+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 48
Latest: watcher
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 16870
Total Topics: 271
Most Online Today: 40
Most Online Ever: 1155
(April 20, 2021, 12:50:06 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 8
Total: 8

Author Topic: Fossil Fuel Propaganda Modus Operandi  (Read 29607 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 36277
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

August 8, 2019



Latest 🦕🦖 Koch Attack on Green New Deal Inherently Misleading, And Relies On ‘Bogus’ Numbers

😈 Kent Lassman of the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute recently partnered with former Koch lackey 😈 Daniel Turner of Power the Future on what the Washington Times’ Valerie Richardson generously describes as a “study” claiming that the Green New Deal will cost American households some $70,000 in its first year.
 
While most people would consider a study to be research based on real facts and peer reviewed to verify claims and published in an academic journal, these claims meet none of those qualifications.

Instead, this can at best be described as an analysis, but more honestly, it’s two Koch goons doing some back-of-the-envelope math, copying the work of fellow Koch goon Benjamin Zycher and the former Nixon CREEP at American Action Forum who popularized a $93 trillion price tag for the GND that Politico aptly described as “bogus.”

Essentially what Lassman and Turner do is average the costs cooked up by Zycher and AAF with those from the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie, who estimated a $4.7 trillion cost for moving off of fossil fuels. They then divided those costs by the number of households in five key states, and came up with some big scary numbers.

Since the Green New Deal is more of an aspiration than an actual set of policies at this point, they admit that they’ve had to make “a considerable number of assumptions.” And no one intelligent would give people whose job it is to promote fossil fuels and attack renewables the benefit of the doubt that those assumptions were legitimate. And you don’t even have to look hard for them.

For example, the authors confess that they don’t even bother trying to calculate the cost savings of energy efficiency upgrades, which would dramatically reduce household energy bills and almost certainly pay for themselves over the long term. Instead, they average a few different estimates for making a home energy efficient and peg the number at $27,413. They THEN assume that cost is all paid at once in the first year of the GND, making their headline first-year figures nearly $30,000 bigger than each year afterwards.

It’s the same for electric vehicles. They don’t take into account that EVs have significantly lower operating costs than gas-powered cars, which lowers lifetime costs. They also ignore the fact that people are regularly buying new cars anyway, so instead of comparing the cost of buying a new car when you need it with a new EV instead, they simply pretend the GND will make everyone go out and buy a new EV immediately.

Despite these obvious failings, and the reliance on a “bogus” report, there’s little doubt the dramatic “GND will cost households $70,000 a year!” framework will get picked up by fossil-fueled deniers. And when that happens, it would certainly be helpful to have some rigorous debunking of the numbers beyond the surface-level fallacies we’ve pointed out here. 

But the entire report is based on a fundamental misrepresentation: that individual households should be responsible for picking up the cost of climate action. Why in the world would that be the case?

After all, it’s a pretty universal human value that when you make a mess, you clean it up yourself, you don’t make someone else do it for you. Or in policy parlance, it’s the polluter pays” principle, which dates back to at least the industrialization of the 1800s. 

The 🦖 fossil fuel 😈 industry has known for decades that its product causes climate change. It has profited off of making this mess. Why shouldn’t it be responsible for paying for the clean up?

After all, they certainly have the money- a 2018 study pegged the stock value of 1,500 oil and gas firms at $4.65 trillion. For those keeping score, that’s just shy of the $4.7 trillion Wood Mackenzie guessed it would take to kick our fossil fuel addiction.

But if you must charge households, maybe start with those of the 🐉🦕🦖 fossil fuel executives still profiting off of the problem ?


Read more:


 The 🦕🦖 Hydrocarbon 👹 Hellspawn Fossil Fuelers DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME, but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE! Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matt 10:37

 

+-Recent Topics

Future Earth by AGelbert
March 30, 2022, 12:39:42 pm

Key Historical Events ...THAT YOU MAY HAVE NEVER HEARD OF by AGelbert
March 29, 2022, 08:20:56 pm

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
March 28, 2022, 01:12:42 pm

Electric Vehicles by AGelbert
March 27, 2022, 02:27:28 pm

Heat Pumps by AGelbert
March 26, 2022, 03:54:43 pm

Defending Wildlife by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 02:04:23 pm

The Koch Brothers Exposed! by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 01:26:11 pm

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
March 25, 2022, 12:46:08 pm

Books and Audio Books that may interest you 🧐 by AGelbert
March 24, 2022, 04:28:56 pm

COVID-19 🏴☠️ Pandemic by AGelbert
March 23, 2022, 12:14:36 pm