Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Let me start with a couple of the most callous and heartless quotes that I know of. Here’s a description from Politico of the first one:
President Barack Obama’s Energy secretary unwittingly created a durable GOP talking point in September 2008 when he talked to The Wall Street Journal about the benefits of having gasoline prices rise over 15 years to encourage energy efficiency.
“Somehow,” Chu said, “we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”
And here’s the second quote, from President Obama:
“Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket, regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad, because I’m capping greenhouse gases”
In agreement with the beliefs of President Obama and Secretary Chu, and a vain attempt to fight the imaginary menace of CO2, the countries of Europe have driven up the price of energy. This is supposed to make people use less of it, and thus reduce CO2 emissions.
As a result of the European policies, the current energy price situation looks like this:
Not a pretty picture …
So consider the effect of this on the poor. To begin with, the poor spend a much larger part of their income on energy than do the rich.
Now, the energy prices in Europe are more than twice what they are in the US. So if the US doubled to match the fantasies of Secretary Chu and President Obama, the richest fifth of the nation would only be paying 10% of their income for energy … but the poorest fifth of the nation would be paying close to half of their income for energy. And as I pointed out about the poorest of the poor in my post “We Have Met The 1% And He Is Us“,
Those people have no slack. They have no extra room in their budgets. They have no ability to absorb increases in their cost of living, particularly their energy spending. They have no credit cards, no credit, and almost no assets. They have no health insurance. They are not prepared for emergencies. They have no money in the bank. They have no reserve, no cushion, no extra clothing, no stored food in the basement, no basement for that matter, no fat around their waist, no backups, no extras of any description. They are not ready for a hike in the price of energy or anything else.
(In passing, let me suggest that you might enjoy reading that post, which discusses this issue of energy and the poor in some detail.)
The result of all of these factors is what is called “energy poverty”. That’s where you don’t have enough energy to keep your home warm. That’s where you’re a single mom with three kids and your old car you need to get to work drinks gas faster than your ex-husband drank whiskey … so if gas prices double your kids will do without something important. That’s where you and your family sit in the cold and the dark and shiver because you can’t pay your energy bills.
And that’s where a study from the Jacque Delors Institute says (emphasis mine):
During this winter of 2020-2021, hundreds of millions of Europeans are constrained to stay at home because of lockdowns and curfews instituted to contain the propagation of COVID19. For millions of them, this means staying in poorly heated houses, which causes both discomfort and a threat to their own health.
This policy paper gives an overview of the state of energy poverty in the European Union (EU) and the way this issue is currently addressed by Member States and by the EU. While it appears that energy poverty has generally been decreasing over the last years, in 2019 there were still over 30 million Europeans who claimed to be unable to heat their home adequately in the winter.
Thirty million Europeans, many of them pensioners, many of them kids, all of them poor, sitting in unheated houses … that’s about the population of California. Or for the folks across the pond, it’s about the population of Hungary, Austria and the Czech Republic combined. Again per the report, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Greece, Portugal and Cyprus are the countries with the highest share of the population who are unable to heat their homes.
Now, there’s an old saying, “No pain, no gain.” Me, I think that’s crazy because I’ve had lots of painless gains. But if there is pain, well, there should at least be some gain to go along with it. So … shall we take a look at the purported gain in the question of CO2 emissions?
I mean, all those countries signed on to the Paris Climate Discord, they all have followed President Obama’s and Secretary Chu’s theories and drove their energy prices through the roof to reduce greenhouse gases, so now at the end of the day there must be some real gains in per capita CO2 emissions, right?
Here you go:
Thirty million Europeans are freezing in the winter, unable to heat their homes, and for what?
For nothing. Zip. Niets. Diddley-squat. Ingenting. Zero. Nada. Rien. Nichts. Not one thing.
Despite Europe creating widespread energy poverty, despite the US not being in the Paris Agreement, the US has reduced emissions more than any of the countries shown above. Europe is condemning old people and children to shiver in the dark and cold, and for absolutely no gain at all.
Look, I don’t think CO2 is the secret knob that controls the climate. I think that’s a simplistic scientific misrepresentation of a very complex system. As a result, I think that the “War On CO2” is a destructive, costly, and meaningless endeavor.
However, perhaps you do think that the climate, one of the more complex systems we’ve ever tried to analyze, is ruled by just one of the hundreds of different factors affecting the system. If so, I presume you think the European actions are justified because you believe you will be helping the poor people in the year 2050 or 2100.
So … if those are your motives I ask you, I beg you, I implore you, don’t wage your war on CO2 by screwing today’s poor to the floor!
Because I can assure you, possibly helping tomorrow’s poor by actually hurting today’s poor is a crime against humanity, one you absolutely don’t want to have on your conscience.
My best to all, regardless of your views regarding the climate control knob,
w.
PS—Misunderstandings are the bane of the intarwebs. Accordingly, I ask that when you comment you quote the exact words you’re discussing, so that we can all know who and what you’re talking about.
Looking at CO2 emissions decreases since 2000 is the wrong metric.
Europe has inflated energy prices since the 1970s oil shock. Much of the emission decreases from their tax policies occurred before the start date of the comparison.
That said, I do agree that the primary result of energy policies that increase the cost of energy are little more than a way to punish people for having low incomes.
More expensive gasoline makes it harder to save up and buy an efficient car, not easier.
Bolshevism is the democratic power of the majority. Read The GULAG Archipelago.
Rather go read what the Bolsheviks did everywhere they came to Power: France, USSR, Africa, USA…
Bolshevism is not democracy, they just promote democracy, then apoint the kakastocracy to pervert culture and religion via education. Everybody remebers the excesses of the Brownshirts, while the people they tried to stop, the Bolsheviks, are remembered as the Sixmillions that never existed.
The only time Hitler is on record for using the term “Untermenschen” was when he referred to the barbaric practices of the Bolsheviks in Russia. Tens of millions killed, for no reason other than not being Bolsheviks.
Bolshevism is the number one enemy of mankind, and currently, the bastards are winning. Because they perverted your education, and everyone that think there is a difference between globalism, free-market capitalism, communism and zionism. It is all the same religion, and their god has promised them rule over all nations, with an iron rod!
Great post, Willis. This whole climate craziness is going to blow back on the Europeans and Biden bigly, and soon.
One can only hope !!
Willis
Unfortunately, this article does not meet your usual high standard.
This is a very complex relationship.
Each country collects and spends tax differently.
It cannot be immediately assumed higher energy prices will hurt the poor.
Detailed comparison will need to made with similar ( and different)countries to determine the impacts of their energy policies over DECADES
Say
Norway vs Denmark
Canada vs Australia
Norway vs Australia
Indonesia vs Philippines
Additionally, What is “poor” ?
There is a clear difference in poor and relatively poor.
America, Australia, Canada and Europe don’t really have poor, they have relatively poor.
A country like Indonesia arguably has poor and relatively poor.
The poor don’t even have electricity, running water or a motorcycle. Cheap fuel does not help them. Higher fuel prices ( taxes) in Indonesia could be used to build the desperately needed infrastructure for the poor.
Free market Capitalism is the only thing that will “… build the desperately needed infrastructure for the poor.” Increasing taxes and artificially boosting living costs will never lead to prosperity.
David,
You still need taxes in free market capitalist societies.
These taxes will always be unfair for someone.
Are you aware that the US didn’t even have an income tax till 1913? Much of the greatest growth of this country happened without an income tax. And the initial income tax topped out at 7%. And guess who it became law under? Ans: Marxist Woodrow Wilson.
Wilson: “ ‘State socialism’ is willing to act through state authority as it is at present organized. It proposes that all idea of a limitation of public authority by individual rights be put out of view, and that the State consider itself bound to stop only at what is unwise or futile in its universal superintendence alike of individual and of public interests. The thesis of the state socialist is, that no line can be drawn between private and public affairs which the State may not cross at will; that omnipotence of legislation is the first postulate of all just political theory.”
“Applied in a democratic state, such doctrine sounds radical, but not revolutionary. It is only an acceptance of the extremest logical conclusions deducible from democratic principles long ago received as respectable. For it is very clear that, in fundamental theory, socialism and democracy are almost, if not quite, one and the same. They both rest at bottom upon the absolute right of the community to determine its own destiny and that of its members. Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals. Limits of wisdom and convenience to the public control there may be: limits of principle there are, upon strict analysis, none.”
If this doesn’t describe present day Democrats I don’t know what does.
Waza, I repectfully disagree with you. For three reasons.
First, you bring in the third world. WE stuck with Europe US. You complain about apples to oranges.
Second, you point to taxation differences. True, but ONLY as a result of first world differing climate policies.
Third, you say climate policies cannot be directly related to the third world poor. Wrong. They can. Consider access to electricity in the third world refused to be funded by the first world on climate grounds.
You want to be credible here, up your game—a lot.
Prices always affect the poor. For the middle class an increase in costs is simply solved by charging more for their labour or increasing prices in the businesses they own. The rich simply don’t notice price increases. Unless the poor are living lives, isolated from market economies, they are badly affected by the most minor increases in daily costs.
David, Rud and Rory
I generally agree with all of you, but Willis is extremely good at getting to the nuts and bolts of issues.
This is not a good effort at doing that. He has made generalisations about very complex economic policies of countries that have totally different energy backgrounds.
Small Resource rich countries such as Norway or UAE are able to take control of both energy taxes and use it to develop infrastructure.
Both Norway and UAE could virtually give away energy to their citizens.
Here in Australia we are stuck in an trap of individual companies negotiating individual royalty contracts with states for “our” resources.
David, while I generally agree with free market economy, many Australians including myself would probably like a bit more control in the sell off and revenue spend of “our” resources.
Once again, price of energy is not necessary linked to making it harder for the poor.
The staggering material wealth of modern civilisation is completely dependent on cheap energy.
If energy prices rise, it doesn’t just effect energy bills; it effects the price of everything, from food to water to transport to holidays to shoes to clothing.
Your point about the relative poverty of “the poor” in different nations is true but irrelevant; the poorest of any country are always going to be those most affected by a general increase in prices.
Observer
Sorry your everything is just not correct.
Here in Victoria Australia taxes are used to subsidise low income people in many complex ways.
An elderly pensioner gets discounted water bills, council rates, public transport, medicines for example.
So everything is not more expensive.
To summarise my main concern with Willis’s article is he doesn’t dig into all these complex tax/subsidy relationships.
PS
care must be taken when comparing, income, assets, subsidies to trying to compare how well the “ poor” are doing in each country.
Oh, please. The Europeans do more subsidization of the poor, transfer payments, taxpayer-paid services of all kinds, and wealth redistribution than most countries on the planet and they STILL have 30 million people in energy poverty …
How about you ponder and discuss that instead of telling us that we can eliminate energy poverty via wealth redistribution?
You’re pushing the idea that the way to solve a problem is not to actually solve the problem itself, but instead to redistribute the nation’s wealth to reduce the negative effects of the problem … not impressed.
You can’t redistribute your way to riches, no matter how much money you move from person A to person B … it’s a zero-sum game.
w.
Whoa,
1. Willis, you are awesome at pulling other people’s poor claims apart, and scolding them for not including all the facts.
Yet in this article you show cost of energy for some Western European countries and compare to USA.
You then showed percentage of household income spent on energy in USA only.
Not the same Western European countries you showed the cost of energy for.
How can the reader know what the lowest quartile of Norwegians pay?
2. Based on my man in the street world knowledge three countries stand out like dogs bxxxx.
Norway and UAE who could have easily given free energy to all its citizens. But chose to build long lasting infrastructure.
Additionally, Norway’s revenue provide them with the world’s best retirement savings.
Indonesia is a country with descent resources but not huge. It struggles with trying to balance providing cheap energy to its citizens but gaining taxes to help the real poor.
3. What is poor? A person in rural Philippines without electricity or a motorcycle doesn’t spend much on energy and can live ok on US$5 a day, while an elderly Australian might be suffering on us$50 a day
4. You said
“How about you ponder and discuss that instead of telling us that we can eliminate energy poverty via wealth redistribution?”
And
“You’re pushing the idea that the way to solve a problem is not to actually solve the problem itself, but instead to redistribute the nation’s wealth to reduce the negative effects of the problem … not impressed. “
Please direct quote me when discussing what ideas I am pushing.
5. I have no doubt that bs taxes for the non climate problem will impact the poor. But that’s not what my comment was about.
Waza February 6, 2021 3:27 am
My point was that the poor pay a larger percentage of their income for energy than the rich do. Are you seriously claiming that that is NOT true for the European countries? If that were true, we wouldn’t have poor people living in energy poverty in Europe.
I say that it is blindingly obvious that the poor pay more for energy no matter what country you’re in. If you think otherwise please provide evidence.
True, and I have no clue what your point is here.
You continue:
Sure. And you’re right, I should have quoted it before. You said:
I was responding to that when I said that you think that redistribution is the solution to the problem of energy poverty, rather than reducing the cost of energy.
Regards,
w.
Unless a government increases subsidies to the poor more than the price increases, then obviously the poor will be affected more.
This is ignoring the deleterious effect that subsidies create in the first place – more and bigger government required to administer them, the general economic drag of the higher taxes required to pay for them, more and bigger government to administer the higher taxes and deal with the increased tax evasion that they incentivise, the capital misallocation that arises from the resultant skewed consumption…
ie, it’s not Willis who isn’t digging” into all these complex tax/subsidy relationships.”
I’ve always called it “friction”, government friction. Every dollar sent to the government gets at least 10% rubbed off to fund larger government – government friction. This is why redistribution of wealth by government never works – for every dollar the government takes only $0.90 actually gets to the people. It’s less than the zero sum game Willis mentioned. It’s a lose-lose proposition.
It’s far more efficient if charity, for that is what state redistribution is always named – government charity, is directly between individuals. That way nothing gets rubbed off from friction.
Willis,
The US is much bigger than most of the European countries mentioned in your post. The energy policy and pricing is also greatly affected by state taxes, energy and climate change alarmism. The proportion of rich and poor also varies. I hope you will post an analysis as to how it is affecting Americans today in some key states. It seems the states with the highest energy price have also the most draconian energy policy but those states voted for several elections for democrat candidates.
It doesn’t take much economics to know that the states are different. I recall that my first job (or close, sacking groceries) was below the minimum wage, which I had never heard about or realize until years latter. Math that we are now told to believe about MW did not exist back then.
The gasoline prices are excusable, as many nations would have to import, or lose export revenues if they consumed more petroleum. However, there is no excuse for the high electricity, as all these nations are quite capable of building as many nuclear power plants as they want. Abstaining from nuke when fossil fuels are scarce is cruel.
That’s a twist (sort of) on the excuses used today in the “diversity and inclusion” stuff.
“Today’s poor are only poor because yesterday didn’t have our “diversity and inclusion”. We owe them reparations NOW!”
What will those poor in the future blame us for because “the CO2 control knob” not only kept their ancestors impoverished but also set the “non-elite” on the road to also being impoverished?
Willis: My question is friendly (I appreciate your work); I’m just doing due diligence. You say “the poor spend a much larger part of their income on energy than do the rich.”
What is the basis for this statement? I have as yet no opinion, but such thoughts as these come to mind:
• Your data may come from electricity bills (somehow collated by zip code).
• Many rich people buy energy in ways that are hard to access (such as purchasing fuel for private jets or yachts), or frequently buying round trip tickets to distance locations (which show up only in the books of some airline).
Thanks, needle. If you look at the bottom of the “Energy Expenditures” graph it specifies the source and the types of energy counted.
Regards,
w.
Thank you, Willis. I found your source: https://www.americaspower.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Family-Energy-Costs-2016.pdf.
My questions remain. In summary, I think that many energy expenses of people are outside their “household,” and that the richer a person is, the more that holds true.
For example, If you rich enough to order a take-out dinner delivered to your house, the cost of gasoline is charged to someone else, not to your household. If you are very rich (e.g., living in Billionaire’s Row in NYC), when you go somewhere it may be taxi or by a limousine service — in either case, the energy cost does not appear in the rich person’s “household”.)
I am not disagreeing with your thesis; merely pointing out that this data you reference does not support your thesis.
My best to you; thanks for all your posts.
If you live in a 1000 sqft house it costs the same to heat it whether you are rich or poor.
All those energy costs you mention do show up in the rich persons household. The cabbie doesn’t give rides for free. If his gas prices go up then so do the costs charged to the rider. Same for the delivery person.
There isn’t anything in life that is free. Somebody pays, somebody *always* pays.
I’ve been poor enough that I couldn’t afford to pay the electric bill. I suppose that, technically, at that point my electric costs were 0% of my income.
But let’s run some real numbers:
When I was bringing home $800/month and paying $150/month on energy (gas & electric), I was putting 18.75% of my income toward household energy alone. That’s not even counting what I was paying for gas.
With an income of $10,000/month and paying $450/month (a high outlier but lets use it), that amounts to 4.5% of my income on household energy.
For anyone who has had the life experience, it is insanely easy to see that Willis is spot on with what he’s saying.
Tim, NeedleFactory’s “point” (if you want to call it that) is that those costs aren’t showing up in the cost of energy totals. But what NF fails to consider is that everything people (rich and poor alike) buy have such indirect energy costs associated with them. If you are going to insist on adding those indirect costs into the rich person’s energy budget, you have to do so for the poor person as well, and as the poor person spends nearly all their money (that isn’t being directly spent on energy) on products that have such indirect costs while the rich only spend a fraction of their money on such things, meaning even under NF’s poor logic, the poor are still paying a higher percentage on energy, quite possibly even a higher percentage relative to the rich than Willis’s numbers would suggest.
NeedleFactory, everything has energy costs built in. Whether you are rich or poor, when you buy food to put on your table, that food has energy costs that aren’t “charged” to the persons energy budget you by your logic. They’re indirect costs and as such they’re rather irrelevant, as those costs are built into the price you pay for those products or services. Even if you could add up all the indirect costs to add to the total, the poor would still be paying more as nearly 100% of their income (or even more than 100%, considering many poor live under a mountain of debt and have no savings, meaning they’re spending more than they make in income) gets spent on things that have energy costs, either directly or indirectly, whereas the rich only spend a fraction of their income on such things (with the rest being saved/invested in order to make and have even more money).
Rather than Willis’s data not supporting his thesis, it’s your thesis that isn’t supported by any data or logic.
Great piece, Willis! It’s a great addition to the sanity approach to energy.
It is interesting that Germany has the highest electricity costs in Europe, but their CO2 reduction is close to the worst. Conversely, the US has both the lowest cost for electricity and the greatest reduction in CO2.
Our dear leader just killed over 11,000 well paying jobs to virtue signal with his pen. The result will almost certainly be an increase in CO2 emissions.
Remember, we have to drive 55 to save us from importing oil which was all scheduled to run out in 1980. It’s the law. And don’t forget to turn your thermostat down to 55 degrees for the same reason.
Excellent post. However, energy poverty is no different from food poverty, shelter poverty, or any other kind of poverty. Climate activism, whether rising gas prices, cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, brown-outs, “green” energy, or Green New Deals hurts the poor first, last, and always.
The oft stated claim is that Socialism, the Great Reset, Agenda 21, and other Climate Fixes are really “wealth distribution”. Yes, but not from rich to poor but from poor to rich. The wealth is flowing to the billionaire oligarchs, not from them. In every case, the proposals to “solve” the climate “problem” involve making the poor even poorer.
Note that the calls for “climate justice” for “under-served communities” will result in more poverty, more deprivation, more suffering for those communities. They (we) are the sheep to be sheared, not the beneficiaries. To Serve Man was a cookbook, for gosh sakes!
Indeed, and along those lines “climate justice” to “serve the poor” is a recipe for human sacrifice (and it’s not the “rich” that is being put on the alter to be sacrificed)
Most really do not realize what a bullet we dodged when Obama’s Cap and Trade died in the US Senate in 2010. It died because Harry Reid couldn’t overcome the Republican filibuster.
After that, the Dems have vowed to never let that procedural impediment to their climate scam happen again, when they once again held both the House and Senate and the White House.
They lost the House in November 2010, then the Senate in 2014. Now they’ve barely got the Congress and Dementia Joe in the White House. So they spent gargantuan amounts last year to defeat Trump and try to take the Senate. They lost seats big time in House and only gained the barest of majorities in the Senate. So they must know that 2022 midterms they’ll likely lose the House. Time is running out on their attempts to ram climate scam energy policy down middle America’s throat and suffocate it under European-level gasoline and electricity prices.
Right now WV Senator (D) Joe Manchin is the only person standing in their way to steam roll the US into energy poverty, a poverty that Willis discusses in the above post. Dems are in pickle there because the WV Governor is currently a Republican should they find someway to show Manchin the door, that is, his near term replacement would be Republican appointed fill-in until an election . That fact certainly helps strengthen Manchin, in light of how desperate the Dems are to impose their schemes on the US..
Romney will counter Manchin’s vote.
Sad but true. And even if Romney doesn’t step forward, there are plenty of other RINOs willing and able to do so.
“Look, I don’t think CO2 is the secret knob that controls the climate. I think that’s a simplistic scientific misrepresentation of a very complex system”
The UN IPCC Greenhouse Effect is an exchange of state of the Earth’s outgoing energy. Absorption by atmospheric CO2 leads to the release of one or both of Radiant energy and/or Kinetic energy of motion of atmospheric molecules. The total energy involved remains the same. The process does not generate any energy so it cannot cause heating. The radiant energy, infrared, is at either the same or longer wavelength (colder) as the absorbed infrared. The kinetic energy of motion of the atmospheric molecules becomes just part of the normal convection that cools the Earth’s surface.
The laws of thermodynamics mandates that energy does not flow from cold to hot so any CO2 emitted radiation in the direction of the Earth’s surface, being of the same or longer wavelength as that absorbed, cannot heat the surface. It is blocked by the greater radiation pressure directed out from the surface.
If there was such a thing as the Greenhouse Effect, it would cause the Earth to cool as CO2 concentration increased because of the back-radiation of the Sun’s incoming infrared before it even got to heat the surface. 52% of the Sun’s energy density spectrum consists of infrared energy but the UN IPCC failed to mention that – strange omission from ‘the experts’ ??
There is no such thing as the Greenhouse Effect other than in a garden greenhouse where the increased temperature is due to blocking the cooling of the interior by convection currents.
The proper way to do it (and to discourage gasoline consumption) is to have a large tax on fuel use, and then rebate all of the revenue on a, more or less, per capita basis. If you didn’t even own a car you’d still get a gasoline tax rebate, and the less you drove, the more money would go into your pocket. I’m not sure if this would be progressive or regressive with regard to income, but something like that would be more fair than just piling on a tax. Understand, I’m not arguing for that, I’m just saying that if you want to stifle fuel use, then to do it fairly you should rebate all of that revenue.
I weep. Economic ignorance is rampant.
Of all those countries listed, the US has the greatest wealth and income inequality. It is almost as if you want cheaper energy prices to justify this ever increasing inequality in the US. If they are freezing the people might just rise up, so keep heating cheap so we can rake in more $billions ?
Anyhow, freezing Cypriots and Greeks? They might be poor, but freezing??
And the poor of Norway? They might have cold weather, but poor??
Norway has the wealth it does precisely because it has been a fossil fuel exporting power house.
kzb February 5, 2021 6:18 pm
Thanks, kzb. First, cheaper energy prices reduce the disposable income inequality after making the non-optional payments for energy to heat your house, cook your food, keep the lights on, and fire up your car.
Second, you seem to think that income inequality is a bad thing. I disagree. Income inequality is a necessary driving force for a successful thriving country.
Imagine if every job paid the same amount and every worker had the same annual income, zero income inequality, your perfect world.
Who would ever want to do a dirty job like cleaning out the sewers, or a dangerous job like commercial fishing in the Bering Sea? And there would be no incentive for anyone to open a business, to improve their job skills, to take the responsibility and worry that comes with keeping a hundred employees employed by making sure the business survives, or to invent a new product.
Is that really the world you want?
Regarding your second point, see the news report from last month in the Greek City Times, which says:
Regarding your final point, see “5 Facts About Poverty In Norway“.
Best regards,
w.
There are poor everywhere
And yes it gets cold in Southern Europe
And even 5c is deadly if you have no heat
Norway has been very smart, small population, massive oil reserves
Which they are expanding
Don’t seem to have the whole world trying to shut them down like we have here in canada, the climate-insane trying to have us all freeze in the dark
Energy poverty begins (officially) once energy costs more than 10% of your disposable income. When it reaches 20% it becomes an urgent matter often deserving of an intervention. In Ontario this takes shape as rebates, claims, deductions and grants. In eastern Europe it may be seen as tax free coal or subsidised coal of a fixed quantity or price. In countries or communities that reach 25-28% of income, people switch fuels no matter what the other costs to the community and environment. Above 30% people will burn tires in their heating and garbage and plastic collected along the road in their heating stoves.
Eurasia has some 620 million people dependent on solid fuels for heating and cooking (my own figure). Nearly all of them live in energy poverty. Worse that raising prices for particular fuels is the banning of coal altogether (in the name of climate or pollution). This is a direct attack on the poor, while lip-servicing the attack on electric power stations, one of the only alternatives to coal use in the home.
In many countries the electricity price is subsidized for a certain number of KWH per month. In South Africa, 70 per month, in Kyrgyzstan 700. Without that, people would exist in even more extreme deprivation.
Energy poverty is an obvious contributor to chronic underheating, defined by the WHO as less than 18 C in the living environment. About 11% of all deaths in China are attributable to chronic underheating. That is why a) China is ramping up their coal fired power station capacity, b) why they subsidise semi-coked coal to many rural homes and c) why they pretend to agree with popular measures such as the Paris Agreement – to keep the nanny-nations off their back.
Literally everyone in Eurasia knows that energy poverty is a major, if not THE major economic problem facing the poor. Staying alive means staying warm. The rich nations are ballyhooing about how “everyone should do their share” to cool the planet, making everything about staying alive worse. As Willis says, this greatly harms the poor.
These are crimes against humanity. If anything would help the impoverished billions it is a warmer, wetter world. A cooler, drier one will make their struggle even more difficult. Lowering CO2 to 300 ppm will reduce crop production about 30%, for the same inputs and physical labour. To do that deliberately is insane.
We have these crazy policies about fuels and energy because the poor have no effective voice in running the affairs of nations. Rational debate and formulating reasonable, inclusive plans has to precede any sustainable pro-human action.
I agree that what John Kerry has been doing and plans to do are Crimes Against Humanity. But that also applies to much of the UN elites.
As far as trying to figure out how much of your disposable income is relative to energy is difficult, since almost everything we have is because of fossil fuels in some way. The food in the grocery stores, the plastic in iPhone and computers, the electricity to charge the batteries. to make the batteries. All of the costs of those items is a cost of the energy used to make them to a large degree.
This is not difficult to separate. We understand that. Everything has embedded energy. The fraction that goes for energy is the purchase of “energy carriers”, and excludes the embedded energy on something that is not such a carrier.
Carriers include liquid petroleum fuels, solid fuels including wood and coal for for domestic combustion, electricity, heat from central (CHP) heating systems (rare in Canada and the US), gases such as butane, propane, natural gas, biogas and geothermal heat sourced directly without conversion (such as is heating homes in Iceland).
If you are spending more than 20% of your disposable income on these energy carriers, you are coping with energy poverty.
It’s easy enough to calculate direct energy costs, though. What would you call 19% of your total gross income going to direct costs, like your gas and electric bill?
Pretty sure adding in the other costs would put it way over 20%.
Thank you Willis. I can usually count on you for a sanity break in crazy world.
“Look, I don’t think CO2 is the secret knob that controls the climate….As a result, I think that the “War On CO2” is a destructive, costly, and meaningless endeavor.”
I get that you don’t believe there is a problem, but hopefully you can see that those of us who do think it (CO2) is the control knob, and watch it rise along with global temperatures and sea level and observe the (global mass balance) ice loss, are genuinely concerned.
“So … if those are your motives I ask you, I beg you, I implore you, don’t wage your war on CO2 by screwing today’s poor to the floor! “
But if you do believe there is an issue, then you also know it is the poor who will suffer first. A changing climate poses serious risk to food production. It does not take a brain the size of a planet to realise if you reduce the land available to grow food (rising sea level) you almost certainly reduce the crops it can produce. Add to this that a climate where rainfall patterns and temperatures change quickly, also makes it difficult to effectively grow crops in a specific area.
An example ….. Countries with low lying land like Bangladesh that have large populations are facing serious risk if the sea rises even a metre. Where are their 170 million people going to go? The obvious direction is India. But they have huge populations too. The end result can only be bloodshed and likely conflict (war) when you have people starving and fighting for their lives. It is no coincidence that the Pentagon consider climate change a serious issue for global stability.
My point is if you do believe CO2 controls our climate, then you are justified in being worried….. if you don’t, well then complain about rising gas prices.
What you think is irrelevant; do you have any evidence, and by that I mean no climate models or doctored temperature records and cherrypicked data.
Yep.
NOPE… you have zero evidence.. ALWAYS
And even less scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2
Good. Let’s see it.
And yet, you never show it. Which tells everyone that the truth is “nope” rather than “yep”
There have been several links in the last week showing how the temperature record has been adjusted in line with CO2 rise, and that without those adjustments and UHI rise we’d actually see decreasing temps.
You have literally nothing except faith
If you say so.
You keep proving that is the case.. nothing but brain-hosed “belief”
You remain an empty sock.
You’re beginning to sound a bit disheartened and unsure of yourself, Simon. Perhaps it is dawning on you that you backed the wrong horse. Don’t worry – there’s no shame in admitting it.
Wow
Quite the slap down
Nyah Nyah
I think I reached your level
Oh no, the Bangladeshi’s Are Gonna Drown argument again. Which couples with You Skeptics Are Racists charge, since the Terrible Fate awaiting Bangladesh is of no concern to you Deniers, you heartless b*st*ards!
But the truth is that Bangladesh is a delta. Three major rivers rush off the Himalayas carrying silt, and that silt is deposited where the rivers meet the sea (Bay of Bengal). That’s how deltas are formed, and why deltas are always at sea level.
The piously recriminating Alarmists would have you believe that the Bangladesh delta was a plateau 20,000 years ago, towering 500 feet above the ocean, with waves crashing at the base of the cliff. Then the continental ice sheets melted, raising sea levels to the plateau level exactly just last week. And if the sea rises another foot, goodbye Bangladesh.
It’s utter poppycock which is totally ignorant about how deltas form. News Flash: Bangladesh has always been at sea level, no matter what that level has been.
It’s not the ignorance that grates, it’s the accusatory rhetoric from supercilious snots who think they’re better than you, and more caring about little brown people than you, you racist pigs.
But as Mr. Eschenbach has admirably explained, it’s the Alarmists who are cruel and uncaring for the poorest among us, who would saddle the poor with jacked up taxes, fees, and costs for their basic needs, and abscond with the proceeds to buy more jets, yachts, and mansions for billionaires while the poor starve and freeze to death.
J’accuse, Alarmists. You are the deplorable dregs of the Earth..
Simon, regarding Bangladesh, see Bangladesh gaining land, not losing: Scientists … as Mike points out, river deltas rise with the sea level.
w.
Willis
Interesting angle you have, that Bangldesh is in fact lucky to be getting so much new free land. Sadly the reality is a whole lot more desperate for them. Have a little read then get back to me…
https://www.nrdc.org/onearth/bangladesh-country-underwater-culture-move
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190829-bangladesh-the-country-disappearing-under-rising-tides
Simon, come back when you want to have a discussion without insulting me in your first sentence and we can talk about it. Until then, piss off. Not enough hours in the day to deal with your snark.
w.
Willis,
If you think that is insulting, then you are easily bruised, especially on a web site that deals up snark 10 times more loaded for breakfast.
So sue me. I get to choose who to discuss things with. So far, that’s not you.
w.
You certainly do, but given you wrote this piece I thought you might want to at least explore the more difficult issues raised around poverty and the pros and cons of a changing climate v cheap gas?
Sure I do want to explore the issues. Just not with you. You said:
I said nothing even remotely resembling that. I said nothing about them being “lucky”. I said nothing about “free land”. That’s your sick ugly attempt to denigrate and dismiss what I actually said.
What I actually said was simply “river deltas rise with the sea level”. That was it. That was all.
Now, that’s what we call a “fact”. Nothing to do with “free” or “lucky” or an “angle” or “so much” land.
So why should I try to discuss ideas with someone like you, someone who is willing to totally distort and misrepresent what I say in order to score cheap rhetorical points?
w.
Willis,
thank you for your reply. Perhaps I assumed wrong, but I thought you were trying to counter my comment (stating countries like Bangladesh that have a large number of poor are in serious trouble if the seas keep rising), by saying that they are actually gaining land and so implying they are not at risk (as I was pointing out)?
My comment (which was meant to show the irony here)…
“Interesting angle you have, that Bangldesh is in fact lucky to be getting so much new free land.”
…. was intended to highlight that if the science (OK my side) is right and they are in fact at serious risk and do eventually suffer terrible hardship (which I hope you can see is at least a possibility) then all the cheap power in the world wont help them. And they will in fact look back and resent enormously being told by the West (mostly) that they were going to be fine.
This is of course assuming they do suffer and is the other side (my side) of this tale. One I think needs telling. And given we are constantly being told by skeptics that my side wont debate the issues, then I would hope it give some understand as to why I come here, to question and at times push a little.
Finally I get abused and belittled by so many here (been called “simple” more times than I’ve had hot dinners), I forget who those are, who want to debate honestly. In the light of this I apologise if I have caused offence.
Simon, you still don’t get it. I made a simple statement of fact, that river deltas rise as the ocean rises. This is totally uncontroversial.
In response, you give me snark, and not just snark, but snark which has no relationship to what I said. None. You fantasized something I didn’t say, about me claiming the Bangladeshi’s were “lucky” for getting “free land” … say what?
I. Never. Said. That. I never said anything like that. That’s the voices in your head.
THIS IS WHY I ASK PEOPLE TO QUOTE MY WORDS, specifically to attempt to stop people like yourself from taking my words and twisting them “to make a trap for fools”, as the poet had it.
So I ask again. Why on earth would I want to discuss ideas with someone who is willing to totally twist and distort what I said for their own purposes? There’s not enough time in the day for that. Go twist someone else’s words. I’m not interested in the slightest.
w.
Willis
“Simon, you still don’t get it. I made a simple statement of fact, that river deltas rise as the ocean rises. This is totally uncontroversial.”
I get you one thing and that is you have no intension of debating any of the issues I have raised. I agree let’s move on.
Simon, once again, you still don’t get it.
I’m very interested in discussing the issues you raised.
However, I am totally uninterested in doing it with someone who twists my words as you did.
It’s not the issues. I’ve discussed and debated them with lots of folks.
It’s you. As the saying goes, “Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and they enjoy it.”
Pass. Hard pass.
w.
Actually when you think about it I didn’t “twist” your words, at worst I misinterpreted them. When I apologised and asked you to point out where I went wrong so we could move on and actually have a civil conversation, all you could do was circle back to me misquoting you. Oh well there you go.
Simon, you don’t understand what you look like from this side of the screen, which is an unpleasant argumentative a-hole.
You’re not the good guy who is misunderstood, that’s just more of your self-delusion. And your “apology” was a joke.
This latest comment is just another example of you trying to justify your actions. Yes, you twisted the hell out of my words. There is no level of “misunderstanding” so bad that it can go from my simple and factual statement “river deltas rise with the sea levels” to your snarky ugly interpretation of “Interesting angle you have, that Bangladesh is in fact lucky to be getting so much new free land”, that’s ludicrous.
Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Seriously. Not interested. Go discuss things with some masochist who enjoys being abused, because that’s not me.
Sadly,
w.
“And your “apology” was a joke”
Frankly I was genuine with my apology, far more so than you in looking for a discussion around this issue. What was that you said about wrestling with pigs?
Is there something about “Go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. Seriously. Not interested.” that is unclear to you?
w.
Mike Dubrasich
Thank you for your reply. I am sure the poor will be heartened to know the right side of politics is selflessly acting in their interests.
As an aside I did wonder whether you are in fact Christopher Monckton, the way you cram as many syllables as you can in to a sentence in an attempt to impress.
No, Simone, I use my real name, unlike trolls from the Dark Side. I don’t blame you, however, from hiding your identity. Your clumsy attempts at rhetorical debate betray your ignorance and mark you as a fool. No wonder you hide in the shadows.
More to the point, the poor are not well served by skyrocketing levies on their bare necessities. Your efforts to penalize people for daring to breathe benefits only the uber rich. In fact, forcing the poor to labor for subsistence wages is the very definition of slavery. The Left has always endorsed and defended slavery. It’s their Prime Directive. I’m not yours or anybody else’s slave. Too bad, I guess it sucks to be you.
And my point is the poor are not well served by people who tell them things will be fine, all the time profiting from the very thing that may cost them them livelihoods and possibly their lives.
Simon,
The atmospheric CO2 concentration does not effect the Earth’s climate, it is the climate that determines the CO2 concentration.
Applying a First Order Autoregression model to the time series for temperature and CO2 concentration shows that there is no significant correlation between the two. However there is a significant correlation between temperature and the rate of change of CO2 concentration. That means that the temperature is a significant determinant of the rate of generation of CO2.
The effect can also be clearly seen in the seasonal variation of the two time series. In Spring time as the temperature rises, photosynthesis kicks in and the CO2 concentration falls. Then in Autumn as the temperature falls, the CO2 concentration rises. The complete reverse to the UN IPCC hoax.
There is also a clear and obvious correlation between the annual rate of change of CO2 as recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory and the Oceanic Niño 3.4 Index showing that in the Equatorial zone, the major world climate event, El Niño, determines the CO2 concentration.
There are in excess of 250 CO2 recording stations across the globe with the data freely available on the Internet. Get the data, do the maths.
Don’t forget the observation from ice-core data that changes in temperature always precede changes in atmospheric CO2 with a lag of 800-1000 years. This alone falsifies the whole basis of the CAGW Scare.
What a load of fantasy BS.
Sea level rise at a close stable gauge shows 0.8mm/year
.
Are you SCARED yet , simpleton?
Have you actually got any facts at all to back up any of your mindless jabbering ?
Bangladesh is built on a delta.. Deltas rise with sea level rise,
Try not to continue displaying your abject ignorance, simple simon. !
Interesting choice, Mumbai. Project from 1980 – the best physical choice since it’s starting point is nearly at the end of the aerosol era – and you end up with an acceleration rate of ~0.33 mm*yr^-2, a 2/1/2021 rise rate of ~10.92 mm*yr^-1, and a projected 2100 sea level rise from now, of ~1.89m. Fairly statistically durable since both the standard error of the rise rate and it’s acceleration is ~27% of their expected values.
I could do this all day. Got any more?
If you extrapolate from 2005 to 2012 the rise is much steeper still, but equally as meaningless as your example, Big Oily Blob.
“If you extrapolate from 2005 to 2012 the rise is much steeper still…”
Why would I do that when I have a statistically/physically significant 40 year period to evaluate? Brought to me as an example by the biggest cloud yeller in the forum?
Never change, either of you…..
Most of the data in your time period are missing, Big Oily Blob.
Simon, all you’ve done is justified screwing the poor on the basis of your fears. That’s not something you want to do, it corrodes your soul.
Instead, there are “no regrets” options if you want to fight the imaginary CO2 menace, ones that do NOT involve screwing the poor.
The “no-regrets option” is to take actions that will be productive regardless of whether or not CO2 is the problem.
What most people seem to forget is that we have all of the threatened catastrophes which the models say will come from CO2 are with us today — droughts, and floods, and disease, and famine, and rising sea level and the seven Biblical plagues, we have all of them right now.
So the no-regrets option is to research and advance the knowledge and train people around the world in how to avoid the poverty and pain and suffering which comes from the vagaries of the climate today. That will pay huge dividends whether or not CO2 is the boogeyman. Doing that is the best way of preparing for an unknown tomorrow.
See my posts “Harvesting Fog“, “Climate Caution and Precaution“, and “Trust And Mistrust“, for further discussion.
w.
Sorry Willis, but you can’t appeal to the reason or compassion of zealots. For them people are just cannon fodder.
Very disrespectful towards Simon. You can’t just denigrate a man’s religion like that!
Developed countries with solid energy supplies also cope better with WEATHER related disasters.
We owe it to under-developed countries to help provide them with those solid RELIABLE energy supplies.
Wind and solar cannot ever do that..
Only fossil fuels (and nuclear) have the wide-ranging applicability and reliability to help the third world develop to a stage where WEATHER disasters can be more easily responded to.
You missed the article yesterday/ In the comments section some dude actually shows us how the CO2 numbers are “corrected” to “normalise” with the CAGW thesis.
It does however, take a brain the size of a pea, to think sea level rise of even 3mm/year on the coastal fringes, has any affect whatsoever on available arable land.
Utter and complete RUBBISH
Crop yield around the world continue to grow apace.
Another 2-3 degrees of warming would open up VAST areas of land that are currently too cold to grow substantive crops.
Your little boogie-man chicken-little fantasies are not related to REALITY of any type..
….but to a warped, degenerate, non-functional mind of sickly, putrid green ooze.
From the article: “so if gas prices double your kids will do without something important.”
That’s right. The poor suffer the most when energy prices go higher.
And it’s not just the cost of the energy alone that hurts poor people. When the cost of energy goes up, then the cost of transportation throughout the whole economy goes up, and that means that everything you buy goes up in price.
Makes them more dependent on government. Not a bug, a feature.
Well, I read through all the comments and I didn’t see Griff making excuses for Germany’s poor performance, anywhere in the thread. Maybe it’s his day off.
High prices are a sign of virtue, so Griff is happy
Germany has always been very progressive, they always seem to be ahead of the curve in crushing the undesireables
griff & loydo prb’ly have mummy taking care of paying for and/or driving them around, so why should they be concerned? Let the hoi polloi eat cake….
US is in a unique position globally. It is the banker of the world. All US citizens enjoy the benefit that bestows.
US is the only country that can live well beyond its means and never be brought to account; at least until the country loses its status as global banker.
The Biden/Harris years may bring other countries to make a claim on the wealth they hold in the form of USDs as the indebtedness grows. US owes the rest of the world almost USD14tr. That would be significant if it was denominated in currency other than the USD. It may become significant when oil producers decide not to accept USD. Trump was reducing US reliance on other countries. All that is in reverse now.
It said, 30% of people have no sense of humor, which I don’t know is true, but assuming
it is, than that means a lot people don’t get satire.
And this topic reminds me of “A modest Proposal” ie, wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal
And as my guess, it seems lefties, also known as useful idiots, have higher percentage of
their “followers” that lack a sense of humor and so, also can’t get satire.
Also it seems they also take “1984” or “Brave New World” as a guide or “moral tenets” to be followed. And they seem to want Utopia, which is Greek for “nowhere”
And they seem to imagine they are “modern” whereas,
they are obviously, quite primitive.
This next week, across most of the US, is why”shafting the poor” with high energy prices is tantamount to m u r d e r.
Yes, it’s going to get real cold next week.
I’m curious to see how the windmills and solar panels will have fared in this weather. I bet they are not doing too good.
Correct
Winter high pressure is how you get those deep cold spells
Zero wind
Alberta wind assets averaging 8% per day during cold snaps
I calculate little Alberta with 4.4 million people needs ~75,000 3mw wind turbines to keep our 10GW grid active
Ridonculous
Love a good polar vortex
Although with the blue color Griff probably figures it is all going to be under water
The reason Europe’s petrol prices have always been so high, is because Europe has never had oil wells to produce their fuel cheaply. So, they’ve always had very high taxes to limit consumption – at least since the oil crisis of the 70’s. In the past, it was never about limiting CO2 emissions.
Europe has a much higher tax on fuel than does the United States and that has been the case for decades.
Not correct. Many European countries do have oil production of their own e.g. Norway and UK. But that’s not a point, the high petrol prices are result of high taxes and in most of the countries it is just a way to collect money to the government. This money is being used to finance all kinds of “free” things such as free health care.
Incorrect. Tax is not to limit consumption, it is just another collection of public money. Norway is a net exporter of oil and especially gas.