Warmist: Fossil Fuels Need To Be Priced Out Of The Market

You can call this fascism, marxism, socialism, communism, whatever you want. Either way, Warmists want Super Big Government to control every aspect of your lives and the private economy. Zhao Zhong, a former nuclear engineer at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, is the China program coordinator at Pacific Environment, an environmental group, writes an opinion piece over at the NY Times, in context of a debate on whether nuclear energy is the way to go

Price Fossil Fuels Out of the Market

I agree that we should move away from our dependence on greenhouse gas-emitting fossil fuels at a faster pace and find replacements for our energy needs at magnitudes much greater than current expectations.

The single most important thing we must do is place a high price, or a strict cap, on carbon emissions to make fossil fuel energy less attractive when compared to other energy sources. We are at the beginning stages of capping coal in China but much more needs to be done. If we price coal and other fossil fuels to capture their true costs, it will immediately make all the alternatives to fossil fuels more competitive and drive innovations in the clean energy sector.

This seems to be the thoughts, er, feelings of most Warmists. Funny how they want Everyone Else to suffer for their beliefs, yet they themselves won’t give up their own use of fossil fuels, which they say is Bad.

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 “Warmist: Fossil Fuels Need To Be Priced Out Of The Market”

  1. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    If we price coal and other fossil fuels to capture their true costs, it will immediately make all the alternatives to fossil fuels more competitive and drive innovations

    Yeah, except the value of coal is already priced at its true cost plus additional profit margins.

    Innovation only occurs when there is alot of free extra money and a desire to find even cheaper more reliability innovations. When the market is stifled, over-priced, de-incentivized, having a higher priced “alternative” energy does not lead to lots of extra energy.

    This is only, ONLY, a method to reduce energy usage and control the flow and rise of businesses. the anti-capitalists hate the free flow of energy and goods.

  2. Jeffery says:

    No, fossil fuels are not already priced at the true costs. You overlook what economists term “negative externalities”. If a company manufactures a product for sale, and sells to a willing buyer for a profit above and beyond what the manufacturer is invested in the product, that’s capitalism, but sometimes there exist costs to society not captured by the market. For example, what if in the manufacture of the product the company pollutes a river where the downstream communities must clean it up; shouldn’t the manufacturer be liable for the damages? Shouldn’t that cost be part of the company’s cost for selling their product? Of course it should. When it isn’t (as is the case with GHG pollution) it results in an inefficient market.

    And we can address that in at least a couple of ways. We can ban the pollutant making it illegal to dump into the river. We have plenty of such laws and they have worked.

    Or we can use a market-based approach (actually developed by conservatives) is to tax (called a pigouvian tax!) the pollutant, or to set up a cap and trade system, selling or giving licenses to pollute but limiting the maximum amount. These kinds of systems have worked for hard to trace or widespread agents (e.g., pollutants that caused acid rain).

    Of course if you deny that GHG emissions are damaging than there is nothing to consider.

  3. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    OMG, you are such a blind anti-business idiot.

    The total costs includes those you mentioned. It is called insurance and the cost of doing business. It is paid when a company is sued or fined for dumping and ruining an environment.

    GC will correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t it required of businesses to be bonded (insured) before they can operate in certain segments of our business community? I know many journeyman practices have to be.

    Or we can use a market-based approach (actually developed by conservatives) is to tax (called a pigouvian tax!) the pollutant,

    Ummm.. no, that is not a conservative approach. Liberals and Socialists are the ones wanting to tax pollution.

    Of course if you deny that GHG emissions are damaging than there is nothing to consider.

    Yes, I do deny that. I embrace GHG. They are our lifesavers. They give us life, warmth, breath, nutrients, and are the basis and results of life.

    The fact that you and your ilk can’t distinguish between a GHG and a pollutant shows how anti-life you people are.

  4. jl says:

    ” if you deny GHG emissions are damaging…” So you think water vapor is damaging? No, it’s not, and neither is CO2.

  5. Jeffery says:

    It’s why you and your ilk are known as deniers. You deny basic physics. But that’s OK, as your ilk are dwindling.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Gumballs typed: “The total costs includes those you mentioned. It is called insurance and the cost of doing business. It is paid when a company is sued or fined for dumping and ruining an environment.”

    That’s great. I had no idea. So insurance companies will pay for all the damages associated with global warming?

    This is actually the important point. The “fossilists”, like wt, jimhoft, Marc Morano, the Republican party, Tea party etc do not want their donors/constituency (Peabody, Exxon, Koch, etc) to pay what they owe. In fact, they are terrified of the prospect of (1) being held accountable and (2) having their present businesses disrupted.

    Clearly, there is no reason for the fossilists to worry. Since we are all in this together, the costs will be paid by the citizens of the world and not by the executives and shareholders of Exxon et al. In fact, our taxes will go up and theirs will go down thanks to their minions in Washington! Even a carbon tax will be paid by the end users! Always remember: We are a plutocracy. Follow the money.

    I bet you think the tobacco companies have been treated unfairly.

  7. Jeffery says:

    jl,

    you typed: “So you think water vapor is damaging? No, it’s not, and neither is CO2.”

    You’re partly right. CO2 is damaging in that it absorbs heat emitted by the Earth and re-emits it, only some of which gets to deep space. This is both good and bad! CO2 has stayed around 280 ppm (during the entire period of human civilization!) during the current interglacial. During the last half million years (at least) CO2 has been between 180 ppm (ice ages) and 280 ppm (interglacial periods). I admit I’m being very selfishly pro-human civilization here, and definitely anti-change. Current CO2 is approaching 400 ppm and rising rapidly and b because of this the Earth is steadily retaining the warmth of the Sun. A toxicologist friend wrote the book, “The Dose Makes the Poison”. We are overdosing on CO2.

    You compare water vapor to CO2. Humans are only changing water vapor indirectly as a result of atmospheric warming (warm air holds more water vapor). Water vapor, while a strong GHG, varies widely based on temperature, time and location. As CO2 causes the Earth’s temperature to increase, and causes the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, the GHG actions of CO2 are amplified.

    Calling CO2 or water vapor or heat, “good” or “bad” misses the point. The right amount of heat is good – but too little or too much can be bad.

    The facts are quite simple. Humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere over the past century and this is causing the Earth to warm rapidly. Fossilists argue this will be good. Climate realists argue it will most likely be bad.

  8. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    J produces lies with some half-truths and then pretends to stand on higher ground.

    J started off his question with dumping and despoiling an ecosystem with a pollutant. I answered his question that polluters are held responsible and do pay. And that cost of cleanup is all part of doing business.

    But then J jumps the shark to claim it covers a warming globe. J, if true, then EVERYONE\EVERYTHING that produces CO2 – like you – can be held liable. Have you bought your CO2 insurance then J? One can’t be held liable for nature’s actions. If a molecule wants to spread its warmth around, as defined by its nature, then who are we to collect monies in attempts to stop it? Do you really think that high of yourself?

    The “fossilists”, like wt, jimhoft, Marc Morano, the Republican party, Tea party etc do not want their donors/constituency (Peabody, Exxon, Koch, etc) to pay what they owe.

    I don’t even know what “fossilists” could even mean. That they like fossils? I like fossils. They look so cool in a museum. However, the major crux of your statement is a half truth. Conservatives do not feel that petroleum companies should pay an additional tax because they are a petroleum company. Especially when that money is used to redistribute profit to non-petroleum ventures all in the vain attempt to control a minor trace gas that doesn’t do much to our atmosphere.

    Clearly, there is no reason for the fossilists to worry. Since we are all in this together, the costs will be paid by the citizens of the world and not by the executives and shareholders of Exxon et al

    Again with half-truths. Yes, a carbon-tax ponzi scheme would only hurt consumers. That is foundationally true. But, that is even more of a reason to fight against the carbon-tax. You Socialists love to harm the little guys with your taxes and fees while claiming it only punishes the companies. I’m glad that you accepted that this lie is not true and the true victims of your liberal policies do in fact hurt the consumers.

    In fact, our taxes will go up and theirs will go down thanks to their minions in Washington!

    Right now, it is your Socialist party that is in charge. Don’t lie to everyone again. The Repubs are currently in control of the House, but not the Senate or the Executive. And there are way too many liberals in the Judicial. Taxes are raised by liberal tax-n-spend parties who want more gov’t and less freedoms for the people.

    We are a plutocracy. Follow the money.

    Ummm.. No, we are not. Man, your stupid is on high alert today, isn’t it?

    CO2 is damaging in that it absorbs heat emitted by the Earth and re-emits it, only some of which gets to deep space.

    OH GOOD GOD!!! You can’t really believe that? Really? You think CO2 is a bad molecule and the fact that it re-radiates heat damages our atmosphere?!?!!?? Damn boy, quit smokin the crak.

    CO2 has stayed around 280 ppm (during the entire period of human civilization!)

    Wrong again. CO2 has fluctuated up and down throughout recent time as well as the ancient time. Even recently, new research has shown that CO2 has been up around 400ppm before. But even if it wasn’t, our CO2 has been up around 7000ppm during previous ages. And no, 400ppm is not toxic. If it was, then greenhouses would not have twice that level and more for its plants. People work and live just fine in that same environment. So, before you start blathering on and scaring the ignorant:

    Signs of intoxication have been produced by a 30-minute exposure at 50,000 ppm [Aero 1953], and a few minutes exposure at 70,000 to 100,000 ppm produces unconsciousness [Flury and Zernik 1931]. It has been reported that submarine personnel exposed continuously at 30,000 ppm were only slightly affected, provided the oxygen content of the air was maintained at normal concentrations [Schaefer 1951]. It has been reported that 100,000 ppm is the atmospheric concentration immediately dangerous to life [AIHA 1971] and that exposure to 100,000 ppm for only a few minutes can cause loss of consciousness [Hunter 1975].

    So, you can see 400ppm is so very very very very very far from toxic levels.

    As CO2 causes the Earth’s temperature to increase, and causes the atmosphere to hold more water vapor, the GHG actions of CO2 are amplified.

    CO2 does not cause temperature to increase. It does not create heat. It can’t. It is a molecule. If this were true, then we’d die from excess heat build up, wouldn’t we?
    And the theory about holding more water vapor, yeah, once again I point out your lie. Water Vapor content has not gone up alongside increasing CO2 content. Water vapor does not amplify CO2. Or vice-versa.

    DUDE, you really need to get off crak. It is making you see loopholes, feedbacks, and flying self-heating CO2 molecules where there aren’t.

    Humans have been adding CO2 to the atmosphere over the past century and this is causing the Earth to warm rapidly. Fossilists argue this will be good. Climate realists argue it will most likely be bad.

    Yes Humans have been adding CO2 to atmosphere. So has nature. And at this time, there is no way to distinguish between man’s vs nature’s CO2. And nature has been shown to be a far vast greater emitter of CO2. And there is no “rapidly” evident in any publication that has survived peer-review. You climate ignoramouses can claim it is bad, but so far have yet to point out one bad thing. Point out one bad thing from our current level of climate. Our weather is grand, great, and awesome!

    You cultists keep saying “it will most likely be bad”. And then keep pointing your finger in the wind and guessing how far ahead in the future “it might be bad”.

    We need to start calling you people Chicken Littles. All you do is scream your heads off over nothing.

  9. Jl says:

    Jeffery-“you compare water vapor to CO2.” No , you did. “If you deny GHG are damaging….” Water vapor and CO2 obviously are both GHGs, you’re the one who lumped them both together. Jeffery- “Calling water vapor or CO2 good or bad misses the point.” But that’s exactly what you did when you said, and I repeat, “if you deny GHG are damaging…”. Not only have you not proved that water vapor or CO2 are damaging, you show your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired, as you have a hard time reading what you yourself wrote.

  10. Jl says:

    Jeffery- ” you and your ilk are known as deniers.” Also known among people who practice the scientific method as “people who have a different opinion”. But that proper phrase doesn’t fit your narrative, does it?

  11. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    Right on, Jl. We’ve had this problem with J, John, and Zach. They have the same problem. Exact same. They say something, deny they said it, and then blame you for saying it.

    Much like our liberal Socialist politicians currently: “No, I did not say you could keep your plan.” Reporter: “but we have you on video” Pol: “That was taken out of context and an oversimplification of the greater intent of the bill. Besides if was you who reported those words in your media.” Reporter: (scratches head) “oh, right. What should we print now, pol?”

  12. Jeffery says:

    The problem with cloistered RWNJs is that they cannot keep on topic. I call it your “one lie at a time” problem. You never address an issue directly and always try to smother it in a blizzard of even more BS.

    Balls typed:

    “And at this time, there is no way to distinguish between man’s vs nature’s CO2.”

    This is patently false. I’ve explained it to you more than once and yet to continue to lie. Or I guess you could plead ignorance.

    Sigh. Climate realists are not and have not been talking about acute CO2 toxicity. This is just another silly and stupid diversion on your part.

    Nor are climate realists claiming that CO2 generates heat. This is just another silly and stupid diversion on your part.

    You are not only misinformed, but you are a willful liar to boot. Ignorance, dishonesty and a belief in magic is a dangerous mix.

    Here is the basic thesis of AGW:

    Atmospheric CO2 is increasing because of humans burning fossil fuels. Yes or no?

    This CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. Yes or no.

    This would be a starting point for discussion and avoid your BS about whether CO2 works for good or evil.

  13. Ignore_Cold_Gumballs says:

    man made vs natural CO2 indistinguishable

    I’m not even going to respond to your lies about what you said, because I already pointed them out in this particular post alone, let alone all the others. But, I’ll just point to this one example:

    This would be a starting point for discussion and avoid your BS about whether CO2 works for good or evil.

    J willfully ignores that he was the one that brought that up with the claim CO2 is evil\bad\damaging to life.

Bad Behavior has blocked 10578 access attempts in the last 7 days.