‘Puter’s hopping mad this morning, and that’s not a pretty sight. After all, ‘Puter’s a 5’10” Shrek-like man-beast partial to wearing orange leisure suits.
What’s got ‘Puter’s gold lamé man thong in a bunch, you ask? The New York Times editorial board, as usual, and its useful idiocy in this editorial, The High Cost of Dirty Fuels.
The editors’ thesis is simple: “countries should end subsidies for fossil fuels: It would save millions of lives.” Fair enough. ‘Puter disagrees with the editors, but the point is debatable.*
But what are the subsidies for fossil fuels to which the editors refer? Are the editors referring to tax subsidies directly related to extraction, refining and production of fossil fuels?**
Nothing quite so sane. The New York Times editorial brain trust informs us:
Governments subsidize energy in many ways. … But by far the biggest way countries reduce the price of energy is by not taxing it enough to account for the damage that burning fossil fuels causes to human health and to the climate.
See? Our government is subsidizing fossil fuel production by not taxing it enough. ‘Puter was unaware it was the goal of tax policy to interfere with the markets, unfairly picking winners and losers based on unproven “climate change” science.*** ‘