This might be the first time the WSJ has not been a climate change denier, coming out against heating oil subsidies to the poor because it’ll just pump more carbon into the atmosphere. (So then, they must be heating their offices with zero emission technology?)
The WSJ also says such money would just end up going to foreign oil exporters (funny, I thought it would go to the local heating oil company. Or do they think Chavez owns them?) Plus, they shriek, it would encourage those horrid poor people to use more oil (to heat their home above freezing, presumably) thus worsening the global warming they constantly say doesn’t exist.
I hope this clears things up.
They do have a point, in that much of the crude oil from which heating oil is produced comes from our “buddies” in Saudi Arabia, whence it funnels to Islamists around the world. With Mexico fallen to 4th largest source for our imported oil, Saudi Arabia is now our 2nd largest source behind Canada, with Venezuela running just ahead of Mexico in 3rd position.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m in favor of poor people staying warm. I’d rather see people of all income brackets (and businesses, too) insulate and conserve, which could reduce usage by 30-50%.
Thanks for the link Bob! I love your blog!
Yeah the WSJ editorial was truly bizarre. If someone is genuinely concerned about global warming, then a sensible editorial would recommend investing in solar, wind, or other alternative technologies (which actually would have been a smart thing to put into the economic stimulus bill). The WSJ only jumped at the chance to make an environmental argument when they saw it as an opportunity to make life even more miserable for poor people.
They don’t need to use heating oil at the WSJ – their building is heated by all that hot air.