|
In their most recent attack piece on the Institute of Economic Affairs, the writers mention a blog post I wrote for IEA in 2013, about having combatted eco-militants for 20 years. They don’t explain what I wrote in that blog post, and instead just use the headline as further proof that IEA are a bunch of climate denialists. One point I raised in that post is relevant for the Guardian’s actions today.
The Guardian, Extinction Rebellion, US democratic presidential nominees and a myriad of other actors claim that we are running out of time, and they place blame on the fossil-fuel industry, right wing politicians and multiple capitalist enterprises. They claim that industry is the reason there has been no effective action on emissions, but the reality is that politicians know that the only way to really lower emissions is to massively increase taxes on fuel. And the poor, the people that most on the left claim to care about, will be the worst affected. Before the poor would be really hit, the politicians voting for massive tax increases would be voted out of office.
The point I really had in questioning the climate science (mainly the impacts, costs and benefits) is that until there are major consequences to climate change, individuals will refuse to accept higher fuel prices. In other words, until major droughts, floods or other disasters significantly affect food prices, access to clean water or cause other enormous dangers, voting populations will not accept vast increases on energy prices.
What the Guardian cannot seem to accept is that it is the median voter (including in the EU where fuel taxes are much higher than here) that doesn’t want major action, not the fossil-fuel industry.
What the Guardian cannot accept is that the median voter, and not the fossil-fuel industry, doesn’t want major action.
|
