Massive Government Cash Giveaways Needed to Defeat Climate Change

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Despite billions already invested in renewables, and wild claims that renewables are now “cheaper than coal”, more government subsidy money is required.

Climate change: focusing on how individuals can help is very convenient for corporations

January 10, 2019 10.06pm AEDT

Postdoctoral Researcher in International Politics, University of Warwick

Climate change is a planetary-scale threat and, as such, requires planetary-scale reforms that can only be implemented by the world’s governments. Individuals can at most be responsible for their own behaviour, but governments have the power to implement legislation that compels industries and individuals to act sustainably.

Governments and industries should lead

Rather than rely on appeals to individual virtue, what can be done to hold governments and industries accountable?

Governments have the power to enact legislation which could regulate industries to remain within sustainable emission limits and adhere to environmental protection standards. Companies should be compelled to purchase emissions rights – the profits from which can be used to aid climate vulnerable communities.

Governments could also make renewable energy generation, from sources such as solar panels and wind turbines, affordable to all consumers through subsidies. Affordable and low-carbon mass transportation must replace emission-heavy means of travel, such as planes and cars.

More must also be done by rich countries and powerful industries to support and empower poorer countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

All of this is not to say that individuals cannot or should not do what they can to change their behaviour where possible. Every little contribution helps, and research shows that limiting meat consumption can be an effective step. The point is that failing to do so should not be considered morally blameworthy.

Read more:

See, the climate crisis is solvable – all governments have to do is impose carbon taxes and ship the cash overseas to help poor countries.

On an individual level climate hypocrisy is acceptable, failing to live up to the standards we expect of others “should not be considered morally blameworthy”.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2019 6:17 am

It looks like California is going to be 100% renewable really, really, soon. I wonder how they are going to like being in the dark?

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Yooper
January 11, 2019 9:07 am

California never will have financial sorry when 1 apartment for 1 person costs 3,000.- $$ per month and that person can pay the rent by sublet that chamber to another person in similar circumstances that has to raise the money -so both persons are living happily ever after in said chamber / Appartement. Yahoo.

Reply to  Johann Wundersamer
January 11, 2019 9:39 am

The concept of ‘roommates’ is not new nor unique to California …and it rarely ends like a fairy tale.

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Yooper
January 11, 2019 12:56 pm

It’s like a new version of the ‘Nigerian email scam’. Instead of sending the email to individuals they now send it direct to Governments. “Please send money now to save the planet later”. It’s still a scam and still comes out of individuals pockets (in tax or energy costs) and goes into someone elses pocket in profits.

Reply to  Hot under the collar
January 11, 2019 6:07 pm

Africa is the best example.
Just look at the trillions they have already received from developed countries, mostly the US & Europe.
The results?
Enabling them to continue breeding at rates they cannot support in any manner.

Colonialism was the best thing that ever happened to Africa. Now look at them.

Facts are the facts.

Reply to  Hot under the collar
January 12, 2019 2:42 am

Marxism made simple! For examples, consider current political cesspools Zimbabwe and Venezuela – and there are almost 100 similar failing leftist states.

The fearless leaders are Groucho Marxists – they want power for its own sake at any cost, and typically are sociopaths or psychopaths. The great killers of the 20th Century, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were of this odious ilk – first they get power, then they implement their crazy schemes that do not work and too often kill everyone who opposes them.

The followers are Harpo Marxists – the “sheeple” – these are people of less-than-average intelligence who are easily duped and follow the Groucho’s until it is too late, their rights are lost and their society destroyed. They are attracted to simplistic concepts that “feel good” but rarely “do good”, and politicians’ promises of “lots of free stuff”.

One can easily identify crypto-Marxists – they are Democrats, Liberals, Greens, Socialists, Labourites, and today’s self-styled “Progressives”.

Almost 200 countries are now descending into the Marxist cesspool. Apparently, the untimely deaths of over 200 million innocents in the 20th Century were not enough. Do we really have to do this all again?

The great American statistician and philosopher George Carlin explained the appeal of leftist politics as follows:

Carlin said: “Think of how stupid the average person is; and then realize half of them are stupider than that!”

January 14, 2019 1:26 am


Almost 100 countries are now descending into the Marxist cesspool.

John Endicott
January 11, 2019 6:17 am

The point is that failing to do so should not be considered morally blameworthy.

newsflash for Morten Fibieger Byskov: that’s called hypocrisy and yes hypocrisy is morally blameworthy particularly when you are claiming the “problem” is so “bad” that you must use the force of government to get *others* to do what you yourself don’t.

Reply to  John Endicott
January 11, 2019 10:49 am

I think what he is striving for is the government forcing others to conply, but giving special dispensations for those like him to ignore the edicts. So don’t consider him morally blameworthy. He is too important to obey.

Phil Rae
January 11, 2019 6:23 am

Yes! As usual, the message is to use other people’s money to prop-up inefficient “renewables” while busily tearing down the essential industrial infrastructure that allows us all to live the way we do today. And all in the name of a flawed ideology and a pointless quest to defeat a totally harmless and unsubstantiated enemy in the form of CO2.

I just don’t get what it is with these people. Are they REALLY so stupid that they don’t see what they are doing and the risk it poses to our civilisation? When the grid starts to fail and blackouts become commonplace, there is no fuel for cars (because they won’t allow oil exploration and insist that cars MUST run on electricity), there are no goods in the shops because factories no longer operate and crops cannot be harvested, will they all pat one another on the collective back saying “Yes we can”?

Reply to  Phil Rae
January 11, 2019 6:19 pm

“I just don’t get what it is with these people. Are they REALLY so stupid that they don’t see what they are doing and the risk it poses to our civilisation? ”

Communists have never been rational. They are quite content to tear down civilization along as they have the power. And essentially seizing the economy by controlling the energy sector will put them in complete control.
Using such canards as “morally blameworthy” will allow them to pass the laws which will put and KEEP them in power. In fact, that is already happening in EU Europe.

Just look at the effect of totalitarian “hate crime” laws have already had on free speech, free association.

A civil war is coming. Orwell nailed it.

January 11, 2019 6:45 am

Poor Lefties…

So much “green” money to steal from taxpayers, so little time before the earth starts cooling for many decades to come from: PDO/AMO/NAO 30-year ocean cool cycles, and a 50-year Grand Solar Minimum, both starting from the early 2020’s…

Bryan A
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 11, 2019 7:03 am

Probably why they are in such a hot hurry, so they can then claim…”Look at what is now happening to the climate, now cooling all thanks to what we’ve done”

Farmer Ch E retired
Reply to  Bryan A
January 11, 2019 8:46 am

Or they are in such a hurry so they can cash in and take control before weather patterns become more inconvenient than they already are.

John in Oz
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 11, 2019 6:44 pm

It seems that the doomsters only see climate change as a one-way movement – ever higher temps caused by humans.

There does not seem to be any consideration for natural change in any direction.

Therefore, there are no plans, taxes, technology change being considered for colder temperatures, even though that is the supposed effects of reducing that ever-powerful control knob, CO2.

Narrow-minded, short-sighted and ignorant describes them well.

Steve Clough
Reply to  John in Oz
January 12, 2019 8:21 am

Oh I’m sure they have some scheme in their back pocket if the world starts to cool. Someway or another they’ll find a study that shows the burning of fossil fuels is responsible.

January 11, 2019 7:36 am

Charles Ortel and Jason Goodman are discussing the non- sensical policy proposals, regarding climate change, of Alexandria Ocasio Cortes on ‘Crowdsource the Truth’.

Perhaps Jason would consider hosting a conversation with someone here at WUWT to discuss the basic
scientific facts and help to broaden his rapidly growing understanding of the deceptions.
Also, investigator, David Hawkins is working with Jason on CSTT to ‘reverse engineer’ the criminal aspects of the deception and is tying this subject matter into other major crimes he’s been investigating for many years.

Joe Crawford
January 11, 2019 7:40 am

I know the U.S. is not suppose to have a class society, but in the case of environmental matters there are two ‘classes’ of people involved. The first is composed of the power seekers, those with ulterior motives, that simply use it to advance other agenda, e.g. socialism, one-world-government, anything where they can be in charge and dictate to others. The second are the useful idiots, typically those that have disassociated from any organized religion and are looking for the next ’cause célèbre’ to believe in, usually associated with ‘saving the world from the evils of mankind’.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
January 11, 2019 9:29 am

But they don’t have to have disassociated from organized religion, as many of the world’s major organized religions have bought into the CAGW / CCC narrative as we are to steward the Earth.

Steve O
Reply to  Joe Crawford
January 11, 2019 9:36 am

Joe, there are several identifiable groups:

– True Believers
– Advocates of enhanced government power (includes socialists)
– Politicians in government, who will accept as true anything that justifies higher taxes
– Rent seekers. Corporations who stand to make dishonest money from government intervention.
– Corporate interests. Companies who stand to make money honestly in the industry.
– Do-gooders who seek wealth transfers from rich nations to the poor
– Leading scientists (who stand to endure great professional embarrassment if the “consensus” view is overturned)
– Internationalists, who seek to enhance the power of the United Nations

But let’s not forget the last group:
– Highly paid shills for the fossil fuel industry (like us!) who spread lies out of malice against mankind and selfish greed.

Bruce Cobb
January 11, 2019 7:41 am

“Climate change is a planetary-scale threat boogeyman and, as such, requires planetary-scale reforms that can only be implemented by the world’s governments . Individuals can at most be responsible for their own behaviour, but world governments have has the power to implement legislation that compels industries and individuals to act in accordance to sustainably CAGW ideology .”
There, fixed.

Rod Evans
January 11, 2019 7:47 am

Did I miss something in this story. If the climate change alarmists are saying solar and wind are now the cheapest option for generating electricity, exactly why does it requite additional government funding to persuade companies and individuals to adopt that cheap energy option?
Do no’t think they are being economical with the truth, do you?

Tom in Flolrida
Reply to  Rod Evans
January 11, 2019 9:30 am

Remember, it’s not a lie if you believe it.

January 11, 2019 7:48 am

“…research shows that limiting meat consumption can be an effective step.”

As Willis Eschenbach discussed not so long ago, humans require protein, presently largely derived from farm animals. Most farm animals are nurtured by cellulosic farm residues such as cotton plants (less the fiber which we use), corn stalks, hay and so forth which humans cannot eat but which farm animals convert to protein. So does the research include the CO2 and methane release which comes from all the rotting or combusted cellulosic materials no longer consumed by farm animals to create protein? Does it include the methane and CO2 releases from all the new farms needed to grow protein-containing plants such as soy and from the unused cellulosic residues from these farms? Is there enough uncultivated land and fresh water to do this? Does it include Vitamin B-12 production to meet the needs of the entire population of the world since B-12 comes from animal flesh? There are likely many more does-it’s that could be added to this list by those more knowledgeable than I.

Reply to  DHR
January 11, 2019 8:07 am

Figure 4 of below cited free full text available on-line shows how much evolved CO2 comes from fresh cow manure. You can see that, after declining, at 14 weeks CO2 is almost back up to original levels before dropping down again; at 17 weeks cow manure evolved CO2 is 22% lower than when first flopped down. As per ” Changes in biochemical properties of cow manure during processing by earthworms … and the effects om seedling growth.”

Reply to  DHR
January 11, 2019 10:56 am

Does it include all the additional methane us humans will generate if put on a plant-only diet? On such diets, beans are a primary source of protein…

Reply to  jtom
January 11, 2019 2:41 pm

Isotope 14carbon tracked as “… 14CO2 in nodulated roots of pea … [{&}] … soybean …result in rapid transport of the fixed CO2 to shoots ….” For an easier introduction to the idea of this in the dynamic of N2 fixing nodules 1st look at “Discussion” segment of free full text on-line of report titled “Nodulation enhances dark CO2 fixation and recycling in the model legume Lotus japonicus.”

Since the nodulated legumes eaten for “a primary source of protein …” grow in such a relatively CO2 sparing manner it is, in part, by release of flatulent methane that plant-only people can do their part keeping our planet warm. Thus the aphorism: “Beans, beans, the magical fruit – the more you eat, the more you toot, the more you toot, the better you feel – so eat beans at every meal!”

Mike Rosati
January 11, 2019 7:59 am

(Satire alert) I’m all for spending money to keep the dream alive!
(Truth alert) Let all the pie-eyed idealists keep the subsidy ball rolling (uphill) with *their* money.
Govt. money = MY money, you egregious carnival barkers

Stanislav Jakuba
January 11, 2019 8:51 am

The numbers below show the capacity power values and their true percentages.

Millstone, its two remaining reactors: 2020 MW

Seabrook, its one reactor: 230 MW (the portion for Connecticut)

Solar projects: 164 MW

Wind, offshore: 100 MW
Here is an example of the renewable energy propaganda published in the local business journal where the author applied capacity numbers and concluded that 3/4 of clean energy in Conn. came from non-nuclear sources.
In fact, nuclear yielded 1800 MW.
The “solar projects” yielded 33 MW.
The “wind projects” yielded 25 MW.
Adding the solar and wind numbers yields 58 MW, and the total clean energy output is 1858 MW. Thus nuclear provides 97 %. But your article claims that “¾ (75 %) of clean electricity comes from nuclear.”
Just to be fair, I should include hydro as another significant sources of clean energy not mentioned in your column. With those 5 MW the above sum becomes 33+25+5=63 MW and it does not change the 97 percentage appreciably.
Please publish the correction .

Phillip Bratby
January 11, 2019 8:53 am

But I love my CO2 emissions. I try to maximise them.

John Endicott
Reply to  Phillip Bratby
January 11, 2019 9:21 am

If you love your CO2 emissions you can keep your CO2 emissions – but only if you are one of the climate elites who are telling everyone else that they must give up their CO2 emissions.

Jon Scott
January 11, 2019 8:58 am

And what level of IQ was needed to achieve the PhD behind this drivel, obviously not that required for cogent thought. It seems that the value of everything is being devalued by the post modernist marxist wannabes.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Jon Scott
January 11, 2019 12:00 pm

This gentleman’s university affiliation:
University of Warwick is the favored (“favoured” in UK grammar) institution of the Labour party, even besting the Marxist-socialists at Oxford. Morten Fibieger Byskov is simply writing for an audience of socialists.

What is curious is in Morten’s essay is he declares “governments have the power to implement legislation that compels industries and individuals to act sustainably.”
(my bold for emphasis.)
And then he writes this very socialistic-authoritarian statement, “…the profits from which can be used to aid climate vulnerable communities,” implying of course it will be government’s job to decide who those climate vulnerable communities are and thus reap the rewards.”

Clearly he has adopted a Big Brother knows best philosophy and should force it on every person and business “to remain within sustainable emission limits.” (and just WTF is a ‘sustainable emission limit’, and who decides? Well some socialism-loving bureaucrat of course.)

Mr Byskov essay here contrasts markedly with his PhD thesis at U.Utrecht.

“In this thesis I argue that we need to ask three fundamental questions when setting a development agenda.First, what kinds of goals should a development agenda include; secondly, who should be involved in setting a development agenda; and, thirdly, how should they go about doing so? In the first part of the thesis I argue that development goals are best conceptualized in terms of capabilities and functionings. Conceptualizing development goals in terms of capabilities and functionings implies a focus on what people can do or be with their means and resources. The reason for this is that a focus on the means to development ignores the fact that people are subject to various factors that influence the extent to which they are able to successfully convert resources, goods and freedoms into actual opportunities or realized doings and beings (i.e. capabilities and functionings). The second question that I investigate in this thesis concerns who should select the relevant development goals for a development agenda? I argue that local stakeholders should be granted two kinds of authority in the context of development, namely political authority and expert authority. On the one hand, I ground this claim to political authority in republican theory and argue that it should be understood as the claim that local stakeholders should not be subject to domination, defined as the arbitrary exercise of power, in the political process of setting a development agenda, neither from national policy-makers, external stakeholders, nor fellow citizens. On the other hand, before a development agenda becomes a matter of policy-making it is a socioscientific issue. At the socioscientific level, it is a question of who can claim expert authority on matters of development. I argue that we should adopt a third wave view of development expertise, which recognizes that members of the general public who possess relevant tacit, embodied, or explicit knowledge should be granted expert authority on par with traditional development scholars. Finally, in the third part of the thesis, I ask by which method we should select normatively relevant capabilities and functionings. I argue that we should adopt a multi-stage method, which aims to engage critically with local stakeholders in a three-stage procedure. While the purpose of the first stage is to enrich the normative and descriptive theory through empirical and deliberative exercises, the second stage offers this refined theory as an input to a democratic procedure with the aim of enhancing the informational bases of the participants. Lastly, in the third stage, local stakeholders engage in a critical deliberation facilitated by mediators who can help the various stakeholders to understand each other and express their arguments in an intelligible way, with the ideal outcome of an informed and widely endorsed list of capabilities and functionings.”

Apparently he drank the Communist-flavored kool-aid of authoritarian socialism somewhere since his thesis at UUtrecht and fell down the rabbit hole.

Steve O
January 11, 2019 9:21 am

“Companies should be compelled to purchase emissions rights – the profits from which can be used to aid climate vulnerable communities.”

— Let’s assume that the money sent to “vulnerable” communities will be most spent on air conditioning. I dare any member of the Church of Climate Scientology to do an analysis comparing 1) the CO2 emissions saved by spending $100 million on windmills with 2) the emissions increased by spending $100 million on additional air conditioning.

In fact, I double dog dare them.

In the end, why not just do neither?

Reply to  Steve O
January 11, 2019 1:19 pm

“Companies should be compelled to purchase emissions rights”

I’m for it, if I can be the broker for the transaction.

Reply to  Steve O
January 11, 2019 3:43 pm

You don’t think these people will be allowed to purchase air conditioning?

Johann Wundersamer
January 11, 2019 9:27 am

California never will have financial troubles when 1 apartment for 1 person costs 3,000.- $$ per month and that person can pay the rent by sublet that chamber to another person in similar circumstances that has to raise the money -so both persons are living happily ever after in said chamber / Appartement. Yahoo.

January 11, 2019 9:33 am

The government can’t giveaway massive amounts of cash without first confiscating massive amounts of cash. And that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Redistributed wealth to those who keep you in power. Offer special deals to those who support your campaign. Punish those who disagree by stealing their wealth.

AGW is not Science
January 11, 2019 9:40 am

Focusing on what governments should do is convenient for fascists looking to control everyone’s lives.

Russell Johnson
January 11, 2019 9:51 am

Is there any doubt that the DNA of tyrants is indistinguishable from that of CAGW ideologues? Soon I expect a demand for the UN to appoint a planetary emperor to “stop climate change”. Bet they already have a name in mind.

Peta of Newark
January 11, 2019 10:16 am

Warwick is a very lovely place. It haz Castle. Nice gardens to visit. River Avon. Near Stratford for pretentious folks who think they enjoy Shakespeare. Why not, its made round to go round innit.
One of my bestest evah girlfriends went to that University – just after Germaine Greer wrote her book and left.
Clean, tidy, posh, expensive AND, the young women are tall & slim. (Their parents fed them saturated fat when they were children)

OK Morten, jump in your car and take a (bit less than) 200 mile ride up the M6 go visit The Rich Country..

Children are arriving at a school so hungry they are searching the bins for food, its head teacher has said.

From here:
Now Morten, who is gonna fund your great plan?

Morten may want to be eco-friendly and take the train.

replace emission-heavy means of travel, such as planes and cars.

No problem, the Pendolino goes nearly door-to-door – a nice bit of engineering if ever there was.
Goes off electric too.
(Its diesel electric brother (Voyager) is just sooooooo sweet. Be standing on a platform, close to the edge and 20 yards in front when one of those opens up its throttle – the way it talks, whispers, purrs. Aaaaaahhhh. sigh. It is Monroe meets Bardot meets Loren meets Johannson but, It Means Business. turns me to mush every time.)

On a per passenger calculation, the Pendolino does 100 mpg (per passenger mile)
About the same as an Airbus or 777?
If I put a single passenger in my little VW dirty diesel, I’d get 120mpg per passenger mile for the same trip and if all its anti-pollution measures were ripped out from under the hood, 150mpg per passenger mile.

Morten, you are talking out of your derrière.

Matthew Drobnick
January 11, 2019 11:01 am

“But, but.. Taxation isn’t theft!!!”
– most commenters on this site

Well, I’ve provided links with this essay so you can follow the thought stream for once, since apparently so few of you are capable of understanding how this all ties together or even grasp the most basic axioms. No brain balance, all logic no emotion, just pure math, so I’ve provided statistics and sources for you incapable of pattern recognition. The consistent theme: mandated theft without representation or ability to refuse compliance.

As always, money taken by force without individual consent will be spent in ways far less efficient and desirable than the individual would choose, even if some good is done. Hint* the bad far outweighs the good every time with taxation.

How many trillions given ANNUALLY to terrorist “States” like
Israel, (3.1 billion/year)
Or other suspect Nations:
Iraq (5.3 billion)
Afghanistan (5.1 billion)
Egypt (1.2 billion)
Jordan (1.2 billion)
Guess who likes to build walls, effectively…. Israel.
Well hmm, all that stolen money…
35 billion, ANNUALLY!!! STOLEN from Americans and given to foreign countries for economic aid. Are you effing kidding me?!
~15 million for military aid.
That’s approximately 50 billion dollars every year (to 209 countries) in foreign aid funded, by force, through taxation, from Americans, to just give away to people we don’t even know and many of whom murder, rape, and steal, without the citizens having any legitimate I not the ability to say no!

50 billion ANNUALLY. Right there’s the wall funding for here at home with just one year of ceasing foreign aid!
Or how about infrastructure? Gee, there’s a novel thought.

What else?
Oh, 5.2 million to fund an alarmist climate change video game:

What about welfare spending?
(You know, that wonderful plan that was sold to help blacks by only giving females money if no man was at home? Pre welfare 4/5 black homes with father’s, 60 years later down to 1/3 and the leftists pretend it’s because of white racism and privilege.. Maybe, being given just enough to survive without having to work for anything, incentivizing promiscuity through hedonistic culture creation and entertainment, free or nearly free abortions through planned Parenthood has more to do with it (you know, that organization built by the racist eugenicist Margaret Sanger:)

And most should know the facts regarding violent crime broken down by ethnicity:

the underlying commonality is fatherless homes, even with Mass murderers.

“A Michigan State University study found 75 percent of examined adolescent murderers were from fatherless homes. The Centers for Disease Control says 85 percent of children with behavioral disorders have only a mother in the home.”

The figures for welfare, guesstimated at 1+ billion annually.

How about climate policies and “science”?
“The Stimulus sent more than $26.1 billion in funding toward climate change programs, of which the GAO estimates about 2.5%, or $641 million, went to climate science.”

“After examining the reports, and removing double counting, calculations show that from Fiscal Year 1993 to FY 2014 total U.S. expenditures on climate change amount to more than $166 billion in 2012 dollars.”

How about public education? United States spends the most and has increasingly poorer performance:

And the state punishes parents if they choose not to send their child to state indoctrination camps:

And Americans aren’t nearly as smart as before compulsory state education.

Bill Gates funding common core to suppress actual learning, track and monitor students from kindergarten, and sexualize them:

Most folks don’t know most school districts can opt out and still receive federal funding, but again, accepting tax dollars from the federal government is taking money that was stolen and redistributing it elsewhere. It’s still immoral. And it doesn’t work.

The real agenda:

Statists deserve the consequences they get for continuing to hold up the illusion taxation isn’t theft.
Unfortunately, the spell of mind control statists are under affects those who prefer peaceful non-compliance, but cannot, because of the violence of the “authorities” in magic blue costumes with magic shiny badges, who foam at the mouth to use their guns on peaceful, not compliant civilians if they say “no” long enough.

Same old story over and over and over. Truly, a species with amnesia. Definitely weak minded, of weak Constitution, and masochistic tendencies. So much for the right being able to fend off these whacky leftists. They are just as authoritarian and just as dense when it comes to true freedom.

Literally every single point that Statists make for taxation is easily shown to be unnecessary, immoral, and in fact the worst possible way to achieve a truly free and civil society.

That these psychopathic authoritarians on the left want to steal even more individual citizens money through Taxation to fund their worldview should be expected, and well understood for what it is: control of the individual by a group of unelected high priests.

In case you once again claim I’m going into la la Land, because of your weak Constitution and inability to use logic:
None of this is possible without Taxation. Period. And Taxation was the whole point of the article- a cash grab for climate. All based on stealing even more money for an agenda that will only create more harm than good, at the expense of the individual.

How are any of you surprised?

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  Matthew Drobnick
January 11, 2019 4:09 pm

since apparently so few of you are capable of understanding

Because you used the word “since” incorrectly, and other reasons, I did not read beyond this.
Thanks for trying.

[???? .mod]

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  John F. Hultquist
January 11, 2019 7:39 pm

[???? .mod],

If wanting to communicate ideas, it is not a good start to attack the character of the reader. That is the reason I dislike the comment.
The word “since” is best used when invoking a time, as: “… since Ol’Shep was a pup.”
It can be used as a subordinating conjunction, as the writer did.
The better word would be “because.”

Matthew Drobnick
January 11, 2019 11:05 am

“Climate change is a planetary-scale threat and, as such, requires planetary-scale reforms that can only be implemented by the world’s governments. ”

Ahhh.. how many other “conspiracy theories” are turning out true? For those of us who have been warning about the true scope and intent, just another but of evidence in support.

If you haven’t familiarized yourself with agenda 21/2030, common core, Monsanto seed purchase and attack on heirloom Farmers, and mandatory vaccination, then you aren’t seeing even a fraction of the plan.

Georgia guide stones are just a “monument”.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
January 11, 2019 1:03 pm

Affordable and low-carbon mass transportation must replace emission-heavy means of travel, such as planes and cars.

I have yet to see a practical proposal for a “low-carbon” replacement for air travel. One source puts worldwide jet fuel consumption in 2012 at 5,381,040 barrels per day. Assuming we’re not going to develop Star Trek transporters any time soon, the only other possibility is to substitute biofuel. The IATA doesn’t think this will happen anytime soon:

The International Air Transport Association (IATA) supports research, development and deployment of alternative fuels. IATA thinks a 6% share of sustainable 2nd generation biofuels is achievable by 2020,[14] and Boeing supports a target of 1% of global aviation fuels by 2015.[15] This is in support of the goals of the aviation industry reaching carbon neutral growth by 2020 and a 50% decrease in carbon emissions by 2050 (relative to a 2005 baseline)[16]

I also await a “low-carbon” substitutes for current methods to produce steel which currently uses about 15% of coal mined each year and aluminum which consumes 13 MWh to produce each metric ton.

Of course if you stop making aluminum that also eliminates commercial aviation market, which would therefore reach “carbon neutral growth” almost immediately.

January 11, 2019 1:29 pm

I hope some of this money is going to come my way so I too can lead the ‘green lifestyle ‘ of St Gore , Dicaprio etc otherwise how would I also make extensive use of private jets , have a fleet of cars and various bis houses !

Wiliam Haas
January 11, 2019 1:58 pm

If energy from renewable sources are cheaper than energy from fossil fuel sources then renewables will gradually take over the market place. No subsidies are required.

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. So even if we could eliminate all CO2 from our atmosphere extinguishing life as we know it, the effort would have no effect on climate. It is all a matter of science.

Reply to  Wiliam Haas
January 12, 2019 2:31 am

You are correct W Haas, and many of the warmist leaders know this – so why do they do it?

Here is how modern politics works:

The far-left is winning, especially in the developing world, where over 100 countries are pseudo-Marxist dictatorships, based on their leftist phony rhetoric, but are actually just military dictatorships, run for the ruling elite and their armed thugs – see Zimbabwe and Venezuela… and North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union countries and many more..

The left gains political power by promising imbeciles lots of free stuff. Then they destroy the economy, create widespread poverty and live like kings atop a ruined state – because you can’t be kings without lots of peasants.

It is really no different in the developed world. Get elected by lazy greedy imbeciles, destroy the economy with fake green energy and other crazy policies, and live like kings on top of a ruined economy, looking down on all the peasants.

January 11, 2019 3:35 pm


What a waste of an education if he’s actually getting one. Top down socialism will work if we all just try a little harder. Next time. Always next time. We fought the Marxists off when they were scientific and on the side of history. They came back with some new science. We will defeat them again…because we are right.

January 12, 2019 2:39 am

– Stephen Vizinczey
– Allan MacRae 🙂

January 13, 2019 3:12 am

No amount of cash can offset natural climatic change – its just absurd and damn wasteful!

Verified by MonsterInsights