A logical and conservative plan for reducing carbon emissions????

As my readers know I am no fan of global warming alarmists or even of global warming. I have written many posts about the flaws in their storyline (footnote). Further, while is is indisputable that CO2 is increasing in our atmosphere, I am not convinced that the increase is necessarily bad.

But let’s, for the moment, agree that some level of concern is warranted. In addition to my “global warming skepticism” there are many reasons to hate the plans that have been proffered to deal with the issue – not the least of which is that they increase the size, power and reach of the government. But what if there were a plan to reduce carbon emissions that lessened the power of government, decreased regulation, and used free market techniques to induce people to WANT TO reduce their carbon footprint. If Americans “want to” do virtually anything that does not harm another American, my libertarian bent would not try to stop it.

A friend and reader (CAG) sent this to me. I looked at the title and thought this will be a waste of 15 minutes of my life. It was not. Please watch this. This could work.

Roy Filly










About Roy Filly

Please read my first blog in which I describe myself and my goals.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to A logical and conservative plan for reducing carbon emissions????

  1. John Forhan says:

    Good one, thanks!

  2. David L. Wood M.D. says:

    Climate change is ongoing and has done so since the forming of our planet. The main source of energy and heat is from our sun. There is plenty of evidence that no “global warming” has taken place in the last 15+ years. Also CO2 is beneficial to all earthly plant life, so why try to reduce it except for government controll of the economy and secondarily of us.

  3. Roy Filly says:

    As you well know from reading my posts, I do not disagree. But what did you think of this plan that reduced government control?

    • Mike says:

      How does it reduce government control? It appears to me that it gives the government more control.
      In case people don’t have 15 minutes to watch the explanation the pillars of the plan are here (https://www.clcouncil.org/the-four-pillars/) and they are

      First, is there a problem to solve? Distilling the problem … man is loading the atmosphere with CO2, a greenhouse gas that will warm the planet. At times in history, before man was around, CO2 levels were 20 times hire and in fact there were Ice Ages. From these facts, the claim that the CO2 is a problem is suspect. If there is not problem, it strikes me as bad policy to try to solve it.

      Next, the power to tax is the power to destroy. This argument is that the carbon dividend will control the appetite of Congress for the money and therefore clip their wings. How did that work out for Income Tax or SS? What, for example, is to prevent Congress from dipping into this pot of money? Or what prevents Congress from ratcheting up the taxes for some other noble purposes? Nothing. It will be gradual, but they will do is just as they always have. Further, money is power and giving Congress the power to establish a carbon tax gives them a good deal of money, that is power.

      Will there be unintended consequences if Green Energy can’t replace the carbon? I suspect yes. The economy is carbon based and if Green Energy fails to replace, in terms of price, then there will be cost scarcity where there is plenty now. That will prompt Congress to jump in and pass more laws, just as they have with health care, which they destroyed.

      No good can come from this idea in my view.

  4. M.S. Bucalo says:

    Tesla tried to put these ideas to practical use in his unfinished Wardenclyffe Tower project, an intercontinental wireless communication and power transmitter, but ran out of funding before he could complete it.[6], Expand on Tesla’s ideas would be a practical start

  5. Pingback: Spending in Washington – logic (or illogic) 101. | The Rugged Individualist

  6. Freddy says:

    Nope. At 36 cents a gallon tax that will be ever increasing, no mention of how much dividend but 100 million Americans don’t get one( 233 million do, what about the rest). Just another redistribution scheme, run by government taxation to fix a problem that is still very debatable. And again and again ,if you tax something more and more,you will get less and less of it and the dividend will dry up. So it becomes all tax and no dividend. This presentation assumes there is man made climate change and that is where you will never get the republican base on board

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.