Environmentalism

Will Uprisings Thwart Green Central Planners?

Ordinary people aren't willing to pay higher costs just to fulfill the grand visions of environmentalists.

|

You know you've got a problem when your tax schemes are even being rejected by the French. While there's always a danger in reducing the causes of political unrest to a single issue, the plan to impose yet another regressive $9 billion annual carbon tax proved to be a catalyst for the "yellow vest" protests that are roiling Paris.

The nonviolent version of the French carbon-tax revolt is spreading globally, too. Last November, Washington state voters rejected a very well-funded effort to pass the first ballot-approved carbon tax ever. The province of Ontario is suing the Canadian government to block a federal carbon tax there. According The Wall Street Journal, "the issue could topple the Alberta government and perhaps Prime Minister Justin Trudeau." The Journal adds, "German Chancellor Angela Merkel's Energiewende—a transition to renewables that has increased dirty coal emissions and caused household energy costs to soar—has become a political liability."

The resistance comes from middle- to low-income workers. They're especially sensitive to changes in the cost and availability of energy for the simple reason that it affects so many aspects of their lives—from getting to work, especially for those who live in rural areas, to the price of most consumer goods. It's clear that many ordinary people aren't willing to pay higher costs just to fulfill the grand visions of central planners.

In response to ongoing protests, French President Emmanuel Macron just announced he'll cancel the planned increases in fuel taxes that were supposedly going to put the country on target to hit its Paris climate accord objectives. Nevertheless, other proponents for massive tax increases are doubling down and calling for even more central planning with the hope of drastically remaking modern economies in a manner that they believe will be friendlier to the environment.

Billionaire Tom Steyer claims that the real issue highlighted by the French protestors is inequality, and that the answer isn't to stop trying to tax people into behaving in an approved manner but to ensure "unionized, living wage jobs."

I'm guessing Mr. Steyer isn't terribly familiar with France, where extreme regulatory burdens of the type he prefers already exist and make employees extremely costly. The predictable result is a ghastly 9-plus percent unemployment rate (21.5 percent for youth) that has barely budged in decades.

But Steyer, a frequent advocate of raising the cost of energy in the United States, surely sees how the unrest in France and elsewhere threatens the political viability of his agenda, which boils down to engaging in regular takedowns of natural gas and strong pushes for us to "invest in"—by which he means direct even more government spending toward—wind and solar power.

Never mind that that the natural-gas boom, by displacing reliance on dirtier coal, is part of the reason why the United States is a consistent leader in year-to-year reductions in carbon emissions. And the growth of liquefied natural gas as a U.S. export is poised to help more of the world do the same.

Others have even bigger dreams. An old hobbyhorse of the left, the so-called Green New Deal, is also getting renewed attention. As with many of the terrible ideas floating around Washington, D.C., these days, this one has found a champion in the recently elected socialist representative from New York, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Like the original New Deal under President Roosevelt, it promises massive new government spending and across-the-board government interventions.

FDR's plan included compulsory unionism, attempts to establish monopolies, massive public-works projects, and wage and price controls. But his central planners lacked the knowledge necessary to control the market, as any one person or group of individuals necessarily does. Many economists now blame FDR's interventions for prolonging the downturn. A Green New Deal would almost certainly fail for the same reasons that FDR's New Deal failed and precipitate economic disaster.

Environmentalists are also using the courts to thwart energy exploration and development. Lawsuits have once again stalled the long-delayed Keystone XL project, and now the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. The latter is poised to address the mid-Atlantic's growing need for power by bringing natural gas into Virginia and North Carolina from West Virginia, and has seen its construction halted on account of legal challenges.

However, using every means necessary to obstruct development of energy sources deemed insufficiently green looks increasingly like an electoral loser. Voters and taxpayers seem to have little taste for climate-change policies that raise their cost of living and hurt the economy.

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 Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

108 responses to “Will Uprisings Thwart Green Central Planners?

  1. The only thing that will thwart a central planner is a bullet.

    1. Sounds like a plan!

      1. Well, unless you can get them all together and can use a bomb. Hmmm, sayyyy, are there are any places you can think of where central planners are collected together?

        1. DC, nuke it from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

          1. When the Pres. is addressing a joint session of congress! Then, go for the state capitols, under similar conditions, with smaller nukes.

        2. A landfill will work. Face down.

          1. But you have to separate the head from the neck, and a stake through the heart. Spreading the Eucharist is probably helpful too.

            1. You guys talk a big game on message boards. Then you continue to lose the culture war and the political debates. Then you obey your betters. Then you talk tough some more.

              Is this fun for you?

              1. Huh. Gary marriage is a thing, pot has been legalized for recreation across most of the nation, corporate tax rates are down, and you’re still an idiot. Yup, we libertarians are losing across the board.

    2. Well they certainly don’t seem willing to consider what the plebes do and do not want; the elites know what is best for us and are not about to change their minds given their vision of a Brave New World. In which they will know the ropes and pull the strings, naturally.

      1. That’s what this is actually about – elites trying to play organ grinder and pretending plebes are their monkey.

    3. That is in fact what history has shown.

  2. We’re just rearranging atoms so for me it’s always comes down to reducing human suffering. I’m on team human.

    1. You forgot nuclear.

      1. I’ve heard it’s pronounced nucular.

  3. They’re especially sensitive to changes in the cost and availability of energy for the simple reason that it affects so many aspects of their lives?from getting to work, especially for those who live in rural areas, to the price of most consumer goods.

    Not to mention just heating their homes. It gets fucking cold in North Dakota.

    1. Jimmy Carter: Well just wear a sweater!

      1. Yeah, a sweater doesn’t cut it when the toilet is frozen solid.

        1. You need a toilet sweater.

          1. Yeah, but your toilet sweater gets stuck to your ass sweater.

            1. It’s even worse when you cross button them.

  4. The latter is poised to address the mid-Atlantic’s growing need for power by bringing natural gas into Virginia and North Carolina from West Virginia, and has seen its construction halted on account of legal challenges.

    I think every real environmentalist knows how important it is to keep these places from switching to natural gas power from coal-fired plants, amirite?

    1. Let;s seen natural gas is cleaner and cheaper than coal. Yes, that would be quite a threat to their agenda and dreams of piss poor power from solar.

    2. Natural gas is the enemy of wind, solar and hydro power. Wind, solar and hydro power is the enemy of birds and fish. Therefore, real environmentalists hate birds and fish.

      1. Not to mention that there are few good sites left for new hydro power in the US.

        1. Convert the Wilson Bridge into a dam.

          1. Surround the US Capitol Building with wind turbines.

            Build a methane plant next to it, to recycle all the BS they generate into usable energy.

            1. We could power the world.

            2. A methane plant. Can we hire MasterBlaster to run it? And of course elect him mayor of Bartertown too.

          2. Everyone who has to drive across that bridge damns it.

      2. Ya gotta destroy the earth in order to save it.

  5. The New York Times called Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Accord “a stupid and reckless decision.” Any chance they’ll treat Macron’s decision to cancel France’s Carbon Tax in a similar fashion?

      1. Sacreorange?

      2. Hon hon hon!!!!!!!

  6. It’s clear that many ordinary people aren’t willing to pay higher costs just to fulfill the grand visions of green central planners.

    And it’s clear that the green central planners are not averse to polluting the environment in their efforts to, um, correct mobs of ordinary people.

    1. What, you seriously think “people” can like govern themselves and make their own decisions? Where would we be without our betters to tell us what to do and tax us into correct behavior?

      1. Are these the same “betters” and Rev, Arty goes on about and thinks he is one of?

        1. They’re the people who enacted the Clean Air Act and other environmental protections against the wishes and efforts of half-educated, downscale yahoos. They’re also the losers who benefit from those measures without thanking anyone or even recognizing their parasitic, stale, misguided ways.

          1. Get down off your high horse.

  7. Higher energy costs disproportionately negatively affect the poor. Certain environmental policies increase energy costs. Democrats push certain environmental policies. Is it in the poor’s best interest to not vote Democrat? Is it in the Democrats’ best interest not to increase energy costs? NO! I say. All legislators have to do is subsidize the energy consumers hurt by environmental policy.

    1. Tax the polluters so that we can subsidize them for the rising energy costs. Brilliant!

  8. So how are all the billionaire green personally reducing their carbon footprint, in order to provide an example for the rest of us?

    Talking the talk is cheap. Unless they’re living in a tiny 250 square foot home, taking public transportation and flying coach, they can go fuck themselves. And we know they are not.

    1. Well surely Hillary and John Kerry flew coach to that billionaires’ wedding in India and criticized the bride and groom for the humongous carbon footprint the lavish wedding inflicted on Gaia?

    2. Anyone who supports green policies needs to not only give up personal energy-intensive technologies (cars, houses with heat and AC, refrigeration) but also not avail themselves of other energy-hungry products and services (food delivered to the local grocery, Amazon, etc.).

      Anyone who supports socialist policies needs to have their personal wealth and income immediately reduced to the bottom third of the US distribution.

      1. Bottom third? I don’t think you’re taking this far enough. Bottom 10%, tops. And hey, with all the money they save not having a cell phone and on rent in that 250 sq. ft. house, they won’t need more than that anyway.

        1. Exactly, all those money bags are just a drag anyway. Liberate Tom Steyer’s billions and leave him barefoot and as carefree as Huck Finn.

    3. Anyone that thinks solar is the clean solution should be forced to visit a plant that makes lithium batteries.

      1. They’re simply ignorant. They’re like all the folks wasting hot water rinsing out the plastic bottles they’re so intent on recycling. I use my plastic in my wood burning stove; it burns really well. However, I don’t need it in the summer time and don’t have adequate storage. I don’t rinse anything out unless it happens to be on the counter when I’ve already run the hot water for dish washing …. that’s right …. I don’t have a dishwasher in my kitchen. ‘Cept for me.

  9. So am I the only person who sees the obvious connection to the Hungar Games? The Capital represents the urban elites who run around on heavily subsidized electric trains/buses and make rules for the entire country, including the sparsely populated states where most of our natural resources are actually located. The Districts represent the people in those who don’t have access to public transportation and who actually need gasoline to get to their jobs – many of which are jobs extracting the natural resources that keep the urban elites alive.

    Just like in the Hungar Trilogy, the rural districts are getting sick of it. It gave us President Trump in the US and the Yellow Vests in Frances. I wonder where the next rebellion will be?

    Part of my hope for our future is that today’s young adults grew up on the Hungar Games and maybe they’ll figure out that big, centralized government isn’t their friend.

    1. The Hunger Games is actually a pretty libertarian series. Another series that’s less so, but still has some libertarian or at least anti-statist undertones is Harry Potter.

      1. No, not really. Dumbledore’s faction is in rebellion against the current leadership. There’s no indication that they want to reduce the scope of government. They just want to replace the current leadership with one of their own.

        1. Dumbledore, three times, turns down a position as the minister of magic. Arguably wiser than Prof. de la Paz from TMIAHM, he’s content not to advance the system lest it all go to pot in the reconstruction. Moreover, Dumbledore is dead by the end of the series and the kids who started out wanting to be like him have, instead, refuse to honor his rules at nearly every turn (when Dumbledore himself isn’t overlooking possession of forbidden objects and knowledge) and, seemingly, have no aspirations to recreate the havoc that they ultimately lived through.

          It’s not as libertarian!!! as Hunger Games, TMIAHM, or similar, but the themes or underpinnings are still there and it’s certainly more libertarian than lots of other high adventure. And I’m willing to give it the benefit of the doubt as I can’t (I haven’t written anything better or more successful and…) without a larger power struggle and the structures that go along with it, even books like TMIAHM and Hunger Games would be exceedingly short and dumb.

          1. Er… he’s content not to upend the system.

          2. No idea what YMIAHM is, but I think I see things in Harry Potter that you’re glossing over. The Ministry of Magic is basically undermining individuals at every turn (to pave the way for Voldemort’s rule) and disarming the magical populace. Witness the refusal to continue teaching effective magic at Hogwarts, even for defence against the dark arts. It sounds almost like gun control! (Wand control?) Thankfully, the authoritarians (death eaters) get defeated by the forces of liberty.

            1. Ah, I just figured it out. But I think The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress is considered the most libertarian novel ever.

      2. I agree on Harry Potter too. I think about the influence of Harry Potter when I see news headlines about some white college kid getting caught on video uttering the n-word while singing along with a popular rap song. How often did the “grown-ups” say “He Who Shall Not Be Named” while Harry said “His name is Voldemort!” The message was that the problem didn’t go away just because people refused to say the name.

        Does this generation think of the n-word that way? Sure, racism is still a real problem but obsessive avoidance of a particular word doesn’t actually solve anything. Therefore, in solidarity with their hero Harry, today’s “kids” aren’t going to honor an arbitrary rule established by the “grown-ups”.

        Maybe this is a stretch, but it’s crossed my mind.

        1. >>>Does this generation think of the n-word that way?

          this generation thinks of *everything* that way

    2. “Part of my hope for our future is that today’s young adults grew up on the Hungar Games and maybe they’ll figure out that big, centralized government isn’t their friend.”

      More likely they’ll figure at the Hunger Games is available on YouTube for only $2.99 and that social media has enough shallow distractions to keep their minds from dwelling on anything too substantial.

  10. “However, using every means necessary to obstruct development of energy sources deemed insufficiently green looks increasingly like an electoral loser. Voters and taxpayers seem to have little taste for climate-change policies that raise their cost of living and hurt the economy.”

    Unfortunately, the average voter generally fails to see the impact of these green schemes on their pocketbooks.

    1. The average voter is generally pretty stupid, and will often demand lower taxes and more government handouts–simultaneously.

      1. BEAR PATROL TAX!

      2. The average voter wants handouts for themselves, not all those lazy slackers who don’t deserve it.

        The next time someone complains about the National Debt, ask them if they’d be willing to forgo the Homeowners’ Exemption and tax breaks on their Mortgage to help pay it off.

  11. Curiously, I never hear about a proposal to *replace* some of the existing taxes with carbon taxes, with guarantees that the old taxes won’t go back up again.

    No, it’s adding the carbon taxes on top of the pre-existing taxes.

    1. “Curiously, I never hear about a proposal to *replace* some of the existing taxes with carbon taxes, with guarantees that the old taxes won’t go back up again.”

      When has the government ever abided by any guarantee to not increase taxes?

      I recall the TEFRA tax act that reduced the federal income tax rates in exchange for eliminating a bunch of tax shelters and deductions.

      Those tax shelters and deductions were gone forever but the tax rates (no surprise) subsequently went back up again.

      Social security benefits were also supposed to be tax free forever. Then the government reneged on that too making up to 85% of it taxable for anyone with other income over a fixed amount that is not adjusted for inflation.

      No one would ever believe that government would not break it’s promise on replacing income (or other) taxes with carbon taxes and not reinstitute them later. And rightfully so.

  12. I said it before and I will say it again: if greens ever get fully behind modern technology in the form of cutting edge atomic power and development of fusion, I will start to listen. But in the meantime, they sound as if their brains have been fracked, especially when they try to link “economic inequality” to cleaning up the environment and suggesting those things are the natural job of government. (Examine the environmental track record of the old USSR or China.)

    Okay, I’m being unfair to them. Having your brain hydraulically fracked assumes you had one in the first place. So I take that comment back.

    1. (OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War… First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

      Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”

      Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration, addressing the Rio Climate Summit: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

    2. Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

  13. You mean you cannot set national policy as if everybody lives and works in the urban anthills?

    Shocking!

  14. Yep. The environmentalists should look at China, where the wonders of central planning allow them to only double their carbon emissions every 10 years.

  15. Look, modern civilization as we know it was created based on cheap, abundant energy. By definition, actions to make energy more expensive or restricted will reduce modernity.

    1. Feature not a bug; then us serfs can be re-occupied with manual farm labor for the good of the manor and its lords and ladies.

      1. I’m surprised more people don’t realize this.

        Government top men have always been just that: government top men lording it over everyone else. Doesn’t matter if you call it having a chieftain, duke, elected doofus, or socialist commissar. They are all pretty much interchangeable. It’s about them enjoying their power and everyone else bowing down.

        1. But democracy! The government is us!

          It is….until the person gets into power and then it’s all ‘our club and you’re not in it pal. Thanks for the vote but let take it from here.’

      2. Where is Saloth Sar when you need him?

  16. Energy from carbon based fuels is cheap only in the sense that it is borrowing money from the future. Changes to the climate have already had economic effects and these will likely increase in the future. Part of the problem is that politicians have delayed a carbon tax until its effects become onerous. It would have been far better to have started with a small carbon tax 10 years ago. The problems not going away and you can pay for it now or pay for it when it is a crisis and the cost is greater. The task for the Green New Deal is to create an effective plan to change from a cheap dirty fuel economy to clean sustainable economy. An important part of that plan is to be fair and communicate the plan effectively. Riots will happen if that is not done.

    1. The task for the Green New Deal is to create an effective plan to change from a cheap dirty fuel economy to clean sustainable economy.

      According to the experts-the most sustainable economy would be to have no economy, since all economies depend on the extraction of resources and labor. I am sorry that I do not share your optimism when I think a Green New Deal will mostly result in a surge of techno-bureaucrats to study problems and continue to look for or create new, previously non-existent problems when the old ones they were working to solve go away because of market forces.

      An important part of that plan is to be fair and communicate the plan effectively. Riots will happen if that is not done.

      Every press release I have heard over the past month tells me that we can’t wait any longer to address climate change, so maybe that is how they are communicating it, and apparently it is not effective because you would think the French would gladly accept a moderate carbon tax to avoid the imminent apocalypse. Either they think the experts are full of it, or their day to day existence is more important to them than saving a few polar bears.

      1. Me thinks France is protesting that the tax isn’t for the rich only.

        The Paris accord was pretty clear that big money was involved. Trump amplified the money issue when he pulled out.

        1. Trump amplified the money issue when he pulled out.

          It was a dark and Stormy night.

          1. The blue dress tells a story of pulling out by another president.


    2. Energy from carbon based fuels is cheap only in the sense that it is borrowing money from the future. Changes to the climate have already had economic effects and these will likely increase in the future.

      I see we have a true believer in the static climate model. So science-y!

      The problems not going away and you can pay for it now or pay for it when it is a crisis and the cost is greater.

      I find it amusing when people assume that trends will continue unabated by things like geological disasters, technological innovation, solar output changes, or changing priorities due to scarcer resources. Please, tell me how as the season progresses into winter we can expect the planet to inevitably freeze.

      1. Oh, and ‘sustainable’ is a lie unless you’ve found a secret way to repeal the laws of thermodynamics. Switching to power sources like solar just changes the minerals and resources you’re mining for, it doesn’t magically become infinite energy forever with no environmental impact.

        It’s the more expansive version of the moron who buys a Prius only to realize that they’re driving a coal powered car.

    3. I’m sure the Democratic Party candidate will be able to win the Presidency on $7 a gallon gas. All hail President Tom Steyer!

      1. People keep saying that we need to be paying Europe prices for gasoline, so, more like $10 / gallon.

        I hope Hillary puts that in her campaign speeches if she runs again. “If elected, I promise to tax fuel to $10 per gallon, minimum!”

    4. Yeah……,sounds like a bunch of leftist bullshit to me. Funny how every problem pointed out be faggot leftist eco warriors has to be so,fed with onerous taxes and infringement of our civil rights.

      Best to just reduce the surplus progressive population. That will solve most of our problems.

    5. “The problems not going away and you can pay for it now or pay for it when it is a crisis and the cost is greater.”
      When is the sky going to fall, Mr. Little?

      “The task for the Green New Deal is to create an effective plan to change from a cheap dirty fuel economy to clean sustainable economy.”
      Let’s hear the plan before we start paying for it; unicorn farts are not the power source of the future, and neither is wind or solar.

      “An important part of that plan is to be fair and communicate the plan effectively. Riots will happen if that is not done.”
      We’re waiting; what’s the plan?

  17. The task for the Green New Deal is to create an effective plan to change from a cheap dirty fuel economy to clean sustainable economy.

    The “Green New Deal” is nonsense supported by people that no idea how things actually work.

    1. Bingo. Solution to Climate Change: let the market adapt to it and come up with solutions that the society finds palatable. No top-down plans from power mongers.

      1. Which is where shit like the Dhevy Volt cake from. Obama made GM build it, and very few people are buying it. Even with big subsidies.

        1. But GM going into the crapper (again) is Trump’s fault.

  18. I’d probably support some of it if the usual suspects weren’t jetting around the world to conferences and living in 20,000 sq ft homes with a carbon footprint 100 times mine.

  19. …even more central planning with the hope of drastically remaking modern economies…

    And this was the chief goal of the AGW crowd when the global warming hysteria began in the 1990s.


    1. And this was the chief goal of the AGW crowd when the global warming hysteria began in the 1990s.

      And don’t forget the global cooling hysteria immediately prior to that.

  20. Many economists now blame FDR’s interventions for prolonging the downturn.

    Another case of the process being more important than the outcome.

  21. Add to the mix that Quebec’s new premier Francois Legault, who in refusing a pipeline from Alberta to come into Quebec, outrageously called it ‘dirty energy’.

    They’ve lost their minds. Quebec, a have-not province with among the lowest GDP per capital rates, should not be insulting a have province the country has come to depend on.

    As for Steyer, world-salad gibberish on his part. Indeed, he’d better learn about France before going all Ocasio-Cortez.

    It’s not a good look.

    The rich want to pimp a green program to profit from it and they want the rest of us to pay for it. People like Steyer can take the pinch. The vast majority of ‘deplorables’ can’t. It’s the worst kind of arrogant paternalism we’re watching unfold.

    1. “”The rich want to pimp a green program to profit from it and they want the rest of us to pay for it.””

      The purpose of the Al Gore movie.

  22. Task for New Green Deal is to figure new ways to tyrant.

    1. Americans will have to decide between getting rid of the orogressives or being free. If we keep all the progs we have, they will never stop until they are gone or our freedoms are gone.

  23. Re: “ensure “unionized, living wage jobs.”

    Haha, keep doubling-down on stupid.

    France is already as far-left as a country can go and still claim to be non-socialist, yet they still have not solved the perennial problem of economic inequality that socialism/communism both claim to have the magic unicorn fix for, and Steyer is unknowingly admitting to this failure.

    It’s like California claiming the USA needs more gun control when it’s already got all the gun controls that it wants the other states to adopt, and yet Calif. still has a large number of gun homicides.

    1. It’s like that sign: “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

      The left says, “Must … beat … people …. harder!”

  24. Radical environmentalism is a great way to redistribute the wealth from the productive classes to the parasite class (the ruling elites and their cronies).
    That’s the real green they’re going for.

  25. Unfortunately, completely separate from the discussion of “Carbon Taxes” is the reality that petroleum and natural gas reserves at current consumption rates will be fully depleted by the end of this century. (We will make it awhile longer on coal, perhaps to the middle of the 22nd century.) Society in the near future will drastically reduce its use of fossil fuels because it will have no other choice. How ugly that transition will be is totally up to us. So what do you do when the riots are about the price of gasoline and diesel with no tax? Society needs to be using the cheap fossil fuel it has now to create a transition for our grandchildren to a stable society that’s far less reliant on fossil fuels. As far as France goes, the last thing in the world they should be doing is shutting down their nuclear powerplants.

  26. Simple answer is obviously ‘no’. The best thing we can all do is to quit flying. Does anyone think that wealthy people/companies are going to do that?? It is completely possible and many “climate scientists” have done so – using webinars rather than seminars. Today I just saw Boeing’s newest private jet. It is a luxury 3 bedroom apartment with wings!! Obviously Al Gore MUST have one (as will every Silicon Valley exec., the POTUS of the free world, the head of every studio, 80% of hedgefund managers, etc.). But just as bad are the mid-level project managers who fly to China 2x/month and you with your need to see Vietnam (or whatever today’s cool destination is).
    Best thing we could do is a global plan that credits every person with a small and equal number of air miles (regardless if they’re commercial or private) and create a global marketplace that lets people sell their credits to all the over-users. For the majority of people in the planet, the earnings could eclipse their wages!!

  27. So the people in Paris don’t wish to be ruled by the Paris accord either. How ironic.

  28. These rioters are just as likely to be doing the exact same thing in the future, but it will be about demanding subsidies to offset the high cost of fuel. What will be Reason’s editorial on that?

  29. I essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty

    consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! “a great deal obliged to

    you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in

    addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!”. go to this

    website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .
    http://www.geosalary.com

  30. The NYT was worrying that environmentalism was only something rich people worry about

  31. Well, unless you can get them all together and can use a bomb. Hmmm, sayyyy, are there are any places you can think of where central planners are collected together?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.