Wait, what? The UK Guardian has run an article in which hyper-Warmists James Hansen and Bill McKibben are criticizing Hillary Clinton’s so-called “climate change” plan as being not aggressive enough. Then we get this
Clinton’s outline would put the US on track to supply 33% of the country’s electricity needs through renewables by 2027. That’s a mere 8% improvement over Obama’s plan.
It’s not enough, according to Hansen. Renewables are a part of how the US will wean itself off fossil fuels, but the market has to be allowed to determine which combination of renewable fuels – not just solar – makes the most sense in each region. “You can’t just legislate that,†said Hansen. Clinton’s plan “is going to make energy more expensive. You need to let energy efficiency and renewables and nuclear power and anything else that comes up compete.â€
Hansen emphasized that whatever domestic policy we adopt towards climate change has to have a global reach, a key point absent in the solar proposal. “In places like China and India, they have to move off of coal for electricity pretty rapidly or the world is screwed.â€
Hansen said a credible candidate on climate change would be talking about policy that would allow the price of fossil fuels to rise gradually. “You have to recognize that as long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest energy, we’ll just keep burning them,†he said.
Interesting. On one hand, Hansen is saying that all old type energy sources, primarily coal and fossil fuels (which have a long track record of efficiency, reliability, and low cost) must be eliminated, and then he yammers on about letting the “free market” pick which Cult of Climastrology Approved energy sources will work.
So far, the free market has determined that these renewables are mostly a no-go, at least not without massive subsidies from Government. The one that truly works, hydro-electric, is off-limits to the hardcore envirowackos, who often want existing dams to be torn down.
There is also nuclear, but if you do not like that there is thorium nuclear. Far less dangerous than uranium. It is not getting any traction at all in the U.S,
Youtube is filled with discussions on this and some are very very intersting. A Chicgo based company claims that Washington lobbing is preventing the building of thorium nucular plants yet it is being built in other parts of the world. Many India which is the largest supplier of Thorium, Although the U.S and Canada have far more than they need to create enough electricity for both countries. I do not know alot about this so i am wondering if there is another reason that is is not happening.
On the surface it seems reasonable yet Hansen had a big op ed on Cap and trade calling it an abomination because it did not go far enough in taxing fossil fuels. Hansen not only wants to go farther but then to make it really attractive for the poor and middle class he wants to give back to the poor and the middle class in the form of payroll tax cuts the monies collected via gouging fossil fuels.
As Jeffery points out they want to hyper inflate fossil fuels to make alternatives attractive….the problem is that in doing so the economy would be ruined for decades around the world.
The problem on the surface Hansen appears reasonable but when you dig down into the Iran Nuclear deal….er I mean the AGW’s plan for making alternatives attractive……
It trades one massive problem for another….He wants to take social security money away in order to reimburse for expensive fossil fuels.
Craziness beyond craziness.
The Denianazis continue to lie. A gradual increase in the price of fossil fuels to the point where they are no longer subsidized by society is needed. Quite understandably, fossilists oppose losing the direct and indirect subsidies. The costs of global warming remediation and pollution continue to be paid by society – this is a subsidy worth trillions.
Surprise-Jeffery tries again with the “subsides for fossil fuel” ploy. Must be hard for him to go online and look up the definition- it takes about 10 seconds. Fossil fuel receives by and large tax breaks, which are not subsidies. If you want to look for subsides, look to the “green” renewable energy sector. They need government handouts to survive.
James Hansen-Let the market decide after we take away part of the market.
Fossil Fuels are subsidized because they are essential for our national security.
Since 1946, the federal government has poured billions of dollars into airport development. In 1992, Prof. Stephen Paul Dempsey of the University of Denver estimated that the current replacement value of the U.S. commercial airport system-virtually all of it developed with federal grants and tax-free municipal bonds-at $1 trillion.
From 1971-2001 the Feds pour 1 trillion, 890 billion into highways and airports. Additionally they poured….30 billion into Amtrack.
Why is that? If in fact you really wanted to end fossil fuel use….END SUBSIDIES FOR highways, airports, FCC and AmTrack….
No more planes, trains and automobiles….I mean after all you want to replace fossil fuels with electricity…..so perhaps we could figure a way to make electrified highways that did not fry, dogs, cats, birds, bald eagles and PEOPLE if they accidently stepped on one…..
Then you could make a zillion, 500 trillion, 200 billion solar panels and so on and so forth…….now we just have to figure out how to eat.
Jeffery answer is to call us Nazi’s because he thinks we are being deceptive….after all the AGW crowd fully has a plan in place to feed the world with windmills.
No one is willing to put up the billions needed to build new coal or nuke plants. Bonds can not be financed without insurance foe the nukes and coal plants have a useful life of 30-50 years. Anyone think that’s a good investment? wonder what the price of coal will be in 30 years
The price per watt on solar has fallen by 2/3s in 6 years. Care to take a guess on what solar price will be in 30 years? Wind in the USA is already at comprable price to coal. Wonder what the price differential will be in 30 years ? One reason that our (US) nuke plants are obsolete is that they were actually dual purpose, they gave us the material to build 20000 atomic bombs.
It doesnt matter John.
YOUR SIDE will NOT let them build anything…it might endanger the wild willy wonka nerf fly. IN other words there are tons of permits pending……only to be put in limbo for at least 10 years because some environmental group is afraid they will endanger the view or whatever.
Secondly you have no concept of the amount of rare earths needed to build enough solar and wind to power the world……and the only real place rare earths are found is in China…….
So china is cranking out the coal fired plants in order to handle the wants of the world.
Your looking at the wrong country when it comes to AGW. China and India alone are destroying the world with an estimated 1000 new coal fired plants set to come online in the next 5 years with NO pollution controls in place.
Go over there and leave us alone…..perhaps you can sue the chinese and Indians and really do some good.
AGAIN…..I WILL SAY……BUILD ALL THE SOLAR AND WIND YOU WANT>…….BUILD IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE ENCOURAGE IT…….us conservatives whom you guys believe sit around trying to think up new ways to make billionaires richer love saving money on our heating and AC bill too.
Just remember…….The 5 richest men in your party are all chin deep in Oil and gas and coal while pretending to be your buddies……
BUILD THEM!
BUILD THEM!
BUILD THEM!
BUILD THEM!
WE encourage it…just do not ask the USA to invest the trillions it takes because we dont have the trillions it takes……..were too busy paying welfare and medicare and SSDI and VA benefits to actually spend money on any new infrastructure……..Past generations of politicians have seen to that and this administration has double downed on deficit spending insuring the impossibility you will ever get the GOP to AGREE to deficit spend to build windmills…..
And thats what this is really about…more government handouts to rich democratic donors.
You continue your willful ignorance of what constitutes a subsidy.
Think about the unofficial “Too Big to Fail” compact with major US corporations. Liam alludes to it when he describes the importance of fossil fuels in national security. Investors in the Wall Street banks understood/understand that the US government will not let these banks fail based on their importance to the world’s financial stability. Wouldn’t you invest in a zero risk/high return investment? How much is “Too Big to Fail” worth to these banks? That constitutes an indirect subsidy to these banks.
Now let’s say a segment of an industry that dumps a byproduct of manufacture into the air and water without having to pay for the damage it causes. A competitor comes along who designs a process eliminating the byproduct and hence, the pollution. That the original manufacturer is polluting without paying amounts to a societal subsidy.
If you don’t like calling this a subsidy let’s just rename it a handout, a set aside, or a reward.
No you continue to attempt to define the debate premised on a massive bait and switch deception.
I refuse to debate a lie or a bait and switch argument.
Build your FF’ing windmills……..Build your FF’ing solar panels…..
NO ONES STOPPING YOU but your own groupies who have their own agenda.
YOUR PARTY….THE DEMOCRATS…….FILLED WITH ANTI-TO BIG TO FAIL PROGRESSIVES Wrote DODD/FRANK….
We still have to big to fail banks. YOUR PARTY was TOTALLY IN CONTROL during Johnson, and Obama for periods of time yet chose not to even LOOK in the direction of Fossil Fuel Subsidies.
Thats because all rational non loons understand the concept of E A T I N G.
Fossil fuels power EVERY ASPECT of society….not just electricity.
YOU offer a solution to Electricity….FINE…..as I have said BUILD EM….as fast as you can.
BUT
THAT
Still does not alter the fact that the real national security offered by Fossil Fuels is EATING, transporting, manufacturing and a bazillion other things offered up by fossil fuels that cannot cheaply be offered by alternatives at this point.
THERE IS NO WILLFUL IGNORANCE ON MY PART…..
I ask you repeatedly for a rational solution and your solution is…..well tax them and HOPE we can find an alternative sometime in the next 50 years……
I would have hated to been apollo astronauts with a NASA that said well lets launch the rocket and hope we can figure out a way to get them home after they leave.
WITHOUT A PLAN…VIABLE PLAN IN PLACE…..EVEN democrats and warmists understand that making electricity more expensive will not solve anything…….
I guess you and I look at it from two different perspectives…….
1. YOUR furious we are polluting the air with a natural by product of the earth that has always been here……CO2.
2. I look at it from the perspective that the world needs to eat, move and manufacture or there will be world wide anarchy and food wars all over the planet.
I think My view is way more rational and sane given you HAVE NO PLAN OTHER THEN TO TAX FOSSIL FUELS.
great plan……and you say im being willfully ignorant……too funny.
The anti AGW movement is not really about reducing AGW. It is about wealth redistribution.
In Ontario, which now has cap and trade, which has been implimented by a government that needs more tax revenue because manufacturing here is down. The solution to tax polluters is wrong headed. A better way is for the government to subsidize the cost of industry to upgrade their plants to reduce C02. That would be far more effective in reducing carbon. But that is not the intent. We as a society should foot some of this bill because we all benefit from the goods and services produced by these plants. However reducing C02 is only an excuse to tax. If reducing C02 was truly the point then the anti agw movement should be lobbing industry to engage in R&D into green energy through tax incentives and grants. That does happen, but to only a small degree. The true end game is to tax the productive. The productive needs energy to be productive. Also, subsidies to third world nations has been up into now been an act of charity. The end game is to make these subsidies mandatory by first world countries as an obligation to compensate third world countries for our polluting sins. If this was truely a scientific movement rather than a political one we would see far more scientists as spokes people instead of politicians. We would see far more transparency. We would see far more media coverage of both sides on the argument. We would see far better solutions offered that would truely tackle Co2 reduction. More skyping of AGW conferences. Yes the believers try to reduce their carbon footprint but their leaders do not because it really is not about that. Al Gore does not ride a bike. The IPCC does not meet in Winnipeg in winter. Insert poverty, in place of AGW and you get the same left wing right wing agrument of the 50’s 60’s 70’s with the same solutions offered.
@Phil Taylor
Good points.
Everyone who follows this even remotely understands that the AGW movement is an anti-capitalistic power grab designed to destroy Capitalism and move to that ever so productive Socialism.
We all understand that….the real problem is making the world see how weak socialism really is…and thats hard to do when your cashing socialist checks each week/month.
Which is why the left in this country takes itty bitty steps each week/month and year trying to hook more and more on the welfare tit of a socialist movement….pretty soon we will be greece unwilling to give up our welfare checks even as we stare at bankruptcy.
>pretty soon we will be greece unwilling to give up our welfare checks even as we stare at bankruptcy.
Yes Greece is a sad state of affairs. As a friend of mine, a well known finacial expert who is strangly non political, said. “Europe is learning that socialism does not work.”
However, in reality it does as long as their is a victim to fleece. In Europe, Germany is that victim, A country who ironically has a population that hates debt as a result of the hyper inflation they experienced before WWII.
However anyone who has a poor family member will tell you that giving them money does not end their poverty. It just perpetuates the cycle. it keeps them dependant all the while making you poorer. The solution is for them to create their own wealth. Through a job or a business of their own. Contributing to the social good instead of draining it. In other words don’t give them fish, teach them how to fish.
Since the attempt to sell socialism has for the most part failed in western countries, AGW is an attempt to disquise it under the banner of environmentalism. This is even worse because now the money fleeced is given to the U.N. and other brokers such as cap and trade brokers who take their cut before distributing to the poor.
If you want to tax more for whatever reason, if you want to aid third countries then make a case for that. Do not lie and cheat on their behalf.
Instead make a case for how they can create their own wealth. I think you would get a very interestd audience of those who believe that this is a real solution. If your are an environmentalist, don’t be fooled to advocate on behalf of the moochers. If you are an eviromentalist, set an example. Do not advocate socialist ideals as the solution and those who can really change the world will come to your cause.
Capitalism is the greatest economic system ever created….the problem with it is that you have to actively participate in the system in order for it to serve you. It is like a college professor….he does not care if you turn in your work or not….he does not care if you succeed or not…….He is paid to teach………you PAY to learn……….YOU must participate in order to succeed.
That is capitalism in a nutshell.
>That is capitalism in a nutshell.
Yes you must participate.
University students who have read Norm Chomsky are persuaded that if you participate in Capitalism, you are a chump.
You are aiding the enemy and you ar being exploited by them. The enlighted drop out.
However, they grow up very angery. They are not social, and they do not prosper.
They are miserable and have distain of everyone around them.
Other University Students who have read Ayn Rand are mocked and ridiculed. There is great peer presure to not read her from people who have not read her. Those people have a lot of opinions about her though. Like those who hate Fox news who have never watched Fox news.
They are influenced by the opinions of others.
However, show me a fan of Ayn Rand and i will show you a happy independant prosperous person.