I keep laughing at polls that show 50% of Americans are willing to pay up to $40 a month to fight global warming, while their actual costs are already in the thousands, and getting worse

you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing — it’s blowing towards you

And the other half say that they’re unwilling to pay even $40. What saps.

Here’s just another example of what’s coming down the pike: Companies are balking at spending for green freight transport. Which is why our new masters are moving to make it mandatory. And who will pay for all this? Consumers, not the companies bringing goods to market.

… Tim Scharwath, chief executive of DHL Global Forwarding, Freight, part of Deutsche PostAG, said talk about sustainability gains often falters when decisions reach procurement departments, where suggestions to use aviation and marine biofuels for transport are vetoed in favor of heavier-polluting but cheaper options. 

“It’s not happening enough,” Mr. Scharwath said. “If you talk to purchasing guys they have one thing to do: to get the best deal. And they get paid for less spend.”

The gap between environmental goals and implementation highlights a growing fault line in the logistics arena as research on sustainable alternatives to traditional freight transport starts moving into real-world operations. 

The broad changes in fuels, infrastructure and transport equipment aimed at slashing carbon emissions are expensive: The maritime industry alone will have to spend some $3 trillion to eliminate emissions over the next few decades, according to shipping services provider Clarksons. But there is little agreement across the freight business on how to cover such costs. 

A recent study by Boston Consulting Group found that 82% of companies are willing to pay more for sustainable shipping, but the premium they are willing to pay falls far short of the investment needed to significantly reduce emissions. 

Freight executives say electric trucks cost about three times more than regular trucks and can be particularly expensive in parts of Europe where electricity costs are high. Marine and aviation biofuels cost several times more than regular fuels.

DHL, one of the largest forwarders in the world, moves hundreds of billions of dollars worth of freight each year by ocean, air and land. The company has a target of spending up to 7 billion euros, the equivalent of roughly $7.4 billion, on decarbonization by 2030. During the past two years, it has spent €440 million on measures such as green aviation fuels and electric vehicles, according to company data.

DHL officials say the slow progress is caused in part by a scarcity of alternate fuels and sustainably-powered aircraft, ships and trucks. They expect to significantly increase green spending in the next few years as more options become available. But Mr. Scharwath said advances will depend on customers’ willingness to pay a premium.

….

Regulators are looking to add incentives for green operations [“incentives” meaning driving up the cost of conventional fuel, not lowering the cost of unicorn farts and wind beanies] . The European Union is expected to introduce carbon-emission taxes next year on ships calling at the continent’s ports. In the U.S., the Biden administration last year proposed tougher new standards for emissions from heavy-duty trucks. 

California plans to phase out the use of diesel-powered trucks at its ports starting next year, with a goal of having only hydrogen- and battery-electric trucks calling at its docks by 2035.

Trucking provider NFI Industries Inc. expects to have a fleet of 100 electric trucks serving the state’s ports by the end of this year.

Bill Bliem, senior vice president of fleet services at Camden, N.J.-based NFI, said customers are increasingly asking about electric trucks, but the costs remain high even with subsidies provided by the state of California. 

“Some of them are willing to pay to reduce their emissions,” Mr. Bliem said. “Others, when you tell them the cost, say: ‘Well, we want to be green, but we don’t know that we can afford to be green.’”

At PJ Media this morning, Steven Kruiser offers some observations on this topic:

Your tax dollars at work! They’re indoctrinating kids to eat bugs rather than burgers to save the planet. And it’s an English assignment. Yeah, the Department of Education has got to go.

It is something that the climate lefties are now admitting that the methane gas from cow flatulence plays a part in ozone depletion. Not too many years ago, they were saying that the cow flatulence theory was a right-wing conspiracy to deflect from all of the havoc that humans were wreaking.

The bugs for dinner thing is part of an overall devolution blueprint the climate cult has for humanity. I attended the 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancún, Mexico. I’d been sent there by Americans for Prosperity (Koch Brothers money!) to document and mock the proceedings.

The big expo that was there to showcase “solutions” for saving the planet was, put mildly, insane. It wasn’t a vision of the future, but of the past. Dirt floors. Toilets that were little more than camping latrines. Hand-washing clothes. You can see how easy it is to get from that to having bug stroganoff for dinner.

The real threat to humanity is the stupidity of these people. Again, they’ve been wrong about virtually everything. Their solutions to problems real and imagined never fix anything. The only thing they’ve succeeded in doing is bleeding the American taxpayer dry and frightening a generation of young people so much with their lies that some are being treated in therapy for climate anxiety.

The only upside to all of this is that a lot of the younger climate cultists don’t want to breed because they’re convinced that we’re doomed, so a voluntary culling of the herd is under way.