If your city wants to be lauded for doing the most to reduce climate change, it needs to impose as heavy-handed restrictions as possible on every aspect of your daily life. It doesn’t matter whether those restrictions actually do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; all that matters is that they be as restrictive as possible.
Click image to download this 5.1-MB report.
That’s the conclusion reached from reviewing a Clean City Energy Scorecard report from a group called the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. The report “scores 100 U.S. cities on their efforts to achieve a clean energy future by improving energy efficiency and scaling up renewable energy.” New York is rated number one and Boston and Seattle are tied for number two.
The problem is that none of these cities have actually done much to reduce greenhouse gases. Instead, the first 134 pages of the report ranks cities by whether they have imposed strict building codes, emphasized transit over driving (because “everyone knows” transit is more energy-efficient than cars), and included social justice programs in their energy-saving programs.
Other causes may very well include absorbing minimal or no iodine and infiltration by bacterial agents cost cialis viagra browse that that impair the thyroid glands. A patient suffering from CAD needs to control his high generic levitra without prescription blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, also called as hypercholesterolemia. Small penis seanamic.com prescription du viagra Men are always conscious about their penis size. Luckily, according to the scientific tests conducted for the mechanism of action connected with Our website cialis properien, it has been shown to be a very safe ingredient and does not permit him to have any sort of physical activities like aerobics etc.
Only when the reader gets to appendix E, starting on page 135, does the report reveal whether any of these policies have actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions. Did the city make progress towards its greenhouse-gas-reduction goal? the report asks. Did it meet its goal to reduce driving? Did it meet its goal to get people out of their cars and onto transit?
In the case of Seattle, the Washington Policy Center discovered, the answer was “no” (or, to be precise, zero) in every case. Seattle met none of its goals and, among the 100 cities, is dead last in actually achieving any reductions in climate emissions. Yet the report ranked it tied for number two as having the best policies in the country.
I’ve previously discussed how government planners judge one another based on their intentions rather than their results. This seems to be an inherent flaw of socialism and was a major reason for the downfall of the Soviet Union. To get our economy moving again, we need to turn away from this dangerous mode of thinking.
The best way to reduce carbon dioxide production is to use a carbon dividend system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_fee_and_dividend
Where a carbon fee is charged as close as possible to the source, such as a oil well, and the resultant revenue rebated back to citizens with as low an overhead cost as possible This creates the incentive to reduce carbon dioxide production at the lowest cost. Many low income citizens will be better off under this system. It also eliminates political interference of trying to pass carbon fees onto pet projects under the pretense that these projects are a cost efficient way of reducing carbon dioxide production.
This policy is well describe here:
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/energy-innovation-and-carbon-dividend-act/
And endorsed by thousands of economist and 27 noble economists:
https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/
If a policy such as “getting people out of their cars to reduce carbon dioxide production” does not have a cost per tonne of carbon dioxide production then it is meaningless.
Look, Europe — the European Union — is going to require all cars to be speed limited by 2022.
And in the U.S. we’re going to pay 500,000 police or whatever, to badly, randomly enforce it? At 50,000Xs the expense and 5% of the effectiveness. We should ask ourselves why.
The last 20 years politicians were whining about taxes Big corporations aren’t paying, or using deductions to “Cheat” now think they can tax Carbon dioxide and effectively enforce it? They cant even enforce the tax code they have now…the one they wrote. That’s like paying a convicted rapist to safeguard you from sexual assault.
Study the Earth’s Climate over Just the last ten thousand years and Point to the “Crisis” Cooling trends are catastrophic.
https://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new-a.gif
And those pointing to CO2 like a scent hound, bear in mind, the Co2 level of the Earth Never went above 300 ppm at any real point in the last 800,000 years and the climate fluxuated between warm periods and Ice Ages, an Average temperature difference of 25 degrees.
“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed—and thus clamorous to be led to safety—by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”—H.L. Mencken
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_861us8D9M
More so than it being a left/right issue is one of ideological structure and intentions. These types of plans are gravy trains for planners and other quazi useless bureaucrat types. They create a massive never ending rent of programs that can go on for decades with no perceivable results. In terms of ideological structure, this type of thinking is definitely authoritarian and fundamentalist. It presents the policy in a simplistic top down fashion which cannot be questioned and does not consider other alternatives or trade offs. As I have long said this type of planning is more of a cultish religion than anything else.
From LazyReader’s post above I assume he/she doesn’t consider human caused climate change to be a concern. As Wendell Cox at an American Dream coalition meeting said, “this is not a winnable argument.” For example this is a list of the major scientific organizations that consider human caused climate change to be real:
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ There is no similar list for major (such as the American Society for the Advancement of Science or similar) scientific organizations that do not human caused climate change to be real.
As I have seen numerous times: In a planning meeting claim that human caused climate change is not real, and no one will listen to anything else one says. Instead use the winnable argument that any claimed reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is meaningless without a cost per tonne of reduction. That is winnable.
I don’t deny human induced warming.
But the Physics of the CO2 molecule has been extensively studied and researched since the 1850’s. It’s thermodynamic properties require exponential carbon input. In other words, we went from 285 ppm to 400 ppm in the span of a century and temps rose barely a degree. To get another degree we’ll have to output another 654 BILLION tons of CO2 to get it up to 800 ppm. And double it again to 1600 ppm to get another degree