If the rhythm of posts on this website has slowed of late, it is partly because of the sheer sadness of seeing seemingly intelligent life forms make more and more stupid decisions about their own futures, all the while blaming completely irrelevant or unconnected phenomena.
In the article below, the process whereby restricting oil and gas use – whether by straight-out bans, taxes, focuses on crazy alternative energy sources or just plain bad investment decisions – leads directly to increasing energy poverty, impacting disproportionately on the poorest in society, is as clear as daylight.
So what’s the simple solution?
Perhaps forget about restricting oil and gas use, right? That might fix it, you’d think…
Ohhhh noooo, woah Nelly. How can anyone be so heartless, utilising oil and gas while knowingly condemning the fragile planet Earth, and all its inhabitants, to a fiery death sentence.
Instead, let’s pretend we can somehow control a completely chaotic climate system featuring myriad inputs and influences by attempting to arbitrarily lower a single, minor component of that system. Sounds great right, real smart?….
All the while the energy poor can sit, helpless, watching the all-knowing scientists and elites role-play and experiment with all manner of CO2-related conceptual bullshit, based on absolutely no verifiable evidence (unless they’re hiding a second Earth somewhere for such experiments?).
And, even better, to save the energy poor, from now on, all we need to is just, like, tax the rich, or something… Easy, that will fix it.
It’s OK poor folk. Just sit tight, we’ll start taxing those richies and solve your issues for you soon, just you wait.
The absolute state of debate on this issue is, again, just sad…
“On top of their energy use, every home in the country is paying extra on their bill to cover the cost of retrofitting programs to increase the energy efficiency of homes, help for those in fuel poverty and subsidies for renewable [energy] generation,” he says. “All of these costs are added to energy bills at a flat rate.”
Towers explains that, in practice, this means “those on the lowest incomes pay a six times higher share of their income for the [green] transition than the highest income group, who also happen to have the highest CO₂ emissions on average.”