Young Republicans Crack, Demand Climate Action

Kiera O'Brien
Kiera O’Brien, Harvard Politics Student, Republican and co-founder of Students for Carbon Dividends

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A group of College Conservatives have sided with the Democrats and demanded climate action – though liberal media outlets are still sneering at them for being Conservative.

Young Republicans Want to Fight Climate Change 30 Years Too Late

College conservatives support a carbon dividend, but what they really need is a time machine.

By Harry Cheadle Dec 13 2019, 5:57am

There’s a climate “debate” in American politics today the same way there’s a debate between a car and the wall it’s driving toward. On one hand you have heated arguments among Democrats about whether radical, capitalism-destroying action is necessary to save the planet. On the other hand Republicans are rigidly opposed to even relatively moderate, market-based attempts to cut emissions—when one such measure was being considered by the Democratic-controlled Oregon state legislature this summer, GOP lawmakers literally fled the state to deny the Democrats a quorum and block the bill.

In that context, any sign of a hint that Republicans might be willing to even consider a compromise that leads to the federal government taking action on climate can be seen as a step in the right direction. So the formation of a group called Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends, a coalition of right-leaning college students, could be justifiably celebrated. The group, Reuters reports, launched this week and “backs a market-based solution, calling for an initial $40-a-ton tax on carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, at mines, wells or ports where it is produced.” This money would be paid out directly to Americans at the same time that what YCCD calls “burdensome regulations” would be slashed.

Read more: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/k7eep3/young-republicans-want-to-fight-climate-change-30-years-too-late

The original Reuters report includes a quote from one of their leaders;

Young U.S. Republicans defy party to fight climate change

Matthew Lavietes

Drawn from Republican groups on more than two dozen university campuses, the Young Conservatives for Carbon Dividends called for laws to tax oil, natural gas and coal producers of planet-warming greenhouse gases. 

The taxation plan would make fossil fuels more costly while the resulting revenues would go to taxpayers. 

We claim to be the party that cares about the future that our children will inherit, and we need climate policy that reflects that,” said Kiera O’Brien, 21, a senior at Harvard University who co-founded the group. 

“We are offering up what we see as the common sense solution and the way forward for the party,” O’Brien told the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climate-politics-trfn/young-us-republicans-defy-party-to-fight-climate-change-idUSKBN1YG00J

The co-founder of Students for Carbon Dividends quoted in the Reuters article is Kiera O’Brien, a student at Harvard and former president of the Harvard Republican Club.

I’m disappointed. Not because Kiera O’Brien is worried about climate change, but because she and her group are not acting like conservatives; she wants to introduce a new tax.

Pretty much everywhere which attempts to introduce a carbon tax eventually abandons it, because carbon taxes don’t work. Energy intensive manufacturing and industry flee the cost of the new tax, manufacturing jobs crash and politicians abandon the tax once voters figure out the cause of their misery.

Kiera, why would any business person in their right mind hang around and pay your carbon tax, when they can cut costs and relocate to a “developing country” beyond the reach of your artificially inflated energy prices?

One of the main reasons so many jobs are returning to the USA right now is President Trump ditched the Paris Agreement. By renouncing the Paris Agreement, President Trump provided a credible assurance to investors that he and the Republican Party intend to stand up to the green bullies, and keep US energy prices affordable and globally competitive.

Your proposed “border carbon adjustments” would not help US exporters. It would still make sense for manufacturers to relocate, pay the border adjustment tax for exports to the USA, but remain globally competitive in other markets. And there would be enormous perverse incentives to misapply the border tax. As P.J. O’Rourke once said, “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.”

If Kiera wants to campaign for a climate policy, it’s a free country. But Kiera, please put a little thought into it; at least advance a policy idea which makes sense.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

108 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Linda Goodman
December 15, 2019 5:00 pm

I’m no genius, so why isn’t it obvious to everyone that the demonization of carbon dioxide is the means to establish a totalitarian world government, and the NWO ‘elites’ behind it INFILTRATE to gain control? JFK warned about them nearly 60 years ago and most are STILL ignoring the obvious. Follow the thread from the Young Republicans and it will lead directly to the psychopaths intent on enslaving humanity. INFILTRATION. Only the Truth will make us free, it’s our greatest weapon, so why is almost no one using it full bore?! We MUST fight the lies with facts and call it what it is – a totalitarian nightmare – and those who unwttingly serve it what they are – Useful Idiots! Not just one voice on occasion, ALL voices continually! The threat is far more profound than too many will consider and the window of opportunity is NOW. Lead the way and break the spell – THE EMPEROR IS NAKED! Or did JFK die in vain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdMbmdFOvTs
April 27, 1961
FULL SPEECH: The President & The Press
relevant excerpt at 5:17 :
“For we are opposed around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections; on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published; it’s mistakes are buried, not headlined; its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.”

carbon: 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons
the human body is carbon-based
globalists intend for a carbon chip in the hand to replace cash
prophecy or playbook? does it matter?

Chris Hoff
December 15, 2019 5:04 pm

In a way, maybe it’s better that the young people have all been completely brainwashed to believe global warming is real and CO2 is a deadly poison. They’ve been brainwashed into believing in electric vehicles, wind farms and solar panels as the answer to the imaginary danger. All the proposed solutions will end up creating even more CO2 in the long run, the only downside is they will also create far more toxic waste. Sequestering all that CO2 underground and the deep ocean will probably end up inadvertently putting even more CO2 in the air. It means even more CO2 as plant food and hence an even greener world than if we succeeded in deprogramming the next generation. Maybe ignorance really is bliss.

December 15, 2019 7:51 pm

I just sent Kiera the following email:

Hi Kiera,

I hope you don’t mind an email out of the blue.

My name is Pat Frank, and I work at the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource, at SLAC, Stanford University.

I read about Student for a Carbon Dividend on the Watts Up With That blog, and thought to let you know that the science is not what you have been told.

Here’s a link to the paper I just published in Frontiers in Earth Science: atmospheric sciences:
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

It passed peer review by highly competent climate scientists, and shows that climate models have no predictive value. They are completely unable to say what human CO2 emissions will do to the air temperature.

I have attached the English version of an invited Op-Ed I wrote for Weltwoche, a leading Swiss weekly, which summarizes the message of the paper.

I have a youtube video presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA

No Certain Doom: On the Accuracy of Projected Global Average Surface Air Temperatures
Patrick Frank, PhD presents at the 34th Annual DDP meeting, July 10, 2016, Omaha, Nebraska.
http://www.youtube.com

I have been studying the problem of climate change since 2001, when the IPCC Third Assessment Report came out, and have published several peer-reviewed papers since then.

The take home message is that no one knows what they’re talking about. Not the IPCC, not Al Gore, not NASA, no one.

The failure of the scientific establishment is extraordinary.

If you’d like to discuss this further, I am happy to oblige. I can discuss the issue all the way to the bedrock.

Hoping you don’t mind that I have written, and that you find the information useful,

Best wishes,

Pat

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 16, 2019 11:10 am

Pat
I will be surprised if you hear back from her. However, should you here back, I’d be interested in seeing what she has to say.

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 16, 2019 2:03 pm

Thanks, Clyde.

I’ll post something here if I hear back. 🙂

Reply to  Clyde Spencer
December 19, 2019 9:56 am

No reply as of this date, Clyde. No real hope left, there.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Pat Frank
December 26, 2019 8:17 pm

Pat
It has now been 10 days. I’ll quit checking here.

NickSJ
December 15, 2019 9:22 pm

Most colleges today are left wing indoctrination centers which have a veneer of academic authority which is very difficult for most students to overcome. After 4 years of non-stop propaganda, it takes a very strong person not to be affected. Hopefully, after a few years in the real world, some conservative students will regain their understanding of these issues. The best solution is for parents to keep their kids from going to the worst of these schools.

Scott
December 16, 2019 3:43 am

She does need a time machine. She appears not to be aware that US CO2 emissions peaked in 2005. She seems unaware that it is highly unlikely US CO2 emissions will EVER reach 2005 levels again regardless of what the central planners do. Technological innovation is driving the US to lower CO2 emissions on both the supply side (fracking and some quite modest “alternative” energy) and the demand side (the profit motive creates an incentive to constantly refine processes to improve energy efficiency; shifts to e-commerce and the digital economy; and services making up a greater share of GDP).

Since 2005, the US population has increased by 30 million people. According to the DOT, we drive 300 BILLION more vehicle miles per year than we did in 2005. Yet despite these macro variables creating pressure to increase CO2 emissions, they remain below 2005 levels in large part because of the factors I cited above.

Furthermore, the planet is greening, increasing the opportunity for greater biodiversity. Farmers set new records in corn and soybean yields almost every year, improving our lives by making low cost food available. There is zero evidence “extreme weather” events are increasing.

Kiera O’Brien needs to look at real data and stop buying into groupthink. Charlatan fear mongers can not predict the future of anything, let alone a chaotic climate and a dynamic economy, both of which undergo continuous change.

Joel Snider
December 16, 2019 9:32 am

Considering the fascist state of academia, is this really a surprise?

Justin McCarthy
December 16, 2019 9:59 am

1) It’s Harvard; say no more. 2) Most likely the organization has been infiltrated by stealth left wing operators and turned. You can see this tactic in many other organizations that used to be rational. 3) They are young and want to be liked, woke, cool, or are still emotionally vulnerable to the basic tactic of the left; ridicule.

Verified by MonsterInsights