CNS: What will it take to keep the planet habitable?
According to some eco-warriors, all that’s necessary is to end capitalism—the one economic system that has lifted billions from poverty and suffering.
The latest United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report led Eric Holthaus, a Grist writer, to tweet enthusiastically, “The world’s top scientists just gave rigorous backing to systematically dismantle capitalism as a key requirement to maintaining civilization and a habitable planet.”
The sentiment is not new. Three years ago, while pushing for the Paris Climate Accord, U.N. climate official Christiana Figueres described the strategy this way:
“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”
To accomplish such a feat, the new report proposes an energy tax of epic proportions. It claims that, to keep warming in check, by 2030 we’ll need to impose a tax of between $135 and $5,500 on every ton of carbon emitted.
And that’s just for starters. By the end of the century, the authors say, we’ll have to jack the tax up to as much as $27,000 per ton.
How would that play out in the real world, where conventional carbon-emitting fuels currently generate about 80 percent of all energy consumed? Carbon taxes of the magnitude suggested in the report would bankrupt families and businesses and trigger a global economic disaster.
Using the same model as the federal government’s Energy Information Administration, Heritage Foundation analysts estimated the economic impacts of a $37 per ton carbon tax—less than a third of the panel’s lowest recommendation.
The model indicates that, at $37 per ton, the tax would reduce U.S. aggregate gross domestic product by more than $2.5 trillion over the next 17 years. That translates to more than $21,000 in lost income, per family. It would also destroy more than a million jobs, half of them in energy-intensive manufacturing sectors.
The higher the tax goes, the greater the economic damage. At $135 per ton, the model crashes. These costs are far higher than most Americans are willing to pay. more
Net effect. People in poverty die or are murdered at a higher rate, thus reducing global population. A little tyranny doesn’t hurt either. Forced abortions and murders. Great plan UN.
I am sure it bothers them that someday north Korea may actually have working electrical grid and light bulbs.
Great idea–destroy the one system that will actually produce a solution to global warming. The private research being done into fusion and battery technology among other potential solutions will alleviate the issue–not mass poverty and starvation.
A friend posted an article a couple of days ago about how Sears catalog over 100 years ago gave blacks the same shopping opportunity as whites during the Jim Crow era (a Vox article in fact). Sears did this not as outreach to blacks but in pursuit of profits. I commented that capitalism tends to equalize. Eventually my socialist friend had to chime in that capitalism caused the problem in the first place – my socialist friend who epitomizes success in finding work time after time because of his fairly unique skills and willingness to work hard. To be fair, he is originally Canadian…
No one has a worse enviro record than the former soviet union and it’s Eastern bloc, how is capitalism the problem? Oh, I get it like feminism, racism, genderism, homosexuality and immigration it’s REALLY about the destruction of Capitalism…got it, Thanks!
If the idea is so great, why do they have to pass laws stripping people of their comforts and wherewithal to make it happen.
Large scale Ocare, make people buy it, cause we say so.
“Go pound sand.” – Kurt Schlichter
Climate Change (AGW) is nothing but a platform for Global Socialism
Environmentalists are hypocrites for not killing themselves.
Fulsh the boot fookers at the un, ASAP!
And don’t forget, we need to plug all volcanos to keep them from belching tons of carbon in the air.
Want to ease the stress on the worlds resources? A good start would be to send a squadron of a-10 Warthogs to rip up that mob of invaders heading this way.
Put an end to the U.N.
Problem solved
Patrick Michael’s interview on Mark Levin’s show this past Sunday was excellent.. Wherein Mr Michaels points out, among other things, that FDR inspired by the Manhattan Project set in motion the process that allowed the fed gov to control funding for research – the result are areas of research is stifled, research either provides the results politicians want – or it doesn’t get funded, or inconvenient conclusions are not published or is demonized. Thus we’ve been given bad advice from nutrition/health to climate change for decades, since WW2.
LEVIN: Interview with Patrick Michaels on everything related to climate change and environment
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdW9Z2IHsHU .
Oh, a big surprise was that there are 32 climate models, all funded by governments. 31 of them track closely together, predicting about 7x more global warming than actual. The models are “tuned” to provide predictions within a desirable range of what they think it should be. Apparently there is zero interest in tuning the models to make accurate predictions.
However, the Russian climate model closely matches real temperatures -.predicted temps = actual temps. Go figure. Lies from US / Europe and truth from the Russians. What a world.
Shut down the UN and climate change is solved…