I’ve been attracting the ire of some of our liberal posters because I’ve suggested that their drastic measures to cap our CO2 emissions might be more economically damaging than they’re worth. When I pointed out that the people most likely to be affected are living in other countries, I was attacked for being callous. I think I’m being patriotic.Putting the measures liberals want would raise the price of filling the gas tank in your car & raise the price of heating your home. There’s no way to get around that fact. and the people who would have the hardest time coming up with that extra money, are our own poor people. You now, the folks liberals say they defend.I suppose they would call for subsidizing the cost of gas & heat for poor people, but that money eventually winds up in the pockets of the owners of refineries & power plants. All at the expense of middle class tax payers… Catch-22 for the liberals, I guess.Interestingly, Paul Krugman (Why yes, Virginia! I do read liberal columnists.) wrote a piece about how we are likely to be able to move to renewable energies sooner than some pessimists thought. Seemingly, innovation & the free market are working to offer a solution to fossil fuel pollution.Of course, Krugman pushes for government intervention to force us toward solar. He ignores the fact that we pay for it with higher prices or higher taxes. He throws the same old cap & trade nonsense out as a required part of getting us to solar. I think the move to solar will happen without that. Even if we sign on to cap & trade, I doubt the developing nations, full of poor people the liberals love, will go along with that, until it makes economic sense for them.Maybe it’s been lost on some that I haven’t argued against the scientists who tell us human actions are changing the climate. I’ve chosen rather to argue that knee jerk reactions can be costly. The Chinese are now the biggest polluters & they aren’t ever going to sign a treaty that hurts their economy. In the meantime, they are pouring money into renewable energy. The countries that achieve cheap, renewable energy sources first, will dominate by the end of this century. We should be putting private & public money into that. And, we are. But countries that let government pick the winners & losers in any industry, including energy, always lose.
I’ve been attracting the ire of some of our liberal posters because I’ve suggested that their drastic measures to cap our CO2 emissions might be more economically damaging than they’re worth. When I pointed out that the people most likely to be affected are living in other countries, I was attacked for being callous. I think I’m being patriotic.Putting the measures liberals want would raise the price of filling the gas tank in your car & raise the price of heating your home. There’s no way to get around that fact. and the people who would have the hardest time coming up with that extra money, are our own poor people. You now, the folks liberals say they defend.I suppose they would call for subsidizing the cost of gas & heat for poor people, but that money eventually winds up in the pockets of the owners of refineries & power plants. All at the expense of middle class tax payers… Catch-22 for the liberals, I guess.Interestingly, Paul Krugman (Why yes, Virginia! I do read liberal columnists.) wrote a piece about how we are likely to be able to move to renewable energies sooner than some pessimists thought. Seemingly, innovation & the free market are working to offer a solution to fossil fuel pollution.Of course, Krugman pushes for government intervention to force us toward solar. He ignores the fact that we pay for it with higher prices or higher taxes. He throws the same old cap & trade nonsense out as a required part of getting us to solar. I think the move to solar will happen without that. Even if we sign on to cap & trade, I doubt the developing nations, full of poor people the liberals love, will go along with that, until it makes economic sense for them.Maybe it’s been lost on some that I haven’t argued against the scientists who tell us human actions are changing the climate. I’ve chosen rather to argue that knee jerk reactions can be costly. The Chinese are now the biggest polluters & they aren’t ever going to sign a treaty that hurts their economy. In the meantime, they are pouring money into renewable energy. The countries that achieve cheap, renewable energy sources first, will dominate by the end of this century. We should be putting private & public money into that. And, we are. But countries that let government pick the winners & losers in any industry, including energy, always lose.