Climate Cult Grand Poobah Al Gore Thinks That The Climate Crisis Is A War We Can Win

Manbearpig crawled out of his hole to drop an op-ed at the NY Times

The Climate Crisis Is The Battle Of Or Time, And We Can Win

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, but then they happen much faster than you thought they could.

The destructive impacts of the climate crisis are now following the trajectory of that economics maxim as horrors long predicted by scientists are becoming realities.

More destructive Category 5 hurricanes are developing, monster fires ignite and burn on every continent but Antarctica, ice is melting in large amounts there and in Greenland, and accelerating sea-level rise now threatens low-lying cities and island nations.

Tropical diseases are spreading to higher latitudes. Cities face drinking-water shortages. The ocean is becoming warmer and more acidic, destroying coral reefs and endangering fish populations that provide vital protein consumed by about a billion people.

He has his talking points down, you have to give him that

Worsening droughts and biblical deluges are reducing food production and displacing millions of people. Record-high temperatures threaten to render areas of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, North Africa and South Asia uninhabitable. Growing migrations of climate refugees are destabilizing nations. A sixth great extinction could extinguish half the species on earth.

Now we need to ask ourselves: Are we really helpless and unwilling to respond to the gravest threat faced by civilization? Is it time, as some have begun to counsel, to despair, surrender and focus on “adapting” to the progressive loss of the conditions that have supported the flourishing of humanity? Are we really moral cowards, easily manipulated into lethargic complacency by the huge continuing effort to deceive us into ignoring what we see with our own eyes?

Remember, polls say that roughly 68%-75% are unwilling to pay more than $10 a month to stop the “climate crisis.”

This is our generation’s life-or-death challenge. It is Thermopylae, Agincourt, Trafalgar, Lexington and Concord, Dunkirk, Pearl Harbor, the Battle of the Bulge, Midway and Sept. 11. At moments of such crisis, the United States and the world have to be mobilized, and before we can be mobilized, we have to be inspired to believe the battle can be won. Is it really too much to ask now that politicians summon the courage to do what most all of them already know is necessary?

Fortunately, there’s a tax to solve this

Yet for all this promise, here is another hard truth: All of these efforts together will not be enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions sufficiently without significant policy changes. And right now, we don’t have the right policies because the wrong policymakers are in charge. We need to end the mammoth taxpayer-funded subsidies that encourage the continued burning of fossil fuels. We need to place a direct or indirect price on carbon pollution to encourage the use of cheaper, sustainable alternatives that are already out there. New laws and regulations may be needed as well to encourage innovation and force more rapid reductions in emissions.

See? We can fix it with a tax!

Oh, and when is Gore going to give up his own use of fossil fuels, especially for his private jet usage?

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

28 Responses to “Climate Cult Grand Poobah Al Gore Thinks That The Climate Crisis Is A War We Can Win”

  1. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    The IMF recently calculated that the fossil fuels industry receives over $5 TRILLION in subsidies (direct and indirect).

    “This paper updates estimates of fossil fuel subsidies, defined as fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices (i.e., prices warranted by supply costs, environmental costs, and revenue considerations), for 191 countries. Globally, subsidies remained large at $4.7 trillion (6.3 percent of global GDP) in 2015 and are projected at $5.2 trillion (6.5 percent of GDP) in 2017. The largest subsidizers in 2015 were China ($1.4 trillion), United States ($649 billion), Russia ($551 billion), European Union ($289 billion), and India ($209 billion). About three quarters of global subsidies are due to domestic factors—energy pricing reform thus remains largely in countries’ own national interest—while coal and petroleum together account for 85 percent of global subsidies. Efficient fossil fuel pricing in 2015 would have lowered global carbon emissions by 28 percent and fossil fuel air pollution deaths by 46 percent, and increased government revenue by 3.8 percent of GDP.

    https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2019/05/02/Global-Fossil-Fuel-Subsidies-Remain-Large-An-Update-Based-on-Country-Level-Estimates-46509

    And yes a tax on fossil fuels is not only effective; it is fair, responsible and can lead to “market efficiency”. Think of tobacco taxes. Cigarette smoking causes damages (lung cancer, COPD, other cancers) that are borne by individuals, insurance companies and governments. The costs of these “negative externalities” are not reflected in the market cost of tobacco.

    In the case of environment pollution, the costs are borne by individuals, insurers and governments! Of course it’s difficult to price the costs of something like tropical storm Imelda on Houston (five deaths, thousands of homes and autos flooded, lost revenues, missed work etc), wildfires, flooding and droughts.

    https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/pigouvian-tax/

    “Pigouvian Tax is a tax on economic activities that generate negative externalities, which create costs that are borne by unrelated third parties. The costs arising from negative externalities are not reflected in the final cost of a product or service. Therefore, the market becomes inefficient.”

    If over the last four decades the world had priced fossil fuels at the real cost, we wouldn’t be having these discussions.

    • formwiz says:

      The rest of the world uses gas taxes to fund their welfare states.

      We don’t need them. Besides, America has always been a nation on wheels. You want to start a war, tax gas.

      Think of tobacco taxes. Cigarette smoking causes damages (lung cancer, COPD, other cancers) that are borne by individuals, insurance companies and governments. The costs of these “negative externalities” are not reflected in the market cost of tobacco.

      And here we all thought they were to keep people from smoking. Problem is, nobody needs to smoke. In a country as widespread as it is, tough to get around without a car.

      PS Why would anyone trust the word of a cartel as corrupt as the IMF?

    • david7134 says:

      Jeff,
      Fuel cost effect everything. The cost of our food and clothes. The ability for lower income folks to get to work or go on vacation. But much of what you are concerned about is called depreciation on the accounting books. That allows all corporations, even yours as you do the same thing, to adjust their tax burden as their equipment runs down and many other factors. I have told you before to go back to school and get a real education. You can actually feel your hate and it comes from a lack of knowledge.

      Reading the other comments here, it is obvious that you are sadly lacking in basic knowledge compared to all the others. Thus you have unreasonable levels of misunderstanding and lack of ability to cope.

    • Jl says:

      Good job J, except “fuel consumption times the gap between existing and efficient prices” aren’t subsidies. How quaint that some make up their own definitions. Of course, a subsidy is money given by a government to a company so as to make it viable. Fossil fuels are rarely “given” money, rather they receive tax breaks like thousand other companies. “The costs are born by unrelated third parties..”. Of course not being factored in the enormous benefits of fossil fuels. Absolutely one of the dumber things you’ve posted, J

  2. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    And who will pay for the displacement of Americas from Florida, The Keys, PR, Virgin Islands, Louisiana and Staten Island??

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/americas-great-climate-exodus-is-starting-in-the-florida-keys/ar-AAHA6Iw?ocid=spartandhp

    • formwiz says:

      Yes, we all take the word of MSLSD and Mr Gates without question.

      Who will pay for the displacement of Americas (you mean Central and South America are moving back to Espana?).

      How’s ’bout the people who are leaving?

      Their choice. Nobody forcing them.

      • david7134 says:

        Form,
        Have you noticed that other people can do nothing for themselves and that only conservatives must pick up the cost?

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          Is that why Red States take more from the feds than they give? Blue States support the Red States. You’re Welcome!!

          And where does that money come from? California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois… which means LA, SF, NY, Boston, Chicago… all those places where the makers live and work… You’re welcome.

          • Kye says:

            “Is that why Red States take more from the feds than they give? Blue States support the Red States. ” No, population density and high taxes are why, or can’t you figure that out?

            Boy you really hate non rich elite people in red states.

          • Elwood P. Dowd says:

            As I said, You’re Welcome. The takers could at least say, Thank You!.

            Why can’t Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, WV, Virginia, Alabama, SC, OK, NC, KY, TN, MO, PA, Ohio etc pay their own way? Why must they suck at the federal teat?

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Once again whiny little sissybitch is full of shit.

            Do Red States Really Take the Most Welfare?

            by Matt Palumbo Posted: April 17, 2018   

            Lately I’ve seen a few liberals temporarily retire the narrative that Republicans are a bunch of old rich white men – to try to argue the opposite, that we’re actually the real moochers.

            “Red States Are Welfare Queens” reads one headline over at Business Insider. The article noted that of 20 States that receive more funding from the federal government than they pay in, 16 are Red States.“Residents of the 10 states Gallup ranks as “most conservative” received 21.2 percent of their income in government transfers, while the number for the 10 most liberal states was only 17.1 percent.” says the economics Nobel Laureate Paul Krugmanc in the New York Times.

            Certainly an economist like Krugman would realize that a State is not a person. For instance, the majority of violence in Red States occurs in Blue counties and cities within those States. Do “Red States” bear the responsibility for their Blue counties and cities?

            Obviously not

            And a similar thing is happening here. Red States are taking more in government handouts – but Republicans aren’t, as a Maxwell Poll on the voting patterns of those in public assistance has proven:

            And that’s not all.

            A NPR study of the long-term unemployed found that 72 percent favor Democrats. It goes without saying that they’re likely to be receiving benefits.

            So if it’s mostly Democrats receiving public assistance – why the heck is it Red States receiving most of the benefits? A few possible thoughts:

            Red States are naturally more eligible for public assistance because they have lower costs of living – and the federal poverty line (and eligibility for benefits) don’t take that into account. For instance, Texas has a higher poverty rate than California in the official statistics, but California has a higher poverty rate once adjusting for cost of living differences. Despite this, Texas would still be more eligible for federal assistance.Many of these analysis are including Social Security and Medicare as “welfare” – as if recipients have the choice of foregoing them. Given that seniors tend to lean Republican, this technically could tilt the stats.

            And people aside, what about the claim that Red States are moochers (as the Business Insider article implied)? It is true that Red States tend to have a larger percentage of their budgets subsidized by the federal government than Blue States – but only because their budgets are relatively smaller. According to The Federalist’s Kyle Sammin:

            Against a national average of 32.62 percent [of a State’s budget] being federally subsidized, the blue states received 30.80 percent. Purple states were almost exactly at the national level with 32.92 percent coming from Washington. Red state budgets averaged 35.75 percent federal money.

            A problem with this metric is that although federal funds make up a larger percentage of red states’ state budgets, the budgets in those states are generally lower overall than those of the free-spending blue states. If, instead of comparing federal funds to state budgets, we look at how much the federal government spends in intergovernmental grants per resident of a state, the results are turned on their heads.

            Against a national average of $1,935 in intergovernmental spending per American, red states receive just $1,879. Blue states get considerably more, at $2,124 per resident. Purple states see the least of their money returned to them per capita, at just $1,770.

            And there goes that myth.

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Oh yeah, you’re welcome.

            Lolgfy little sissybitch https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • Liljeffyatemypuppy says:

            Oh and thank you for your service to our country during the Vietnam war.

            BWAHA! Lolgfy sissybitch https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_cool.gif

          • formwiz says:

            No, I don’t think so. CA has the highest % on welfare and spends more than any other state.

            Here are the top 10 states that spend the most on welfare per capita, according to GoBankingRates.com.

            New York

            Welfare spending per capita: $3,305

            Total public welfare expenditures: $19.85 billion

            Alaska

            Welfare spending per capita: $3,020

            Total public welfare expenditures: $2.23 billionn though its spending per capita is ranked No. 2.

            3. Massachusetts

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,911

            Total public welfare expenditures: $19.97 billion

            4. Vermont

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,842

            Total public welfare expenditures: $1.77 billion

            5. Minnesota

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,805

            Total public welfare expenditures: $15.64 billion

            6. New Mexico

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,741

            Total public welfare expenditures: $5.72 billion

            7. Delaware

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,544

            Total public welfare expenditures: $2.45 billion

            8. Maine

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,530

            Total public welfare expenditures: $3.38 billion

            9. Oregon

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,520

            Total public welfare expenditures: $10.44 billion

            Kentucky

            Welfare spending per capita: $2,517

            Total public welfare expenditures: $11.21 billion

            Blue states in italics. 8 out of 10.

            Your welfare data is as phony as your CO2 data.

        • Elwood P. Dowd says:

          You boyz are slippery! You changed the subject from Red States taking more federal dollars than they send in, to welfare costs in the states.

          Nice try.

          The fact is that many Red States take more tax dollars from the feds than they pay in.

          • Kye says:

            “The fact is that many Red States take more tax dollars from the feds than they pay in.”

            What do you attribute that to other than blue states having all the super rich leftists that cause income inequality? And more importantly, what are you inferring by that? Can you explain if the object of “tax dollars” is to help the poorer or more needy or to put the money where it’s most needed why wouldn’t you figure the rich leftists in places like Wall Street, Hollywood, K Street and Silicon Valley would pay out more than a Lineman in Peoria and receive less?

    • david7134 says:

      Why did Obama sink $14 million into a beach front home? This latest worry is just part of the hoax. I have never understood why people build houses in the Keys. As to New Orleans, it has been under sea level since it was founded.

      • Elwood P. Dowd says:

        david,

        At this point it’s only rumored that the Obama’s have purchased a home on Martha’s Vineyard, Mass. It’s true that the Obama family has vacationed there several times.

        Here’s a local article on the potential effects of global warming on the island.

        https://vineyardgazette.com/news/2013/09/05/new-study-examines-effects-sea-level-rise-vineyard

        “Seas around the Vineyard are rising slightly faster than the global average and Island planners should prepare for significant sea level rise by the end of the century, a new climate change report has found.”

        The high point on Martha’s Vineyard is over 300 ft above sea level, so the entire island is not threatened.

    • Doom and Gloom says:

      From the article you posted. But hey lets not forget that on parts of padre island in Texas they are forbidden to rebuild and most of the people did not have insurance.

      By the end of the century, 13 million Americans will need to move just because of rising sea levels, at a cost of $1 million each,

      LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL………………Thats what happens when you give people degrees out of cracker jack boxes. 13 million times 1 million comes to 13 trillion dollars.

      do these people that write your articles actually think people cant add?

  3. Bob M says:

    The climate crisis has been Gore’s cash cow since it’s inception and has made him a multi-millionaire. He’s not stupid, the people who believe him are.

  4. formwiz says:

    As I said, You’re Welcome. The takers could at least say, Thank You!.

    Why can’t Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, WV, Virginia, Alabama, SC, OK, NC, KY, TN, MO, PA, Ohio etc pay their own way? Why must they suck at the federal teat?

    Well, I see several coal states in there and we know what the Choom Gang wanted to do to them.

    Several from the old Solid South

    I also see several blue states in there so we know how they got in there, but let’s look at the bottom 10.

    Michigan: $16.9B

    New Jersey: $17.7B

    Massachusetts: $19.9B

    Illinois: $20.2B

    Ohio: $26.2B

    Florida: $26.7B

    Pennsylvania: $30.3B

    Texas: $36.9B

    New York: $65.6B

    California: $98.5B

    5 out of 10

    So where are all those Southern states?

    Try 34 to 43

    Alabama: $7.2B

    South Carolina: $7.4B

    Connecticut: $7.5B

    Colorado: $8.5B

    Louisiana: $8.7B

    Missouri: $8.9B

    Oregon: $10.4B

    Kentucky: $11.2B

    Tennessee: $11.5B

    Georgia: $11.7B

    Maryland: $12.1B

    Virginia: $12.1B

    Hmm, 6 out of 10 are blue states.

    I thought the blue states supported the red.

    Someone’s data must be bad.

  5. formwiz says:

    Where’s the hypocrisy, stupid?

    Coming out of you, mostly, but I thought Zippy was going to stem the rise of the oceans (there’s a broken promise).

    If he believes in all this nonsense, he wouldn’t want to put Sushi and Malaria, not to mention Big Mike, in any danger.

    So clearly, he is a non-believer.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7200 access attempts in the last 7 days.