International Approach to Climate Change
It’s pretty clear what’s happening in the U.S. re: climate change and its mitigation: denial of the phenomenon itself, subsidies for fossil fuels, constant enlargement of the U.S. military budget (now larger than the next 12 countries combined) in order to ensure access to the worldwide oil supply, attacks on individual states’ renewable energy portfolio standards, withdrawal from the Paris Accord, and other disgusting acts, too numerous to name, both domestic and abroad.
It may be more interesting to learn what various countries are doing about climate change, and, to that end, here is a New York Times article on the subject. At least there is some good news, somewhere in the world.
Craig,
Frustration,despair and political angst, can be disorienting for any advocate causing a lack of focus and purpose.
You post is an excellent example.
You start by quoting an article from the NYT, but the link is to EcoWatch, a leftist online blog.
Next you vent your outrage at the US government’s:
1) “subsidies” for fossil fuels.
2) “constant enlargement of the U.S. military budget in order to ensure access to the worldwide oil supply”
Now you can’t actually say what those “oil subsidies are, because most expired years ago, and the few arcane subsidies that may still exist are insignificant in comparison to the size of the industry.
This myth largely died wack back in 2014, when President Obama ordered an exhaustive review only to discover the US oil industry received very few “subsidies”, amounting to less than $1.8 billion annually, and even then most had sunset clauses and were due to expire within 8 years.
So, that’s the second inaccurate “myth” while which you continue tormenting yourself, while fueling your invented outrage.
The second “myth” is the theory of a military designed to protect “oil imports”. The US is now a net energy exporter, once again self sufficient in domestic oil supply, so your oil war strategy seems at best obsolete.
Your torment and outrage seems once again to largely invented.
You must be one of the few who still believe the long discredited “Paris Accord” is still relevant! The original framers of the agreement are all either in breech, or just completely ignore the terms document altogether. The “agreement’ was always just a piece of political window dressing to fool the gullible. Most nations simply, and cynically, used the many “escape clauses” built into the document at the beginning for just such a purpose.
(Curiously, the US is the only industrialized nation in compliance with reduced emissions).
Craig, why do you continue to beat yourself up, and focus your outrage and indignation on such pointless angst ?
What is more important Clean New tech, environmental progress, or fighting an increasingly counter-productive political crusade ?
We just sold our 42nd large EV ride on Golf Course Mower. I’ll grant you this unit, along with over 600 smaller electric mowers, may not be a huge environmental achievement, but nevertheless it’s still a humble step in getting EV technology adopted.
By focusing on the positives offered by clean technology, and forgetting political and ideological angst, I believe we can achieve far more for the environment.
We need to accomplish these innovations ourselves, by personal example if possible. We can sit around yelling at the government to either fund or “compel” others to practice what we preach.
My advice is to forget all the political outrage. Go out today, and buy an EV, or at least an electric mower 🙂 .
Cheer up, every day the world of clean tech is announcing amazing new advances. The Peoples Republic of China (not the most reliably truthful news source) is however genuine in releasing details of the first “Zero pollution” coal fired power station.
The Chines claim this unit, the first of over 260 to be built will come on line, 8 months before their main rival, India, whose Super Advanced Coal Fired power plant has the added potential to not only emit virtually zero pollutant emissions, but also reduce emissions in other industries with valuable by-product produced from once harmful pollutant emissions.
Surely, this is more exciting news than re-hashing old myths and stoking the fires of political outrage ?
If you Google “subsidies fossil fuels” and read a few of the 3.8 million results, you’ll find that your claim here is 100% incorrect. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/danielle-droitsch/time-us-end-fossil-fuel-subsidies But I think you knew that going in, didn’t you?
Craig,
If you did less “googling” and a little more objective reading from authoritative, reputable source you may have noticed that enthusiastic the young authors writing in the NRFC website were as absent on ‘facts’ as you are yourself.
Just making an unsupported claim, then citing an article which also relies on vague assumptions and allegations only proves you are desperate to reinforce your prejudices, not learn objective reality.
The young authors (Han Chen and Danielle Droitschyou) you cite as an authoritative source, don’t actually name a single “subsidy” in their entire lengthy article !
Instead they include (without explaining how that figure is reached) subsidies of $26 billion, derived mainly from such vague assumptions as:
“pledges and commitments to end subsidies” and on “ending support for coal mining, oil and gas production, and fossil fuel exploration.”
If you read carefully into some of their previous articles you will discover these to young advocates make the common error of confusing “cost of doing business” tax credits, with subsidies.
In another amazing leap of logic, the authors claim even normal business expenses such as equipment deprecation which is universally applicable to all business as a normal tax deduction, magically becomes a “subsidy” when applied to the coal industry.
You are entitled to invent your own opinion, but you are not entitled to invent your own “facts’ and insist other s accept those fact as being accurate, but then, you already knew that didn’t you, eh?
Once again, I invite you to cite the actual “subsidies” and amounts of those taxpayer funded “subsidies”, given to the fossil fuel industry. But real “facts” not conjecture or your own definition.
Never be afraid that a little honest, objective research may prove you in error and wreak you delusions ! It’s better to be honest, even if your faith is diminished than believe in myths.
Craig,
Aw, c’mon, surely you can name all those “subsidies” you claim exist?
No ?
Okay, then how about just 10 ?
Get’s kinda hard trying to provide real tangible proof for an urban myth doesn’t it? Embarrassing too !