This is not the venue to discuss global warming, or climate change, or whatever. I have friends in the environmental movement for whom climate change is an important issue and one they take very seriously. I have been fortunate to hear their perspectives over the years and they have informed me on the issue. I even once moderated a panel on Wall Street discussing the merits of a carbon tax.
I have other friends for whom climate change is of little concern at all, and others still who think the whole thing is one giant scam. I am agnostic on the issue. Reducing carbon emissions is probably a good thing, and we are at 1992 levels of carbon emissions and dropping (thanks, believe it or not to the fracking revolution and the abundance of natural gas), but the heavy handed laws and regs handed down from Washington DC are bad things. They are classic examples of the pretense of knowledge as Hayek called it. The planners think they know best but they don’t. The truth is no one really knows what is going to happen with the climate over the next 100 years. (Heck, 10 years.) They may think they know, but they don’t. Yet many people have staked their reputations and careers on increased funding around and attention to the issue of global warming, climate change, or whatever. This is a legitimate issue to explore. A LOT of people have a LOT riding on “climate change” and that sort of situation often clouds objective thinking.
(From The Daily Caller)
President Barack Obama is preparing to unveil his 2017 budget request, and already reports have surfaced the president is planning on asking Congress for billions of dollars more to spend on global warming programs.
“One of the greatest challenges of our time is climate change,” Obama said in his weekly address Saturday. “Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future. That’s why the budget I’ll send to Congress this Tuesday will double funding for clean energy research and development by 2020.”
By the way “subsidize the past” is a classic talking point for many folks who want to see increased funding for climate change stuff. It’s also a canard. Oil is not subsidized generally in this country. (Though one could argue that our protection of sea lanes constitutes a form of subsidy for the oil industry and shipping generally.) It gets depreciation tax breaks like all heavy industry but that doesn’t cost the tax payers anything. A subsidy is the explicit taking of money from taxpayers and the giving of it to other interests. Like what Obama wants to do with this tax money.