Loony Luddite Thinks Driving A Car Is Like Smoking!!


Oh, good heavens!  This is one of the most irrational arguments against using fossil fuels I’ve seen in a long while.

There’s a new study out!!!

Fossil fuel addiction and the implications for climate change policy


This paper applies a behavioral economics model of cigarette addiction to the issue of fossil fuel usage and climate change. Both problems involve consumption of a currently beneficial product that causes detrimental effects in the distant future and for which current reductions in usage induces an adjustment cost. The paper argues that because fossil fuel control requires solving an international public goods problem as well as an addiction-like problem, breaking it will be more challenging. Using insights from the model, it also suggests that fossil fuel addiction, like cigarette addiction, may generate a long period of time in which people express sincere desire to convert to clean energy, but accomplish little to achieve that outcome. Finally the paper examines the history of the international anti-smoking campaign to draw insights for the campaign against global climate change. The analogy suggests that policies to reduce the present cost of non-carbon energy sources to induce voluntary adjustments in energy usage, or, policies that induce cleaner usage of fossil fuels, or geo-engineering policies that work to reverse the warming effects of higher CO2 concentrations, may be more viable than policies that raise the cost of current fossil fuel consumption.

Of course, this must be heralded in a nutter news outlet, in this case, the Guardian.

Read this para…….

The paper explores the idea that the short-term investment for long-term gain required by both quitting smoking and ditching fossil fuels are behaviourally comparable. However, quitting fossil fuels will be more difficult, because in addition to the required behaviour challenge, there is a political “public good” dilemma – that is, a question of how to divide up a limited amount of resources equitably.

Interesting….. a “public good” dilemma….. but the “dilemma” seems to be missing something…… hmm…..  moar…..

…. If fossil fuel use can be understood as an addiction, then it is only when social disapproval reaches a sufficiently high level, that the pleasure and status associated with a particular behaviour – smoking, or driving a large car – starts to decline.  …..

Of course, equating the pleasure gained from smoking to driving a large car on a societal scale is demonstrably stupid and fallacious.  The size of motors and cars have declined through the years.  Most of us, on a personal level, have driven huge sedans with large motors in the past.   My two fav motors are Fords 302 boss, and GM 455 rocket


I drive neither today.  In fact, I don’t own a V8 engine.  I do, however, smoke.  I’m addicted to smoking, I have no addiction to driving big vehicles.  Heck, I used to own a Mercury Lynx.

In fact, even if fossil fuel use were to be eliminated altogether, we would transfer our “addiction” to other sources. This is revealing, suggesting that it is our addiction to energy, not to fossil fuels per se, that is the root of the problem.

Well, yes, you morons, if you think massive improvements to longevity, quality of life, and health are addictions, then you have no idea what an addiction is.  As Dr. Christy put it in recent state congressional testimony…..

professor John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, called affordable energy “the basis of our standard of living today.” While reducing CO2 emissions may or may not affect climate change, Christy said he’s certain it would raise energy costs. ”I’ve lived in Africa, and I can assure you that without energy, life is brutal and short,” Christy said. “…We are not bad people because we produce carbon dioxide.”

Yes, I’m addicted to a longer and less brutal existence.

And, that’s the difficulty with these sophist illogical meanderings.  Are they really that stupid?  In smoking, there need not be a replacement.  If one quits smoking, …. well they quit smoking.  As the authors point out, there isn’t a reliance on fossil fuels per se, it is the energy they produce.  And it isn’t an addiction, it’s man’s quest for victory over the elements.  To say we have an addiction to fossil fuels is like saying we have an addiction to longer, happier, and productive lives.

And this brings us to the fallacy of these sort of discussions.  They pretend an alternative exists.  It doesn’t.  Before fossil fuel use can be curbed, there needs to be an alternative.  Find the alternatives than the imaginary problem goes away.  Find me an affordable equivalent to my V6 GM pickup and I’d happily drive it.  Find me some cheap, reliable, available electricity generated by something other than coal or nat gas and I’d happily use it, and do.  Much of the electricity I use comes from hydro-electric.  No one is opposed to viable alternatives, they just don’t exist at the moment.  And unlike smoking, there needs to be a replacement before we can discuss quitting.

Will these morons ever recognize how stupid they sound?  Let’s all run back to the days of the 4th or 5th centuries when life was sooooo good!  Dumbasses.

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Loony Luddite Thinks Driving A Car Is Like Smoking!!

  1. philjourdan says:

    Loony, loopy Luddite Liberals.

  2. Latitude says:

    I’ll keep my F-150….thank you

  3. tckev says:

    And sometime ago (on Steve Goddard’s blog) someone tried to convince me that all this ‘research’ about CO2/AGW was relevant serious study to betterment of the human condition. I pointed out that a lot of so called research was ‘me too’ studies on too short a time scale to be worthwhile. But they did have one goal – to get grant money.
    IMO this is another pigs in the trough of grants for irrelevant dross, wasted time of cr@p masquerading as meaningful research.
    These people are delusional and dangerous –

    The analogy suggests that policies to reduce the present cost of non-carbon energy sources to induce voluntary adjustments in energy usage, or, policies that induce cleaner usage of fossil fuels, or geo-engineering policies that work to reverse the warming effects of higher CO2

    Stop people using fossil fuels and/or geo-engineer a climate.

  4. DirkH says:

    I’m addicted to my car because I’m addicted to driving to work which I’m addicted to because I’m addicted to money which I need to satisfy my habit of paying taxes and child maintenance. And no, the German state won’t pay for me if I quit my job to save the planet.

    The ******* ********* from the Guardian BTW have just opened a coffee shop because they want to earn money for the first time in their lives.

    It looks like they fail at that too.

  5. leftinbrooklyn says:

    Soooo, now we’re gonna demonize survival instinct.

    This is pure ‘publish or perish.’

  6. HankH says:

    I’ll have another fill up… and please none of that food crop ethanol in it.

  7. cdquarles says:

    I see misuse of the word addiction. Orwell would be proud. He he. I am addicted to insulin. I need it to live. 😛 Fortunately my pancreas makes enough right now. No energy, no life. Religion of death is this.

  8. kelly liddle says:

    This is a bit associated. I think the one person who has/will reduce energy use more than any green program is this fellow but the full effects have not come about yet.

    “The first high-brightness blue LED was demonstrated by Shuji Nakamura of Nichia Corporation in 1994 and was based on InGaN.” From wiki.

    I hope it has made him rich but probably not.

    • DirkH says:

      Kelly, electricity is vastly overestimated. Of the primary energy consumption of Germany, only 1/7th is electricity. 3/7th are heating, and 3/7th are fuels for transportation.

    • kelly liddle says:

      Australia electricity generation is about 30% of energy used for 09/10 year. This in part could be to do with climate and using air conditioners for cooling. With the rough numbers you gave is that for households or for Germany as a whole?

      One thing I had a look at is energy use per capita and Germany is fairly low, much lower than US or even Australia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_per_capita

      It could be at least in part to do with they types of industries we have.

      • DirkH says:

        Numbers are for Germany as a whole.

        Yes, in hotter climates electricity plays a slightly bigger role dur to A/C. That’s why I add “for Germany”; you would probably find the same distribution in Canada or Michigan etc.

      • suyts says:

        Another thing to consider when regarding energy consumption by nation is how large the nation is. The larger the nation the larger per capita consumption on travel and transport. Further, population density is a factor. The more dense the less consumed for travel and transport. And, rightly, climate extremes. Industry, too plays a part. We have coal trains run through the town I live in on a daily basis. The run goes from up in the Dakotas down through Texas.

  9. Pingback: My Homepage

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s