(10-26-2019, 08:05 PM)MalabarJag Wrote:

(10-26-2019, 06:55 PM)mikesez Wrote: No one would benefit more from CO2 turning out to be harmless than oil companies.
Yet according to you, they could be funding 'climate realists' dedicated to proving that hypothesis, but they choose instead to give '99% of the funding' to the other side?
Why would that be?
Two possible explanations:
1) you're just wrong about who funds what
2) the evidence just isn't there for what you call 'climate realism' no matter how hard we look for it.

---

The end consumer isn't the only one to look at.
if there is stability around this policy, industry will also work to change what they offer. Electric cars and solar panels will benefit from greater economies of scale and be more accessible.
Of course the checks would go out. the EITC checks go out reliably every year...

You need to read more carefully. Big Oil has donated more to Climastrology than to the Skeptics, but not 99%. The "over 99%" includes ALL funding for Climate Science. I wonder why everyone seems to be on the side that gets the funding? Must be coincidence.

Solar panels and wind energy is much more expensive than fossil fuel energy, nuclear, or hydro. There's very little room for savings from economy of scale there. Having the electric companies switch to so-called renewables would mean that poor people would have higher electric bills whether or not it was because of the companies paying a carbon tax or using windmills.

Why would big oil donate even one cent to someone who says their product is creating lots of long-term problems on the planet?
Unless of course it's actually true?

As for your graph, I'm advocating for low-carbon energy, not renewable energy. Nuclear energy is low carbon but not renewable.

France has a very low carbon electrical grid and look how inexpensive the electricity is. They rely very heavily on nuclear. 

Germany also has quite a few nuclear power plants but after 2011 they decided to shut them down.

Building a nuclear power plant is very expensive. It's even more expensive if you don't use it.  That's why Germany's costs are so high. Denmark used to import a lot of nuclear electricity from Germany but that's not there anymore. Now they are stuck importing Germany's overly expensive coal and wind based electricity instead.

---