I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like “most warming since the 1950s is human caused” or “97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming”, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good.This an an atrocious red herring that does nothing but pollute and polarize the debate.
It shouldn't even have to be said -- no one wants to “freeze and starve” poor people to death. It’s ridiculous to even imply such a thing.
But you and I and Dr. Roy Spencer are rich — there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be paying for clean energy. No excuse at all — and coal-generated power is so filthy it needs to go even before climate considerations. And much of that burden, especially to health, falls on the poor.
A carbon tax-and-dividend, where all revenues are distributed back on an equal per capita basis, would, in fact, help the poor — 60% of Americans would receive more back in dividends than they pay in taxes, according to James Hansen. It would help alleviate poverty while at the same time cleaning up the environment.
Piously using the poor as an excuse for the lack of actions by the rich is immoral.
2 comments:
what makes this argument ludicrous is that I ONLY see right wing or libertarian ideologues EVER express any care for the poor when this issue comes up
Given the amount of traction Spencer's latest Frankenstein (referenced in this post) is getting in skeptic circles, I thought you should be aware of HotWhopper's takedown: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy-spencers-latest-deceit-and-deception.html
I find the logic airtight and the exposure of what seems to be blatant academic dishonesty a little alarming, even by the good doctor's admittedly nebulous standards.
I lack your formal credentials but nonetheless have your back out there in the denialist jungle regardless, sir.
DW
Post a Comment