Trio and Friends

Let's suppose I'm convinced that I ought to help those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own. Let's suppose some other people are convinced of the same thing - for the sake of argument, let's say a few million. Is there anything morally wrong with us founding a nation that taxes us all and uses the money to help those people? And now let's suppose that we have children in this nation who, when they become adults, don't agree. They don't want to help those people. They want to keep all their stuff for themselves. What should be done about such adults? Could we just say "you're free to leave if you want"? Or is it more morally pure to give them a tax exemption? If we exempt them because they disagree about helping the disadvantaged, should we also exempt them if they disagree about anything else the government spends money on? I tried to raise this point here.

Well, if we think theft is morally wrong and by that we mean taking something that belongs to them by force without their agreement. Then I don't see how it is morally right to do.

The founding of the nation sounds like all agreed. Although it sounds very foolish to me, it is not morally wrong for them to do. One could, for example, set up a commune in basically any free capitalist country and do such a thing. It boggles the mind that if it works so well why they are not cropping up everywhere, but I digress.

That is precisely why in this thread I am questioning what we mean by ownership, in other words, when does it count to say that something belongs to someone?

The idea here is that the tax never belonged to you in the first place. It is "taken" from you because, by living in this nation, you have agreed to its laws, and its laws include everyone pooling some of their resources. First of all, some of the resources go to security, police, etc. You benefit from these things in ways hard to quantify financially. You benefit from a nation with a military that deters possible invaders. So the money is "taken" from you in recognition of that benefit. And some of it also goes to the poorest among us. You may not benefit from this in quite the same way, unless you become poor yourself. But what is being taken from you is only what was never truly yours.

Ondrej wrote:It boggles the mind that if it works so well why they are not cropping up everywhere

They have cropped up everywhere. Every first world nation has policies which show compassion on the least privileged and the disadvantaged. Every first world nation spends some of the taxpayers' money on those unable to work, orphans, asylum seekers, refugees, etc. I don't know as much about the US but I know that this happens in the UK and in all the European countries I know something about. In most of them, including the UK, healthcare is also provided for by the state. In Switzerland, it is not, but citizens are "forced" to take out health insurance, and insurers are "forced" to accept all applications. How horrible and un-capitalist.

Of course it also depends on your criteria for what "works." If the measure for what works is the GDP, then no, such communities do not "work." The GDP would probably be higher if they scrapped all those welfare programs and lowered taxes, providing an incentive for rich businesses to move there. Of course, a whole lot of people would also be put in abominable circumstances and may well die, but who cares about them? Who among us does not die, as you said? It's their own fault anyway for not working hard. The important thing is that I am allowed to spend my hard-earned money how I want, without the government taking it away from me and giving it to some homeless beggar. That is the only thing that counts as justice.

The idea here is that the tax never belonged to you in the first place.

But it did, unless I am a slave. My labor and ideas belong to me to trade with as I see fit. To say that it does not belong to me is to condone slavery. Without my existence there is nothing to claim. Without my effort there is nothing to claim.

by living in this nation, you have agreed to its laws

But, in truth, I haven't. They are forced upon me even if I disagree with them. Perhaps if I move to another country then we could say this but not if I was just born somewhere. I don't have a choice or even voice in the law when I am born.

They have cropped up everywhere.

No, I was suggesting a commune within a country (i.e. so that one is free to leave the commune without restriction) but if you agree to live there, there are certain things you have to pay for. Actually, yes, we do this. These are the different laws of different cities and the city tax. You are free to leave one city and go to another if you don't like the taxes etc.. This is much more acceptable than a country-wide mandate. The trouble with the country-wide mandate is that you can't escape. And that's the whole point of it being done on the country level, you want to make sure people cannot escape your benevolent plans for them. We can examine how cities fair when they run such experiments and see whether increased "compassion" from government policy results in more or less suffering.

Of course it also depends on your criteria for what "works." If the measure for what works is the GDP, then no, such communities do not "work." The GDP would probably be higher if they scrapped all those welfare programs and lowered taxes, providing an incentive for rich businesses to move there. Of course, a whole lot of people would also be put in abominable circumstances and may well die, but who cares about them? Who among us does not die, as you said? It's their own fault anyway for not working hard. The important thing is that I am allowed to spend my hard-earned money how I want, without the government taking it away from me and giving it to some homeless beggar. That is the only thing that counts as justice.

I think that business is the engine that drives things to be better. It is not that I care nothing for the poor but that I think everyone will benefit much more if people are free to make their choices based on their priorities and what they think is important. If people decide they are concerned about poverty they are free to start a foundation to address it. Or in all likelihood, something much more humble like a church group. I frequently give to a facebook group in my own community that sends financial help to those in need in the community. This is right and good. The problem is not charity. The problem is theft in the name of compassion, this is not charity. I think the US is the shining example of what happens when you run this experiment. We did not aim at being a world superpower. We aimed at freedom. One could also contrast the trajectories of North and South Korea. The difference is freedom. Freedom means the government is restricted. They cannot just take what you have. They cannot prevent you from doing business with other people. When people are free, they lift the whole world. It is for everyone's sake, it is with the greatest compassion I say your need does not give you a claim on my property.

Ondrej wrote:I think that business is the engine that drives things to be better. It is not that I care nothing for the poor but that I think everyone will benefit much more if people are free to make their choices based on their priorities and what they think is important.

I'm thinking that there may be something to this. Certainly everyone ought to work if they can work. It is not only their duty, it is their dignity that is at stake. And I agree that the more economic activity there is, the more abundance will be around, the more jobs will be created, etc. which makes a brighter prospect for someone who is unemployed and looking for work.

But what about the tragedy of the commons? In this case, not everyone benefits when the individual acts in his/her own self interest. There may always be counter-examples but the general principle is: the individual is not motivated to limit their harvesting of a finite resource, and when everyone keeps harvesting for themselves, the resource depletes too fast and eventually disappears, to the detriment of everyone. Should the government get involved in these instances?

Ondrej wrote:I frequently give to a facebook group in my own community that sends financial help to those in need in the community. This is right and good. The problem is not charity.

I'm genuinely delighted to hear this, but I can't see how it squares with your own principles. You are subsidising the poor choices of those in need in the community. Besides, they don't really "need" it - they will probably survive without it. And you are preventing them from getting what they deserve. No?

Ondrej wrote:One could also contrast the trajectories of North and South Korea.

I really wish we could abandon the extreme examples of socialist/communist countries as dire warnings of what will happen if they take our freedom. I don't know what South Korea is like politically, apart from not being socialist. We can agree, once and finally, that socialism is not the way to go. To my mind that does not automatically mean that capitalism is the way to go. Why not contrast the trajectories of America and Canada, for example? Or America and Germany? Or America and Switzerland? These latters are all countries which are nowhere near becoming socialist, yet they (a) are far further to the left left than America, and have always been so (b) are wealthy nations in which the standard of living is high. And they only didn't become superpowers because they (a) had way less land, (b) invested far, far less of the government's (i.e. the working taxpayer's) money in the military.

I'm going to address the other points you raise in other threads.

But what about the tragedy of the commons? In this case, not everyone benefits when the individual acts in his/her own self interest. There may always be counter-examples but the general principle is: the individual is not motivated to limit their harvesting of a finite resource, and when everyone keeps harvesting for themselves, the resource depletes too fast and eventually disappears, to the detriment of everyone. Should the government get involved in these instances?

But this is in some sense exactly what I am against. This the the same as the African proverb "the community goat always starves". Why? Clearly, everyone takes and nobody gives. Until it is THEIR goat. Then they want the milk to continue, so they feed the goat. They have skin in the game when it is theirs. They have to square with reality. They have to make the sacrifices themselves. Capitalism seeks to remedy this problem by letting the payment for mistakes fall on the people who make them and the rewards go to the people who carefully attended to reality. The commons is that which nobody has responsibility for (or everyone does but everyone is not someone). The government and the people receiving aid from the government don't have any skin the the game with your money. They do not have to pay the price. They do not have to feed the goat.

What is the next step? The next step is that the person who owns and feeds the goat says, no, no, you can't just come take the goat's milk. It is my milk. I care for the goat. If you want milk you have to get your own goat and feed and care for it. It does not come for free. You might say this is selfish, he is hogging all the milk and you can certainly spin it that way but there is something dishonest about it. He is protecting the goat. It is not commons anymore but it is his responsibility.

We overfish because nobody owns the oceans. If people did they would recognize, obviously, you cannot fish everything to death. But they don't own it. And that means even if they didn't fish it, someone else would and even if they know it will be detrimental in the long run they have no ability to tell other fishermen not to fish. So, it is the way it is, we will fish as much as we are allowed. That certainly is not how we manage farms that people own. They have to plan for the future of their land and take care of it; make sure to rotate their crops so the soil is not depleted, make sure to irrigate, make sure to fertilize etc etc. If they don't, they will be out of business in a hurry because reality does not forgive. You will pay one way or another. And when you go out of business your corrupted land will be sold off for pennies on the dollar to someone who really knows what they are doing and are not afraid of rectifying all the mistakes you have made. Currently the government is in control of the fishing. The government owns the ocean. How are they fairing with management? As far as I am aware, it is going terribly.

I'm genuinely delighted to hear this, but I can't see how it squares with your own principles. You are subsidising the poor choices of those in need in the community. Besides, they don't really "need" it - they will probably survive without it. And you are preventing them from getting what they deserve. No?

Several points here: 1) I think it is worth it. There are still billions of people I am not giving to, so I can still maintain the position of being despicably selfish, and discriminatory on top of it (since I am giving to some and not others). 2) I am not in any way forced to give. It is up to my judgement. 3) I think it not only helps the person I am giving to but it helps the general community. They are fully aware that someone here has given freely out of the kindness of their own heart. They receive that not at all like a government hand out. A real person paid that. They didn't have to. That builds a community. That is important. It is worth it.

No they don't need it, in the strict sense. I am aware of that too. They will probably figure something out and scrape by. I've been in that position plenty and you do what you have to do. A helping hand goes tremendous lengths. Perhaps I am preventing them from getting what they deserve, it is true. But my gift is not guaranteed. It is painfully clear that it is grace not to be relied upon. Come next month you had better have your ducks in a row and figure it out because the community around you is not going to pay all your bills. The hope is that the position they are in, with no hope but by the grace of God there is a kind person to help, will teach them the danger of their situation and the choices that led to it. The gift is forgiveness but not licence. The government provision is license.

I really wish we could abandon the extreme examples of socialist/communist countries as dire warnings of what will happen if they take our freedom.

If we were to say that lying is bad and then try to illustrate the consequences of lying by selecting examples of where it went horribly wrong for the liar, you would not protest that we are just cherry picking the most egregious examples. Would you want to pick the people who seemed to get away with their lies and their lives are still going fine? Then say, look lying is not so bad if it just done in moderation. Sure it can get out of hand but if it is managed appropriately it is better for everyone. Do you think people want the truth all the time? Surely not.

The point of this example is that it is extremely difficult to compare freedom to authoritarian rule. You never have two countries that can be compared fairly. If we compare Italy and Spain over the last fifty years, what are we really comparing? They are different countries with different people and different cultures. If we presume that some policy is the difference it is almost impossible to sort out all the possible confounding factors. North and South Korea provide as close a test as one could ever hope for. They are the same people, roughly speaking, with the same culture, who started at the same place. One half continued on with authoritarian rule for the good of all and the other half chose filthy capitalism and selfishness. But I would certainly rather be a poor person in south korea than north korea. I would rather be a poor person in south korea than a rich person in north korea. Somehow all this selfishness has produced great wealth and prosperity. That's because it's not selfishness. It's profit. Profit is good (assuming it is done honestly). It benefits everyone. It is the machine of millions of minds working on the problems everyone sees before themselves trying to figure out how to improve things and then trading and compromising and taking into account everyone else to get what they want. Those who work in charities want things to. Just because it is not for their own enrichment does not mean it is not selfish. They care. It is worth it to them. So they want to make it worth it to everyone and the moment they turn to coercion to do it, it is selfish. They are saying, "the things I think are important are more important than the things you think are important." They are no longer willing to compromise and consider other people, to respect that other people own things, that is it their property they are taking, their work... they are saying "your sacrifice is worth it to me". If ever there was a gift from God to illustrate with abundant clarity the difference between authoritarian rule and freedom is it north and south korea.

Ondrej wrote:We overfish because nobody owns the oceans. If people did they would recognize, obviously, you cannot fish everything to death. But they don't own it. And that means even if they didn't fish it, someone else would and even if they know it will be detrimental in the long run they have no ability to tell other fishermen not to fish. So, it is the way it is, we will fish as much as we are allowed. That certainly is not how we manage farms that people own. They have to plan for the future of their land and take care of it; make sure to rotate their crops so the soil is not depleted, make sure to irrigate, make sure to fertilize etc etc. If they don't, they will be out of business in a hurry because reality does not forgive. You will pay one way or another. And when you go out of business your corrupted land will be sold off for pennies on the dollar to someone who really knows what they are doing and are not afraid of rectifying all the mistakes you have made. Currently the government is in control of the fishing. The government owns the ocean. How are they fairing with management? As far as I am aware, it is going terribly.

I'm not sure you can give ownership of everything to everyone in a way that rules out the tragedy of the commons. How do you decide who owns the ocean anyway? Who buys it from whom? The same applies to all land ownership which, before anyone owns it, it's hard to say who has the rights to it. This comic expresses the dilemma.

• Imagine I own a small piece of the ocean, and tuna are an endangered species. I catch all the tuna in my part of the ocean, meaning that if you do the same, they will become extinct. You are more responsible: you refrain from catching all yours. But then some of them swim into my part. I again catch and sell them.
• Imagine I own a factory which pollutes the air. But the air doesn't stay on my land - it goes into yours, even though you have invested money in filters that clean the air coming out of your factory. This comic expresses it well.

The tragedy of the commons is really what's causing climate change. You don't even have to believe climate change is real in order to see that. You can see that if it was real, then all the fossil fuel companies would benefit from other fossil fuel companies working to reduce their emissions more than they would benefit from doing it themselves. It's like one of those games of chicken where two cars race towards each other, and the first to swerve is the loser.

How do you decide who owns the ocean anyway?

Whoever has the authority to tell to to "get off" owns it. Currently that is the government. Apparently they are not willing to sell yet.

before anyone owns it, it's hard to say who has the rights to it.

Before anyone owns it everyone has the "rights" to it, or nobody does. Ownership is something we collectively agree on as a bargain with other people. We will agree that thing is yours if you will agree this thing is mine. It is a compromise to preserve the value that we produce. That is why we consider slavery wrong. It is taking the value that someone else produces without their agreement. When there are new things, like an island, introduced that were previously "unowned" we sense an unfairness at the initial allotment because reality has just "printed money" so to speak and it has gone to one (usually the first) person to claim it. Ownership is the way we organize who has authority over the land (or whatever it is). While we may be bitter at those who have received unearned land, I'm not sure this is a pressing issue unless we are trying to decide how to divide up the moon.

Imagine I own a small piece of the ocean, and tuna are an endangered species. I catch all the tuna in my part of the ocean, meaning that if you do the same, they will become extinct. You are more responsible: you refrain from catching all yours. But then some of them swim into my part. I again catch and sell them.

This arrangement will be better than the government owning it all and letting drag nets rake it to the bottom. At least some people will be trying to make it team with life. The spill over into the neighboring lot will certainly be a loss but that is for the owner to figure out, either by creating an arrangement with his neighbor, sucking up the loss, figuring out a way to prevent the fish from swimming there, or buying that piece of ocean from his neighbor. In any case, it will be clear that one person can turn a profit, while the other cannot. As time progresses, everyone in the business will learn how to take care of the ocean and promote growth. Perhaps there will be coalitions and bargains and agreements struck. Suddenly it will be of extreme importance to the creation of wealth that the ocean life be properly cared for. Marine biologists salaries will skyrocket if they can figure out ways we can bring life back within the constraints of what we are working with.

Imagine I own a factory which pollutes the air. But the air doesn't stay on my land - it goes into yours, even though you have invested money in filters that clean the air coming out of your factory. This comic expresses it well.

With pollutants this is a fair criticism. If one person does this we ignore it. But if an industry does it at scale it can become a serious problem. This is where we require the filtration to be applied because we do not agree with the emission of the pollutant into the air. Note this is not a tax, this is merely requiring the business to keep their things on their property.

The tragedy of the commons is really what's causing climate change.

I do recognize that.

You can see that if it was real, then all the fossil fuel companies would benefit from other fossil fuel companies working to reduce their emissions more than they would benefit from doing it themselves. It's like one of those games of chicken where two cars race towards each other, and the first to swerve is the loser.

Not at all! The fossil fuel companies do not make money by burning fuel. They make money by selling fuel. They are not at fault. It is you who is at fault. If you drive a car or buy things transported by diesel. Or built by diesel. Or protected by diesel. Or powered by diesel. You are at fault. Don't pretend that the person selling you the fuel that you burn is the bad guy when you are protesting that fuel is burnt. Go to the people with the oldest most broken down cars and chastise them as they are sputtering their way to their blue collar job that they are destroying the planet for you. Place the blame squarely on their shoulders and face them as you drive your new fuel efficient car that is subsidized by their tax dollars because it is green but that they still cannot afford. Tell them face to face how selfish they are being. It is not the fuel companies that are burning fuel. It is your neighbor, the mailman, the grocer, the priest, the politician, it is you. It is the two day shipping on amazon prime. It is the air conditioning when it is hot and the heat when it is cold. It is the power to extend your ideas into action beyond the physical power of your own back. The fuel companies merely let you decide whether you would like to. And everyone says "yes". Place the blame on your shoulders and show us the way we can continue to live without fossil fuels. And not just some gimmick like make sure to seal leaky doors and windows, that's not a difference, give us power that you will be happy with, that's cheaper, that frees people instead of constraining them and the world will PAY you! Not only that we will all be thankful. Until someone else finds something to complain about your power. It will be like rearden metal. It can be the greatest thing but someone will find a way to spin it. Just look at vaping. We pretend to be concerned about smokers. It is utter BS. We are just against the tobacco companies. We don't like smokers either, we just pretend there is some concern for them so we can justify our regulations.

Ondrej wrote:When there are new things, like an island, introduced that were previously "unowned" we sense an unfairness at the initial allotment because reality has just "printed money" so to speak and it has gone to one (usually the first) person to claim it. Ownership is the way we organize who has authority over the land (or whatever it is). While we may be bitter at those who have received unearned land, I'm not sure this is a pressing issue unless we are trying to decide how to divide up the moon.

Fair enough, I accept that.

Ondrej wrote:The fossil fuel companies do not make money by burning fuel. They make money by selling fuel. They are not at fault. It is you who is at fault. If you drive a car or buy things transported by diesel. Or built by diesel. Or protected by diesel. Or powered by diesel. You are at fault. Don't pretend that the person selling you the fuel that you burn is the bad guy when you are protesting that fuel is burnt. Go to the people with the oldest most broken down cars and chastise them as they are sputtering their way to their blue collar job that they are destroying the planet for you. Place the blame squarely on their shoulders and face them as you drive your new fuel efficient car that is subsidized by their tax dollars because it is green but that they still cannot afford. Tell them face to face how selfish they are being. It is not the fuel companies that are burning fuel. It is your neighbor, the mailman, the grocer, the priest, the politician, it is you. It is the two day shipping on amazon prime. It is the air conditioning when it is hot and the heat when it is cold. It is the power to extend your ideas into action beyond the physical power of your own back. The fuel companies merely let you decide whether you would like to. And everyone says "yes". Place the blame on your shoulders and show us the way we can continue to live without fossil fuels. And not just some gimmick like make sure to seal leaky doors and windows, that's not a difference, give us power that you will be happy with, that's cheaper, that frees people instead of constraining them and the world will PAY you!

I accept a large part of this argument. That is why I have never owned a car, only fly max. once a year, buy electricity from renewable energy companies (even if it's more expensive), never use the two-day shipping option, and many other things. I don't simply place the blame on fossil fuel companies. I try to "be the change I want to see in the world."

On the other hand, things are more complicated than that. First off, is capitalism a system in which the seller bears none of the blame, and the buyer bears all of the blame for any harmful outcomes of the transaction? That would again mean that I could run a brothel or strip club with a clean conscience. After all, nobody is being forced to come and do business with me. It's their free choice. Even if I put up a massive billboard with a picture of a woman in a bikini, I'm not taking away their freedom. They come to me if they want my product; maybe they shouldn't do it, but I'm not guilty for their free choices.

Secondly, what if fossil fuel companies are working to protect the demand for their product? That is the argument made in this article, which I think is really fascinating and worth paying attention to. Especially because climate change deniers all love the conspiracy idea when they apply it to the government (tendentiously in my view: there would be many better ways to seize power than by inventing a phony climate crisis) and to various companies with a tiny fraction of the power of the fossil fuel industry. If we want to talk about motivation, then they are motivated to deny climate change and to persuade the world to deny it. Their motivation is far clearer than the government's, and their power is far greater than anyone else except the government.

Jesus said "it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt 18:7 ESV). Sure, the person who gives into the temptation bears some of the blame. But doesn't the provider of temptation also bear some of the blame?

Ondrej wrote:Go to the people with the oldest most broken down cars and chastise them as they are sputtering their way to their blue collar job that they are destroying the planet for you.

I've heard this argument before and I am not indifferent to it. I know that in America sometimes you have to have a car to get anywhere, because everything is so spread out. In the UK the poorest people neither need nor can afford a car. BUT I cannot believe that such people are the primary, even the secondary, even the tertiary cause of climate change. When they are the only problem we have left, then I will listen to this argument. Until then, those of us who can afford it should be buying clean energy in order to increase demand and drive prices down so the poorest can afford it too.

I accept a large part of this argument. That is why I have never owned a car, only fly max. once a year, buy electricity from renewable energy companies (even if it's more expensive), never use the two-day shipping option, and many other things. I don't simply place the blame on fossil fuel companies. I try to "be the change I want to see in the world."

My hat is off to you. But I think you have missed part of my argument. What difference do all these sacrifices you are making have? That is the real crux of the matter. I would venture to guess that it has basically zero effect. That is why everyone is clambering to involve the government. And that is where we get into trouble. Maybe I am making a bit too strong of an argument here. I do think your choices have an effect. Not so much the immediate impact on the environment but the lifestyle sends a signal to everyone around you what is important to you and to take your priorities into account. That is why many businesses even fossil fuel companies are trying their best to "go green" in whatever ways they can manage. Fossil fuel companies are just ready and waiting to sell people solar if they will buy it. They are not hung up on the fuel, they are hung up on profit, which is to say, people's choices. If people will not buy solar but will buy fuel, then they cannot sell solar, they have to sell fuel.

First off, is capitalism a system in which the seller bears none of the blame, and the buyer bears all of the blame for any harmful outcomes of the transaction?

But have you heard yourself? What do you mean? Everyone blames the seller. Where do you incessantly hear that the seller is absolved of responsibility? News, TV, commercials, movies, your friends? Who claims this? And is it in any way the "norm"? I think the seller can bear some blame in some situations but I don't think I have ever heard even once that the buyer bears all the blame for harmful transactions. I think the buyer bears a tremendous amount more "blame" than what I gather from news, tv, etc. But I also think the buyer does not have the same priorities as the tv host and that if one were to understand their situation one would be much more gracious with their decision and not "blame" them for their choice. This is, of course, why we must lay the blame on the companies that provide what they are buying.

That would again mean that I could run a brothel or strip club with a clean conscience. After all, nobody is being forced to come and do business with me.

But that's not quite a fair comparison. Burning fuel is not sinful in the same sense. If I heat my house by burning wood it is "terrible" for the environment compared to, say, coal, or natural gas, but if all I have is a fireplace I can manage to stay warm by burning wood even if I have no coal or natural gas. Of course the standards of the environmentalists have gone way beyond this and coal and natural gas are just as sinful now. But the point is that this is not a clear cut sin at all. It is like messiness. Messiness can be quite troublesome and for someone who has their life all organized and perfect, someone else's messiness can be distressing. However, that person may be dealing all sorts of troubles and the mess is so low on their priority list that it doesn't even register as a problem. Once their life is sorted out, then maybe the mess will become a higher priority. But the environmentalists are trying to make the mess the priority when everyone else has much bigger problems.

Secondly, what if fossil fuel companies are working to protect the demand for their product?

Think of Nokia, Blackberry, Blockbuster, Sears, and Palm. I'm sure they fully intended to protect the demand for their product. I have no doubt that fossil fuel companies will try to protect the demand for their product. Nobody cares. The fact of the matter is that fossil fuels, diesel and gasoline, store more energy per volume at atmospheric pressure and a wide range of temperatures in liquid form that anything else. Nothing comes close. Liquid hydrogen beats them handily, but you need extreme cold (and maybe pressure I can't remember). In any case, my point is, it has nothing to do with fossil fuel companies or what they say. It has everything to do with the facts on the ground. If you want to get that truckload of goods from point A to point B you're going to power it with diesel (because it's more efficient than gas). What are the other options? It's not fuel companies conspiring to make the world this way.

That is the argument made in this article, which I think is really fascinating and worth paying attention to.

Nobody ever tries to drum up serious apocalyptic scenarios about what the world would look like without fossil fuels. There are not scores of scientists creating dire projections about what could go wrong if we end the use of fossil fuels. If we did we would have a much more nuanced picture. If all you are focused on is the projections of a group of people who get their funding from telling us the world is coming to an end and you fund nothing of the opposite sort and shun any scrap of good news, of course you will think the world is coming to an end. If I told you there was a scientific study that showed that the hotter a region gets, the more clouds it creates, termed the iris effect, that acts to cool that area, then you would simply look for reasons why you can disregard that study. Because people disagree, you have to prove you are right, because you have to prove you are right, you can't be objective about the facts. This makes good news bad news. Nobody on the climate change side of the debate wants to be wrong. It is in their interest that they disregard anything that calls them into question. The politicization and funding has corrupted the science. That's why "all" the scientists agree.

Jesus said "it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt 18:7 ESV). Sure, the person who gives into the temptation bears some of the blame. But doesn't the provider of temptation also bear some of the blame?

Yes. But I don't see the providers of fossil fuels to blame. They are not enabling people to rob banks or go on raping sprees. They are providing people with power. That is a good thing.

BUT I cannot believe that such people are the primary, even the secondary, even the tertiary cause of climate change. When they are the only problem we have left, then I will listen to this argument.

No, I agree. The cars are more of an analogy. You buy something, but where does it come from, how did it get to you, and what enabled it's creation? It is fuel all the way to the bottom. It comes to you by diesel truck, made possible by roads created by more diesel trucks, it was in a container put on that diesel truck by a diesel crane at the shipping yard; it was shipped over by diesel power (really fuel oil which is both amazing and several grades below diesel), and was loaded onto the ship by a diesel crane; it was driven to the ship yard there by diesel trucks, and it was made in a factory powered by coal. But you don't drive. And drivers are not the cause of climate change. Yes, but you miss the point. The point is, it is worth it have that thing you ordered. And so the machine serves you. You driving or not is irrelevant. You chose fossil fuels anyway, as we all do. Because it makes our lives better, not worse.

Until then, those of us who can afford it should be buying clean energy in order to increase demand and drive prices down so the poorest can afford it too.

I 100% agree. As long as it is not going to the government to coerce people. This is the best way.