SIerra Club: Thousands Of Economic Changes Needed To Fight “Climate Change”

The Associated Press’ Josh Lederman has an article out entitled With Keystone snub, Obama aims to lockdown climate legacy, up leverage in global climate talks, which includes this interesting tidbit

“To fight climate change effectively, we will need to make thousands of changes across our economy,” Michael Brune, the head of the Sierra Club, said in an interview. “We have gone through a period of increased climate denial, but now we’re in a place of dramatically increased acceptance of the need to act on climate.”

I wonder what kinds of changes those could be? They wouldn’t involve government dominance of citizens, private entities, energy sources, and economies, would they? It’s just so weird that the ‘climate change’ movement involves instituting Progressive (nice fascist) policies, wouldn’t you say?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “SIerra Club: Thousands Of Economic Changes Needed To Fight “Climate Change””

  1. john says:

    Teach please explain how people putting solar on their own roofs is somehow like government dominance.
    Conservatives seem to hate government, but really Teach at what point do you think the “free market” would have put warning labels on cigarette packages or air bags in cars? If it wasn’t for government regulation how much more would Duke energy try to charge YOU?

  2. david7134 says:

    John,
    I was going to make a detailed comment, but then I thought, yours is so stupid that it gets the message out there better than I could.

  3. jl says:

    John-if there were truly a free market, there’d be very, very few solar roofs or solar anything.

  4. Bill says:

    We have to put an end to freedom. Including Free Markets. With Freedom, people make too many decisions that are wrong.

    We know what they need, and we need the power to see that they do what we tell them is good for them.

    Thank Gaia for Obama who understands this and has made many decisions for them through executive orders.

  5. Jeffery says:

    j,

    John-if there were truly a free market, there’d be very, very few solar roofs or solar anything.

    Just the opposite. You are right in that we have few free markets. More correctly they are “rigged” markets.

    P. Krugman in the NYT:

    If there’s a single central insight in economics, it’s this: There are mutual gains from transactions between consenting adults. If the going price of widgets is $10 and I buy a widget, it must be because that widget is worth more than $10 to me. If you sell a widget at that price, it must be because it costs you less than $10 to make it. So buying and selling in the widget market works to the benefit of both buyers and sellers.

    But what if a deal between consenting adults imposes costs on people who are not part of the exchange? What if you manufacture a widget and I buy it, to our mutual benefit, but the process of producing that widget involves dumping toxic sludge into other people’s drinking water? When there are “negative externalities” — costs that economic actors impose on others without paying a price for their actions — any presumption that the market economy, left to its own devices, will do the right thing goes out the window.

    The pricing of fossil fuel use does not include the total societal costs of its use. What if you produce electricity and I buy it to our mutual benefit, but producing that electricity involves dumping CO2 into the atmosphere, causing harm to many not involved in the transaction? For example, the “negative externalities” of asthma, cancer, COPD, fish kills, loss of land, loss of oceans, and most important, global warming are not included in the price of fossil fuel use. If these costs were included, fossil fuels would not be a bargain compared to wind, solar, other renewables – even nuclear derived energy.

    This is the key to why Deniers Deny. They do not want to be held responsible for the damage they’ve caused and continue to cause. Conservatives have always opposed environmental policies because they may interfere with the rigged system from which they benefit.

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    The pricing of fossil fuel use does not include the total societal costs of its use… ad nauseum.

    Yeah, there are no societal benefits of fossil fuel use.

    Nice leftist bullshit logic.

  7. david7134 says:

    jeff,
    Just as with John’s comment, yours really helps people to make up their minds about an issue. Your comments are so ridiculous that they significantly take away from any message and make people wonder about your sanity and the idiodicy of any position you take.

  8. Jeffery says:

    Renewable energy delivers the same societal benefits WITHOUT the negative externalities.

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    Unfathomable stupidity.

    -Who needs gas when you can ride the bus?

  10. Jeffery says:

    Unfathomable stupidity.

    Don’t be so hard on yourself.

  11. Jeffery says:

    When the opposition is reduced to mindless insults, the debate is over.

    Opposition to the reality of global warming is based on greed.

  12. gitarcarver says:

    When the opposition is reduced to mindless insults, the debate is over.

    So when you called drowningpuppies “suckingpuppies,” you were in fact admitting the debate was over and you had lost?

    When you wrote “guttercrawler slithers out of its lair to spew more lies.,” the debate was over and you are admitting you are wrong?

    That’s refreshing.

    Renewable energy delivers the same societal benefits WITHOUT the negative externalities.

    Let’s see…..unreliable, and inconsistent power is not a negative? People having to pay more for power, therefore hurting the middle class and the poor is not a negative? Denying third world countries the ability to modernize which would mean more education, better health, etc is not a negative? High environmental impact is not a negative?

    We have different definition of the phrase “”without the negative externalities.”

    We all wish that your definition was rooted in reality,, but then again, we are used to that from you.

  13. Jeffery says:

    gc,

    Even you should recognize that I used “suckingpuppies” and “guttercrawler” only in response to direct name-calling from you and dp.

    It took a few iterations, but you both stopped it.

    The argument around negative externalities hinges on how serious a problem global warming is and will continue to be, agreed?

Bad Behavior has blocked 3691 access attempts in the last 7 days.