The “or something” is for Warmists noting just how bad carbon pricing is for “developing nations”, but failing to make the connection to every other nation
Carbon Pricing Is Not a Fix for Climate Change
There is much talk today about carbon pricing to reduce CO2 emissions and address climate change. Unlike many environmental pollutants that have a local or regional impact, carbon dioxide (CO2) is global—there is only one atmosphere. If actions taken to reduce atmospheric emissions in one region result in increased emissions elsewhere, then the one atmosphere suffers.
Some form of carbon pricing—a carbon tax, carbon trading, carbon credits—is favored by many politicians, NGOs, academics and even some in industry. But the reality is that a price on carbon will not be adopted by developing and emerging economies because it makes their energy more expensive, and they are too busy trying to build their economies and lift themselves from poverty.
In the developed world, carbon pricing increases the cost of manufacturing and products, which in turn drives manufacturing to developing nations where it is more affordable because of lower labor costs and less stringent environmental regulations and emissions standards. Global emissions rise in the one atmosphere. Put another way, the good intentions of carbon pricing have an unintended negative impact on climate change. This is not hypothetical. It is happening.
Hmm. Makes energy more expensive. Interferes with economies. Increases cost of manufacturing and products. Surprise? Think this won’t have the same effect in nations other than 3rd World?
However, this Scientific American article by Scott Tinker does make one good observation
So what options does energy science suggest will have a major impact on climate change? Natural gas and nuclear fission replacing coal for power generation in major developing nations such as India, China and Vietnam would have a major impact. Carbon capture, utilization and storage, direct carbon capture from the atmosphere, and perhaps nature-based solutions such as increasing the size of forests would help, especially in fossil-fuel producing regions such as the U.S., Russia, China and the Middle East. Distributed renewable energy in rural areas around the world that are currently off-grid will lower emissions and begin to lift more than 1 billion people out of poverty.
But, the Cult of Climastrology is mostly against natural gas and nuclear. A few of their grand poobahs call for it, but, most have a knee-jerk opposition.
