Bloomberg – China greenhouse gas
Still think it’s worth wrecking our economy to set an example for China?
What we do literally makes no difference to the Climate. (BTW, Hunter Biden still has not divested his China holdings.)
China’s Greenhouse gas emissions
Published
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Thanks, but we already knew that Trump’s China and climate policies were worse than useless.
Personally, I do not think transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy is “wrecking the economy.” The opposite in fact. It will strengthen the economy in ways that MUST be done sooner or later. “Wrecking the economy” is far too overblown to merit serious discussion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course you don’t. You still believe wealth can be created by executive order.
But please do tell us how diverting hundreds of billions of dollars into wind and solar and the required grid support to produce no more than 20% of our energy is going to boost the creation of wealth.
And tell us how doubling the cost of energy in the US, while China, India and the rest of the developing world continue to use cheap energy, makes us more competitive in heavy manufacture.
Passing a law does not overrule the global market.
LikeLike
“Doubling?” “Wrecking the economy?”
Your “questions” are too divorced from reality to merit further discussion. The intellectual equivalent of me asking “When did you stop beating your wife?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why don’t you answer the questions Dr. Tabor actually asked?
LikeLike
“Why don’t you answer the questions Dr. Tabor actually asked?”
I explained why. They are dumb questions based on laughably false premises.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He can’t, of course, so he must deflect.
LikeLike
“He can’t, of course, so he must deflect.”
You are correct. I cannot answer your questions. They are based on fossil fuel lies. Renewable energy is NOT double the cost of fossil energy. Not even close. In fact, the costs are near parity and the trends are working to the disadvantage of fossil fuels. So, the questions I cannot answer are dumb and/or dishonest questions.
There are countless possible cites documenting the same message . . . renewables are similar in cost to non-renewable sources of energy. And getting relatively better every day as the technologies advance. For example . . .
https://energyinnovation.org/2018/01/22/renewable-energy-levelized-cost-of-energy-already-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-and-prices-keep-plunging/
LikeLiked by 1 person
If that were true, then neither subsidies nor compulsion would be required, the market would lead us.
And yet…
LikeLike
And yet, the fossil fuel industry sweeps up subsidies like a Roomba.
And if you are actually paying attention to the market, it is turning more and more toward renewable and sustainable energy sources that don’t add to an already badly damaged environment.
LikeLike
Please do show us the subsides to the oil industry that are not accounting methods common to all extraction industries, from sand pits to gold mines.
And while you’re at it show us the unsubsidized renewables.
LikeLike
I never claimed that renewables were unsubsidized. However, your bs claim about fossil fuel subsidies being “accounting methods” is so much hooey, I won’t even bother to justify your claim. You think it is so, Dr. Accountant, then prove it.
LikeLike
Won’t? or can’t?
The depletion allowance is common to all forms of extraction, from sand pits to gold mines at accounts for the declining value of the mine as the resources are removed.
LikeLike
RE: “Renewable energy is NOT double the cost of fossil energy.”
The question asked concerned making the U.S. more competitive with countries that use cheaper sources of energy.
Please try to be honest.
LikeLike
“Please try to be honest”
LOL! What are you? A child?
Tabor’s question was based on the “alternative fact” that by transitioning to renewables we will have to absorb double the energy costs versus a China using fossil fuels. It is an “alternative fact” because renewables are NOT double the cost of fossil fuels. Not even close. Currently they are comparable.
So, if renewable and non-renewable sources of energy are comparable in cost – AND THEY ARE – how does the question make any sense? Answer . . . IT DOES NOT. And nonsensical questions cannot be answered EXCEPT to point out how nonsensical they are. And this, I have done. This is really not hard to understand if you try. Really try.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Tabor’s question was based on the ‘alternative fact’ that by transitioning to renewables we will have to absorb double the energy costs versus a China using fossil fuels.”
No, it wasn’t. Your dishonesty is to focus on the wrong concept.
LikeLike
Do you remember last year and a few months ago when the federal government spent several trillion dollars on vaccine development, unemployment, business loans, stimulus checks, etc.? They can do that anytime they want to for any reason.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Money is not wealth
LikeLike
You are right, money per se is not wealth. But bridges, roads, power lines, vaccines, automobiles, school buildings, camp grounds, channel markings, topographic maps, etc., etc., etc. are.
If government spending causes something of value to come into existence that otherwise would not then it has created wealth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Okay, it can be used to buy things like renewable energy and carbon capture technologies–things that will be necessary if people are to continue accumulating wealth.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nope.
Wealth is created when resources are raised to a greater state of utility. Money is a tool for transferring that value between unlike goods and services.
If money is printed faster than wealth is created, the value of the money declines.
Which is why a sheet of plywood that cost $30 last year costs $100 today.
LikeLike
Listen, I grew up in this country just like you did. I went to college and had to take Econ 101 just like you did. We have been exposed to the same free market ideology–I know all the bible verses just like you.
What I am saying is, maybe that very specific distinction within official US thought is less important than using our considerable advantage as the printer of the world’s reserve currency to ensure this planet has a decent future.
There are economists who study non state-sanctioned theories and they would tell you that a few points of inflation is an acceptable tradeoff for the aggregate increased purchasing power of greatly expanding the money supply.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Lumber prices are high for several reasons.
A shortage due to pared back production at mills from the pandemic. It takes time to ramp back up to meet demand. Toilet paper shortages took a long time to end.
People are renovating their houses because they are home.
A surge in home building and buying.
Short supply, increased demand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
lumber is just one example,
Part of the continued rise in the stock market is the vaccines abut part is also more money chasing a fixed number of shares/
LikeLike
Ok, try cars. Appliances. Boats. Golf equipment. Computer chips.
The point is there are backlogs everywhere due to disrupted supply chains and demand is rising as people spend money they have been saving for over a year.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lighting. Sorry had to add that as we are having supply issues at work.
LikeLike
RE: “If government spending causes something of value to come into existence that otherwise would not then it has created wealth.”
Nope. You have to account for those things of value that didn’t come into existence because the government used the money for something else. On balance no wealth is created. it may even be destroyed.
LikeLike
“You have to account for those things of value that didn’t come into existence because the government used the money for something else.”
There are at least two poor assumptions in that sentence.
1. That there is a finite and fixed amount of money.
2. That government spending diverts economic activity from something else.
Neither is true. When there are idle productive resources mobilized by government spending nothing else would have come into existence without that spending.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “There are economists who study non state-sanctioned theories and they would tell you that a few points of inflation is an acceptable tradeoff for the aggregate increased purchasing power of greatly expanding the money supply.”
Greatly expanding the money supply would cause significantly more than a few points of inflation.
LikeLike
“Greatly expanding the money supply would cause significantly more than a few points of inflation.”
That is a theoretical possibility but there are two caveats.
1. What is meant by “greatly?”
2. What is the state of the economy and the money supply when that expansion takes place?
In an economy that is running at full employment with very limited unused capacity then yes – inflation WILL result if money is pumped in. As we ended the Trump Presidency we were nowhere near that situation. We still are not. So, some amount of stimulus will be beneficial. The trick is to get the right amount so that more good than harm is done.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “There are at least two poor assumptions in that sentence.”
Nope. Your first claimed assumption is irrelevant. Your second claimed assumption is actually true.
Your own poor assumption is that idle productive resources exist to be mobilized by government spending. It is hard to imagine how such things might occur, or that idleness is a either a permanent or inherent condition.
LikeLike
RE: “In an economy that is running at full employment with very limited unused capacity then yes – inflation WILL result if money is pumped in.”
Nope. Expanding money in relation to goods is inherently a devaluation.
LikeLike