Warmist Asks What You Are Willing To Sacrifice To Stop Climate Doom

Excitable Matthew Yglesias does recognize an interesting dichotomy in Warmist beliefs

What Are You Willing to Sacrifice to Stop Climate Change?

Ours is a populist age, dominated not only by the anti-elitist posturing of Donald Trump and the Republican Party but also by a resurgent left that views “billionaire” as a dirty word. Many of our most profound problems, however, originate not in the pathologies of a narrow ruling class but among the broad mass of humanity.

A powerful reminder came in the form of last week’s report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study contains the now-customary warnings of grievous future harms from climate change, plus a new section detailing the stark reality that it is now too late to avert significant warming.

For decades, pointy-headed elites have called on the nations of the world to address the problem of greenhouse gas emissions by putting a meaningful price on carbon. For the most part, it hasn’t happened — not because of the perfidy of the fossil-fuel industry, but because the idea of a carbon tax is toxically unpopular.

Yes, some polls show public support for a carbon tax. But in the real world, carbon taxation lost badly in two separate ballot initiatives in Washington State in 2016 and 2018. If a carbon tax can’t win in a state President Joe Biden carried by almost 20 points last year, and which has no local fossil-fuel industry, where can it win? And as this study of the Washington experience shows, it was only over the course of the actual campaign that public support for carbon taxation collapsed.

Oops? Remember, Jay Inslee was the governor of Washington, who’s primary focus was on ‘climate change’. That’s what he ran on. Yet, Doing Something about climate doom in practice failed. Much like his presidential aspirations when he ran as the Climate Guy. Doing Something is popular right up till people are asked to pay for it themselves.

This, in turn, is why climate activists have basically moved on from pricing. Instead they have put their faith in the kind of subsidy efforts that exist in small ways in the bipartisan infrastructure bill the Senate approved last week and in the larger, more partisan budget proposal Congress will debate this month and next.

That’s sound politics. But public hostility to carbon pricing is a reminder that there will be sharp limits to any kind of real climate action. Concern about climate change, while real and widespread, is also alarmingly shallow. Voters want action on climate, but not action of the sort that would cause anything they buy to become more expensive. Thus the progressive dream of mandating 100% carbon-free electricity in a reconciliation package is inevitably going to run into some of the same problems as a carbon tax.

When people start realizing how expensive all the climate garbage in the “infrastructure” bill and the Dems $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill are they’ll say “hold your horses electric vehicles there, Sparky.” When they realize how expensive EVs are, and how limiting they are, and how much less you get for the money, they’ll be utterly disinterested.

All of this leads to a difficult truth: The problem here lies not with the politicians, or even with the billionaires or oil companies. It lies with voters themselves, who recognize that climate change is a real problem but are not necessarily willing to sacrifice much of anything to tackle it.

They aren’t. Remember this from 2019?

(The Hill) Another emerging theme from the survey is that people do not want to spend their own money to combat climate change. Thirty-seven percent do not want to pay any additional taxes, and only 14 percent are willing to pay even $1 more a month. (poll here)

With the Washington Post’s new paywall rules, I can’t see this one from around the same time, but, it showed that most didn’t want to pay $10 more a month, if memory serves. Warmists find Doing Something popular in theory, not practice, not when it will cost them money and negatively affect their own lives.

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

15 Responses to “Warmist Asks What You Are Willing To Sacrifice To Stop Climate Doom”

  1. Hairy says:

    1 million people have paid $1]] to reserve a Trsla cyber truck
    130000 have paid $100 to reserve a Ford Lightning
    The base model Ford Lightning will start below $42000 just about the same as a comparable 4 door gas model
    Many of the early reservations see. To be going to fleet owners who are looking for lowest cost of ownership over 5 years

    • david7134 says:

      John,
      Did you know that in the 70s millions purchased a pet rock. The stupidity of our fellow Homo sapiens is remarkable.

      If you desire a massively polluting electric car or truck, go buy one, we don’t care. But don’t for a minute think you are doing something that has a positive effect on the environment.

    • Dana says:

      Not sure what a Trsla is, but whatever. https://www.thepiratescove.us/wp-content/plugins/wp-monalisa/icons/wpml_wacko.gif

      Hey, if people believe that an electric vehicle is what they want, more power to them. We just don’t want government telling us that’s the only kind of vehicle we can have.

    • gitarcarver says:

      The base model Ford Lightning will start below $42000 just about the same as a comparable 4 door gas model

      Average base model prices of cars is less than $32,000. The Lightning is roughly 25% higher for base models than the average base car. Average car costs are $38,000 but that includes well equipped cars.

      Once again, Hairy has problems with facts.

      In addition, when those vehicles are traded in (which Hairy believes will happen long before the average length of ownership of cars in the US) the used market for a Tesla will have to have the buyer ready to shell out big bucks for the battery pack for a car they just bought. In that the middle and lower class buy used cars more than the upper class, Hairy seems to have no issues with the lower and middle class being socked for exorbitant costs.

      To be going to fleet owners who are looking for lowest cost of ownership over 5 years

      Battery replacement packs for the Tesla are currently being installed for $12,000 – $16,000. Battery life begins to degrade at year 4 of ownership. Somehow Hairy thinks that additional maintenance costs far above the average truck will be a good thing.

      One out of five EV owners – including Tesla owners – say they will not buy the EV again.

      Chevy just recalled the Bolt to the tune of $800 million dollars. It is the second recall for the same issue – that the car breaks out into flames. Chevy is recommending that customers do not store the car in a garage and keep it away from buildings.

      Finally, and this is interesting, Teslas take 40 times more water to put out fires on them than the average car.

      “Normally a car fire you can put out with 500 to 1,000 gallons of water,” Austin Fire Department Division Chief Thayer Smith said, according The Independent. “But Teslas may take up to 30,000-40,000 gallons of water, maybe even more, to extinguish the battery pack once it starts burning and that was the case here.”

      What a deal.

      The left hate the poor and middle class and do everything they can to keep them down.

      Then again, all the left has is hate.

  2. samoore says:

    Washington has “no local fossil-fuel industry”?

    There are refineries at Cherry Point and Anacortes.

    They don’t qualify as “local”?

  3. Dana says:

    Our esteemed host wrote:

    With the Washington Post’s new paywall rules, I can’t see this one from around the same time, but, it showed that most didn’t want to pay $10 more a month, if memory serves. Warmists find Doing Something popular in theory, not practice, not when it will cost them money and negatively affect their own lives.

    How fortunate, then, that you have a blog buddy who has a subscription to The Washington Post. Check your e-mail for the entire article and the three graphs.

  4. Dana says:

    Let’s see if I can embed one image to support your point:

    It seems that Americans want to fight global warming climate change emergency by taxing other people.

  5. Jl says:

    “Grievous future harm… “. Yes, always just out of reach in the future….But in a big surprise, even the IPCC admits that the media over-plays its descriptions. https://twitter.com/veritatem2021/status/1426931542669111302?s=21

  6. Professor hale says:

    I’m willing to sacrifice half the DOD, all the BATFE, americorp, jobs corps, peace corps, dept of education, FDA, and commerce department and half the DOJ. And put congress on a 2 month annual session, forcing them to go home the other 10 months of the year.

    That would save massive amounts of carbon.

  7. Joseph T Major says:

    “Warmist Asks What You Are Willing To Sacrifice To Stop Climate Doom”.

    Nancy Pelosi?

Bad Behavior has blocked 9792 access attempts in the last 7 days.