It’s always most amusing when Warmists, who tend to hold a Progressive (nice fascist) ideology, one which is considered far to the Left, start yammering about something being “for the kids”. Theres are the same folks who fully endorse abortion on demand for any reason and on any whim. And we’re supposed to use taxpayer money to pay for it. We’re only supposed to indoctrinate, er, educate kids in Government schools. Well, Other People’s kids, that is. We’re supposed to do this and that “for the kids”, such as opening the borders. And, per fossil fuels jet setting World Bank President Jim Yong Kim
Tackling Climate Change — For Our Kids
If you have children or grandchildren, you probably have wondered what the world will be like for them in 20 or 30 years. Will it be a better place? Will climate change upend their lives?
It’s something I have thought about a lot since I became the president of the World Bank Group in July 2012. Within my first few months on the job, I was briefed on an upcoming climate change report, and the findings shocked me. I knew then that tackling climate change would be one of my top priorities as the leader of a development institution whose mission is ending extreme poverty by 2030 and boosting shared prosperity. If we don’t start controlling climate change, the mission to end poverty will fail.
The linking of “controlling climate change” (yup, nuttbaggery) with poverty is just the latest attempt to force “climate change” legislation (treaties, agreements, etc), following on notions such as sustainability and diversity and many others.
Mr. Kim then goes on to highlight a UN IPCC computer model (snicker) which spells out DOOOOOOOOM if we don’t Do Something, despite the fact that 95% of the models have failed. And, of course, blames every weather event on Hotcoldwetdry, taking the party line of extreme weather and bigger and badder storms. In contradiction of real world data, of course. This leads to
We need a plan for the planet.
And the world needs to put the brakes on climate change. But any plan to tackle climate change can’t sacrifice economic growth if we hope to end extreme poverty, reduce inequality, and ensure that poor people gain access to energy.
We need to decouple growth from carbon emissions.
Huh. Interesting. If that’s the case, will Mr. Kim forgo his own use of fossil fuels? He’s certainly spent quite a bit of time jet setting around the world. Will he demand that all who attend the Managing the Carbon Bubble event on April 15th not use fossil fueled travel? Anyway, he has 5 ideas to “decouple growth from carbon emissions” (despite this being unscientific terminology, as we are discussing CO2)
- Put a price on carbon. (despite virtually every carbon market collapsing.
- Phase out fossil fuel subsidies. (of course, they are mostly tax breaks, not subsidies, and every country which relies on fossil fuels has a much higher standard of living than those who don’t)
- Encourage energy efficiency and renewable energy. (left unsaid is that this would be enforced by Big Government under penalty of law)
- Build low-carbon cities. (he really wants this for “developing countries”, which would still have no actual economic activity, just destitute people living in hovels in cities)
- Enable climate-smart agriculture. (seriously, these people can’t build a website (among others), do you want them in charge of food production?)
He ends with
These five areas of action could help the world get off the path toward 4 degree of warming. For our part, the World Bank Group is trying to build climate change considerations into everything we do, because we know that if we don’t confront climate change, there will be no hope of ending poverty or boosting shared prosperity. The longer we delay, the higher the cost will be to do the right thing for our planet and our children.
Notice that nowhere does he recommend that…..yup, here it comes!….Warmists forgo their own use of fossil fuels. Nor does he even recommend eliminating the use of fossil fuels. The first two, carbon markets and fossil fuels “subsidies” would benefit the rich, who wouldn’t be bothered much by purchasing carbon offsets (which is like paying a speeding ticket for Bad Behavior rather than giving up speeding) nor the massive rise in the cost of living due to the large increase in the cost of fossil fuels. If it’s “for the kids”, Warmists should immediately give up fossil fuels and make their own lives “carbon neutral”.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Our host wrote:
Just look at the cities in the third world, the places of the greatest economic activity in their countries: they are havens of the (few) elites and middle class, surrounded by the hovels of the poor, and they are just absolutely belching greenhouse gasses and other pollutants, because fossil Fuel usage is still the quickest and most efficient method of energy production and fueling transportation that we have.
There’s along article about Lagos, Nigeria, in a recent edition of National Geographic.
It’s amazing how the so-called, self-identified “progressives” have bought into
global warmingclimate change, and what their proposed remedies are: a group which claims to be just oh-so-concerned about the poor advocates policies which would make poorer people in the developed world poorer in real terms, and which would stifle economic activity in the developing world. Their policies would have a negative impact on everybody except the already well-to-do.Two points:
1. Fossil fuel subsidies are not mostly tax breaks, but mostly ignoring the costs of CO2 pollution. The chemical industry cannot just dump their wastes into the air and water, they have to pay to have it stored, processed and detoxified. That is a cost of doing business, that they include in their product pricing. The nuclear industry just can’t dump their spent radioactive wastes into the water or landfill. The have to pay to have it stored. Pork, chicken and beef producers can’t just dump animal feces wherever they wish, they are responsible for it (the greenhouse gas, methane, is another story). We regulate most pollutants and the costs of that regulation accrue to the producer. It’s called responsibility.
2. Tax breaks to a specific entity are indeed and absolutely subsidies. If your next door neighbor lives tax-free and you and everyone else pays taxes, your next door neighbor is receiving a subsidy.
Yes, the rapid elimination of fossil fuel use is a fossil fuel industry/conservative/Repubicum straw man. Because of the clear danger from global warming it’s imperative we transition away from fossil fuels to renewables. Yes, if we had started decades ago like we should have it would obviously be an easier transition, but so-called “free-market” fetishists would not have it.
By the way. What is “free-market” about not taking responsibility for the pollution you produce?
The deniers only answer is that global warming is a hoax. Hence, your position.
We get it. Many deniers have an ideological position against government regulations. Why are you ashamed to admit that that’s what drives you? Why make up embarrassing tales about it not warming, it’s not CO2, dishonest scientists, communist conspiracies, Mars SUVs, 4 billion year old warming etc? Be proud of your ideology.
Here are the facts. The Earth has warmed and continues to warm for the past century or so mostly because of CO2 that humans are adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels to generate valuable and life saving energy. We’ve known this to be occurring for several decades and we keep kicking the can down the road. Solving this problem, while absolutely necessary, will not be free or easy. On the other hand, it will not “destroy economies”, “punish 3rd world countries” or send “humankind back into caves”. It WILL impact a particular set of industries. Not unlike what oil and natural gas infrastructure did to the home coal industry. Economies are always changing – and more rapidly than the climate.
To use an analogy favored by a commenter here – 4 billion years ago, the Earth was warmer than today and the world’s economy at that time was ZERO! Therefore it’s warming that destroys economies. The host falsely claims that the MWP was warmer than today (it wasn’t), but the economy was WORSE then, than now! So did the warming of the MWP harm the economy then?
RWNJs haven’t proven that economic change is man-made and not natural. To think that humans can have an effect on something as big and powerful as the global economy is naive.
Our host’s most reliable leftist commenter wrote:
Translation: the free market provided far less expensive energy sources, so that is what people used. If only Our Betters had complete control over the economy and people’s spending, we could all be wearing Jimmy Carter’s sweaters in our own homes.
We needed Five Year Plans!
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxcP7TRY178&w=640&h=480%5D
Сквозь грозы ÑиÑло нам Ñолнце Ñвободы,
И Ленин великий нам путь озарил,
Ðа правое дело он поднÑл народы,
Ðа труд и на подвиги Ð½Ð°Ñ Ð²Ð´Ð¾Ñ…Ð½Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ð»!
Jeffrey wrote:
Unfortunately, the problem is that you don’t get it. What I oppose — to speak only for myself, and not our esteemed host — is the impoverishment of the people. The free market and capitalism, which I suppose you find distasteful, to judge from your previous comment, is the only system which has lifted more than a tiny minority of the people above the subsistence level, yet you would destroy that, you would return everybody — other than the nomenklatura — to poverty.
Oh, I’m sure you don’t see your policy prescriptions as doing that, but you would impose significant costs on everybody for no economic gain to themselves: everything would cost more, meaning that, in real terms, people would have less.
Dana,
No, I do not oppose capitalism and free markets. I’m an entrepreneur who has invested and reaped rewards. Your mistake is that we have free markets. We do not. Not even close. We have crony capitalism that runs so deep we can’t even identify genuine free markets any more.
The fossil fuels industry does not exist in a free market. They are causing trillions in damage and not being held accountable.
Drug companies and tech companies can charge hundreds of times market value because they’ve been awarded government enforced monopolies.
What’s impoverishing people in the US is not potential wise energy policy but unwise economic policy that rewards the wealthy at the expense of the working classes.
What today’s conservatives support is not free markets but the status quo.
I’ve seen no interest by conservatives in lifting anyone out of poverty other than by rewarding the already wealthy in hopes some of their good fortune in buying political favors will “trickle down” to workers.
I suspect you oppose sound energy policy for three reasons: 1. You dislike those who support sound policy. 2. You support (and are supported by) those who profit from the current unsound, and NOT free market policies and 3. You have a misguided cult-like fetish for what you envision as “rugged individualism” of the entrepreneur which in reality is government/business abuse of power.
Of course “renewables” is scientifically impossible yet the Warminsts always say we Realists are “anti-science.”
So give up your patent on the drugs you say you own, Jeffery. Oh wait….. you want others to do that but you won’t.
Yet conservatives are for keeping energy costs that affect everyone but may affect low income people the most, down. Liberals and progressives want to raise energy costs thus harming low income people the most. The only “plans” liberals and progressives have is to 1) keep people poor, 2) punish those who are successful and 3) create some sort of class warfare to keep themselves by stealing money from people for so called “solutions” that don’t work.
Jeffrey wrote:
Your statement is based on a notion I do not accept, that the energy policy you favor is sound; it is in no way sound. Rather, it seeks to give up the best and least expensive sources of energy we have, in favor of technologies which do not exist at levels sufficient to meet our energy needs, by adding costs to consumers which will only make them poorer.
More, the policies you appear to favor would either not reduce carbon emissions, by granting exemptions to the developing world, or would hold the developing world in poverty by halting their use of carbon-based energy; both outcomes would be bad ones.
About the only good point you made concerned “crony capitalism,” and even those were off-base.
Gitcarver wrote:
And that’s exactly right. Jeffrey doesn’t seem to comprehend that the energy companies, that any companies, will pass additional costs down to the consumer; in the end, the total cost of everything is borne by the end consumer of any good or service. Capitalists, one of whom he claims to be, are in the business of making money, period, and they will pass down every last penny they can in the prices they charge. Competition means that they can’t charge so much that they lose market share or attract more competitors, but when it comes to the energy policies Jeffrey would have us impose, those costs would be pretty much the same for every competitor; there’d be no reason to try to gain market share by skimping on passing down those costs.
The head Bishop of the Episcopalian Church has now Aldo issued a statement strongly supporting that hoax and conspiracy that Teach always says is tryjng to contolng him
Thirty years ago Margaret Thatcher warned about AGW
The cost of solar electricity is continuing to drop it has fallen from $1.50 to .42 in the last 5 years (FOB highest quality Chinese module) as far as caring/not caring for “the kids” that would. Certainly be one Mark of a narcissist And for s graduate of one of the most elite and expensive prep schools in the USA to say that kids are being forced to attend government run schools Is pretty funny
Teach. Not everyone can afford. The 50 grand, current tuition cost, at your prep dchool
Wind power is now cheaper than coal and no one will finance the billions needed for a new coal power plant The money just isn’t there the codt for new wind power is as low as 4 cents a kilowatt
Not at all. I’m an entrepreneur myself, investing and reaping rewards. But what the right now defines as free market capitalism is anything but. It’s a toxic form of crony captitalism. The fossil-fuel industry absolutely does not exist in a free market since they are not responsible for the damages they cause from CO2 pollution.
The pharmaceutical and tech industries make their billions is profit with the support of government enforced monopolies. The free market cost of many targeted cancer drugs is 1/100th what the drug companies charge.
Poverty in America today is not caused by potential carbon cap and trade tomorrow is it? Of course not. The worsening inequality in income and wealth comes from policies that support the wealthy donor class at the expense of the working classes.
You support the status quo version of crony capitalism where political donors dictate policy.
Listen, if you agree that the fossil fuel industry become a true free market, I’m on your side. But I suspect you really don’t, that you think that the rest of society and global taxpayers either pay for or bear the brunt of CO2 pollution.
Of course, the only reasonable course for you is to deny that there is such a thing as CO2 pollution.
So yeah, we get it.
Do you think society should be able to impose regulations on businesses? How does the so-called “free market” handle the production of pollution?
Dana and gitar,
Again, I guess I’m not being clear.
The TRUE and ACTUAL cost of fossil-fuels must include the COST of CO2 pollution. Of course business will pass the costs on. That’s the point. The subsidy of fossil-fuels by not including the cost of pollution offers them an unfair advantage over other forms of energy production. Hence, not a free market. So we charge the fossil-fuels industry for the damage caused by CO2 pollution, making fossil fuels more expensive than now, but finally priced correctly by the market.
Either you’re claiming that companies are not responsible for damages or that CO2 pollution is not causing damage.
Deniers deny that CO2 pollution is a problem. It’s the only reasonable conclusion you can reach given your ideology.
Again, I guess I’m not being clear.
Indeed.
doublepenetration,
Nothing to add? How unsurprising. Fluffing keeps you busy.
Why add anything to something you’re not really clear about?
But your cheap shots are amusing.
J-“Tax breaks to a specific entity are indeed and absolutely subsidies.” Poor Jeffry-wrong again. No, tax breaks aren’t subsidies, they’re ..tax breaks. After a back-breaking 30 second search on Google (try it sometime)we come up with Webster”s definition of subsidy: “Money that is paid usually by a government to keep the price of a product or service low so as to continue to function.” I know this is hard for you, but try to follow along. Notice the phrase “money paid by the government”. When you or I or an entity receive a tax break, the government is not paying us anything-so that’s why it’s a tax break and not a subsidy-by definition. You’ve yet to realize that most people in the media wrongly interchange the two words so as to mean the same thing, but they aren’t. Look at it this way- they’re two different occurrences in that the flow of money is reversed between one and the other, so obviously they’re different things. Taxes are money we pay to the government. Subsidies are money the government pays out. Alternative energy receives subsidies-just re-read the definition. Fossil fuel companies receive mostly tax breaks, as I’ve said before.
And as I said earlier and you refused to acknowledge and you and another commenter mischaracterized (actually, you both lied), the major subsidy that the fossil fuel industry gets is NOT a tax break but the free pass on pollution.
I understand why you wish to change the subject to tax breaks – you think you have an argument you can win – and Webster’s Dictionary too! I understand why you want to deflect attention from the argument by playing semantic games.
You and the other more passive-aggressive typist erected the straw man of tax breaks.
The CO2 emitted from burning fossil fuels for energy damages human civilization now and moving forward. That we never factored that cost into the market cost of fossil fuels amounts to a subsidy (it’s NOT a tax break). But I understand why you want to change the subject.
If there had been a small fossil fuel surtax to at least partially pay for the horrific effects we’re facing from global warming, renewables would have been more competitive earlier. Nothing to do with tax credits, which are subsidies.
N.B. to passive-aggressive commenter – I’ve seen your mockery of “renewables” more than once, and don’t buy your “logic”. But I understand why you want to change the subject with semantic distractions.
Do any of you think that corporations have any responsibility for their “negative externalities”, i.e., pollution from their transactions?
And as I said earlier and you refused to acknowledge and you and another commenter mischaracterized (actually, you both lied), the major subsidy that the fossil fuel industry gets is NOT a tax break but the free pass on pollution.
Good grief. We’re not even talking moving the goal posts, you’ve switched to a completely different sport with that one. However, by your own admission, you’re saying that anyone who uses fossil fuels is a polluter, and should have to pay something. What will you pay, Jeff?
If by “corporations” you mean all the astroturfed liberal gatherings that leave vast amounts of trash at the end, well, yeah.
Of course corporations aren’t perfect. But, CO2 is not a pollutant. And while you Warmist idiots are yammering on about Hotcoldwetdry (and refusing to change your own behavior to match your beliefs), we forget about real environmental issues in favor of your idiocy. You also damage real environmental concerns by linking your insane cult beliefs with the environment
Jeffrey wrote:
Taking your first sentence as true strictly for the sake of argument, since it’s obvious that you believe it, you have just admitted that your policies, were they put into effect, would dramatically raise the cost of energy for everyone, rich and poor alike. Conservatives recognize that, despite the protestations of the “progressives” about how much they care about the poor, the “progressives” would like to make the poor poorer, in real terms, with these policies.
If y’all haven’t figured out why working class Americans are deserting the Democratic Party yet, perhaps if you’ll look at the policies you advocate, you might see why.
Dana,
I recall having this same argument in a past life, in the mid 1800s, with your great-great grandpappy, Colonel Beauregard DANA…
from the archives of “The White Man’s Cove”
Jeffery: “Colonel DANA, some observers claim that you are getting rich off the labors of Negro slaves, effectively transferring the burden of slavery to later generations of Americans. In other words, your use of state-sanctioned free slaves subsidizes enterprises in the confederacy, at the expense of businesses in non-slave states. Why is this not unlike what the Chinese will do with solar panels a century and a half, hence? And is this really what is meant by a ‘free-market’? Some observers now call this crony capitalism, relying on state sanctions to give unfair economic advantage to a narrow slice of the economy.”
Colonel Beauregard DANA: “Jeffy, I’m not sure you understand the meaning of the words subsidy OR free. Slave labor is hardly free. We have to house them and feed them. Do you have any idea what a bullwhip costs these days? And just because the state mandates that we can use slave labor, reducing our labor costs to nearly nothing, and that gives us a huge advantage over the commie businesses north of the Mason Dixon, doesn’t make it a subsidy! Look it up! Subsidies are government cash payments to those we disagree with, not egghead “in-kind” treatments like tax breaks, regulatory relief to specific companies or industries, and certainly not relief from so-called ‘negative externalities’. The other day, some ‘do-gooder’ said the darkie corpses were floating down the river through his land, and was making his cows and horses sick. Not my responsibility once the bodies float off my part of the river. He called this an economic “negative externality”. I kicked his externality negatively off my property! Har! Har!”
Jeffery: “Colonel, back to the original argument, if you please. Do you not admit that slavery gives you an economic advantage over your competitors in non-slave states? Just the other day, an inventor at a small company in Skokie unveiled a prototype cotton picking machine, but he says he just can’t compete with the free labor in the south. He’s petitioned the state for a little financial help as he develops to commercial scale. He has suggested it could even eliminate the need for slave labor.”
Colonel Beuregard DANA: “Jeffy – see? That “inventor” wants a subsidy!! My state-sanctioned and enforced free labor is NOT a subsidy. See the difference? Some call this a semantic argument, a distinction without a difference. I call it – WINNING!!
But if we have to PAY to have darkies pick my cotton, my sugar cane, my tobacky, the prices will shorely skyrocket, destroying our economy, impoverishing us all! I will have to pass those costs on and sugar, shirts and cigarettes will go up, making that cotton-picking machine competitive. We much prefer to not pay the TRUE and ACTUAL cost of our industry! We understand that at a later date someone will have to pay for our treatment of the darkies, but not now. Not now. They can have my darkies when they can pry them from my cold dead fingers, metaphorically speaking, of course.”
Jeffery: “Of course. And the homosexuals?”
Colonel Beauregard DANA: “We’ll continue to feed the Godless sodomites to the swine.”
Jeffery: “Again, Beauregard, using homosexuals as pig food, while increasing your profits, hides the TRUE and ACTUAL cost of your enterprise.”
Colonel Beauregard DANA: “You’re an atheist, anti-free-market, anti-American communist. In any event, when they take away our darkies, we’ll sneak in Mexicans to pick our crops for little more than nothing. WINNING!”
Jeffery: “Finally, physical chemists are concerned that burning coal and oil may lead to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and could cause the Earth to warm. Any concern?”
Colonel Beauregard DANA: “No. They’re predicting this in the future. It’s a big planet, so no way something you can’t even see can cause problems. Face it, over the entire 6000 year history of Earth the weather has always changed and will always change. Just yesterday, we had a gully-warsher that warshed away 3 of my best darkies. That’s cash money out of my pocket right there. I suppose my kerosene lamp is to blame! Har! Har!”
Teach typed:
Trying to explain why your dismissal of fairly pricing carbon=based fuels is changing the sport? In a post about carbon taxes? OK, whatever.
Yes, fossil fuel use results in pollution. CO2. Which is causing the Earth to warm. I will pay what I need to, Teach. And yes, we all pollute.
How do we calculate the costs of global warming, caused by our reliance on fossil fuels?
Do you understand the practical aspect of fairly increasing the cost of fossil-fuels to make renewable sources more competitive?
Do you understand that renewable sources are less competitive now because fossil-fuel costs do NOT include the costs of global warming, amounting to a subsidy.
Of course, if you deny the Earth is warming from CO2, it effectively short circuits the argument. Which is why you deny.
Of course, Jeffery is trying to redefine the term “subsidy” to fit his argument. What he is describing is not s subsidy in any sense of the word, but after being caught making a false allegation, he has to try and change the meaning of words.
However, even assuming his statement on “subsidies” is correct (and no rational thinking person believes it is) when Jeffery gets in his vehicle and pushes that gas pedal to the floor, causing CO2 to exit the exhaust pipe, he seems to think that some other company or individual should be responsible for his actions.
He is the one adding CO2 to the atmosphere and yet as we have seen time and time again, he wants other people to modify their behavior. Now he wants to penalize and bill others for his actions.
fluffy,
And fluffy won’t take responsibility for his lies.
You can label taxpayers bailing you out whatever you wish. Learned people call it a subsidy. But what one calls it is irrelevant, which is why it’s the most important thing in the whole wide world to you (it’s a subsidy). The concept itself escapes you. Why? Because it is so threatening to your worldview. I understand why you refuse to even acknowledge the argument. It’s logical for a person in your position.
Of course I use fossil fuels, but probably less than most. Again, irrelevant.
What’s relevant is that we’re all burning too much, resulting in increasing atmospheric CO2, which is causing the Earth to warm. Working together, we’ll need to cut back. One reasonable approach is to use the power of the markets, and gradually increase the cost of fossil fuel based energy. Because of the lost ground from ignoring global warming, we’ll never be able to reasonably recoup the damage to human civilization from fossil fuels, but we can use the power of the market to slow down the continued pollution.
I understand why you work so hard to change the subject and mount personal attacks. Classic Alinsky. Classic Fluffy. It would be surprising if you didn’t act this way.
Doesn’t it seem fair that the ones who have caused the Earth to warm, (you, me, all Westerners, now China and India) should bear the brunt of the responsibility? If we increase the costs of fossil-fuels to represent the true cost of use, you and I can choose to cut back or not. Freedom! You can make decisions based on your own economic self-interest.
I understand why you don’t want to address issues. It’s logical for someone in your position.
When was the last time you made a relevant comment?
J-“the major subsidy that fossil fuel companies get is not a tax break but a free pass on pollution.” Wrong again, J. Again, a subsidy is “. Government money given to an industry or individual…” So obviously a “free pass” doesn’t fit that definition, so it’s not a subsidy. You can try your pathetic attempt at deflection all you want but if you have this much of a problem with a definition spelled out in black and white, maybe take it up with Websters. “I can understand why you’d want to change the subject to tax breaks-you think you have an argument you can win-and Websters Dictionary, too!” J, I already won the argument a long time ago. As far as changing the subject to tax breaks, look up reply #2 in this post where you first mention…tax breaks. So, I never changed the subject, I replied to your mentioning tax breaks like they were interchangeable with subsidies, which they are not. By the way, writing “and Websters, too!” does nothing to refute the fact that you were, and still are using the term erroneously. “Nothing to do with tax credits, which are subsidies.” No they’re not, they’re tax credits. With a tax credit, is the government paying a corporation or individual money? (see Websters again because you’re having a hard time with this) No, they are not-they are allowing them to keep money that is already theirs. Hence, it’s a tax credit and not a subsidy. Finally, after you accuse me of changing the subject which I obviously didn’t do, guess what you do? You …..change the subject! CO2 from fossil fuels and surtaxes were not what we were discussing in this post. “The horrific effect we’re facing from global warming..” You can’t name one horrific effect from global warming. Look up the phrase ” beclowning oneself” and you’ll see your picture next to it.
Again, I guess I’m not being clear.
Thanks again little jeffy.
Actually Jeffery, you can’t. Words have meanings and the meaning of the word “subsidy” is well settled. The meaning is outside that which you want it to be. There is no disputing that. There is no way around it.
You childishly repeating that the term means something other than its accepted meaning only shows that you cannot debate or accept responsibility for the things you say.
No they don’t Jeffery. Just another lie from you.
Actually it is absolutely relevant because when people like you want to make claims that aren’t factual, that makes them a liar.
Your argument has been acknowledged and found to be flawed Jeffery. That’s the point. So while you are running around repeating the same lie, it is you who are not addressing the argument.
As usual, you like to try and blame others for your lack of intellectual honesty.
Look at the names you are calling people, Jeffery. With people like you, it is always projection and hypocrisy.
The fact of the matter is that you want to hold others accountable for what you do. You want others to pay for your actions.
You won’t address that little fact because you cannot see yourself as the hypocrite you are. Perhaps you should go back and deal with the fact that you think your wife is delusional. Perhaps you should deal with the fact that you won’t give up your patents while screaming that others do.
You’ll come back with some sort of childish name calling and not address the core issues, but we have all come to expect that from you.
Now go ahead and step on the pedal of your car and demand that others pay for your actions.
jl,
Look up the phrase “soiling oneself” and you’ll see your picture next to it.
You brought up tax credits, not me. By all means revise the meanings of words as you please.
As with your fluff buddy, it serves to distract.
It’s a fact that we have never taken account of the damages from global warming. The cost is not part of the cost of fossil fuels.
I understand why you insist on ignoring it, even denying that global warming is occurring.
I understand why you insist on changing the subject.
Wow. The ugliest daisy chain ever. dp to jl to gc. Yuck.
You’re welcome, little bitch.
little bitch,
I forgot to add. You’re the one commenter here who adds less to the discussion than LF (lying fluffy).
Really? Says you. And you’re a proven liar.
Subsidies come in various forms including: direct (cash grants, interest-free loans) and indirect (tax breaks, insurance, low-interest loans, depreciation write-offs, rent rebates).
How would you label the phenomenon where Wal-Mart employees consume about $1000 each in public assistance per year? Lazy workers? Bad negotiators? 47% ers? Or an indirect subsidy to Wal-Mart?
I didn’t make an untrue claim, but rather one with you disagree. And you fail again.
My claim wasn’t found to be flawed. Not one fluffer here pointed out a flaw, but only argued about the word ‘subsidy’, lol.
I still understand why you refuse to discuss issues, and distract people by trying to drag others down your rat hole.
http://www.basiceconomics.info/market-failures-and-externalities.php
You can learn a bit about negative externalities and market failure. Do you think this applies to fossil fuels and CO2 pollution? That gap between the public cost and the public + societal cost is the negative externality.
The societal cost of CO2 pollution is real and is largely unaccounted in the public cost of fossil fuels.
Simple question: What is your argument that the negative externality of CO2 pollution shouldn’t be incorporated into the cost of fossil-fuels?
J-“you brought up tax credits, not me.” Please see response #17 “nothing to do with tax credits, which are subsidies.” Now, show me where I ever uttered “tax credits prior to that. Hint-you won’t find it. J’s caught playing the dunce again. “By all means revise the meanings of words as you please.” I’m not the fool revising the use of the word subsidy, you are. After whining about “the horrific effect of global warming”, and then asked to provide proof, you respond with “in effect we’ve never taken into account the damages from global warming.” Translated: You don’t know what the hell you’re talking about. My, my, -another astrologer using dire sounding phrases that can’t provide any real world examples as proof.
Yes you can learn, but you won’t. Your own source uses examples of people doing something that affects others. One of my points is that you are the one who, by stepping on the gas pedal, creates the CO2 and therefore the “negative externality.”
Is it your position that you can create for others a duty to pay by your own actions – actions that benefit you directly?
Good grief.
The issue was and still remains Jeffery your use of the term “subsidy.”
Now that you have been caught in using terms that are not accurate and do not apply, you want to shift the goalposts to something else.
So the answer to your “simple question” can be another question: Do you think that externalities are subsidies? Please provide proof of your assertion.