One of the underlying problems illustrated by the climate change scam is that government usually cannot make economic decisions as well as the free market. In some cases the free market selects inefficient economic decisions, particularly in cases where actual pollution is involved. But much more often the worst decisions are made by government interference with the free market. That is the case with regard to climate change.
When there is no pollution involved, as is the case for carbon dioxide emissions, a vital trace gas necessary for life on Earth, and numerous vocal special interests, government decisions are often particularly inefficient. Government regulation (including subsidies and taxation) of economic decisions should usually be reserved for the most egregious cases where the free market decisions are occasionally particularly bad, such as smokestacks emitting pollutants that have been proven to cause serious human illnesses.
Carbon Dioxide Is Not the Problem; Government Regulation Is
In the case of the climate scam, no scientifically valid proof has been offered that CO2 is a pollutant. I realize that most of the world disputes this, but there is little doubt that this is the case. If so, there is no valid reason for the government to even be involved. Reducing CO2 emissions is particularly expensive and potentially very deleterious for the economy given how very critically important low cost energy is to modern society. Proposing that air travel be banned and that every building in America be modified so as to reduce heat loss, two of the objectives of the Green New Deal (GND) as proposed by two Congressional left wing Democrats recently are totally impractical, would incur monumental costs, and provide almost no benefits. But these are only two of the wild proposals in the GND. If left to the free market, such proposals would never be considered since the free market would never select them.
Increasingly, the Democrats, particularly the Democratic socialists, claim that the world will come to an end unless such drastic government action is not undertaken now. They appear to believe that government has too little power to control such problems. I would argue that the problem is that government has far too much control. The more control government asserts, the worse the alleged climate change problem will be, and vice versa. Modifying every building and outlawing air travel are so absurd that they simply will actually never be imposed by the government, with the result that they would soon be dropped, possibly after a change in government. The result is that the GND would end with a loss of several years and a delay in needed government action–to get government completely out of “climate change” policy and letting the free market solve the alleged problems. It is government that is causing the real problems, not emissions of a miracle trace gas that makes life on Earth possible.
Free Markets Have Resulted in Much Greater CO2 Reductions than Government Regulation
There is a reason why the US has reduced CO2 emissions more than any other country, and should thus be the most climatically virtuous country in terms of environmentalists who claim that decarbonization must be accomplished immediately. This is because of increased use of natural gas for energy, which is a result of increased use of fracking and substitution of natural gas for other fossil fuels that emit more CO2 per unit of energy. Other nations have imposed ever more government regulations and built ever more wind and solar, with little or no effect on CO2 emissions. But the Democratic socialists have learned nothing from this. By allowing fracking where natural gas can be obtained, other nations could have done the same thing. But they would have to allow a much freer market. The Democratic socialists are never going to allow this. Government can do better than a free market, or so they believe. They are wrong. There is no need to reduce CO2 emissions, of course, but this viewpoint is another error made by government in its “wisdom.”
The major need is to get government out of climate change policy and energy production to the extent possible, not further involved. Socialists believe in an increased role for government and will never understand that government involvement needs to be minimized in most cases, not maximized despite an endless series of government failures in making economic decisions.
via Carlin Economics and Science
March 9, 2019 at 07:43AM
Iowa Climate Science Education 