It’s so utterly easy, according to Warmist Andrew Eil. Of course, it’s not what you’re thinking, namely, that Warmists should practice what they preach and give up their own use of fossil fuels
This Is the Easiest and Least Costly Way to Fight Climate Change
Everyone knows that reducing carbon emissions is hard. Republicans like former presidential candidate Senator Marco Rubio (with little evidence) contend that acting on climate “would be devastating for economy.†Even more reasonable, less apocalyptic opinions on the subject recognize that reducing emissions–particularly fairly quickly–isn’t easy. Why else would it have taken 23 years after the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit and the creation of the UN’s climate change body in 1992 to get all countries to advance plans to reduce emissions?
We’ve all heard the doom and gloom story. But you might not have heard that for many countries, there is a secret trap door and chute to lower emissions: eliminating fossil fuel subsidies, the goodies and discounts that governments worldwide dole out to the oil, gas, coal, and petroleum fuels value chain, and especially to consumers. And the best part: eliminating subsidies, 1and even raising fossil fuel taxes, might not even raise costs much if at all for consumers.
Of course, they aren’t subsidies, they are tax breaks, the type of tax breaks that are offered to any company. We’ve had this discussion numerous times, but, of course, you cannot separate a deluded left winger from their talking points once they take hold. Ever. Warmists are entirely too rigid in their dogma.
But it turns out delivering on promises to remove fossil fuel subsidies is not easy. It’s often the middle class that gets hit first and hardest when fuel prices rise. Many countries, particularly in the developing world, have been hit by waves of protests when governments have eliminated or rolled back subsidies, as in Nigeria andIndonesia in 2012. In many cases, governments have beaten a hasty retreat and re-imposed fuel subsidies in the face of political pressure and public unrest.
Oh, wait, I thought it was easy and would mean barely a blip in the cost for consumers? No? Here’s how this is defended
The elephant in the room, from the climate standpoint, is not only eliminating subsidies, but actively pricing carbon in fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Roughly three dozen countries do this, as do California and nine U.S. states in the Northeast. None has seen its economy tank as a result; most have flourished, while those that haven’t can hardly show the carbon price is to blame. In fact, raising prices on fossil fuels by removing subsidies and imposing taxes, as most European countries have done, can actually be good for consumers: rising prices lowers demand, which over time helps push prices back down. Furthermore, higher prices condition consumers to seek alternatives so that they are less vulnerable when price spikes hit. Ask the Europeans how much harder their lives were when oil was $100 per barrel of oil than now, with cheap oil. Answer: not much.
Except, the cost of living is higher in those areas, as is the base cost of energy. Furthermore, the carbon markets are failing, and are basically at junk bond status. But, hey, it’s good for consumers, because things are so expensive they they cannot afford to purchase them. Which doesn’t mean prices will fall to meet consumer demand, not when that would mean selling the produce for a loss. It means jobs go away, and companies fail.
When will Warmists give up their own use of fossil fuels?
Read: Thank Goodness, We Now Know The Best Way To Reduce Carbon Emissions »
