Ready for a higher price – for everything? Because if the author of a new academic study has his own way of doing it, this will result. Researchers outside Dartmouth College claim that the world's largest company caused $28 trillion in “climate damage.” They don't even make bones about their money grabbing agenda. “(w)e ​​argues that scientific cases of climate responsibility are closed,” they write in the study overview. So now they conclude that “science (yes) is no longer an obstacle to the legitimacy of climate liability claims.”
Translation: “Science is resolved.”
(Where did we hear that, myself?)
This is not a small problem. The Trump administration will not act on this “science,” but if the leftist administration is in the future, it is ready.
Again, it is important to note that businesses do not pay taxes or fines, that people do, and that our entire civilization is run on energy. So such government theft would mean higher prices for everyday Americans all around.
All that beautiful money – just waiting!
According to a report on the story, the Associated Press reported that a climate study published on “Nature” on Wednesday,
Part of an effort to make it easier for people and governments to hold businesses financially responsible, as did the tobacco giants.
A research team at Dartmouth College came up with the presumed contamination caused by 111 companies. More than half of the total amount comes from 10 fossil fuel providers.
For comparison, $28 trillion is less shade than the sum of all the goods and services produced in the US last year.
… Researchers believed that every 1% of the greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere since 1990, $500 billion in heat alone caused $520 billion in damage.
To provide details, CBS News notifies researchers
Using 1,000 different computer simulations, they converted their emissions to changes in the global average surface temperature of the Earth by comparing them to the world without the company's emissions.
For example, using this approach, we determined that pollution from the chevron increased the temperature of the earth to .045°F.
Of course, someone can use 1,000 different computer simulations to show that Dartmouth researchers are blowing hot. And I used 1,000 different computer simulations, and found that the world would be a better place without university scholars.
Who is responsible?
For the record, I don't check the facts with the pointer, that last line was a joke. But, while not at all interesting, it is a unique responsibility placed on oil companies. After all, each of us is willing to continue to use our energy in many ways. So, embracing the climate change narrative for debate, and we are not colluding in all senses?
What about the government? They essentially say to energy companies, “We're going to make it possible to sell this product.”
“And now we're suing you for selling our products.”
Huh?
Climate warnings will argue that energy companies knew of the “climate damage” that their products allegedly caused, but lied about it. But assuming this is true, is it plausible that the government didn't know? And where does the bag stop?
Under the philosophy of statisticians, it should be with the government, and they think it is all.
The whole picture
Now, new Americans have repeatedly rebutted stories of man-made climate change, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. But accepting Dartmouth's paper and $28 trillion figures is a problem. As MSN commenters stated it regarding the AP article:
Now, research the good values ​​these companies have done. Significantly improved standard of living, longevity drugs, increased food production, heating, cooling, and more. I don't know if there is anything in modern society that is not dependent on fossil fuels or related chemistry. I don't want to return to one of the 12th century living conditions.
As the late economics professor Walter E. Williams pointed out, you can make anything look heaven and difficult by focusing solely on its strengths and weaknesses. This is exactly what Dartmouth researchers did too. To promote the agenda.
Moreover, for economist Dr. Thomas Sowell, life is usually not a solution, but a trade-off. So, what aspect is the absence of Dartmouth Green Topians?
Grok Ai offers information here, here, here, here, here and here. It writes:
The correlation between energy use and GDP is well documented. Studies often cite an almost linear relationship in which a 1% increase in energy consumption correlates with a 0.5-1% increase in GDP.
… Fossil fuels may have contributed to around $63.8 trillion to global economic growth since 1900.
In other words, even if you accept the estimated Dartmouth damage, it is warped by the benefits that fossil fuels offer.
Conclusion
It should be added that higher temperatures are generally beneficial and that Dartmouth's research reflects activity rather than science. But the bottom line is that historically, human economic norms have shattered poverty. Until modern energy production allows for today's prosperity. In fact, most of us would have either died or would not have existed in the first place without oil and gas.
Energy is life. Heck, without it, there isn't much that the government taxes or steals.
Or is it redundancy?
