Washington Post: Hey, A “Climate Change” Plan Conservatives Should Support
The Washington Post Editorial Board has continued their abdication of being a news organization to being an activist one all week (I missed yesterday’s editorial, but, it was just as dumb as the rest), and here comes more insanity (we’re still waiting for the one where the members of the EB proclaim they themselves will give up fossil fuels and go carbon neutral)
This is not the first time that Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), a House Democratic leader, has made the point that the best climate-change policy is not complicated. He introduced a similar plan in 2009. The underlying logic is older still: Since the beginning of the climate debate, mainstream economists, left and right, have argued that the best way to cut greenhouse gases is to use simple market economics,: putting a price on emissions: that reflects the environmental damage they cause.
As economists see it, the nation is giving a massive implicit subsidy to the users of fossil fuels, who fill the air with carbon dioxide, imposing real costs on society, without paying for the privilege. Make users pay for the carbon dioxide they emit and they will waste less energy, while investment will flow into low-carbon technologies. The nation would obtain emissions cuts at a minimum cost to the economy.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but does the Washington Post not use massive amounts of fossil fuels to gather the news and deliver their newspaper? Moving on, this seems to be a call to tax every single American who uses fossil fuels, which means virtually every single American. The plan calls for “rebates” to some Americans. So, the Government would forcibly take more money from citizens, then supposedly give some back (wink wink).
Conservatives who truly favor free markets over central planning should come to the table. If they cannot muster the intellectual courage, Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.) has: a smart second-best idea: Let states escape the EPA’s centralized regulation if they enact their own carbon taxes instead.
Of course, this misses several central points, the first being that we do not buy into the notion that “climate change” is mostly/solely caused by Mankind’s release of carbon dioxide. The real science, when applied using the scientific method, is against the Warmist’s “consensus”, hyperbole, and doom-saying.
Second, enacting a carbon tax at the federal or state levels is not a “market force/solution”. It is not a free market solution. It is still a top down government edict.
As far as intellectual courage, perhaps Warmists should look in their own cupboard, since their cult is dying a slow, painful death, whereby they are having to come up with dozens of excuses to explain away the almost 18 year Pause in warming. Van Hollen’s suggested legislation is a silly as it gets
(1) Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise, with CO2 in the atmosphere reaching 400 parts per million in 2013 for the first time in human history.
(2) The warming of our planet has led to more frequent, dangerous and expensive extreme weather events, including heat waves, storms, fires, droughts, floods and tornadoes.
(3) More than 97 percent of climate scientists agree that our planet is warming, primarily because of the extraction and burning of fossil fuels.
(4) The atmosphere is a common resource that belongs equally to all.
(5) Stabilizing the climate can and must be done in a way that supports vibrant economic growth and a thriving middle class.
Hysteria over “more extreme” weather events that has been debunked many, many times? Check. Consensus that has been debunked? Check. The ability to actually stabilize the climate? Insane.
Oh, and BTW, the payments from the so-called Healthy Climate Dividend would be given to not just US citizens, but anyone who is a “nonresident alien individual”, in otherwords, illegal aliens who were able to obtain government documents (section 9912). And, it would allow Warmists to sue much easier, which is important for them, because they lose the vast majority of court cases.
It should be also noted that virtually every carbon permitting system has failed, including in California. That’s a much longer story.