Yes… I know entropy falls under the Second Law of Thermodynamics… But I doubt the author of the Clean Technica article does.

Guest ridicule by David Middleton

Among today’s Real Clear Energy headlines, almost totally unrelated to energy: What Will Persuade Conservatives To Fight Climate Change?

Carolyn Fortuna, one of CleanTechnica’s energy industry and climate science experts (AKA a sustainability blogger), has put forth a list of six reasons conservatives should fight climate change…

Reason #1: To Fight Climate Change is to Negate a Serious Threat to Global Security

Ms. Fortuna cites a report from The Center for Climate & Security, a warmunist activist group composed mostly of Obama-era retired military brass, including Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret).  This group was addressed recently in another post.

The gist of the latest Center for Climate & Security is that sea level rise is an existential threat to coastal military facilities, which are quite often naval bases… frequently hosting “ships and/or submarines.’  Some of the latest climate modeling indicates that ships and submarines may be able to adapt to sea level rise.

It is also thought that Marine Amphibious Groups may also handle sea level rise fairly well.  A question for Ms. Fortuna:  Which is worse for an amphibious assault? Rising or falling sea level?  (Think tides).

Honestly, if this threatens our war-fighting capabilities, we have bigger problems than climate change…

I thought about posting this image at the same scale as an Arleigh Burke Class DDG (figuring a Nimitz Class CVN was overkill), but since I already had an image of global sea level rise plotted at the same scale as the Statue of Liberty, I figured it conveyed the same message…

If the Navy has a climate change problem, it’s the fact that their newest class of warships, Littoral Combat Ships, have trouble with ice…

Reason #2: Many Republican-Held Districts are Already Experiencing the Effects of Climate Change

Many Republican-held districts are also already experiencing the effects of plate tectonics, entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics.  For that matter, every Republican-held district has been experiencing the effects of climate change for a very long time… And it was all good up until 1988, apart from the Dust Bowl.

What changed in 1988?  Al Gore & Jimbo Hansen invented Gorebal Warming.

Reason #3: Respected Republican Elders are Promoting Carbon Dividends

Republican party elders James A. Baker III and George P. Schultz formed a new organization in 2017  to build political support for the carbon dividend proposal, and former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.) have joined in with their support. Calling themselves the Climate Leadership Council, the group has outlined a 4-point plan:

1. A gradually rising tax on carbon dioxide emissions, to be implemented at the refinery or the first point where fossil fuels enter the economy
2. All proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis
3. Border adjustments for the carbon content of both imports and exports would protect American competitiveness and punish free-riding by other nations, encouraging them to adopt carbon pricing of their own
4. Elimination of regulations that are no longer necessary upon the enactment of a rising carbon tax

Not just no… But… NO FRACKING WAY!!!

1. Respected Republican Elders?  Two fossilized RINO’s, the State Swamp Critter of Mississippi and a Loosiana Democrat??? WTF???
2. “All proceeds from this carbon tax would be returned to the American people on an equal and monthly basis”… Does anyone really believe this?  The government will p!$$ that money away faster than they collect it.
3. $45/ton = $.40/gallon of gasoline and other economically destructive nonsense.
4. A real-world discount rate zeroes out all “benefits: of a carbon tax.
   

   As a default position, OMB Circular A-94 states that a real discount rate of 7 percent should be used as a base-case for regulatory analysis. The 7 percent rate is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private capital in the U.S. economy… https://ift.tt/2lKn1Gw

Reason #4: It’s All about Politics, Stupid

Fixed it for Ms. Fortuna:

Reason #4: It’s All about Politics, Stupid… and…

Reason #5: Clean Energy Creates Jobs

So does hiring thousands of people with brooms rather than a couple of snowplows to clear the streets of snow.  Note to Ms. Fortuna: The energy industry is NOT a jobs program.

Reason #6: The Millennials Want Clean Energy, & Conservatives Want the Millennial Vote

Who fracking cares what millennials want?  This is like saying they want unicorns in a fossil fueled world.

 

When asked about their clean energy desires (unicorn fantasies) are they also asked if they’re cool with a 20-300% tax on their energy consumption?  Note to Ms. Fortuna… That escalating $.40/gal tax on gasoline will be passed on to millennials’ Uber bills.  The 56% tax on natural gas and 297% tax on coal will hit them right in their iPhone chargers.

Millennials are an energy dichotomy.  They are more likely to be “Green Champions” *and* be “Savings Seekers” than the over-35 crowd…

Apparently, they want to have their energy cake and eat it too.