Why the Democrats Will Lose on Climate Change

Guest climate debating by David Middleton

4 inconvenient truths about climate change

Noah Millman

September 7, 2019

At this week’s climate symposium on CNN, Elizabeth Warren answered a question about whether the government should be regulating lightbulbs in an interesting way. She said, basically, that we’re focusing on the wrong thing. There’s nothing wrong with more efficient lightbulbs, but it’s small beer. That’s what the fossil fuel companies want us to be arguing about, because most of the carbon is thrown up by three industries — construction, electric power, and oil — and arguing about lightbulbs takes attention away from those sectors.

The obvious inconvenient truth that Warren is pointing out here is that we aren’t going to be able to fight climate change with a series of small-change consumer choices. It’s going to require massive changes in large industries, which is a heavier political lift. Below the radar, there’s another inconvenient truth being implied: that people are really irritated by losing even small conveniences, and so focusing energy on these small-beer fights has a real cost in terms of being able to fight the bigger fights.

She’s right about both. But those aren’t the most inconvenient truths about the fight against climate change. Here are four that we need to start acknowledging more widely if we’re going to make the kind of progress we so urgently need.

[…]

1. Demand for energy is relatively inelastic.

[…]

2. People are selfish in their loss-aversion.

[…]

3. America is only a small part of the climate problem.

[…]

4. It’s already too late to prevent climate change.

[…]

Environmentalists don’t like to suggest that adaptation is possible, because it might reduce the urgency of prevention. And it’s true that resources are limited, so every dollar and minute spent on adaptation is not being spent on some other endeavor. But, inconveniently, we have no choice.

[…]

The most inconvenient truth of all is that a global civilization of seven and a half billion people (and rising) is inevitably going to be engaged in geo-engineering. There is no mode of living that allows us simply to exist within an environment in a natural fashion, no spiritual road back to a prelapsarian state. From now on, we will perpetually be adapting to a world that we have shaped decisively. We’d better learn how to do it well.

The Week

I love it when I get to learn new words!

Figure 1. Prelapsarian

The Fall of Man refers to Genesis 3:1–24. You can’t get there from here.

While I disagree with the notion that we have to acknowledge these inconvenient truths “to make the kind of progress we so urgently need,” because there is no urgency. These four inconvenient truths will doom whatever passenger in the 2020 Democrat Candidate Clown Car wins the nomination, if they adhere to the nonsense they all spouted in the CNN climate change town hall marathon.

1. Demand for energy is relatively inelastic.

Yes it is and it is perpetually growing.

Figure 2. There is mo way back to before Genesis 3:1–24. (“There Has Never Been An Energy Transition”)
Figure 3. It’s a fossil fueled world. (2018 BP Statistical Review of World Energy)

It is simply impossible for solar and wind to significantly displace fossil fuels. It is possible for natural gas and nuclear power to economically displace coal, and this would reduce carbon emissions much faster than anything other than “freezing in the dark.”

Figure 4. Gas kicks @$$, wind breaks even. (Brookings via Real Clear Energy)

Mr. Millman points out that a carbon tax would be the least economically destructive way of nudging people towards an energy transition; but that the cost might be so high that it would wreck the economy. He suggests a moderate carbon tax to fund methods of reducing the carbon intensity of our energy mix…

A further implication is that a massive research and development effort — on carbon-neutral construction, more advanced batteries, thorium reactors, carbon capture, geo-engineering, etc. — needs to be a huge portion of any climate policy, at a much higher scale than we have contemplated. Spending money on innovation can be attacked as wasteful, but we need to be willing to waste a lot of money to make multiple breakthroughs — and it’s surely more popular than personal sacrifice.

The Week

The fastest way to bipartisan legislation is tho authorize the government to “waste a lot of money”. “Carbon-neutral construction, more advanced batteries, thorium reactors, carbon capture, geo-engineering, etc.” generally all have broad bipartisan support… even if some of those ideas are really dumb, if not more dangerous than Gorebal Warming… Blocking the Sun will work… Don’t even think about trying it!

The fact that every passenger in the 2020 Democrat Candidate Clown Car, with a realistic chance of being the nominee, wants to get rid of natural gas and nuclear power is prima facie evidence that the manufactured “climate crisis” is nothing but a Trojan Horse for Communism.

2. People are selfish in their loss-aversion.

Mr. Millman points out that the passengers in the 2020 Democrat Candidate Clown Car mostly address this by coupling the sacrifices with lots of free schist…

This is an extremely inconvenient truth. The main way climate advocates have attempted to address it is to take the focus off individual losses. Progressive Democrats’ Green New Deal, for example, embeds climate change in a larger economic and social agenda — free health care, guaranteed employment — in the hopes that the agenda as a whole will prove popular enough to carry decarbonization along with it.

The Week

He then notes that most of the passengers in the 2020 Democrat Candidate Clown Car seek to place all of the sacrifices on the fossil fuel industries; somehow thinking that the costs of those sacrifices won’t be passed on to energy consumers.

3. America is only a small part of the climate problem.

I, naturally, look at this a bit differently. America is the solution.

Figure 5. “The United States is now the largest global crude oil producer.” (EIA)
Figure 6. “The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018.” (EIA)
Figure 7. “The U.S. leads global petroleum and natural gas production with record growth in 2018.” (EIA)

The US actually leads the entire world in total energy production.

  • #1 in total energy production
  • #1 in oil production
  • #1 in natural gas production
  • #1 in nuclear power
  • #1 in geothermal power
  • #1 in biofuels
  • #2 in wind power
  • #2 in solar power
  • #2 in coal production
  • #4 in hydropower

Source: Robert Rapier, Yes, The U.S. Is The World’s Top Energy Producer

The degree to which human activities are affecting the climate is really irrelevant so long as we retain the economic robustness to deal with whatever the weather is like in the future. And these tangentially United States are better positioned to deal with the future than any other nation on Earth… Because abundant, affordable energy helps to secure liberty and prosperity.

4. It’s already too late to prevent climate change.

Figure 8. No schist, Sherlock.

It’s always been “too late to prevent climate change.”

Figure 9. Fire and Ice
Figure 10. Fire and Ice

This was reality in the mid to late 1970’s…

The ice age is coming, the sun’s zooming in
Engines stop running, the wheat is growing thin
A nuclear era, but I have no fear
’Cause London is drowning, and I live by the river

— The Clash “London Calling,” released in 1979
Figure 11. Science News March 1, 1975

Thank God for climate change… Or maybe we should thank man for climate change… According to the sacred climate models, if not for The Climate Wrecking Industry, the planet would be colder than “The Ice Age Cometh”

Figure 12. Modified after IPCC AR4

This proud member of the Climate Wrecking Industry says, “You’re welcome.”

Who’s up for The Clash?

Conclusion

If the survivor of the 2020 Democrat Candidate Clown Car Crash attempts to make climate change a central issue and runs on the basic tenets of the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution, he or she will lose because of Mr. Millman’s “4 inconvenient truths about climate change.”

Advertisements

103 thoughts on “Why the Democrats Will Lose on Climate Change

  1. Democrats will lose on the climate issue because they’re wrong. PERIOD!

    And unlike the Great One, B Hussein Obama, when I say “period”, I mean it.

    • A point about the Light Bulb mandate, which is a window into what the entire scam has always been about: rules about what light bulbs you are allowed to buy was *never* about “climate change”, because Warren is correct, it’s stupid to think such an infinitesimal change could ever do anything at all to change the world’s weather, of all things. So why was it done?

      It was done because patents had run out on all the incandescent designs that Westinghouse and Phillips (the biggest two manufacturers for the US market) held, and a lot of very cheap bulbs made in Mexico were about to displace their position in the market. SO, they talked their friends in the Bush Administration into passing a law to make inexpensive light bulbs illegal, and mandating new designs which would cost 10 times as much, and of course be 10 times as profitable, and which they hold the entire market for. Ordinarily this kind of corporate graft would lead to outrage, but since they could claim it was for “Climate Change! Save the World!!!” they could run it through and nobody would say a thing. And all the politicians who voted in favor got healthy cuts of the cash that poured in, as a reward.

      And underneath the surface, THAT is what this “green movement” game has always been about.

      • wws,

        Really like your “friends in the Bush Administration”.

        So what was the vote in the House and Senate for this bill? Heavily Democrat. Democrats controlled congress and wrote the bill.

        Quite appropriate that you would throw out that bit of obfuscation in a comment about dems over reaching and trying a disinformation strategy to blame republicans. You fit right in.

        You were correct about the bill being bought and paid for by major manufacturers. How much did the Dems get in campaign contributions leading into the 2008 election. A bunch!

        • Indeed Drake. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 was introduced by a Democrat representative from West Virginia and was passed by Nancy Pelosi’s democrat controlled house and Harry Reid’s democrat controlled Senate. The only part you can blame on a republican is that Republican president George W Bush signed the damn thing.

    • If a theory offers no tools of reason, the theory is unreasonable.

      CAGW offers no Laws, Axioms, postulates nor formulae.

      Who chooses to base policy on an unreasonable theory?

      What learned scientist attempts to reason with an unreasonable theory? Is this why we get Greta, Bill Nye, DiCaprio, Beto, AOC as CAGW spokespeople?

  2. “4. It’s already too late to prevent climate change.”

    Yes, because the climate has always been changing and it will continue changing no matter what Humans do !
    IF the climate ever stops changing, THEN we are in deep Doo Doo.! (full blown Ice Age ?)

  3. wants to get rid of natural gas and nuclear power is prima facie evidence that the manufactured “climate crisis” is nothing but a Trojan Horse for Communism.

    +100. Tho the sponsors & planners behind the scene know that, many of the average useful idjits in the public don’t even realize it. That’s exactly what the sponsors want, of course.

  4. Democrats will lose, because for all of them, there is nobody home upstairs.

    True, I haven’t listened to very much of what they had to say (I couldn’t take it) – but I did no hear a single sensible thing from any of them. Not one rational idea or observation.

    • When I lived in a nearby village, I was on the Committee for the local annual Country Show, a village charity fund raising event. We had an entertainer Clown Car act, funniest thing I ever saw live! BTW & yes, the wheels came off the car several times, very amusing! 😉

    • When Lieawatha heard that all candidates would emerge from a VW Bug onstage at the next Democrat debate, she held up her palm in disbelief and uttered “How”, and did so without reservation.

  5. There was no climate town hall, or anything to do with climate. There was a “how can we spend the most money for no reason” town hall.

  6. Climate in human scale has been incredibly stable for 100,000 years. What I think will happen re President Trump he is waiting to 2020 to really have a go at eliminating the scam and has to act politically until then. Prof William Happer leaving today was planned one year ago (so he has not been dismissed), he has probably conveyed his ideas to The president who probably has been convinced that nothing is happening re climate and humans. I also think that many Alarmist Climate Scientists are beginning to change their minds about the whole issue and will not want to be associated with the extremists including the most ardent Schmidt, Mann, Stokes ect/ We shall see as Trump says cheers

  7. My one global warming friend stopped talking to me after I pointed out that wind and solar also require enough battery storage for 24 hours plus long term power storage. Long term power storage is required when the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow for a few days in a row. This typhoon in Tokyo is a good example. After your batteries discharge the lights go out without long term power storage. Since no one in the so called environmental movement was talking about the need for long term power storage I could only assume that on those couple of days a month during the winter they intended one of the following options:
    1) Keep enough Fossil fuel power plants running as backup.
    2) Stop the Economy, live in the dark, and put on long underwear.

    • Lowell

      It is standard practice when specifying the storage capacity of a domestic water supply system in Africa pumped by a windmill to require four days storage under typical conditions of use.

      That is a minimum. The storage tank should hold a four or more day supply of water based on the projected population of users say, ten years in future. This allows for a population increase without modifying the system.

      Some projects used 20 years or more.

      Wind is unreliable but that has to be quantified, so it was. There are ways to look at the Wind Rose of speed and direction and provide a statistically robust estimate of the demand in cubic metres per day with a % confidence value, based on rainfall variability and the extent of 100 year events. The government may want a 98% assurance that the water will not run short over a fifty year period. That’s the sort of calculation they make.

      So a standard has to be set, and it could be a 99% or 99.9% warranty of provision. The weather over the past century is studied and a projection of a 100 year storm or windless period is made. That can be used to set the storage capacity of the battery backup system. It’s not going to be cheap. It will certainly buy 4 days or more, with even more in winter.

      If a 4 MW turbine needs storage, the minimum, according to the 30% yield observed, is 4 MW x 30% x 96 hrs = 116 MWH storage per turbine. If there are 50 wind turbines in the project it is 5.76 GWH storage capacity needed. Repeat that for a big country. What do you get?

      • You cannot survive without water for more than a few days, but you can survive without electric energy the same amount of time without big problems. Therefore the backup requirements do not need to be as strict as with water.

        • Really? Such is the dependency of transport infrastructure on electricity now that it is paralysed during and after even a short outage – cf what happened in London last month!

        • Your argument would be fine if we all lived out in a nice bit of the country next to a clean fresh water well.

          Except the vast majority of us don’t.

          We live in urban areas where, through the wonders of industrialisation and technology, we get our food and water supplied from elsewhere.

          So, and I will accept that your infrastructure may vary, the link between electricity and being able to get fresh clean water is pretty close. Cut electricity in many parts of the world and you are also cutting fresh water supply.

        • Homes and buildings require electricity to work central heating systems.

          Can you imagine a severe winter when power is most likely to fail.

          No heating in winter for days in especially cold countries will kill tens of thousands.

      • Almost 20 years ago I spoke to a senior civil servant in the UK government about this and they were not only well aware of the problem but had clearly been thinking about the number of pumped storage sites that were needed. I made the point we’d need around 100 pump storage sites, they made the point that there were nothing like that number available.

        The problem is that even a small fraction of the required storage requires the mass destruction of wilderness in the remoter parts of the UK, which are extremely hostile to Westminster. This indeed, was why the Scottish government were given power over renewables … becuase the only way these numpties would allow the whole of Scotland to be turned into an eyesoar, is if they were the ones doing it.

        However, for some strange reason, whilst they are keen to put up bird and bat killing eyesoars, they aren’t so keen to remove the tops of mountains and turn them into giant urinals and lay the massive pipes and electricity infrastructure for the pump storage they need for all their bird-mincers.

        I suppose it proves the old saying about leading a numpty to water, but you can’t force them to build storage.

  8. David,
    When you have time you should check out the Canadian election which has just been called. Talk about clowns! As I pointed out to my Liberal candidate who knocked on my door the other day, if two plus two is not four with you and your party, then count me out—and you should get out if you have any morals (and arithmetical skills). She had no response other than ‘they’ can muster ‘scientists’ who support their take on the subject—which is that we are in a ‘climate emergency.’ Unfortunately, it may be that the Conservatives are too chicken and will try to avoid climate change altogether—that is, cede the battlefield. One of the local Conservative candidates here in Saskatoon is a geophysicist who is on record for promoting the sensible view of climate change, but he was not picked to run again, alas.
    Brian

  9. Well DM, I wish you were right, but you’re making an assumption that the majority of voters react with logic. It’s been a long time since being taught rational logic was a requirement of reaching adulthood; the concept was removed from teacher training decades ago. Schools now teach emotion, and preferably to never mature. But vote.

    And your Figure 8, ‘No Schist’?–the rock is very gneiss…

  10. Actually I hope Dims win.
    Ensuing disaster will, in the subsequent cycle, usher-in an era of conservative governing lasting generations.
    Green is the new brand of extremism increasingly it will become unattractive then repugnant.
    Dims have hitched their carriage to the wrong train (led by their billionaire green-con donors).

  11. Republicans need to tear “Climate Change” apart point by point. Aquiescing to the notion that it is a problem and offering up counter solutions is a losing strategy.

    A bumper sticker “CO2 is Not a Problem” accompanied by a campaign as to why that’s true would be a good start.

    Truth will eventually win, but that might not happen until the lie is exposed via economic disaster.

    The matter needs to be addressed head on, and the sooner the better.

    • “A bumper sticker “CO2 is Not a Problem” accompanied by a campaign as to why that’s true would be a good start.”

      You should be careful where you drive your car if your car has such a bumper sticker for the same reason that you should be careful where you walk if you decide to wear a MAGA hat.

      • Marv,

        Yes, politics in the United States has gotten very ugly and will likely become worse before it gets better. We live in interesting times.

        • It is the Left that has gotten ugly.

          The Left has always acted ugly but now they see their socialist dreams crashing and burning because of Trump, so they have turned the ugly up to 11.

  12. Pocahontas seems to be the fastest running horse in the field right now. So my money is on her to be the Lone Surviving Clown next June.

    And she scares the bejeezers out of Wall Street, the bankers, and Silicon Valley Big Tech because she wants to break them all up and extort money out of them in the process. Also her big problem is winning over blacks and Hispanics. Pocahontas though is a real danger to Wall Street and getting money out of them for her campaign will be tough sell. At least with Hillary, she had much of Wall Street behind her because she told them things they wanted to hear behind closed doors.

    If there was ever a time for Howard Schultz (Mr Starbucks) to jump in the race as an Independent, it’s now.

    • Schultz just announced he will not run.
      As in definitely not.
      The Dems know a third party candidate sucking away even a few points from them means zero chance of beating Trump.
      They only have two chances: Slim and none.
      Third party takes Slim out of the equation.
      That is why the Dems attacked Schultz so mercilessly.
      No moderate can possibly win the D primary.

      It may be a good idea to stop telling the Clown Car posse how stupid they are.
      We should be selling them rope, not taking it away.

    • The scary thing about Fauxcahontas is that she has a detailed policy plan for everything. This enables her to sound superficially sane while spouted the most retarded gibberish.

      Fortunately, she has the voice and temperament of the stereotypical TV SitCom mother-in-law.

  13. Always up for the Clash, made me totally forget all the warmista hysteria!

    Rock the Casbah single was the very first vinyl I bought as a youngster. I gave mum n dad’s Acker Bilk a run for its money.

    • Dean,
      A few years back, the company I worked for offered an ‘early retirement’ package. I ended up accepting their offer but, as I was considering the incentives, I decided to have some fun with it also. “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” by The Clash seemed appropriate, so I emailed a youtube link to friends and coworkers (including 1st and 2nd level managers!) with just that question. Most had a good laugh!

      “Should I Stay or Should I Go?” – The Clash
      https://youtu.be/xMaE6toi4mk

  14. This week, the MSM has decided that Biden no longer looks “electable”.
    They are shifting over to Warren.
    Where else can they go?
    And she is unelectable against Trump.
    🙂

    • “Are any of you concerned about Trump? As in not having the temperament to be a competent and electable president?”

      You must be kidding!

      Donald Trump is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party and as far as I’m concerned is going to go down as one of the best presidents the U.S. ever had, and that on top of the fact he has been vigorously opposed by the Democrats and lilly-livered Republicans the whole time.

      Donald Trump is also the best thing that ever happened to the world. He is in the process of waking a lot of people up in other countries and showing them how to proceed to defeat the socialist who are trying to take over the Western democracies.

      I even like Trump’s style. It’s about time somebody started speaking Truth to the Democrats and the swamp. They hate Trump because they can’t stand it when he exposes them for the liars and cheats they are.

      I think turning it up to 11 is going to backfire bigtime on the Democrats. The Democrats will definitely be fired up for the next election, but so will the Republicans. Both sides were fired up in North Carolina on Tuesday. The Republicans carried the day.

      Doug, stop watching CNN. Watching those fools too long will warp your mind. I think that is the problem with many wishy-washy Republicans: They put way too much stock in what the Leftwing radicals in the News Media say.

      Just about all Republcians secretly wish they were loved by the Leftwing media. They fear being in the postion Trump is in where the Leftwing News Media relentlessly attacks Trump. Most Republcians would not want that kind of treatment, so they either remain silent or if they speak up they try to make what they say acceptable to the Leftwing Media, in hopes they won’t be the target of the next Leftwing attack.

      Most Republicans would wilt under the attacks Trump suffers. Trump stands up there and fires back every time with devastating Truth, and the Left hates him for it.

    • “When I see people who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations expressing these concerns”

      Establishment in both parties hate Trump so when I see Reagan and Bush people bashing Trump, I expect it. Most laughable thing about it to me is both parties loved him (FYI, he strongly identified with Democrats for years) until he decided to run for president.

  15. Throughout the world sceptics are all rather hoping that the politicians of some other country decide to jump over the Climate Cult cliff first and demonstrate to the dimwits that seem to run our governments what a disaster their policies will be

    From this side of the pond, all I see is that Trump has done nothing to stop NASA fiddling the global temperature. So from a purely personal point of view, he’s about as useless to us here as a bent spoon.

    So : “come on demonrats” … show the rest of us how it’s done!!

    • Just a note of caution Mike. It is worth remembering the truism, “Making rich people poor, does not make poor people rich”
      That is what the democrats want to do except while keeping their rich advocates rich. Quite a policy trick last performed in the USSR. They wish to impoverish all, while maintaining their core vote among the legion of their persistent and maintained poor. Totalitarians are big on equality except some are more equal than others in their opinion.

  16. A few observations

    1 – The Clash. Gold star.

    2 – The problem with all these clown car passengers is the Democrat Party itself. This party has become so woke as to allow four upstarts to dictate public debate to the gleeful amusement and support of the even woker MSM. To not parrot the ‘official’ line of Climate Emergency(tm) is political death within the party because the Faceless Men (sorry, more an Australian political term, but I assume you will comprehend the concept) and the MSM says so.

    Hence to get into the front seat of the Clown Car the passengers have now been… was going to say forced, but I feel most of them are willing… ‘required’ to fall over each other crying climate wolf in public. This may help them cull out all the other passengers, but it is also election campaign material for Trump to use.

    Been pretty much proven over the years that the people most interested in combating climate change are either the ones with too much money (cough – actors – cough) or the ones happy to play with other people’s money. These are people who will never be affected by the costs. They are not going to lose jobs. They are not going to struggle to pay the power bills. Hard truth kids, the vast majority, even if they believe in Global Warming(tm) are not willing to spend their own money.

    So conservative voters are not going to back it.

    Work for a living voters are not going to back it.

    Deplorable work for a living voters are not going to back it.

    People who are already worried about their power bills are not going to back it.

    Anyone who knows the Medieval Warm Period was real are not going to back it.

    Face it, the only people who want this sort of stuff are the sort of people who would vote for a glass of water provided it had a Democrat name tag attached.

    Climate Change is not longer a vote winner. That horse was rideable back in 2007. Society has seen the writing on the power bills and doesn’t care anymore.

  17. It may be worth reminding realist policy makers of something.
    “You can not destroy an enemy by ignoring them”.
    The Green anarchists have evolved and thrived, because too many sensible people stood back and thought the movement is so ridiculous it will just evaporate. The Greens or Socialists, to give them there more accurate title, did something very clever back in the late 1980s. They stopped being specific as in, Stop Nuclear Tests, Save the Whales or Stop Clubbing Baby Seals. They moved into, generalisation. Environmentalism was chosen, because that provided a more permanent financial opportunity. That adoption of “Eco warrior”, allowed then to chase any pot of money out there under the virtue umbrella of environmentalism. The weaving into their “environmental interests” of Climate Alarmism, was a gift of unimaginable consequences. Greenpeace suddenly became mainstream, with all the cash increase that mainstream provided. We must not mention state aid and supra national aid (UN) grants for jollies, sorry I mean research trips, to far flung places of interest. If you are worried about losing that Utopian environment somewhere exotic, you have to be there to show the world what they are going to lose, right….?
    We will not beat these anarchists by leaving them alone, free to spread their poisoned message and leaving them to suck funding out of the pockets of innocent often ignorant victims.
    If you are going to destroy a dangerous enemy, you have to engage it, fight them, use what advantage truth and science brings.
    The nonsense witnessed at the recent Democrat CNN town hall liefest, shows clearly what lengths these socialist zealots will go to in order to remove energy and thus freedom and democracy from the public.
    Realists have to continue to grow, continue to the spread of scientific truth. We have to make these charlatan environmentalists/climate alarmists understand, the truth will out. They must also be made aware, they will be held accountable for the damage they have done, and propose doing.

  18. The most inconvenient truth is that most Americans, contrary to current mythology, are actually quite rational and therefore know that the scare is a scam. But, of course, rationality is straight from the devil to the true believer. That mindset is the real problem of the Democrats and I don’t see it go away soon.

  19. That’s what the fossil fuel companies[…]

    This is already where the stuff goes horribly wrong. The assumption that people are driven by misinformation from ‘fossil fuel companies’ is a conspiracy theory.

    We are driven by the fact that economony would be wrecked by a transition to world without fossils, in particular if it is done forcibly at a quick pace.

    Well who cares about the economy? I do, because without economy I’m out of job, out of my ‘bank-owned’ apartment, out of living in general. This is what the left doesn’t get. ‘We don’t need no economy’. It is very difficult to build a stable economy. A diminishing economy mean lots of poor people. It is only of little help for feelings if everybody is poor. Forcing end-of-fossils with taxes of course temporarily helps the government economy, but in the end of the day, the economy will be diminished when the tax money is eventually directed to some unproductive ‘common good’purpose and not efficiently as private economy tends to do.

    The Nordic countries are a good example of wrecking economy with taxes. When you buy gas here, it is 75% tax and 25% gas (roughly). This enforces fuel economy, light-weight cars, and lots of good things also. However, it strangles the economy as travelling gets expensive, people need to move as close as possible, which causes an artificial hike in estate prices, which further makes people take a lot of debt instabilising the economy at large scale. We have a huge estate bubble, and fuel taxing is one of the reasons.

    The problem is on paper we’re all rich, because the price of our apartment is so high. In practice, we don’t have much cash around because we’re paying apartments for 20 years a piece. We don’t like to move, because we’re taxes everytime we switch the apartment we are in debt of.

    To make things perfect, the left agrees renting a house should not be more expensive than owning it, so owners are taxed to subsidize renting, which rises rents…

    Some people want to say the Nordic system is not socialism – because it is very different from the Ceaucescu type unfree communist totalitarianism or Putin type arbitrarily unfree capitalism – but in fact the Nordic system is very much a socialism. Those who work will be taxed so much that not working or working in an unproductive work gets paid almost the same. The only big exemption is business elite and political elite. CEO’s of any bigger companies, city majors, ex-ministers, members of the parliament, those make a decent living despite the high taxes. Their solution to high taxes is to think ways to get profit without taxing. Such means vary from driving illegally a car not registered to the country of living of the driver to using parliament or city paid car to move around despite some hypocritic hot talk about climate change and despite an extremely good public mass transport in the city.

    I’m telling you it is almost OK to pay 50% taxes on gas, but when the overall taxing gets to 80% (you pay 32% income tax, 23% vat, plus special taxes like gas, cigarettes etc), basically you just get imaginative money to pay unimaginable prices. In addition to high prices people will adapt to high prices in unproductive ways. For example, doing household work like cleaning, renovating, building, cooking, etc. is so expensive in a high-tax society that the services are hardly available for the middle class. We need to do the stuff ourselves, because due to taxes, the prices are astronomical. Oh, what’s the socialist answer?! It is to subsidize well-off people to use those services, causing the prices to go even higher. You can’t imagine you much these people dig in a hole.

  20. Not to upset anybody, but the evidence shows that the democrats eventually regain power.
    Another piece of evidence is that campaign promises are worth very little.

      • David, even their “Spiritual Guru” is turning on them !

        “Marianne Williamson caught on a hot mic saying ‘conservatives are nicer’ to her than the left”

        “https://www.foxnews.com/media/marianne-williamson-caught-on-a-hot-mic-saying-conservatives-are-nicer-to-her-than-the-left

        “What does it say that Fox News is nicer to me than the lefties are? What does it say that the conservatives are nicer to me?… It’s such a bizarre world,” Williamson said. “You know, I’m such a lefty. I mean, I’m a serious lefty, but they’re so… I didn’t think the left was as mean as the right, they are.”

        To frakkin funny……. : )

      • The human climate issue has been on the table for over 30 years. It is very unlikely that it will be settled over the next US presidential election. More significant in my opinion is that every action produces a reaction, and the recent push towards a “climate emergency” is already producing some reactions, like the recent declaration by the WMO president to avoid doom say. More pushing in one direction will likely make more people to disengage, since after all, the emergency is nowhere to be seen.

        • Which is why the Democrats will lose if they harp on the “climate crisis”.

          Now… If the economy tanks, and the Democrat-media complex are desperately trying to talk the economy into a recession, they Democrats can win. If oil was over $100/bbl, they could run on green schist.

          Trump needs to close out a deal with China and take the tariffs off the table… This will juice the stock market at just the right time. Regarding the climate nuisance, all he has to do is point out that the US has reduced carbon emissions more than anyone else, mostly through frac’ing and natural gas production and that he supports an “all of the above” pathway toward even cleaner energy production.

    • It appears to me that the current POTUS is very much trying to implement the campaign promises in spite of stiff opposition.

    • Yeah, let’s hope the Democrats don’t regain power until after new rules are established making it much more difficult for a sitting Democrat president to undermine the U.S. Constitution and throw the next presidential election to a political cronie, as Barack Obama attempted to do by rigging the exxoneration of Hillary and setting up a government sting to undermine Trump using the full power of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.

      It’s all going to come out in public, too, in the not-too-distant future. We’ll see what these criminals did, and then we will take steps to make sure it doesn’t happen again. The first step of this would be to severely punish all those involved with jail time. We need to send a message to the future.

  21. From the article: “It’s going to require massive changes in large industries, which is a heavier political lift.”

    It’s an impossible lift. Anyone who thinks the American people are going to put up with the Green New Deal is delusional. It will never be implemented. It won’t be implemented even if the Democrats did manage to win the presidency.

    • Tom the problem is that the General Public does not understand that “massive changes in large industries” is absolutely necessary in the eyes of the NGD advocates to achieve their promises of Utopia. Anything less would just be a severe anchor on our economy for the sole purpose of virtue signalling. (Just do the math.)

      Most “greens” I know say they favor the NGD, except for the extreme recommendations. They’ll go along with separating plastic, using LEDs etc. NONE of them, even those old enough to remember, understand what they’d be in for if the government mobilized and focused “just like WWII”.
      Most think it is just a proposal that the government spend vast amounts of money and resources and they wouldn’t be impacted in their daily lives. (Cute lil’ Miss Sandy is clearly one of those – “Just print more money”. Bless her Heart.)

  22. David, I was glad to see you link climate alarmism to communism as the Democratic Party is blowing past socialism to full scale communism. Wasn’t it Lenin who said that the purpose of socialism is to get to communism? The liberal wing of the Democratic Party, which is growing, already wants to disarm the USA population and stifle free speech which are the hallmarks of communism. With those tenets in place, communists can control people’s lives by telling them what they can eat, how and where they can travel, what they can read, what entertainment they can view, how many children they can have, how much energy they can use, how they can be educated, who they can vote for, and by requiring neighbors to report on each other. And, the current contenders for the DP presidential nomination are running over each other to see who can “out-left” the most and, in total, have espoused disarming the population, controlling speech and controlling our lives. All in the name of fighting a nonexistent crisis (never let a crisis go to waste as Rahm Emanuel “retweeted” Churchill’s quote).

    Communism is evil and socialism is just a step away, paraphrasing Lenin. And how many millions of people will die when we relearn the next great tragedy of communism?

    • And, just in case I wasn’t clear, there are no upsides to communism. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Communism is slavery pure and simple. Evil.

    • JPF, your list is good of what the communists can do, but forgot one thing — be able to round up disarmed citizens from their homes, schools, towns, businesses, etc, without those people being able to resist. We already see schemes in the works to make it harder and harder to buy arms and ammunition using methods getting around violating the 2nd amendment.

      • Yes, beng, communism uses many methods to control the population and additional “sins against the party” are resolved in the millions who are “disappeared”. History has shown the absolute failure of communism, the millions (maybe as much as 100+ million) who lost their lives and the economic toll that system has taken.

  23. “4. It’s already too late to prevent climate change.”

    But if only they would then learn to STFU and go do something more interesting instead.

    As to The Fall, there’s a lot of madness in this area.

  24. The US might be the world’s leading energy producer, but it is far from being the most dependent on the production of fossil fuels.
    Earlier this year I did a little graph to with the estimated gross value of fossil fuel production for the top 20 producing countries. (I excluded Venezuela in 16th as there is a lack of reliable data)

    https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/top-20-ff-producers-by-value.png

    USA is top, with China second. If it were CO2 emissions from the burning of those fossil fuels, China might lead the way. However, both the US and China have vast economies. Expressed as a percentage of GDP the picture looks different.

    https://manicbeancounter.files.wordpress.com/2019/04/top-20-ff-producers-by-gdp-share.png

    The largest three producers dependent on fossil fuels for a significant part of their national income are Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Making the planet carbon-free will seriously affect the economies and relative political power of these countries. Best of luck with that guys.

    • Another way of putting this is that the US and China are the world’s largest fossil fuel producers *and* consumers. It’s a different sort of dependency. Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran are dependent of revenue from oil & gas exports. The US and China are dependent on revenue generated from activities powered by fossil fuels.

  25. When oh when are the realists who understand climate change, stop talking about climate change as though it is unusual. It is eithe , current climate change ( it’s a continuous process) or, climate changes, plural.
    By not expressing this , the meddling media use it for dispensing false information to those folk who believe everything they read!

    Help them and bury the dangerous misinformation.

    How I despise the weak/greedy people pupporting to be politicians, and therefore servants.

  26. The word that describes the state of being Leftists enter when they think of all the power they can accumulate by forcing the Green “SCREW” Deal on civilization is PRIAPISM

  27. Warren is wrong about almost everything she talks about.

    So its not surprising to me that she is even wrong that lighting is small potatoes. Of course, it is small potatoes if your goal is to nationalize the energy sector and impose Soviet-style control over people’s lives, like her and most of the other Democrat candidates aspire to do.

    About 6% of US electricity consumption is used for lighting. LEDs use 75% less energy than incandescent bulbs and so a complete switch to LEDs could save up to 4.5% of electricity consumption. Ok, its single digits, but that is still significant. I live in MA, which has the highest electricity rates in the country because they refuse to allow the building of new gas powered plants or gas pipelines. I’ve saved a bundle switching to LEDs. They paid for themselves the first year.

    Of course I’m not saying it should be mandated. I’m just saying it is helpful if you want to conserve energy and save money.

  28. Typo
    “Figure 2. There is mo way back to before Genesis 3:1–24″
    I think you meant:
    “Figure 2. There is no way back to before Genesis 3:1–24″

    Since “The Fall”, the “Original Sin”, had absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuels or Man’s CO2, well, talk about “Barking Up the Wrong Tree”!

    • Excellent point, “The Fall”, the “Original Sin”, had absolutely nothing to do with fossil fuels or Man’s CO2, but the same “serpent” who tricked Eve with the Lie that changed mankind’s fate for all eternity is still at it today.

    • The author of the article referred to it as prelapsarian times. Prelapsarian means before the Fall of Man. I was poking fun at his literary device.

  29. And it’s worth mentioning that the LEDs you can buy today are the result of 50 years of worldwide development and innovation. A whole bunch of very smart people beat their heads (metaphorically speaking) against a bunch of brick walls while spending piles of R&D money chasing down one idea after another. Where we are now, there is no downside to LEDs for just about any home use and most commercial uses, and cost savings are just one of their upsides. Which means nobody has to mandate LED lighting — the advantages are obvious to anyone who pays attention.

    But it took 50 years to get here.

    It’s perfectly understandable that politicians will claim all we have to do is wish upon a star and we can replace our entire energy sector — after all they sell fantasy for a living. But it gets scary when a good bit of the US population start to believe them.

  30. Alan, do you know of a good dojo for climate denialism? I would like to attain a highly ranked belt in the discipline and thus spend a lot of time lurking and occasionally commenting on WUWT. My current fav argument is that CO2 levels have been fallin for the last 150,000,000 years, reaching levels during the last period of glaciation that were near death for many plant species, especially alpine and mountain genera.

    The Progressives obviously don’t believe their own lies (Obama and Gore have purchased ocean-front properties) but I am certain they will pull every trick in the book to defeat VSGPT in 2020. How do we convince low info voters and prevent the massive voter fraud that the Progs and their LSM lackeys are sure to pull off where possible. America is truly the shining city on the hill with liberty and prosperity for all who are willing to work for it. I pray this will still be true in 2021!

  31. David, regards light bulbs:

    Wanna look up who owned the patents on the “new-tech” lightbulbs (dig deep, dig until you find NASA)?

    I’d freely speculate that there is a very good explanation as to why these light bulbs were mandated and cost an arm and a legg: Something needed financing.

    Perhaps a FOIA-request is due to find out how much money NASA made on the patents and also on what these revenues were planned to finance?

    No answer required (it will be entirely by chance if I return to this particular article.)

    Oddgeir

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *