Near net zero emissions for the US would cost $45,000 per year for family of four, mostly embedded in the cost of necessities and have almost no benefits.
Virtue signaling is expensive, but the MSM doesn’t report it.
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.
View all posts by Don Tabor
Published
3 thoughts on “How much are you willing to pay for 0.3F in 100 years”
RE: “Near net zero emissions for the US would cost $45,000 per year for family of four…”
That’s an astonishing number.
Even if you assume that carbon reduction is a necessary or desirable thing, it is not a material good in the way that food, clothing and shelter are. Nothing is produced, nothing can be consumed, as the result of the expense.
The monetary effects are exactly the same as defense spending. Like it or not, we will be poorer.
Though much of the cost of CO2 reduction is hidden, you can’t hide that much. Once the visible costs reach about $100 a month, people will lose interest in global warming, and at $1000 a month, they will start hunting and skinning climatologists.
But Democrats know that, and they will drop the issue long before that, it’s just virtue signaling for the next election cycle.
RE: “Once the visible costs reach about $100 a month, people will lose interest in global warming, and at $1000 a month, they will start hunting and skinning climatologists.”
Yes, of course. I wonder how many people will connect the effects of government carbon-reduction spending with general inflation that they experience going to the grocery store, the car dealership or even buying online at Amazon.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
RE: “Near net zero emissions for the US would cost $45,000 per year for family of four…”
That’s an astonishing number.
Even if you assume that carbon reduction is a necessary or desirable thing, it is not a material good in the way that food, clothing and shelter are. Nothing is produced, nothing can be consumed, as the result of the expense.
The monetary effects are exactly the same as defense spending. Like it or not, we will be poorer.
LikeLike
Not just astonishing, impossible.
Though much of the cost of CO2 reduction is hidden, you can’t hide that much. Once the visible costs reach about $100 a month, people will lose interest in global warming, and at $1000 a month, they will start hunting and skinning climatologists.
But Democrats know that, and they will drop the issue long before that, it’s just virtue signaling for the next election cycle.
LikeLike
RE: “Once the visible costs reach about $100 a month, people will lose interest in global warming, and at $1000 a month, they will start hunting and skinning climatologists.”
Yes, of course. I wonder how many people will connect the effects of government carbon-reduction spending with general inflation that they experience going to the grocery store, the car dealership or even buying online at Amazon.
LikeLike