The last word is not. Especially when coupled with the claim of “clearly”.
There is in fact no consensus at all that climate change poses an existential risk. Or is otherwise “dangerous” to the extent we should impoverish the world by demonizing “dri…
The last word is not. Especially when coupled with the claim of “clearly”.
There is in fact no consensus at all that climate change poses an existential risk. Or is otherwise “dangerous” to the extent we should impoverish the world by demonizing “drill, baby, drill”, as you clearly do in this piece.
Not only is it not clear that the warming is dangerous, but it is abundantly clear that the chance that adherence to the Paris Accords would be the difference between “dangerous” and “not dangerous” is in fact vanishingly small. Which I am surprised that a UChicago trained economist would fail to understand.
While the reality is that leftist public policy prescriptions in its name - most specifically, the artificial restriction on producing more fossil fuels (“‘drill, baby, drill”) - will cause us all to be poorer, and that the burden will fall disproportionately on the world’s poorest billions, for whom it will be much more difficult to have cost-effective highly reliable available energy to raise their standard of living and enable them to adapt to any negative consequences of warming that may occur.
Now all that said, I will gladly concede that your proposals are saner and much less worse than those of most AGW catastrophist leftists.
Other than restrictions on producing more fossil fuels, I’m actively supportive of some, and have no problem if rich Western countries choose to do things to make their own cost of fossil fuel consumption higher.
But demonizing drilling for fossil fuels and limiting its supply, and so denying the world’s poor access to the same reliable low cost highly available energy that those of us in the rich West enjoy today, is imo immoral and unconscionable.
“Our planet is clearly warming dangerously.”
With respect, your first 5 words are accurate.
The last word is not. Especially when coupled with the claim of “clearly”.
There is in fact no consensus at all that climate change poses an existential risk. Or is otherwise “dangerous” to the extent we should impoverish the world by demonizing “drill, baby, drill”, as you clearly do in this piece.
Not only is it not clear that the warming is dangerous, but it is abundantly clear that the chance that adherence to the Paris Accords would be the difference between “dangerous” and “not dangerous” is in fact vanishingly small. Which I am surprised that a UChicago trained economist would fail to understand.
While the reality is that leftist public policy prescriptions in its name - most specifically, the artificial restriction on producing more fossil fuels (“‘drill, baby, drill”) - will cause us all to be poorer, and that the burden will fall disproportionately on the world’s poorest billions, for whom it will be much more difficult to have cost-effective highly reliable available energy to raise their standard of living and enable them to adapt to any negative consequences of warming that may occur.
Now all that said, I will gladly concede that your proposals are saner and much less worse than those of most AGW catastrophist leftists.
Other than restrictions on producing more fossil fuels, I’m actively supportive of some, and have no problem if rich Western countries choose to do things to make their own cost of fossil fuel consumption higher.
But demonizing drilling for fossil fuels and limiting its supply, and so denying the world’s poor access to the same reliable low cost highly available energy that those of us in the rich West enjoy today, is imo immoral and unconscionable.