’s not a pollutant
Semantics – the last bastion of deniers.
Can heat be a pollutant, for example if the cooling water from a power plant warms a lake killing fish?
More proof of the dire effects of fossil fuels. https://twitter.com/tan123/status/971014208052695041?s=21
You can’t make this stuff up. Now the left hates words and the meaning of words.
Interesting question and one that shows the fallacy of the position.
There is such a pipe from a power plant near me. Each year, manatees dies from cold and they now have learned to move near the power plant in the winter to stay alive.
Ask the sea cows if they think that the cooling water is a “pollutant.”
The left not only hates words and meanings, but now they are taking on hating endangered species like sea cows. In their hatred, they want to kill off the manatees.
All the left has is hate.
“.Semantics†The claim made, in plain English, was that the pollutants listed on the graph have been going down as fossil fuel usage has gone up. Feel free to refute the graph.
And the fact that CO2 has been as high as 7000ppm without the earth “burning upâ€, as the alarmists sometimes put it, means it’s not a pollutant
How did humankind do when the CO2 was 7000 ppm? Oh, there weren’t any humans then?