They're still pressing

Although Myron Ebell's evil twisted mind has been relegated to the extreme margins where it belongs (decades too late after it has already contributed to irreparable damage to the atmosphere), reporters can't seem to wean themselves off those final few words they feel they need to include in every report. The stinking underwear warriors at the CEI who can always fight on the side of greater pollution and ever lower efficiency standards keep him in pay because of these tidbits of garbage he inserts into the media.

I'm talking to you, Ken Silverstein, when you printed Myron's lie that "In the global petroleum market, costs are determined by total supply [so that] Congress can help expand that supply by lifting restrictions on development in the U.S." -- in particular the Artic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.

It is already well known by the Department of Energy the quantity of ANWR oil is so small that it would lower oil proces by 50 cents per barrel, and that the corrupt oil companies simply want to strip the land bare because their crap infrastructure is already in place. The fact that they make more money by suddenly shutting down leaky pipelines as a reward for years of bad maintenance is an aspect of the glorious free market that Myron doesn't tell you about.

Notwithstanding these facts, Myron Ebell has been telling this lie over and over again, and it is irresponsible and ignorant to publish it.

I'm also talking to you, Julia A. Seymour of the Business & Media Institute who centered her article around the parody that saving the winter recreation industry threatened by global warming by discouraging SUVs capable of towing snow-mobiles to the national parks would be a lose-lose situation.

In her article she repeated the claim by the president of the SUV Owners of America that stricter CAFÉ(sic) standards don't work because the US had increased its reliance on foreign oil. The problem is that fuel efficiency standards do not apply to SUVs, and that is one of the reasons why oil consumption has been increasing.

Myron at least brings this ridiculous article into perspective by mentioning the 80-percent emissions reduction that has got to happen "with no regard for the cost to the economy" in order to save the human life on this planet. According to him, most people would have to give up their cars, air conditioning and "only heat one room of their house" to accomplish that goal.

Yeah, because a dying is better.

One way or another, this way of life is going to end. It can either be by choice before a catastrophic ecological collapse, or it will happen after we have suffered massive sea level land-loss, famine, and an absolute impoverishment through which few of our children will live. Myron knows this because he reads all the scientific reports which he so frequently misquotes from. He knows what's at stake.

Yet he still can't help condemning out next generations to that that SUV park in the sky.

The naturally flawed market

Thank you. Someone else with a spark of understanding about the systemic sham known as the free market. From p227 of Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air:

Larry and Tina

Imagine that Larry the landlord rents out a flat to Tina the povertystricken tenant. Larry is responsible for maintaining the flat and providing the appliances in it, and Tina pays the monthly heating and electricity bills. Larry feels no incentive to invest in modifications to the flat that would reduce Tina’s bills. He could install more-efficient lightbulbs, and plug in a more economical fridge; these eco-friendly appliances would pay back their extra up-front cost over their long life; but it’s Tina who would benefit, not Larry. Similarly, Larry feels little incentive to improve the flat’s insulation or install double-glazing, especially when he takes into account the risk that Tina’s boyfriend Wayne might smash one of the windows when drunk. In principle, in a perfect market, Larry and Tina would both make the ‘right’ decisions: Larry would install all the energy-saving features, and would charge Tina a slightly higher monthly rent; Tina would recognize that the modern and well-appointed flat would be cheaper to live in and thus be happy to pay; Larry would demand an increased deposit in case of breakage of the expensive new windows; and Tina would respond rationally and banish Wayne. However, I don’t think that Larry and Tina can ever deliver a perfect market. Tina is poor, so has difficulty paying large deposits. Larry strongly wishes to rent out the flat, so Tina mistrusts his assurances about the property’s low energy bills, suspecting Larry of exaggeration.

Don't worry about it if you don't understand the argument, Myron. The concept is well beyond your intellectual pay-grade. However, it can be summed up with the simple assertion that the very existence of the Competitive Enterprise Institute proves that this society is incapable of supporting a rational market economy not terminally polluted by lies.