And then they saw the price tag

Uncategorized 1 Minute

The death of climate activism

WSJ article. The gist is that across the developed world, the easy carbon reductions have been made. Further reductions in the west will be prohibitively expensive for very little added benefit. At the same time, with China, India and the developing world having carbon emissions per unit of GDP at ten times the Western world, they are already backing off on their efforts. Further sacrifice in the West won’t make any difference.

Voters across the West are rebelling at further costs for no benefits. The alarmists, of course, don’t see it, but the war on fossil fuels is over, and fossil fuels won.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

30 thoughts on “And then they saw the price tag”

        1. They will. It might be slightly different from today, but then today is different from 1930, and that was really different from 1850.

          Given a healthy economy, they will adapt. Virginia might be as warm as Florida, Sandbridge may have to be abandoned.

          But more people will live better lives than today.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “Sandbridge may have to be abandoned.”

            Along with all those pesky coastal cities like Miami, New York, and the most densely inhabited parts of every continent. It’s gonna be peachy!

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Well, it has been fun but it would be wrong of me to continue indulging your doctrinaire fantasies. The WSJ article is mostly wishful thinking. The political push for a greener energy policy is not going to go away and, should it start to fade, the cruel lash of Mother Nature will remind the recalcitrant that problems do not magically solve themselves. Here is the latest reminder . . .

            https://www.vox.com/22538401/heat-wave-record-temperature-extreme-climate-change-drought

            This particular heat wave has already killed more than a billion sea animals in the Pacific Northwest and Canada (destroying an economically important ecosystem) and is only a power outage away from killing tens of thousands of human beings. We simply cannot survive in such temperatures at such high humidities.

            So, IMHO, we will not be “prematurely abandoning fossil fuels” as your always overblown rhetoric would put it, but we will be phasing them out at an accelerating pace both here and around the world. The direct and indirect costs of burning fossil fuel for energy can only go up while green alternatives such as wind, solar and other systems go steadily down.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. Regarding low lying coastal cities, each faces it’s own problems.

            Some are of high enough value and have the right topography for a Dutch solution, some are not.

            But in any case, sea level is rising, and has been rising, since the end of the Little Ice Age and will continue to do so, So those cities at risk will be at risk anyway, though perhaps a few decades earlier.

            Like

          6. Sigh.

            “It’s a weather event, not climate change.”

            Climate change manifests itself in trends and weather events. So this mere “weather event” is the result of just an “anomaly in air circulation.” Well all right then.

            I started to read Curry’s post but stopped when she started off with a flurry of ad hominem dismissals of fellow scientists “spouting off.”

            Liked by 1 person

          7. It’s not Ad Hominem when you show that the statements made were unsupported.

            When “scientists” state their opinions, or in some cases bare speculations, as fact, they deserve criticism. Because the public places its faith in the statements made by scientists, they are under an enhanced obligation to label their opinions and speculations as what they are. When they fail to do so, it is the DUTY of other scientists to call them on it. That is what Curry did, and had you read the article you would see that she carefully documents each claim.

            One of the cites she gives shows an easier read

            World Climate Service

            But you really know that, you just don’t like to see information that destroys your political narrative.

            Curry has done her duty.

            Like

          8. I accept that it is impossible to say with absolute certainty that the extremes reached in this PARTICULAR record shattering heat wave can be directly attributed to AGW. It is just as impossible to say that it they cannot. Professionals in the field have differing opinions. As always, Curry seems to be in the minority. And does not hesitate to share her opinions in a polemical manner. But so what. It does not matter. The real point is that this deadly mere “weather event” is a taste of what is coming and that is beyond any doubt.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Nope.

            That was kind of the point. It is very much in doubt.

            Refer to the World Climate Service link. There is considerable modeling support for LESS variability in weather events in a warmed world.

            Like

          10. Nope.

            “Heat waves” are relative to what is “normal.” As the “normal” gets warmer “heat waves” will get hotter. Hot days that are now seen to be “heat waves: will be just another typical day in the future. This is not just science, it is common sense. And plain English. And if I am not mistaken, you – in your pooh poohing of climate change said that Virginia will be experiencing a climate like Florida’s in the next years.

            Also I will take your source at his word . . . “However, the analysis here is only a cursory look at one data set with simple methods, and much more research is required.”

            Liked by 1 person

          11. The point was that the claims being criticized were not even compatible with the existing evidence.

            Heat waves are excursions from the normal outside comfortable ranges. Remember that greenhouse warming is not uniform. Warming will be more pronounced in Winter than in Summer. If the afternoon temperature in December is 50 instead of 45, that is not a heat wave. If instead in August it was 100 instaed of 95, it would be.

            Like

          12. I am not sure what you are trying to prove. I have given up matching you cite for cite and agreed that the exact relationship between any particular “weather event” and climate change is uncertain and debatable. Do you claim with certainty that this Pacific NW event would have happened anyway?

            The bottom line is that it has been damnably hot in the Pacific Northwest – hotter by very significant margins than EVER recorded. Similar records have been set in the last few years in many places around the world. Europe, for example had 70,000 deaths from such a hottest ever heat wave in 2003. Russia lost tens of thousands in 2010. China and India had 300,000 heat wave deaths in 2018. etc. etc. etc.

            You and some of your favorite scientists say that these events are not caused or exacerbated by the general increases in temperatures caused by AGW. Many others, I think most, do see a causal connection. Common sense tells me that if it is now 1.5C – 2.0 C. hotter than it used to be, very hot days are likely to be hotter than they used to be. I will go with common sense and most scientists.

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

            Liked by 1 person

          13. “Do you claim with certainty that this Pacific NW event would have happened anyway?”

            Of course not. That can’t be known, which is the point.

            What we know of the effects of AGW warming tells us that such events are LESS LIKELY in a warmer world but we can’t say for certain that this event would not have happened.

            Like

  2. RE: “Voters across the West are rebelling at further costs for no benefits.”

    The voters are the ultimate audience, of course. It is also interesting that WSJ reports diminishing interest in green businesses among investors.

    There may be cultural factor at work, as well. The environmental movement is quintessentially a Baby Boomer invention, but the next generation coming to power hates Baby Boomers.

    Like

    Reply

    1. It shouldn’t be a surprise. People invest based on what they expect.

      I don’t smoke or gamble. I drink occasionally, never to excess, and the only time I was in a titty bar was to find a friend and bring him home.

      But I have stock in alcohol, tobacco, gambling and gentlemen’s clubs because I understand human nature and invest accordingly.

      Like

      Reply

  3. I dont think the war is over, only to get more stupid. California thinks it can ban new gas engines by 2035, yeah right. So the fruits, nuts and flakes think they will ban fossil fuel for electricity but apparently think wind and solar will satisfy the exponential demand for it in a grid that cant even handle warm days. And that doesn’t take into account price tag, limited range, numbers of stations and charging times. The sufferage should be fun to watch.
    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/ellenrwald/2020/09/23/california-governors-political-ploy-to-ban-sale-of-new-gas-powered-cars/amp/

    Like

    Reply

    1. “So the fruits, nuts and flakes think they will ban fossil fuel for electricity . . .”

      Are you people unable to make an argument without this kind of childish name-calling? You totally ruin what could be cogent arguments when you wrap them in this kind of garbage.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. Do you EVER listen to yourself or read what you write? And you are going to attempt to lecture someone else????

        Like

        Reply

        2. Paul actually complimented your post but pointed out that you lost credibility with your name calling. And then your panties got all wadded up. Calling you a snowflake is pretty tame considering your incessant insults.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The insults really do need, to get toned down, both blunt and subtle.

            I really don’t want to moderate posts but if this place can’t be good natured debate, I will have to.

            Like

          2. Wait a minute. Are you complaining about MY post? All I did was point out that Paul was legitimate in his assessment of Mr. Smith’s post and his argument would have been better received if he kept the name calling out of it.

            If you are coming at me because of MY post, you sure as hell better go after the others who insult with EVERY post.

            Like

Leave a comment