Most-delirious yet, John Delaney "will make rural and heartland America the center of a massive new industry - carbon capture." According to his website a "$15 (tax) per metric ton of CO2 with costs rising $10 per year will reduce carbon emissions by 90% by 2050 while virtually eliminating rural poverty."
All seven received oil money for their campaigns. [xiii]
Carbon capture does have one high-ranking critic. "Carbon capture is total bullshit" according to Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg just pledged $500 million (.00009% of his wealth) to carbon neutrality. The money will go to "influencers", including personalities, think-tanks, etc. as well as politicians, active against fossil fuel.
Bloomberg also chairs the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (FSB) which urges companies to self-report their carbon emissions. The gist is (in a presumably greening market), disclosure warns investors of your long-term viability. Thus, discharging less CO2 increases your value. In his words, "Increasing transparency makes markets more efficient, and economies more stable and resilient."
Maybe. -A small aside, but does someone who funds 'influencers' to the tune of $500 million seem faithful that transparency' is a climate solution? Or think; Bloomberg's partner, Diana Taylor is a board member of Citigroup. As we mentioned, Citigroup has poured hundreds of millions in taxpayer's money into fracking with no market repercussions, and in fact, no disclosure from she or Michael Bloomberg.
And why should we place our fate in the hands of stockholders to police corporations!? We are talking about the same group of people. 40% of all stocks belong to the top 1% and the top 10% hold almost 90%. Moreover, since Trump's tax break, companies have spent most of their winnings buying back their own stock. Some are on their way to becoming their own majority shareholders.
More likely, since data is a hot commodity, and data is what they're collecting, a little transparency should enhance their skill, not discourage it. [xiv] Fact is, we used more energy last year because it was hotter. Global warming may be growing the fossil fuel industry! A 'stable and resilient' fossil fuel economy might kill us faster than coal's last hurrah will under Trump.
In sum, it's hard to overstate capitalism's debt to fossil fuels. Only with large scale coal operations did free labor out-profit slavery. Only with oil was it able to manufacture at rates that reduced the cost of both goods and labor without killing the workers, as 19 th century coal industries had. Only with the advent of cheap manufactures like plastic could the poor routinely consume beyond needs, opening new markets. Post-war atomization coerced more buying, but more buying takes either more income or lower prices. Since higher wages don't easily translate to higher profits. Only by opening less-advanced markets -made possible by cheap global transportation- could they lower prices. And only with the petrol-dollar could the arch-capitalist, US maintain this hegemony after WWII reconstruction. And when it tottered, fossil fuel proved 'too big to fail.'
Expect, the same next time, when it's a life system, not just a financial one. In 2020, peddling a fake cure isn't bullshit, it's genocide. Calling genocide bullshit -when you have $billions in your account- is genocide, too.
Hell awaits them. They didn't have to bring it here.