HuffPost: Global Warming Is A Greater Moral Challenge Than Budget Repair

Framing this as “a moral challenge” tells you that the primary purpose of the position they take is to signal their moral superiority.

The solution to the AGW + capitalism + overpopulation problem is AGW
If we just let AGW do its thing it will rid the planet of its human pestilence.
And return the earth to its pre-human pristine condition
Voila

If Australia really wants to cut their carbon emissions they would start building nuclear plants today. They can easily place them far from population centers to appease the NIMBY’s and fear mongers. Thorium plants would be best but the newest generation of Uranium plants to start until Thorium designs are commercialized.

Kevin Rudd, in his maiden parliamentary speech, declared the General Sales Tax (GST), introduced by the Liberal Party, as ( you guessed it ) immoral!
Did he strike out this immorality when he became Prime Minister or did he use the money for ( ahem) moral purposes? No prizes for the correct answer.
Morality and patriotism are the last refuges of the desperate scoundrel.

Sorry, won’t click on a huffpoo link. The sooner they go out of business, the better the Internet gets.

the founders of this nation considered using government to impose your “morality” on the nation was the most EVIL form of tyranny……..and i am aware a tyrant is ONE person rule, but the point remains, using the government as the “tyrant” ends up the same.

The Huffington Post has as much legitimacy writing about morality as Bill Clinton does speaking of marital fidelity.

To say that I object to the idea that funding of ‘green projects’ is a moral issue would be an understatement.
The catastrophic warmunists want us to to accept (I hesitate to use the word ‘believe’) that we should engineer our way out of a looming climate crisis of our own making. A practical question you might imagine.
To present it as a moral issue is an attempt to make it unarguable, just like some religious ‘moral’ issues of yesteryear. It’s a variant of the appeal to authority. The great authority in the sky, as relayed/interpreted by the priesthood (a.k.a. approved ‘scientists’) would be angry with you, ergo it’s immoral. That, mixed with the concept of sin. Hang your head in shame, lest you be attacked on facebook/twitter etc..
Truly revolting, simply demonstrating that their argument is lost.

This underscores the underlying truth of all government activities, who ends up with the money ?
As you may remember, Deep Throat of Watergate fame said “Follow the money.”

Budget repair is a financial challenge, not a moral one. While ARENA is financial suicide, which used to be considered immoral.

So now the regressives are attempting to steal the ‘moral’ argument in support of their CAGW fiction?

Ah. The phony moral high-ground. Lifetime tactics of the Progressive left. This feeds that ‘warm-fuzzy’ they seem addicted to – enough that they never examine the consequences of their feel-good activism.
They are not affected by starvation, disease, poverty, or squalor – they have the courage of their convictions.

For Earl Worrall, re last paragraph:
“If renewables was a real business which delivered value, they could try to trade their way out of trouble – they could innovate, expand into new markets, trim costs, increase sales to restore profitability. But renewables are not a real business, they are a political fantasy, totally dependent on taxpayer handouts. So their only option when times get tough is to squeal like stuck pigs, to try to frighten politicians into maintaining the money font.”
Let’s consider the facts.
Every form of electricity generation in the US is subsidized, excepting natural gas. Nuclear – subsidized heavily. Hydroelectric – almost entirely built with government money. Coal – granted an almost complete exemption from Clean Air Act compliance until about one year ago. Wind power – a small production tax credit that lasts only 10 years and is only 2.3 cents per kWh produced. Solar power – an investment tax credit of 30 percent of installed cost.
Fact two: coal resources are rapidly running out, with less than 20 years supply remaining in the US and less than 50 years supply worldwide. Germany already has exhausted their economic coal and now subsidizes every tonne produced just to keep the lights on. Coal also produces approximately 40 to 50 percent of all electricity world-wide.
Fact three: That creates a massive crisis looming in the next few decades. In the US it is already here as coal plants are shutting down in record numbers. They shut down rather than spend money to cut their air pollution.
Fact four: Replacing coal as power generation fuel has 4 options: nuclear, hydroelectric, natural gas, and renewables.
Fact five: Nuclear costs far too much and cannot be built in the short time frame. Hasty construction would render them entirely unsafe to operate. Nuclear is not an option.
Fact six: Hydroelectric requires rivers with substantial gradients, most of which already have dams on them. Hydroelectric cannot replace coal.
Fact seven: Natural gas is a viable option, with low construction costs, short construction schedules, low air pollution, and abundant, cheap fuel.
Fact eight: Renewables, especially wind power but solar power also in areas with adequate resources, are a viable option now that some subsidies and intense research has produced low-cost and reliable power from those. Grid-scale storage is available via low-cost batteries to time-shift the electricity as needed. Underwater hollow spheres for pumped storage hydroelectric also can be used for offshore wind power.
One could argue that it is better to do what Germany does: subsidize coal as necessary to continue mining the deep coal that loses money with every tonne. That extends the life of coal mines only a few short years. The problem must be faced squarely, and the time is now.
Building wind power with natural gas combined cycle plants to complement each other, and battery storage is the best option available.