Anyone who falls for climate emergency, overabundance of CO2 or NetZero bullshit with “renewables” as a viable option needs a rectocranial eversion surgery.
Why are you pushing for a coal tax instead of a simpler carbon tax? Governments and businesses the best way to reduce their carbon emissions. I don't really care about how they go about doing this.
A carbon tax is not simpler than a coal tax, as it taxes a broader range of economic activities. Plus most of the negative impacts of coal have nothing to do with carbon, for example air pollution and health impact.
A carbon tax punishes natural gas even though natural gas is the only energy source that can fully substitute for coal in a cost-effective manner. Once the USA replaces coal with natural gas (which I believe can easily happen in 5 years), then the coal tax has no negative economic consequences, while a carbon tax large enough to push consumers off fossil fuels would have significant economic consequences.
I don’t understand your second sentence.
You may not care how “they go about doing it”, but every technology has technical and geographical constraints, so it really does matter how it is done.
Natural gas, nuclear and hydro are far superior to solar, wind and coal. See my other articles on energy.
Our current Green policies are causing serious economic problems, which you should also care about
No. Governments should not be in the business of picking technologies. Even if they were the American government doesn't need to pick technologies for the rest of the world. Also the emissions is the global problem that America needs to concern itself with. Air pollution is a local problem that America does not need to regulate.
But the government already is in the business of picking technologies. That is the entire point of Green energy policies. My plan enables those policies to be undone globally.
My plan does not have the American government picking technologies. It is about expanding alternate fuel sources and eliminating mandates and subsidies. If you do not want governments picking technologies, then you should be in favor of my plan.
If you care about carbon emissions, then the main focus should be on coal use in Asia.
Just because green policies are wrong doesn't mean I should support your wrong policies. Just put a carbon tax and let the market find the efficient way to figure. I think solar and batteries are superior. But I still want a level playing field for all technologies.
Why the hell do you care if another country is doing something dumb. As long as overall emissions fall, even if they're using an inefficient system it's not really your problem. America can't go around babysitting Europeans. Europeans also don't allow Gmos but we can't get them to change their minds.
A carbon tax is a far greater government intervention than what I am advocating. Nor is a carbon tax an "even playing field." It is a deliberate attempt to make the playing field uneven. The coal tax does it less so.
And how do you propose to get China, India, and Indonesia to implement a carbon tax? They have no incentive to do so, and a very strong incentive to not do so. That is more than half of the world's carbon emissions.
Solar only works well in relatively rare geographies and it only generates electricity. Coal and natural gas can do far more than that.
And batteries are far more expensive than natural gas.
Solar and batteries are only viable with significant amounts of government mandates and subsidies, so I am puzzled why you think they are superior.
A coal tax would actually be harder for certain developing countries since they're investing a lot in infrastructure and urbanisation. Steel and cement use a shit tonne of coal. Steel and cement is not that big a deal for advanced economies. You'd incentivise them through carbon tariffs which the EU is trying.
As for solar and batteries the LCOE and LCOS has dropped more than 90% per decade.
Carbon taxes are levelling the playing field because you're internalising the externalities. That's all the government needs to do. You and I as voters shouldn't have to discuss energy systems. It should be left to engineers and businesses.
Anyone who falls for climate emergency, overabundance of CO2 or NetZero bullshit with “renewables” as a viable option needs a rectocranial eversion surgery.
Why are you pushing for a coal tax instead of a simpler carbon tax? Governments and businesses the best way to reduce their carbon emissions. I don't really care about how they go about doing this.
A carbon tax is not simpler than a coal tax, as it taxes a broader range of economic activities. Plus most of the negative impacts of coal have nothing to do with carbon, for example air pollution and health impact.
A carbon tax punishes natural gas even though natural gas is the only energy source that can fully substitute for coal in a cost-effective manner. Once the USA replaces coal with natural gas (which I believe can easily happen in 5 years), then the coal tax has no negative economic consequences, while a carbon tax large enough to push consumers off fossil fuels would have significant economic consequences.
I don’t understand your second sentence.
You may not care how “they go about doing it”, but every technology has technical and geographical constraints, so it really does matter how it is done.
Natural gas, nuclear and hydro are far superior to solar, wind and coal. See my other articles on energy.
Our current Green policies are causing serious economic problems, which you should also care about
No. Governments should not be in the business of picking technologies. Even if they were the American government doesn't need to pick technologies for the rest of the world. Also the emissions is the global problem that America needs to concern itself with. Air pollution is a local problem that America does not need to regulate.
But the government already is in the business of picking technologies. That is the entire point of Green energy policies. My plan enables those policies to be undone globally.
My plan does not have the American government picking technologies. It is about expanding alternate fuel sources and eliminating mandates and subsidies. If you do not want governments picking technologies, then you should be in favor of my plan.
If you care about carbon emissions, then the main focus should be on coal use in Asia.
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-asian-nations-choose-coal
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/can-increased-windsolar-retire-asian
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-greens-should-stop-focusing-on
Just because green policies are wrong doesn't mean I should support your wrong policies. Just put a carbon tax and let the market find the efficient way to figure. I think solar and batteries are superior. But I still want a level playing field for all technologies.
And how do you propose to give incentives for other nations to get rid of Green policies?
Why the hell do you care if another country is doing something dumb. As long as overall emissions fall, even if they're using an inefficient system it's not really your problem. America can't go around babysitting Europeans. Europeans also don't allow Gmos but we can't get them to change their minds.
A carbon tax is a far greater government intervention than what I am advocating. Nor is a carbon tax an "even playing field." It is a deliberate attempt to make the playing field uneven. The coal tax does it less so.
And how do you propose to get China, India, and Indonesia to implement a carbon tax? They have no incentive to do so, and a very strong incentive to not do so. That is more than half of the world's carbon emissions.
Solar only works well in relatively rare geographies and it only generates electricity. Coal and natural gas can do far more than that.
And batteries are far more expensive than natural gas.
Solar and batteries are only viable with significant amounts of government mandates and subsidies, so I am puzzled why you think they are superior.
A coal tax would actually be harder for certain developing countries since they're investing a lot in infrastructure and urbanisation. Steel and cement use a shit tonne of coal. Steel and cement is not that big a deal for advanced economies. You'd incentivise them through carbon tariffs which the EU is trying.
As for solar and batteries the LCOE and LCOS has dropped more than 90% per decade.
Carbon taxes are levelling the playing field because you're internalising the externalities. That's all the government needs to do. You and I as voters shouldn't have to discuss energy systems. It should be left to engineers and businesses.