Gov’t Losing Billions on ‘Inefficient’ Tax Subsidies For Climate Change
well actually, the people have lost billions. another example of using the tax code to promote policy changes. You want to push climate change? Then give the group you have deemed crony the subsidy. at least then it's out there for all to see
pc.blogspot.com
Leonard Cohen- that guy is even older than me and has real style.
But was that the site you intended?
thanks for the article. I had not read that one. I posted this for the stats-I like numbers that can be verified. have you ever been to this blog?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUfS8LyeU...
Peter's in your neck of the woods and often writes on environmental nonsense. He has great posts.
1, 'energy tax subsidies that do little to combat climate change.' this is wrong, the word 'little' should be 'nothing'.
2. '..biofuels credits and found they had a "counterintuitive" effect.' What happens is that land and effort otherwise used to produce food goes to produce bio-fuels, so the price of food increases. The increased number of human deaths from starvation or malnutrition have been quantified at a few hundred thousand a year.
3. Emissions means carbon dioxide, CO2. This gas is about 400 parts per million in the atmosphere (for the non-numerate this is very very small). There is scientific opinion, not funded by governments, that CO2 has no affect on global temperature ( http://principia-scientific.org).
4. Even if the climate alarmist view is correct the resultant temperature increase would be a good thing for human well-being in reducing fatalities from cold (increasing the much lower number of fatalities from heat) and increasing land productivity for food.
5. This global climate change thing has importance for Gulchers. The reason it has grown so powerful is not just due to the weight of government money behind it. It is a good example of (false?) altruism at work. People want to save the world, do not want to be seen as irresponsible, so jump on a do-gooder bandwagon. The self-righteous in the new religion of progressive environmentalism fill up their vehicles with bio-fuel and the warm inner glow prevents them seeing the food taken out the mouths of those most in need.
6. Rand's view on altruism bothers me, ok I have not thought it thru. I hope it means false-altruism of the above kind. I'd like to see more opinions on this.