Home > AGW, Catastrophism, Data, Omniclimate, Skepticism > Economist: AGW Policies Mostly Hit the Poor

Economist: AGW Policies Mostly Hit the Poor

Any way you turn the topic, there is no escape: AGW policy interventions such as a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions, will end up falling hardest on the poor.

That’s not my conclusion. It is what the Economist magazine (a convinced proponent of AGW) just published under the heading of “Buttonwood”. And it needs no commentary:

The fundamental problem is difficult to get round. If governments desire people to use less energy, they have to ration supply by price. They can limit frivolous use (gas-guzzling cars, televisions on standby and the like). But there may be a core demand for energy (heat, light, commuting) where consumers will resist cuts. For that part, the rich will always be able to outbid the poor (not to mention the politically powerful middle class). And that will plague green campaigners

Advertisements
  1. krissmith777
    2008/06/16 at 17:21

    Oh, nice.

    Fight Global Warming and hurt the poor!!

    You ar right. That needs no commentary. Fighting global warming tends to have negative affects. Why don’t the global warming proponents just get that?

  2. Alex Cull
    2008/06/16 at 11:26

    I can also see this having a detrimental impact on anyone running a small-scale business. Delivery vans require fuel, shops need lighting and refrigeration, computers, printers, copiers etc., all run on electricity. With overheads and running costs becoming so expensive, I’m wondering if this is going to dissuade many would-be entrepreneurs. The result: more risk-averse behaviour, less competition, a stifling of innovation and enterprise? I hope not.

  3. 2008/06/16 at 00:59

    The rich have always been at an advantage over the poor. This is one reason why people strive to be wealthier than they are, and given the uncertainty of the future in ecololical terms, the rich will be in an even better relative position than before.

    The socialist route does not work, but we need some kind of serious leadership to even the playing field a little; perhaps this is where the government could help out. After all that is what they are supposed to do.

    Energy rationing is going to become necessary; might as well start now. I would imagine the fairest system is to have a minimum of power available to all at one flat rate, enough for heating, cooking etc. Then excess power use can be charged for at an excessive rate. That allows the wealthier to have more, yes, but it also taxes their excesses without hammering the little guy too much.

  1. 2008/06/16 at 23:16

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: