Financially, which side has more vested interest in public opinion on GW?

Question

I have seen claims from both sides. Some say GW is a liberal money-making scam and others say conservative deniers are threatened by economic change as a result of GW mitigation policy.

Which side really has more to gain or lose?

Answer 1

There's nothing to be gained by having a tax of any kind to battle global warming.  Unless of course you're a leftist-socialist whose real goal is not to use this money to fight global warming but to promote some nonsense agenda.  And since it appears that it's these lefties who will be handling the cash either through their corrupt governments or "scientific communities", and since there really is no global warming to deal with, the money will be used for socialist agendas.

This is truly as evil a tax as there could ever be.  Crime without the need for money laundering basically.

Answer 2

I think the real question here is who has the most money to sway public opinion. Since what we are talking about is who can get out their message possibly drowning out the truth.

The exploitation of fossil fuels is 7% of the world economy. The largest single industry in the world.  Although medical is the largest industry in the United States at 13% of US GDP.

AGW scientists do not have 1/10th of 1% of what the fossil fuel industry has.

Furthermore, AGW scientists have nothing to gain except a world their children can live in. The industries that will gain from global warming are not industries that climatologist do research in.

Answer 3

Those who believe have more to gain.  They want to use the force of government to raise taxes on the tune of $75 TRILLION dollars!  

That's $13,000 for every man, woman, and child alive on this planet!   How greedy can these people be?

Answer 4

Dr. Jello has hit the nail on the head with this one.  I have nothing more to add.

Answer 5

The fossil fuel industry has billions at stake.

The scientists, very little.  They had a good job before global warming, and it really hasn't made them any extra money.  Details:

"One of the many absurd arguments against global warming is that scientists are only in it for the money....

The idea that there are vast wealth and perks to be made from climate science is wrong, and would raise a laugh (albeit a rather bitter one) from anyone "inside""-

William Connolley Ph.D.

"Money and perks! Hahahaha. How in the world did I miss out on those when I was a lead author for the Third Assessment report? Working on IPCC is a major drain on ones' time, and probably detracts from getting out papers that would help to get grants (not that we make money off of grants either, since those of us at national labs and universities are not paid salary out of grants for the most part.) We do it because it's work that has to be done. It's grueling and demanding, and not that much fun, and I can assure everybody that there is no remuneration involved..." -RayPierre Ph.D.

"The problem with this argument is that climate scientists aren't asking you to give them more money. They are asking you to fix the problem."

Answer 6

Considering there is at least over a trillion barrels of oil left to be pumped out and sold at now over a 150 dollars a barrel (do the math, $150 trillion) and that is more than enough incentive for the excessively greed (and there are plenty of them high up CEO and ownership positions) to fuel a disinformation campaign of conspiracy like proportions.

Just ask yourself why on earth would such people allow clean cheap renewal energy that people could potentially glean from their own homes and business for a fraction of the cost (if such alternative industries were only support like the already profitable oil companies are in the energy bill).

Study up about Tesla. Even back then he knew of a way to give the world clean cheap energy in which he termed would be so cheap it would almost seem free. Of course all his funding by the Barron was immediately withdrawn and his demise not pretty.  

IMO more pain and suffering is caused by greed than any other sin. And yes, money is the root of all kinds of evil. The only way to solve AGW is to get our hearts spiritually right and free from certain materialist motivations of the world and simply do what is right for the sake of it.

Answer 7

Both sides are equally vested:  Proponents stand to gain everything they can take from the rest of us.  

As to where the taxes are spent....who cares whether a thief spends your money on booze or a new hybrid?!  The person TAXED will be the most affected.

Answer 8

one side is cashing in off hysteria and the other is trying to buy time. Any fossil fuel company that hasn't started investing in other areas stands to be big losers in the coming decades - those that have not began investing elesewhere  are funding the disinformation campaign which is aided by the ridiculous hysteria from the other side.

Answer 9

Ifs it like every other government revenue program. The money will be spent on anything but it's intended purpose. Please don't get me started on that bureaucratic "BS". When it comes to tax's only one side gains the other looses by force... why state the obvious?

Answer 10

The denier claim that "they're going to tax us for trillions of dollars!" is ridiculous.  It's not like I'm supporting global warming mitigation because I'm going to receive that tax money.  Most AGW proponents aren't going to see a dime of it - we'll be paying just as much as the deniers.

Hopefully the alternative energy industries will see the money raised from a carbon cap or tax.  So if you work in the alternative energy sector, you stand to benefit.  Of course, we all benefit from alternative energy (cleaner air, less dependence on foreign oil, etc.).  However, there is no one large group which will profit from global warming mitigation.

Obviously the oil industries stand to gain billions of dollars from delaying global warming mitigation.  After all, ExxonMobil alone has spent hundreds of millions if not billions in funding misinformation about global warming.  The longer we delay switching to alternative energies and charging the true cost of carbon emissions, the longer the oil industries can continue to make record profits.