Washington Post: Hey, A “Climate Change” Plan Conservatives Should Support

The Washington Post Editorial Board has continued their abdication of being a news organization to being an activist one all week (I missed yesterday’s editorial, but, it was just as dumb as the rest), and here comes more insanity (we’re still waiting for the one where the members of the EB proclaim they themselves will give up fossil fuels and go carbon neutral)

A climate for change: A solution conservatives could accept

A PROMINENT member of Congress has proposed a comprehensive national climate-change plan. It’s only 28 pages long, it’s market-based, and it would put money into the pockets of most Americans.

This is not the first time that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a House Democratic leader, has made the point that the best climate-change policy is not complicated. He introduced a similar plan in 2009. The underlying logic is older still: Since the beginning of the climate debate, mainstream economists, left and right, have argued that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to use simple market economics, putting a price on emissions that reflects the environmental damage they cause.

As economists see it, the nation is giving a massive implicit subsidy to the users of fossil fuels, who fill the air with carbon dioxide, imposing real costs on society, without paying for the privilege. Make users pay for the carbon dioxide they emit and they will waste less energy, while investment will flow into low-carbon technologies. The nation would obtain emissions cuts at a minimum cost to the economy.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the Washington Post not use massive amounts of fossil fuels to gather the news and deliver their newspaper? Moving on, this seems to be a call to tax every single American who uses fossil fuels, which means virtually every single American. The plan calls for “rebates” to some Americans. So, the Government would forcibly take more money from citizens, then supposedly give some back (wink wink).

Conservatives who truly favor free markets over central planning should come to the table. If they cannot muster the intellectual courage, Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) has a smart second-best idea: Let states escape the EPA’s centralized regulation if they enact their own carbon taxes instead.

Of course, this misses several central points, the first being that we do not buy into the notion that “climate change” is mostly/solely caused by Mankind’s release of carbon dioxide. The real science, when applied using the scientific method, is against the Warmist’s “consensus”, hyperbole, and doom-saying.

Second, enacting a carbon tax at the federal or state levels is not a “market force/solution”. It is not a free market solution. It is still a top down government edict.

As far as intellectual courage, perhaps Warmists should look in their own cupboard, since their cult is dying a slow, painful death, whereby they are having to come up with dozens of excuses to explain away the almost 18 year Pause in warming. Van Hollen’s suggested legislation is a silly as it gets

(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, with CO2 in the atmosphere reaching 400 parts per million in 2013 for the first time in human history.

(2) The warming of our planet has led to more frequent, dangerous and expensive extreme weather events, including heat waves, storms, fires, droughts, floods and tornadoes.

(3) More than 97 percent of climate scientists agree that our planet is warming, primarily because of the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.

(4) The atmosphere is a common resource that belongs equally to all.

(5) Stabilizing the climate can and must be done in a way that supports vibrant economic growth and a thriving middle class.

Hysteria over “more extreme” weather events that has been debunked many, many times? Check. Consensus that has been debunked? Check. The ability to actually stabilize the climate? Insane.

Oh, and BTW, the payments from the so-called Healthy Climate Dividend would be given to not just US citizens, but anyone who is a “nonresident alien individual”, in otherwords, illegal aliens who were able to obtain government documents (section 9912). And, it would allow Warmists to sue much easier, which is important for them, because they lose the vast majority of court cases.

It should be also noted that virtually every carbon permitting system has failed, including in California. That’s a much longer story.

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

3 Responses to “Washington Post: Hey, A “Climate Change” Plan Conservatives Should Support”

  1. Hca Garcinia says:

    Very energetic article, I loved that bit. Will there be a part 2?

    Feel free to surf to my weblog Hca Garcinia

  2. jan freed says:

    You are sadly mistaken is virtually every respect. I can believe you or our most trusted messengers: NASA, NOAA, every national science academy in the world…..good old National Geographic, Scientific American, AMA, American Pediatric Assoc. on health effects of AGW on children.

    How much the damages increase is up to us. We need to lower emissions.

    Economists, left and right, say the best solution is to put a national price on carbon, with all fees returned to citizens.

    People are then free to use this tax windfall to buy less expensive, low carbon, forms of energy, and, perhaps, save the one planet known to support life.

    In this way, BC has lowered emissions by almost 20% and used carbon fees to lower income taxes.

    Details at

  3. Jeffery says:

    Back (until 2008) when the US conservative movement was driven solely by the desire to support the wealthy, conservative leaders devised a market-driven system for reducing carbon emissions. Way back then, conservatives believed in science, and understood the reality of global warming. Then came the virulent anti-intellectualism and partisanship of the pseudo-populist Teocon movement whose motto is, “If any liberal anywhere believes something, we’re against it. And more blowjobs for rich people.”

    Deniers don’t debate climate science, they deny climate science. Why? Well, as always to teabag their corporate masters, but also to satisfy their need to appear free of government interference, and to oppose progressives. They are driven by fear, distrust and magical thinking.

    The teocon followers live in a bubble of time (about 1 week ahead), place (about 100 yards around them), input (FOX) and thought (magic!). They do as they’re told by their Teocon leaders, who today tell them to support the fossil fuel industry, ostensibly because CO2 is plant food, but really because the fossil fuel industry wants a less steep glide path transitioning to renewable energy. They want the “market” to decide. Well the market has spoken and states that fossil fuels owe the Earth about $1 trillion in reparations.

Pirate's Cove