Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Washington Post Economics Columnist Robert J. Samuelson’s advice to solve the climate crisis is to double or triple the price of fuel and hope for a scientific breakthrough.
We’re on mission impossible to solve global warming
By Robert J. Samuelson
Columnist
October 14 at 7:34 PMIf there were any doubt before, there should be none now. “Solving” the global climate change problem may be humankind’s mission impossible. That’s the gist of the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N. group charged with monitoring global warming.
Unless we make dramatic reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions (carbon dioxide, methane and others), warns the IPCC, we face a future of rapidly rising temperatures that will destroy virtually all the world’s coral reefs, intensify droughts and raise sea levels. We need to take action immediately, if not sooner.
…
It’s not clear how this would be done. The reality is that global carbon emissions are rising, not falling. Emissions today are about 60 percent higher than in 1990, according to the World Bank.
…
What is to be done?
…
My own preference is messier and subject to all the above shortcomings. I would gradually impose a stiff fossil-fuel tax (producing not a 10 or 15 percent price increase but a doubling or maybe a tripling of prices) to discourage fossil-fuel use and encourage new energy sources. In addition, some of the tax revenue could reduce budget deficits and simplify income taxes. With luck, a genuine breakthrough might occur: perhaps advances in electric batteries or storage. That would make wind and solar power more practical.
…
Imposing indescribable economic pain, while hoping for a bit of luck, is the “preferred” option? Why not simply build a few nuclear reactors, and use known technology to put a massive dent in the global carbon footprint?
Obviously I don’t believe CO2 is a problem – but if it was a problem, imposing unimaginably painful, life destroying taxes on ordinary people in the hope that their agony might produce a scientific advance would not be my preferred option.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am going to look into the possibility of converting diesel engines to run on food oil, that should cause some interesting taxation problems.
In France fuel for heating and for trucks have different colors, because trucks are highly taxed. Because it’s the almost same product, some people try to use heating fuel for trucks, it’s called “rouler au rouge” (driving red). They risk a heavy fine!
The alleged trick is to run red diesel, that is diesel with a red dye in it to mark it out for agricultural use which is taxed less, through loves of bread as that takes most of the dye out.
In boarding school there were guys that did that to Aqua Velva Ice Blue After Shave and drink it. Guess it wasn’t that bad, but you burped it for hours afterward. :<)
Joe Crawford
I remember reading that the GIs in WWII developed different ways to produce drinkable ‘hooch.’
It’s a $10,000 fine in the US to do that but lots of people do it anyway as they don’t often crack down. Non road diesel used to be a higher sulfur content so all they had to do was use a sniffer on your exhaust pipe. I know off road diesel has been mandated to be switched over to low sulfur but I don’t know where they are on that. Once switched over the only difference is road tax. At that point it will be much harder to tell what fuel is in the tank. Most manufacturers put anti siphon devices on fuel tanks these days to prevent fuel theft so pulling a sample will not be easy.
Some bloke in Australia tried that he collected the old fish and chips oil from the shops to run his car. It worked a treat until one day the government began charging him excise tax.
been done a fair amount in the UK – blending diesel with used chip fryer oil.
Makes the exhaust smell fishy, but it works.
Leo Smith
There is also a problem with low temperature engine contamination from any kind of oil used in DERV’s. Some clever bods have developed switches that start up with pure diesel then when the engine’s up to temperature it switches to chip fat/vegetable oil. But that means two fuel tanks.
My understanding is that Supermarkets use bio diesel, that is, mainly regular diesel fuel with cheap vegetable oils as a filler. Diesel has detergents in it to ensure engines stays clean.
The important thing is that DERV’s are roughly 25% more thermally efficient these days. That means 25% less fuel is required to be extracted from the ground, 25% smaller fuel tankers (or 25% fewer trips if you like) and, of course, 25% fewer emissions (although of a different mix) than highly refined petrol.
I also understand that the 40,000 or so deaths attributed to diesel in the UK were analysed and it was found, unsurprisingly, they were from inner city areas and, much more surprising, the life expectancy, subjectively judged by doctors, to be from a matter of days to a matter of hours extra.
Nor, do I believe, did the death certificates record the cause of death to be ‘contamination from diesel fumes’. The primary causes of death were serious conditions (which might have included asthma/bronchitis etc.) and the contribution of diesel particulates was never scientifically demonstrated.
The UK threw the baby out with the bathwater on that one. I would also add that whilst the deaths included in the vilification of diesel were in inner city areas, I know for a fact there is not one meaningful electricity power station in the London area (that being the area inside the M25 which encircles the London area) they are all located in rural area well outside London. So whilst the rest of the country is punished over diesel emissions in London, the surrounding area is also punished by having to endure the emissions from power stations that London enjoys without a speck of emissions.
Nor is there a single meaningful wind farm or solar array within the London area. Those are, of course, all reserved for the countryside or the oceans whilst London reaps the rewards.
Not that you’ll hear any of this from a Westminster politician as they spend a great deal of time in their second homes in London which are often worth £ Millions and nice clean London air means lots more value added to their homes.
In the UK it’s called red diesel. Usually for agricultural machines. Don’t find yourself with red diesel in your tank on a UK road unless you are crossing to get to a farm. In NZ, the hubs of diesel vehicles have meters. Each year they are read and you have to pay tax on mileage.
If people want run used chip fat in a diesel, they should run it through a filter first and then with regular diesel for obvious reasons. Diesel vehicles running on chip fat smell like a chip wagon. Also, newer diesels won’t run it (Easily).
A diesel is a compression ignition engine, it will, in the right circumstances, run on any kind of “oil”, or fat! There is a situation with a diesel engine that it will start to fuel itself from it’s own oil sump. After a few minutes the engine destroys itself.
Should put a military ‘multi-fuel’ engine. Those run on anything from kerosene to perfume. I imagine the exhaust from a tank full of Channel #5 would smell pretty good
Exhaust from a tank full of fryer fat from a fried chicken place would smell better than that.
My VW TDI guru refuses grease cars.
When I sold it at 13 y.o., it was still producing an honest 50 MPG. Now I have a BMW X5 diesel behemoth and still manage an occasional 30 MPG.
Are those US or Imperial gallons?
Is Robert J. Samuelson familiar with the Scientific Method?
Is he numerate?
This is far from clear, based on the above article.
Knowing what you are talking about is career impediment to journalists.
looks like this is the bargaining stage
throw on more grief!
That’s a little over-the-top don’t you think Donald?
Yes, it’s an imbecilic plan, but gas prices in Europe have long been two-to-three times higher than in the US. None of your claimed outcomes happened there.
Why not focus on the fact that it’s an economic disaster that would not be mitigated by serving any useful purpose?
Distances in Europe are smaller. The biggest impact in the U.S. would be on the rural population who cannot sustain it and not big cities … inner city transport would be subsidized as usual …
Farmers can use pink/red fuel to travel with. Only need farm license plates or rural area license plates in the U.S. and Canada has farm license plates.
The use of pink/red fuel dates back to WW2. Only a few people had fossil fuel vehicles during WW1.
Mods, Anthony: Anything that even indirectly approves of violence should not be posted here.
I agree.
As the Warmistas see their scam unravelling and public scepticism increasing, they double down on their unreasonable and unrealistic demands for others to be punished.
And that is why they fail!
Why not simply build a few nuclear reactors, and use known technology to put a massive dent in the global carbon footprint?
That line presupposes that there’s some sort of need to put a “…dent in the global carbon footprint …”
In simple terms, CO2 is NOT a Problem. Don’t go on in any manner that implies that it is.
“That line presupposes that there’s some sort of need to put a “…dent in the global carbon footprint …””
The greens insist that something must be done. This is the least destructive thing that can be done. It’s the least worst option.
And yet the greens are mostly (there are a very small minority of exceptions) against going nuclear. That tells you all you need to know about how much they truly believe the garbage they spew about CO2
Indeed. The world will end if we don’t change. But not nuclear, we can’t have that stuff.
There’s something terribly wrong with Liberals (demoncrats).
The Democrats/Socialists live in an Alternate Universe. Why they can’t see reality when it is right in front of them is a question I have been asking myself all my life. I don’t have an answer. It’s not that they are all stupid, but they all, dumb and smart, seem to get caught up in a false reality that they can’t see through. One thing they have in common is they are herd creatures. They adopt the latest politically correct meme as soon as they hear it. They think Donald Trump truly is Hitler. People who believe that live in a very scary world, of their own creation. Divorced from reality. Let’s just hope they don’t outnumber us.
The leaders of the Democrat party are all about power and controlling others’ lives. Their supporters are all about “free stuff”. The supporters simply are too stupid to understand that there is no such thing as a free lunch, that someone is paying for the “free stuff”. As they become more dependent on “free stuff”, they cede their freedom and power to the politicians. Controlling energy is just another major way of controlling people and “redistributing wealth” to pay for more “free stuff”.
All you have to do is see what Hillary said about “Republicans destroying” Democrat policies. That is a warlike comment. Same with becoming more civil when “we are back in power”. Democrats only see politics as a power/war scenario. They could care less about the common people or governing in a manner that is best for all. It’s all about powerful government bureaucrats telling people what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. Hopefully their rhetoric will continue to manifest itself in more and more #justwalkaway liberals.
Here are Hillary’s exact words: “”You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” Clinton told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour.”
What does Hillary Clinton stand for? What does she care about? Power and Control is the answer.
Yes, Repubicans *do* want to destroy the totalitarian powergrab of the American Left, and President Trump is doing a pretty good job of it so far. Keep up the good work, Donald. We certainly don’t want any of these Leftwing crazies getting control of our lives.
And while you are at it, would you please see that Hillary is prosecuted for her crimes and jailed. Maybe that will shut her up..
“You cannot be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for, what you care about,” -HRC
So Hillary is advocating the Republicans stop being civil with Democrats? because make no mistake, it’s the Democrats that have been and continue to want to destroy everything the conservative/Republicans stand for. And yet you don’t see Republicans putting on black masks and causing property damage and hitting people with bike locks, you don’t see Republicans harassing Democrats at restaurants, elevators, and their homes. etc.
“there is no such thing as a free lunch,”
OTOH, one thing is truly free lunch: the intellectual (non-)property of (old) culture. Old songs and also inventions. Even language.
At some point the progressive liberals were (pretending to be?) in the fight against “copyfraud”, the act of privatizing immaterial goods that aren’t covered by any valid copyright claim (with bogus “I scanned the paper myself so I own the copyright”-like imaginary intellectual property claims).
But then everything changed when they discovered that there was a new grievance minority group to defend: the culturally “exploited” groups: now the progressive liberals defend the groups who claim they are “intellectual property”-like owners of “culture”. To make it sound like a claim of victim-hood and not absurd copyright-like “right”, they called it “cultural appropriation” not privatization nor cultural copyfraud.
Tom Abbott
I think that your observation about being divorced from reality is correct. That also explains why they are democrats.
It’s the Inverted Fortress Gambit. Leftwing academia paints the university as a ragtag rebel stronghold resisting the big bad anti-intellectual Oppressor just outside the campus, when it’s really the ivory-towered palace of the big bad power-hungry Elites, desiring to impose a neo-feudal serfdom on the rest of us.
It’s a clever ploy. Twisting the rebellious impulses of adolescence into a rigid intellectual conformity. They must all hang together, they must not let down the Cause, they must not let the Bad People win! A mental prison without walls and all the more impregnable for that.
It’s all made possible because the Left (I refuse to call them liberal or progressive) has 90% of the Media in their back pocket. Freedom of the Press was not meant to allow the press to publish lies in the interest of their favored political ideology. It was created to make sure that truth was not hindered by old English laws protecting the reputations of Kings and Governors.
There’s something terribly wrong with Liberals (demoncrats).
Cultural brainwashing. Same as in cults, but on a massive scale. Accomplished by an indoctrination-based education system and mass-media. Orwell would be astonished at its effectiveness.
OTOH, they have been using mental AIDS brainwashing for the purpose of infecting themselves for so long, they have members of their one tribe (*) that fall for the most stupid hoaxes. And it’s in “peer reviewed” journals which is the (re)definition of (post)modern scientific process, so they own it.
(*) academia can only be one tribe, they cannot be divided because that validates the critics from the right
Had they not redefined Science, turning the Method into a gesticulation (with peer review, academic journals, and conferences), they could disown any article, any peer review, and journal, any conference. But the postmodern train has left the station, redefining Science for good. Science as a reproducible approach to determine empirical reality has been replaced with an academic show.
At that time, scientists and academics should have rejected the concept of “academia as a whole”, and publicly claim that while they worked in the same buildings, but they weren’t doing the same type of jobs. Having done that, they would have validated some attacks on “academia”. They couldn’t have claimed “the one academia thing is under attack” but some branches of what passes as academic are under attack, which is a lot less impressive.
When you choose unity above all, you HAVE to defend any member of the tribe, pretty much all the time (knowing others will have to defend you in any case). Although academics like the freedom of criticizing other people, they have inherently established the unit of academia by endorsing the defense of academia as a whole. This includes French social scientists, that is people who specialize in the study of social phenomenons in a country where BY LAW you cannot evaluate the impact of the most overwhelming social change, immigration from Africa and religious background.
They did not disown French social science even as law makes it punishable by prison to even study the only redefining social transformation of France, so they own that scam that you can study stuff despite not being allowed to. So French academia as a whole is undeniably a joke.
Why don’t the Greens just give up. They say its all too late, so lets see what happens next. If I were a betting man and going on all of their failed predictions, I would consider our chances of survival are quite good. So enjoy the world for what it is and stop worrying.
MJE
“Why don’t the Greens just give up. They say its all too late”
That is in effect what all the Alarmists/Greens are saying. The IPCC comes out with their claim that the only way to fix the climate is to raise the tax on gasonline by $240.00 per gallon and give the UN $122 Trillion!! for new green infrastructure. A completely unrealistic expectation and everyone knows it, witness the tone of this article, and of other articles and comments since the IPCC came out with its new report. The commenters on Twitter see the report and are despondent when they read it.
So it’s time for a new direction There is a solution that won’t backrupt everyone: Build as many new nuclear reactors as are required. Forget the windmills and solar and their numerous associated problems.
The solution is right in front of the Alarmist/Green’s eyes. It’s the only solution if you think CO2 is dangerous because windmills and solar will not be able to supply the power humanity needs. They just can’t do it. It’s not practical or feasible.
And the worst thing you can do for an economy is raise the price of gasoline. That is definitely not a solution. People won’t stand for it. Go find your money somewhere else.
“And the worst thing you can do for an economy is raise the price of gasoline”. Pity the South African ANC government didn’t think of this when they added a huge extra tax on to petrol this month. Mind you, this bunch have no economic sense – they kept promising free goodies until the tax income hit the Laffer curve. And now, transport costs hit the price of EVERYTHING, and the poor (who are mostly unemployed and supported by handouts) are being hit by these price increases along with an increase in Value Added Tax. Add to this the fact that the ‘free goodies’ didn’t arrive, and the result is daily riots.
The poor always get hit the hardest by these kinds of schemes.
Raising gasoline prices is a good way to throw cold water on an economy.
The greens may well give up, but the enormous funds from greedy governments wanting to control all things will not end until all the people rise up and elect populist governments.
We all know it’s not about CO2- it’s about control, power and greed.
The UN has no other mission it cares about excepting global power for an unelected cabal.
They will NEVER give up – see, we still have MONEY.
If the AGW scam ever finally breaks down worldwide, they’ll just dram up a new one.
” tax revenue could reduce budget deficits and simplify income taxes. ”
That won’t help much when half of the workforce is unemployed and probably have an armed revolution.
Jeff
If anyone imagines another tax would simplify the taxation process they are certifiably insane.
The UK’s tax system is, I believe, the most complicated on the planet, that’s what Starbucks, Google and Amazon came in for so much stick for paying pennies in corporation tax (if any). It wasn’t their fault though, they were just playing the system the British public endorses.
More taxes means more complications and more loopholes.
France is starting to use source taxation on salary. France is still based on family units, so the taxation is function of total incomes. It means that a level of taxation is transmitted to the employer; but the employee can also choose a fixed level of employer taxation and pay the rest himself, and there is a third choice also. (Turning one thing into tree different choices is called simplification.)
Then there is the fact that one year of incomes will not be taxed, the previous and the next one will be. Except they will be under some conditions. I’m still not getting it – I believe nobody does.
We are hoping the computer system will work properly and people won’t be taxed twice.
“We are hoping the computer system will work properly and people won’t be taxed twice.”
Hmmmm.
Don’t hold your breath on that one . . . .
Auto
Heh I’m sure it will be “working properly” – and that it will not tax you twice but THREE times, by design.
-See my comment on South Africa above, and raise it by 35% unemployed…
The great sadness about all this is that newspapers like the Washington Post, and the British Guardian should be able to promote absolute stupidity, false information and lies to their tens of thousands of readers, without allowing any sensible and balanced reply to the contrary. Many readers who cannot think for themselves will take Samuelson’s ridiculous thinking on board, and the myth will again be successfully perpetuated. What a pity just one major news outlet in the Western world does not have the courage to take a stand and at least question the IPCCs outrageous statements and ridicule the left wing thinking of so called writers like Samuelson.
As was pointed out by a commenter here last week, the Guardian readers don’t believe it either.
None of the Global Warming stories in the Guardian have made the Top 10 Most Viewed at the bottom of the page.
For the end of the world to be uninteresting is itself interesting.
Does anybody under the age of 50 still depend on a newspaper for their news?
I rely on realclearpolitics.com to highlight opposing viewpoints. I still see what the mainstream propaganda line is, but also see the alternative arguments. And of course, when it comes to climate issues, wattsupwiththat.com is indispensable.
The answers to our planet’s survival are not from scientists … it’s now political columnists who lead the way.
But do 97% of them agree?
About 256.97% agree.
289.43% agree that their mathhs skills are awesome.
Auto.
Mods – I know you are numerate, as well as literate; but, in case, /SARC.
Perhaps the secret agenda of the warmest Left is a world revolution fuelled by starving 3rd World masses and first world unemployed?
The not so secret agenda of the warmest Left is to reduce the population by billions. starving the poorest of the energy they need to survive is just one means of getting there.
There is no doubt that the insanity of the warmalarmists is reaching unprecedented levels, perhaps it has even reached a tipping point, but it is definitely unsustainable.
I think I’ve got all the PC bits in there.
I actually love seeing the Left destroy themselves with such INSANE proposals as tripling gas prices….
I hope they keep pumping out these crazy ideas, and are voted out of office.
IPCC’s great proposal last week was for global governments to waste $122 TRILLION to “fix” the CAGW hoax.
If Leftists were actually serious about CAGW, they’d propose global governments spending about $4 Trillion to completely replace grid-level fossil fuel power with LFTRs within 30 years, after commercial LFTRs become commercially viable in about 10 years…
Mo’ bedda, just let the market decide the form and timing of which power sources is best to replace fossil fuels in the future.
What are “LFTRs?” Kindly spell out all acronyms when first using them in a post!
Excessive fuel costs would most probably plunge an economy into recession
and – getting China and India to play ball?
Never
All this stuff is just lip service to an ideal. The global warming agenda is a great juggernaut created by themselves and over which they too now have no control. The “keep below 1.5 C” is a case of falling on ones sword if there ever was one.
They have painted themselves into a corner. There is no way that global emissions can be reduced to the levels they specify. If +1.5 is not breached in the given time-frame, then this is absolute proof that they have been wrong all along. We all know that the planet wont even sneeze if this happens anyway.
I am fairly sure that they fiddled with the 20th century data (or at very least cherry-picked it) but they wont get away with this in the 21st. There are too many informed parties watching, plus these wonderful things called satellites being analysed by honest people.
Its going to be quite a party 🙂
Regards
M
“Excessive fuel costs would most probably plunge an economy into recession”
I heard a couple of experts on CNBC one time say that every $0.80 rise in the price of a gallon of gasoline reduces U.S. GDP by one percent and every $0.80 reducton in the price of a gallon of gasoline increases U.S. GDP by one percent.
So a price increase of $4.00 per gallon would pretty much wipe out the current U.S. GDP of 4.2 percent, so you can imagine what raising the cost of a gallof of gasoline by $240.00 would do to the economy. It’s not going to happen.
‘ With luck, a genuine breakthrough might occur: perhaps advances in electric batteries or storage. That would make wind and solar power more practical.’
On the other hand, we could just jump off of a cliff…
At least he’s pegged that current solar and wind generation are ‘impractical’ and I note more and more are beginning to speak heresy to the true believers-
https://www.msn.com/en-au/motoring/news/why-youll-always-pay-extra-for-evs/ar-BBO5c2C
Here’s another classic case in Oz as two of the major national power providers who are up to their armpits themselves in unreliables begin to panic about the plethora of ‘unfirm’ power providers jumping on the bandwagon and threatening to break the interconnected communal power grid-
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/both-agl-origin-warn-renewables-threaten-grid-create-chaos-drive-off-basload-cause-higher-cost/
With their tech guys they must know that cascading blackouts ever closer with peak summer demand will bring the wrath of consumers down on all their heads looking for answers as they’ve paid through the nose for all these fickle electrons with the promise they’ll save Gaia and be cheaper at the same time. It was always their lunar prescriptions that would bring the doomsdayers undone and anyone who hitches their star to them.
Greg Woods: an advance in electric batteries? One kilogram of gasoline contains 100 times the energy contained in a one kilogram, fully charged lithium ion battery. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that gap to be closed.
More importantly, what difference would it make if “we” in the West made these cuts. The rest of the world won’t, unless we subsidize their extensive use of renewables—which our voters won’t stand for.
I could swear that a flock of flying pigs went over the house yesterday.
So anything is now possible…
Better yet, the people pushing this blatant propaganda and their “supporters” could just jump off a cliff. To, you know, “do their part” to “save” us from the, you know, NON-EXISTENT crisis.
Anything short of that, given their ridiculous rhetoric, is pure hypocrisy.
They have all gone completely mad. Robert J Samuelson is a financial hack of long standing, now trying his hand as a high priest of doom in the climate religion game. He suggests whacking the price of oil and gas up the wazoo to discourage use. Of course such a course would drastically lower tax revenue and throw millions out of work – as well he probably knows, but hey let’s not interrupt the lecture from the pulpit. Then “with luck” we can find new battery technology that will help drain the oceans of red ink currently submerging the so-called renewables industry.
We have a recognized medical condition called Trump Derangement Syndrome. Now we have a similar condition developing with the IPCC. Peter Frankopan, said to be a professor of “global history” at the Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research, warned that global warming would release deadly diseases that have been trapped in the ice caps. Reported in the London Times, he noted that the great plague was one of the most devastating pandemics in human history, wiping out 75 to 200 million people in Eurasia and peaking in Europe from 1347 to 1351. “These are the things we should be hugely worried about”, he noted.
And the next lesson is taken from ………….
“They have all gone completely mad.”
The madding of crowds as Lindzen nails them with their pampered Groupthink-
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/10/Lindzen-2018-GWPF-Lecture.pdf
“Oxford Centre for Byzantine Research”
A classic…
Yes the satillites. So can we just use the good data from the satillites, wether ballons and the Argo bouys. Using the ground based stations is probably what got us into this mess or hoex in the first place.
MJE
The madder the ideas they call for , the less chance there is of anyone taken notice of them , hence they should be encouraged to get ‘madder’
If CO2 really is such an existential threat to the planet, the solution is trivial… Replace old coal-fired power plants with natural gas-fired and nuclear power plants. Only build new coal-fired power plants with CCS, ideally use the CO2 for EOR. This would yield deep cuts in emissions very quickly and cost a lot less than “imposing indescribable economic pain, while hoping for a bit of luck.”
However, the greentards shun natural gas, abhor nuclear power and oppose CCS when it serves a useful purpose.
I’ve tried pinning a few greens down on why they oppose nuclear, still haven’t gotten a straight answer. Lots of waffle about the cost and the risk, but no real answer to why the risk of a few meltdowns is worse than the alleged imminent risk of the end of the world.
What fraction of NPP have failed, and what fraction have failed by melting fuel? Meanwhile the USN has about SEVEN THOUSAND REACTOR-YEARS of safe operation. <<== that’s an eggcorn to inspire doubters to go and look into the actual number.
The greens are stupid enough to believe that wind, solar, batteries and unicorn farts can replace fossil fuels and nuclear power.
Its the pixie dust that will save us from climate change… that’s the key you are overlooking.
David,
Disney’s First Law: “Wish and it will come true.”
David,
Thanks for the shout-out to nuclear. It warms my cold little fissionable heart to hear it.
But, if greens think unicorn farts can reduce CO2 emissions, they’re really ignorant. Those cursed capitalists have done it again, and are already exploiting UFs for other purposes:
https://youtu.be/LqL4DRZ2EkA
rip
Perfect solution.
The plebs pay more.
The government gets bigger.
The oil companies can hide profits in increased taxation.
Zero effect on the environment.
Massive virtue signal.
What’s not to like?
We already effectively a massive carbon tax on fuel in the UK. It’s called Fuel Duty nad effectively doubles the price of petrol.
I doubt whether it has had any impact at all on the miles we drive. After all, we all need to travel to work, holidays, shops etc. When petrol prices go up, we just grin and bear it!
Or buy a motor scooter.
Doubling or tripping fuel prices will not curb fossil fuel usage.
This is clear since the price of fuel (petrol/gasoline) is about 3 times as high in Europe as it is in the US, and car usage is at an all time high with roads in gridlock. High fuel prices has not forced people off the road, it has merely resulted in a push for smaller economical cars.
The same would happen in the US. There would be few 7 litre or 5 litre gas guzzlers sold, but rather the trend would be towards smaller and lighter cars with more efficient 2 to 3 litre engines.
….and like the current car industry in Britain that is showing a current 10 per cent reduction in sales due to some idiot saying that diesel fumes ‘might’ be injurious to our health, the US car industry will be changed for the worst. Greens have an awful lot to answer for. in the UK. In addition to trying to ruin the car industry They have been responsible for closing factories with the banning of plastic bag sales in supermarkets; they are now starting to cause havoc in the plastic packaging industry following that rather ridiculous statement by Sir David Attenborough, in his Blue Planet programme in which he said that plastic waste was having a disastrous effect on the oceans wildlife. And only today in the UK, fracking has started following a seven year delay caused by objections from the Greens and their negative band of warriors. Seven years of gas supply lost through a judge taking the side of these idiots.
And all this in addition to being responsible for a huge increase in energy costs through advocating the closing down of our power stations in favour of using very expensive renewables etc, etc, The Green movement should be culled, they are a massive boil on the arse of progress.
So, while admitting that the current green-frenzy for unreliables are impractical, he is doubling down and asking for more of the same.
The fool that calls this man an drongo is no idiot.
The guy is nuts.
Triple gas and oil prices will cause a greater calamity than the supposed global warming crisis.
Economics is my thing and I can tell you that to do such a stupid thing will kill millions from starvation.
What a way for civilization to end!
Much bigger. Much much bigger, if done worldwide. There’s no risk though of that.
These madmen luckily have freefom of speech so weclearn what NOT to do.
“My own preference is messier and subject to all the above shortcomings.”
As you were scientific and economic folks as Bob was having a little joke with us and the punch line was ‘subject to all the above shortcomings.”
OT – did anyone see the 60 Minutes ‘interview’ (which was actually an attack) of Pres Trump last night? It was an attack interview because the reporter kept interrupting him to make counterarguments and he couldn’t even get a thought out before being attacked. In the first part of the interview the reporter attacked him over his AGW stance, spewing misinformation galore. I was especially impressed with her lack of knowledge, ” how can you deny climate change? Greenland is melting down and calving into the ocean, raising sea levels…”
The conspiracy of ignorance masquerades as common sense.
William, I saw that interview as well. The ignorance of Lesli Stahl is truly stunning. Guess the news reports are going to be that Trump bullied the reporter. Why else would they keep cutting back to her stunned face as Trump takes her to the cleaners?
Trump made an ignorant statement, but he could have been pulling their chain. He was asked something like “What about climate change?” and he replied something like “I believe the climate changes. It has gotten warmer, but it’s always changing. It could get cooler.” Which put Lesli in a true tizzy, but she couldn’t even remember why they call it “Climate Change” meaning “Human Caused Climate Change”. That’s when she went into her pre-planned Greenland ice sheet melting equals sea level rise zinger which was supposed to throw him for a loop. He just rolled over it.
I think Trump has their number. They couldn’t resist showing his replies because they were a great performance. But they still think they won because the poor little female reporter got rolled. They will pick a bunch of clips out of context and make him look bad in their reporting, but if anyone watches the actual interview it will tell the tale. Just like the Katie Couric interview with Sarah Palin, they will try to make him look like an idiot in the clips. But it will only work with the ignorant New York Times readers who completely agree with the ignorant nonsense in Lesli’s head.
“did anyone see the 60 Minutes ‘interview’ (which was actually an attack) of Pres Trump last night?”
I saw it. It is to be expected that 60 Minutes would attack President Trump. I thought Trump handled himself very well and was in control of the interview. Leslie Stahl tried her best to trip him up but was not successful.
On human-caused climate change Trump effectively said: The jury is still out. Which it is.
Punish the poor, make it so they have to choose between heating their homes or driving their cars. That’s the way to stop climate change. Drive them unto the government doll so they have no choice but to continue to vote for the people who drove them further into poverty.