Climate Change

Capitalism and Climate Change

The problem today is not that capitalism can't function without ruining the environment, but that the public isn't demanding serious action against global warming.


New York
Reason TV

For some of the people in New York this week demanding action on global warming, the menace is not just carbon dioxide. The real Tyrannosaurus Rex is the American economic system. On Monday, the day after the huge march through Manhattan, a few hundred protesters showed up in the financial district for "Flood Wall Street." Their slogan: "Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis."

One of them lamented to ThinkProgress that "not many people are willing to say that the root problem of climate change is capitalism." Another told The Daily Beast she was there "because I'm a Mashpee Wampanoag native to this country, and as far as I'm concerned, Wall Street greed has been killing me and my ancestors for 400 years."

It's not exactly clear how Wall Street greed was killing Native Americans in the 17th century, since the New York Stock Exchange didn't come into being until 1817. But leave that aside. What was obvious from the Monday protest is that the radical members of the movement against climate change have some serious misperceptions about economics and the environment.

It's true that there are corporations that profit from goods and services that contribute to global warming, from Exxon Mobil to General Motors to Duke Energy. But blaming capitalists for excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like blaming grocery stores for obesity. In each case, the business is taking its cue from what consumers want.

Capitalists have no stake in pumping out greenhouse gases double time. If consumers prefer products that are easy on the Earth, business people will trample each other to provide them. When the federal government cracked down on air and water pollution in the 1970s, companies found ways to survive—and even to profit from cleaning up the environment. If Washington takes sensible steps to curb carbon dioxide output, the same thing will happen.

It's not as though socialism is a proven way to restore the Garden of Eden. The profit motive was anathema in Eastern Europe under communism. But the region became a giant chemical waste dump.

"As Eastern Europe struggles toward democracy, it must also grapple with a ravaged environment," reported The New York Times in 1990. "Corrosive soot has fouled water and soil, and in blackened industrial cities the air is laced with heavy metals and chemicals."

Some land was polluted as to be useless for growing crops. Kids in one part of Poland had five times more lead in their blood than kids in Western Europe.

In China, communism was equally destructive. American University scholar Judith Shapiro wrote a book called "Mao's War Against Nature."

The idea that capitalist businesses can't function without belching poison is one the Flood Wall Street folks share with many corporate executives and Republican politicians. When the Environmental Protection Agency ordered a 30 percent cut in emissions from coal-fired power plants, critics insisted it would kill jobs and cripple growth.

Alarmists said the same thing when Congress passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act decades ago. In fact, companies quickly adapted to the new rules—a tribute to the innovative capacity of a free-market system.

Since 1980, carbon monoxide pollution in America has been cut by 83 percent, lead by 91 percent, and sulfur dioxide by 78 percent. But total output per person, adjusted for inflation, has risen by 77 percent. We've gotten greener and healthier as we've gotten richer.

Today's corporations, subjected to meaningful limits on carbon output, would soon find low-cost ways to comply. That's why a lot of impeccably conservative economists have endorsed a carbon tax—including Greg Mankiw, who was George W. Bush's chief economic adviser, and the late Nobel laureate Gary Becker, who said it "would be appropriate in light of the real threat from global warming."

The problem today is not that capitalism can't function without ruining the environment, but that the public isn't demanding serious action against global warming. A recent Gallup poll found most Americans think the planet is baking—but they rank the issue 14th in importance on a list of 15 concerns.

Back in 1990, a Polish teenager, asked about environmental degradation in his country, told The New York Times, "I don't know the way, but we have to get over the I-don't-care disease." Capitalism can't cure that malady. But if and when we overcome it, capitalism can reverse its effects.


NEXT: Vid: Bad Rules Make Bad Cops - Bart Wilson on The Economics of Civil Forfeiture

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If only people would care about this fake made-up crisis.

    1. Like how the wingnutters babble endlessly about Benghazi?

      1. Sure you wanna keep playing, shreek? The game’s always between you and getting called a cunt. That dropped eye of yours looks like the hood on a cunt to me, shreek. When you talk, your mouth looks like a cunt moving.

      2. What is the murder of four people compared to that of 95million? I mean you fuck up and get one ambassador murdered and don’t lift a finger to find the people who did it and the God damn wingnuts think it is a big deal.

        It is pretty amazing of the Republicans to expect a Democratic administration to have even the basic competence necessary to protect American diplomats abroad.

        1. It is odd how you Team Red types didn’t care about the 4500 US deaths in Iraq but now suddenly four diplomats get killed due to lax security and it is a major fucking scandal.

          1. Bush went to war in Iraq, so it doesn’t matter that Obama and Hillary are completely incompetent.

            And some people on here claim you are retarded. Retards don’t have that kind of a sense of humor. That is comedy gold there shreek.

          2. What you’ve just said… is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever seen. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having seen it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul…

            1. 4500 dead is far worse than four dead. Too bad your fake scandal didn’t elect Romney in 2012. That is the bottom line here.

              1. Were you born a fat, slimy, scumbag puke piece o’ shit, or did you have to work on it?

              2. Mo dumbass, the bottom line is that tu quoque is still a fallacy.

                1. Just because someone invokes a tu quoque fallacy doesn’t mean you’re not a hypocrite.

              3. Re: Peter Caca,

                4500 dead is far worse than four dead.

                Further proof that marxians can count!

      3. I think PB may actually be a bot. It saw the word “fake” and immediately connected that with “fake scandal,” but that phrase has an entirely different meaning from “fake crisis.” So it spit out the “fake scandal” talking points on a completely unrelated topic only superficially similar. A real person would know that, but a bot would be unable to deviate from it’s program.

        Turing test FAILED

        1. I think PB is Bo without meds.

          Question for RC Dean and other lawyers here: What percentage of your lawyer associates would you say are on anti-depressant medications? And do you think the percentage should be higher or lower?

        2. I noticed that too. No one thinks Benghazi is a crisis, or that global warming is a fake scandal. But PB could be a real person who is dumber than a bot.

        3. I would have to agree with what you said.

      4. PB, there have been about 80 scandals since Benghazi. Will you stop harping on that old news?

  2. It’s true that there are corporations that profit from goods and services that contribute to global warming…

    It is? Are you sure?


    1. It’s only a PAUSE! The warming is HIDING IN THE DEEP OCEAN!!!

      1. So, warm water doesn’t rise like warm air does?

        1. Not according to the AGW cult. The warming somehow got absorbed by the deep ocean without warming either the atmosphere or shallow ocean on its way through. I wish I were just making that up.

        2. If a consensus of climate scientists say water warmed by global warming sinks, then it sinks. I mean, they voted. That overrides your antiquated scientific method.

          1. they voted

            And elections have CONSEQUENCES, denier bitchez!

          2. And if the models we’re relying on to forecast the weather in 100 years can’t even predict the very recent past, and ad hoc explanations are tacked on to explain everything, then the Science is Settled.

            Also, give us your gold so we can change the climate, asshole!

          3. Well….warm water doesn’t have to sink to warm cold water beneath it. Fill a well-insulated container with near freezing cold water and carefully (to avoid mixing) pour some hot water on top and you’ll see the temperature of the cold water increase. That still doesn’t mean they are correct about the missing heat because temperature measurements of the deep ocean are so sparse. They’re just pulling that out of their asses.

        3. No silly, ice cubes float.

          1. It’s less dense.

        4. The real trick is the heat sneaking past the atmosphere and the shallow ocean layers so that it can lie in ambush in the deep ocean…waiting to pounce when the humans least suspect it.

          Very intelligent, this heat.

          1. ..waiting to pounce when the humans least suspect it.

            I only wish this were true so it’d kill these fucking morons off someday.

            It’s ok though, I’m sure natural selection will take care of most of em by their 30’s.

          2. Yes, and that’s the main thing that makes the case of the missing heat hiding in the deep oceans so weak.

        5. I’m not taking a position on the validity of the theory, but it is worth pointing out that for more heat to be stored in the deep ocean, the deep ocean doesn’t need to become warmer than the surface, just warmer than it is now. And there are currents that move water from the surface to deeper in the ocean. I don’t see much evidence for it, but it is not an absurd idea.
          If you want to argue against sloppy climate science, it is better not to be so sloppy yourself. It really doesn’t help.

    2. “not many people are willing to say that the root problem of climate change is capitalism.”

      Yeah, the constant repetitive cycles of global cooling and warming over millions of years would never have happened if not for evil CAPITALISM!!!

    3. I don’t know if plummet is quite the right word. They certainly haven’t been going up in the US.

    4. “It’s true that there are corporations that profit from…”

      This formulation is as common as it is ignorant. It also happens to be true that the consumer profits from a given transaction, at the same time the corporation profits. It’s called ‘voluntary exchange’, you stinking hippies.

      Because the exchange involves money, the default prog presumption is the seller must be screwing over the buyer. Where else would the profit come from, thin air!?!

      Money obscures the fact it’s just a trade. Oil companies would profit even if they only bartered gasoline for other products such as apples, as would the other side of the trade. There’s really no ‘buyer’ or ‘seller’, but two traders.
      Who profits if I trade someone 2 chickens for a house cat? These collectivists reckon they should be the judge of that. And, by the way, demand a nice cut of the deal they had nothing to do with.

  3. OWS said to itself, “Man, we really blew our load and got nowhere. Now what do we do? Let’s attach ourselves to something else and push the same bullshit with a fresh cover.”

  4. If consumers prefer products that are easy on the Earth, business people will trample each other to provide them.

    True. These dumbass protestors can’t see that capitalism is the only solution for AGW in a democratic society.

    1. The only solution to our problems is stealing billions from the taxpayers and giving it to Elon Musk to kill raptors and make golf carts no one wants.

    2. Don’t lock eyes with ’em, don’t do it. Puts ’em on edge. They might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming “No, no, no” and all they hear is “Who wants cake?” Let me tell you something: They all do. They all want cake.

    3. That’s because, like all these intersectionalist twerps, AGW (or SJW grievance issues, or free birth control, or whatever) is just the excuse. The actual agenda is socialism, and whenever the nominal agenda (environment, access to birth control, lowering incidences of rape) conflicts with the true agenda (totalitarianism), the nominal agenda loses.

    4. Re: Peter Caca,

      These dumbass protestors can’t see that capitalism is the only solution for AGW in a democratic society.

      So undemocratic societies will submerge in a torrent of water from melted glaciers? Can’t they also benefit from capitalism?

  5. If one person with a confederate flag shows up at a Tea Party rally, the media puts it on the front page as proof of how racist they all are. A huge number of unapologetic communists, many of whom are advocating for the imprisonment and murder of millions of Americans, show up at a global warming rally and the media somehow fails to notice. Funny that

    1. Well the communists were all well intentioned John. The racist teabaggers want to lynch blacks like they used to.

    2. Have the communists killed 200 million people in the 20th century, like the rat fucking tea baggers have?

      1. RFK Jr. was on camera at this thing saying anyone who disputes global warming should be in prison. These people really would turn the country into Stalinist Russia. But the average American doesn’t know that because the media won’t report it. If the truth were known, no one associated with this thing would have a career in public life anymore.

        1. I dunno. Communism is gaining popularity. I mean, all this inequality stuff just isn’t fair, and communism would fix it. It would take down the rich and spread the wealth around. Who doesn’t want that except the rich and their apologists?

        2. A career in public life REQUIRES idiocy. No intelligent person would WANT a career in public life.

        3. Niven and Pournell are looking pretty prescient about now.

        4. I wonder how it feels to loyal to a political party that has influential members who celebrate your father’s murderer.

    3. “A huge number of unapologetic communists, many of whom are advocating for the imprisonment and murder of millions of Americans, show up at a global warming rally and the media somehow fails to notice. Funny that”


      Notice the absence of coverage in the mainstream media regarding RFK jr’s stated desire to imprison AGW “denires” for treason.…..-c-w-cooke

      “Were he to have his way, Kennedy admitted, he would cheer the prosecution of a host of “treasonous” figures ? among them a number of unspecified “politicians”; those b?tes noires of the global Left, Kansas’s own Koch Brothers; “the oil industry and the Republican echo chamber”; and, for good measure, anybody else whose estimation of the threat posed by fossil fuels has provoked them into “selling out the public trust.” Those who contend that global warming “does not exist,” Kennedy claimed, are guilty of “a criminal offense ? and they ought to be serving time for it.”

  6. 95 million dead.

    But this time it will be better. We’ve got Top. Men.

    1. The problem was we just didn’t do enough.

      /Bill Ayers.

      1. Yeah, this time we need to really get serious!

        1. A million here a million there, pretty soon you have enough raw eggs for an omlette.

          1. Come on you guys, that was old-timey communism. They didn’t have wise and beneficent dictators like we would have here. That stuff is ancient history, man. They didn’t even have computers back then!

    2. That probably needs to be updated. Didn’t some new info come out a few years ago that China killed nearly that many all on its own with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution?

  7. I remember when I went to East Germany. It was gray, incredibly gray,and even more gray, covered in soot.

    And Shanghai in 2001 was even more disgustingly dirty. No trash, just dirty.

    1. A single Trabant made in the 1980s put out more air pollution than 30 Mercedes Benz sedans of similar vintage.

      1. It’s like nobody remembers the acid rain in Eastern Europe

    2. My mom and dad said the same thing about Beijing, everything seemed to be covered in a grayish blackish film. Also, most places had a hole in the ground for a toilet. On the plus side though, the McDonald’s had fried apple pies.

      1. The DOS gives special pay for employees to go to the American embassy in Beijing. The air is consider so hazardous to breath going there warrants hazard pay.

      2. We had issues with keeping tarnish off silver plated parts in Shanghai. Even a couple of hours exposure to the outside atmosphere would foul the coatings.

        When SARs hit, they would treat the carpets in the plant with bleach every night (I’m not exaggerating). The fumes were so overpowering that they had to open the windows and doors the next day. Soot got on everything. What a mess.

    3. The Aral Sea was a mistake of nature. It’s a good thing the Soviets were around to correct it.

      1. Had a friend in Grad School who was an Environmental Historian. When I brought up this kind of thing, they told me that such disasters were caused by the “capitalist portions” of Soviet policy.

        At that point, I changed the subject to Christmas vacation plans.

        1. In the US, everybody talks about the companies that polluted the river and groundwater. They don’t talk nearly as much about the massive pollution caused by the military. They would bury and dump shit anywhere they pleased without repercussions.

          1. Just like people flip out over abuse in the NFL or sexual assualt on campuses, while ignoring much higher rates of domestic violence amongst police or sexual assault in the military.

              1. Interesting, and not to victim blame, but I’m under the impression that the college campus numbers are inflated by hazy alcohol-related encounters.

                Also, the article seems to only count military on military assualts, not military on civilian.

          2. When the Vikings were looking for a new stadium site, one of the places they looked at was an old ammunition plant that has been a superfund site since the 80’s.

            The only brightside to that debacle would have been that the Vikes could probably have gotten the site cleaned up much more quickly and cheaply than anyone else because they are such corporate whores that I’m sure the regulators would have gone easy on them.


    4. As opposed to this.

      WHich world do you want to live in?

      1. Hong Kong is a million times better than any Chinese city, I’m sure, but still the most polluted air I have ever breathed. They do keep it clean, though, and you can usually see the other side of the harbor.

  8. Oh capitalism…is there any evil you can’t do?

    1. It’s not very good at getting rid of screeching loon morons who want, those of us not outright killed in the initial purges, to live in the New Dark Age, so there’s that.

      1. Not getting rid of idiots IS evil.

      2. When these people start marching in New York city in say, February, then maybe we can start taking them seriously.

  9. I’m going to bookmark this article. In ten years or so, when my daughter ask me what begging the question and assuming the conclusion means it will be a helpful teaching aid.

    1. begging the question = assuming the conclusion. that is both superfluous and redundant.

  10. ” Another told The Daily Beast she was there “because I’m a Mashpee Wampanoag native to this country, and as far as I’m concerned, Wall Street greed has been killing me and my ancestors for 400 years.”

    Oh my fucking god, I thought I was going to die laughing. You can’t make this shit up.

    1. You really can’t. Where the hell is an Iroquois when you need one. The good news buddy is that Wall Street will no longer be oppressing you and your people. The bad news is my friend is here to conquer and enslave you. Good luck with that.

      1. A psychologist would ask: “And before that, who was killing you and your ancestors?”
        “Would you say that you’re being killed more than before or less?”

        Then he’d diagnose the person with paranoid schizophrenia.

        1. But the evil capitalists would make bank off the anti-depressant prescriptions.

    2. Well, we did buy Manhattan for what? $20 worth of beads? That is a killing for sure.

      1. you’re only off by 1200%, which is good for you.

      2. Know what it’d be worth if Obama were President in 1776?


    3. I’m guessing they could recite this:

      At least it gets them in the chronological ballpark. AND Wall Street was built by the Dutch.

    1. I guess Wall Street is not so bad when it is financing your casino. Or did they finance that with beads and peace pipes?


  11. ” “not many people are willing to say that the root problem of climate change is capitalism.”


    Look, if we’re not going to make fun of these people? I dont want to see articles about them, because its too painfully stupid.

    1. To be fair, I’m not sure it’s possible to make fun of them, because I’d have to be able to comprehend that level of stupid. I’m not that good at stupid yet.

      1. It’s all about the feels.

        You see rich people and it makes you feel angry that they’re rich and you’re not. It’s just not fair. You see a factory belching out fumes and you feel that it must be harming something. I mean, how could it not?

        Then you hear really smart scientists connect it all together by saying the rich people who own the factories are causing global climate change, and it all makes sense! We need the government to take down those rich people and stop their factories from killing the planet!

        Kill the rich! Fuck yeah! Save the planet by killing rich people!

        1. The feelz combined with signaling. “I care about the climate, therefore I am morally and intellectually superior”.

          It really is that simple an explanation.

    2. Global Warming is the Reason party line. The effort will be to rehabilitate them.

      1. I’ve never seen anyone at Reason besides Bailey take a position one way or the other on the subject.

    3. Communism is magic. It fixes all ails.

      And history is a big, fat liar. Pay no attention to him.

  12. It’s true that there are corporations that profit from goods and services that contribute to global warming,

    No, it’s NOT true because there isn’t any proof of global warming caused by anything attributable to the inhabitants of the planet.

    1. Can someone please start a cafe-press account and offer T-Shirts saying,

      For subtlety (on their level), you could call the venture “Beats Thinking, Inc”

      Promise to use all proceeds to “Fight To Repeal Laws of Supply and Demand”

      in reality, use the money to buy beer. I personally think this presents an attractive investment opportunity.

      I’d buy one, at least. My lefty friends would think nice things about me.


  13. This article surrenders to the myth that the energy industry in the US is in any meaningful sense “capitalistic”. It only falls short of de jure nationalization – but in reality the interests of oil and the State are so closely intermeshed it’s hard to know where one ends and the other begins.

    1. In fact, one could attribute most greenhouse gases to government rather than capitalism. East Germany and China were/are the prof.

    2. That is horseshit. If it were not in any meaningful sense “capitalistic”, there would be no difference between the US energy industry and say the one in Venezuela or Iran. And of course there is a huge difference, namely the US energy industry is about a thousand times more efficient and productive.

      1. i.e.

        “It’s not nationalized in the fashion of Venezuela, therefore its capitalistic.”

        I think I can let that statement hang itself.

        1. Your insights are fascinating. Please tell us more of this perfect, pure land of capitalisms where complete absence of any market distortions exists.

        2. No. It just means that there are degrees of capitalism. Our energy industry is capitalistic in lots of meaningful ways. Most notably, the mineral rights are in private hands and land owners get to share in the profits from drilling.

          What you said is just not true.

          1. I didn’t suggest that capitalism is a matter of absolutes. But it’s patently ridiculous to describe the energy industry as “capitalistic” because Iran is *less so*. That it retains aspects of private ownership is not sufficient to make it a useful example of “capitalism run amok”. Everything short of an anarcho-socialist’s wet dream retains some aspects of entrepreneurship; even North Korea allows people to sell their own wares. One the scale of “market freedom” in the US, I couldn’t think of anything that ranks lower than the energy/utilities…. so much so that using it as fodder against capitalism simpliciter is disingenuous.

            1. could you be more uselessly academic?

              1. Well, I could be posting nasty comments devoid of content, trying to bate an emotional response – but then again I don’t use the internet to pretend I have balls. 😉

                1. Does being smug make your useless academic comments any more insightful? No.

      2. The Department of Energy is supposed to regulate it – to make sure power is readily available to industries and consumers. But then the EPA decided that THEY should regulate it all – now industry is pulled in all different directions.

        We are left with a $31 Billion Federal Agency that has no mission (other than keeping the $31 Billion) – and a horribly regulated energy sector.

    3. (strokes beard, nods sagely)

      um. yes.

      but what about all the *morons*?

  14. The problem today is not that capitalism can’t function without ruining the environment, but that the public isn’t demanding serious action against global warming.

    Because, all in all, it is a non-issue. BTW, why is Chapman allowed to write here?

    1. BTW, why is Chapman allowed to write here?

      Because someone had to replace Weigel?

    2. Would you rather he be here or off “ruining the environment [by] demanding serious action against global warming?”

  15. One must unwind the tortured logic and address the root issues here.

    First, most of these people blame past environmental problems on businesses being lax on safety in order to save money. That’s logical as far as it goes. Unfortunately, most of them are unfamiliar with the issues with liability and property rights law that make it possible to pollute without incurring costs in terms of liability.

    Secondly, when you bring up property rights to them, most people have this knee-jerk aversion to that as if we’re saying people should be free to trash their own property (which is true, but beside the point, the point is that property owners can SUE other people for pollution that crosses boundaries). Plus there’s also a reflexive aversion to private property on the left in general, because it just sounds selfish.

    They’ve all got this vague idea in their heads about having like a tribal council where everyone agrees to share all the resources wisely and fairly. This is a total fantasy obviously, because society is way to complex to manage all resources as if they were common-pool resources in anything resembling a wise or fair manner.

    The beauty of markets is that they are self-organizing distributed systems, which makes them capable of efficiently managing resources with something close to a pareto optimality. As long as you assign the costs of pollution back to the polluter, a free market will generally result in an optimal trade-off between pollution and economic use.

    1. One must unwind the tortured logic and address the root issues here.

      Yes. They’re morons.

    2. “‘Trade-off’? We oppose trade!”

  16. “That’s why a lot of impeccably conservative economists have endorsed a carbon tax?including Greg Mankiw, who was George W. Bush’s chief economic adviser, and the late Nobel laureate Gary Becker, who said it “would be appropriate in light of the real threat from global warming.”

    One would think that an “impeccably conservative” economist would be cognizant of Bastiat’s illustration of the broken window fallacy.

    1. What does the broken window fallacy have to do with it? I don’t think they’re claiming that a carbon tax would create jobs or stimulate the economy, are they?

      1. “I don’t think they’re claiming that a carbon tax would create jobs or stimulate the economy, are they?”

        Yes they are.

        See this:…..-analysis/

    2. You would think so. But they pretend that the market can magically keep us from being poorer after the government artificially raises the price of energy.

      It is one of the reasons I don’t take Mankiw that seriously. Yes, carbon taxes would allow the economy to adjust to the higher cost of energy. That would at best mitigate some of the cost of doing it. But it wouldn’t change the fact that the government would be artificially raising the price of energy.

      Basically Mankiw and company are arguing that it is a good idea to shoot yourself in the foot as long as you do it in a sterile area near an emergency room. Yeah, I guess that is better than doing it alone in the wilds of West Texas. But that doesn’t make it a good idea.

    3. Becker’s comment was probably made before the Pause had gone one for so long.

      A better tax idea is McKittrick’s (sp?). His tax would rise in phase with the global surface temp. No rise, no tax.

  17. But blaming capitalists for excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is like blaming grocery stores for obesity.

    You’ve got a point there. Let’s bring those grocery-store fatcats to justice. Social justice.

  18. Between the Rape Culture on the internet, and the Capitalisms destroying the earth out from under my feet, i’m getting a little tired of this constant “Holocaust of the Invisible“… where you can only really ‘see’ the constant damages being wrought if you take the red pill, read Naomi Klien, and assume the Kochtopus lives under your bed.

  19. Here’s 3 free market ways to fight climate change that don’t involve climate change marches:…..-ears/2275

    1. “Buy organic food, install some solar panels on your home, buy an electric car, buy a bike.”

      none of these things have anything to do with climate change.

      And arguably, three of the 4 make things ‘worse’, if you believe that sort of thing.

      Organic food is more energy intensive and wasteful of resources. Its worse for topsoil erosion which releases tons of pent-up carbon. It has ZERO ‘sustainability’ benefits relative to larger-scale Ag.

      Solar panels are just fashion accessories unless you already live in the fucking desert.

      Electric cars are an environmental nightmare that makes the Ethanol-boondoggle look reasonable by contrast. They simply transfer efficient energy sources (combustion engines) to inefficient ones (fossil fuel power plant which then waste substantial portion of energy in transmission and require massive new energy/resources to enable its practical use)

      So, what you’re really saying is,

      “Jeff Siegel… publisher and managing editor of Green Chip Stocks”

      is a fucking moron.

      1. Haha. Gilmore, thanks for the kind words. You’re clearly one of those folks who believes the illusion that in order to embrace free markets and conservative values you have to mock efforts in sustainability.

        Internal combustion = efficient? No
        Organic food worse for top soil? No
        EVs environmental nightmares? No

        Geez man, either you don’t like doing real research and quote objective data analysis or you’re just a pathetic partisan slave. I’m guessing it’s probably both.

        Man, you’re so far off base you should run for office. hahahahahahaha.

        1. Organic food may not be worse for soil erosion, but I don’t see how it is any better in terms of carbon dioxide emissions or anything else climate change related.

          I’m sure that at some point EVs will be the thing, but as long as they rely on batteries for power, they are worthless.

        2. What’s more efficient at moving things from a given weight and amount of fuel than internal combustion?

          Nothing, so far.

          (Oh, electric motors are very mechanically efficient!

          But it turns out no vehicle uses a motor in isolation; ones that don’t run on rails need an energy source, and gasoline beats batteries by, what at least an order of magnitude?

          And that doesn’t even include the way you can just pump more in…)

        3. ” You’re clearly one of those folks who believes the illusion that in order to embrace free markets and conservative values you have to mock efforts in sustainability.”

          No, i’m someone who actually spent a few years looking at these things rather than swallowed them wholesale as cultural commodities ‘symbolizing’ Green, but delivering Zero Value

          Organic Farming =

          “Organic farming is generally good for wildlife but does not have lower overall environmental impacts than conventional farming, a new analysis led by Oxford University scientists has shown.”

          A brief analysis of Electric Cars, showing that unless you plan to charge them from magical solar arrays, they provide ZERO environmental benefit while requiring both massive increase in polluting technologies (batteries) as well as environmental degradation in order to increase electricity transmission capacity.

          You don’t have shit on your side of the ledger.

          As for internal combustion? yes: there is currently *no more efficient way* to provide ‘mobile energy’ to planes, automobiles, boats, etc. You simply can’t “store and transport” energy in a more efficient format with existing technology.

        4. “Geez man, either you don’t like doing real research…”

          That’s funny jeff, but its actually what I do for a living.

        5. oh, and since the issue of topsoil was raised…(pun)


          “The shockingly poor yield of organic grain here was due to a massive proliferation of weeds – which are extremely difficult to control without herbicide.

          They also measured yield of corn that was grown conventionally on fields that had been in either conventional or organic production for the previous 9 years. Conventionally-grown corn yields were 18% higher when grown on fields that were historically managed organically.”

          The only real measure of relative superiority of any agricultural process is on a *per yield* basis; given that even in cases where relative ‘damage’ to topsoil is on par, the lower yield of organic processess means that 30%+ more land has to be used to provide equal output. this results in *worse environmental degradation* – not to mention runoff effects and all the other second-order damages from low-yield agriculture.

          Of course, none of this matters to you, because you’re a boiler-room pink sheet/OTC stock shill who knows fuck-all about the environment, and just flogs this nonsense to turn a quick buck.

          But thanks for trying, Jeff.

          1. Bwahahahaha. That’s what you’re quoting? Hahaha. Brilliant. Yeah, I’ve considered going down this rabbit hole with you but realize I just don’t have the time to argue with you. You keep believing what you want. I just hope other folks who read your rants are smart enough to do their own due diligence. Have a nice day. 🙂

  20. I agree with you. Capitalists can recognize the danger from climate change, even if libertarians can’t. Just today over 200 investor groups signed a letter seeking action on climate, because they can see how it can hurt them in the financial markets. Signed by groups such as Allianz and Blackstone.…..CHANGE.pdf

    1. A bunch of investor groups trying to transfer money from taxpayers and the economy to their investments by force of government is not capitalists recognizing the danger from climate change: it is capitalists recognizing the benefit to themselves of corporate welfare in the name of climate change.

      1. Exactly right…you don’t have to be looking for solutions on moral grounds, you can do it as well for financial reasons. Its the whole point of Chapman’s article.

      2. By the way, their isn’t a capitalist out there that doesn’t attempt to use the government to enhance their portfolios….that includes your precious Koch’s.

        1. The difference is that the Koch’s will take advantage of the rules in play, but they don’t lobby the government to increase its use of force in order to enhance their portfolios.

          Quoting from the investor statement:

          Stronger political leadership and more ambitious policies are needed in order for us to scale up our investments. We believe that well designed and implemented policies would encourage us to invest significantly more in areas such as renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable land use and climate resilient development, thereby benefitting our clients and beneficiaries, and society as a whole.

          That’s some fine corporate welfare whoring right there.

          1. That’s lobbying, something the Koch’s wrote the primer for. What rules in play did these investors break? Is lobbying a rule in play? The Koch’s think it is.

            But I get it, when progressives lobby, its use of force, when the Koch’s lobby, its righteous.

            1. This statement is asking for policies that will set a Pigouvian tax of at least 1% of annual GDP in order to discourage fossil fuel use and collaterally encourage spending toward investments that the signatories believe they have a comparative advantage in. That is lobbying for a use of force.

              Do you have a single example of the Koch’s lobbying for more government use of force? Certainly Cato and Reason, for example, advocate less government use of force all the time.

    2. Definitely sarcasm!


      1. Clearly the thought that capitalists can be a solution to climate change is so obvious that you’re not referring to that.

        So it must be you thought I was being sarcastic about libertarians. No, they are about the last group who has yet understood the reality of science.

        Get it?

  21. What was obvious from the Monday protest is that the radical members of the movement against climate change have some serious misperceptions about economics and the environment.

    In breaking news, the sky is blue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.