Letter: Cut the Costly Climate Chatter

Letter to the editor by Viv Forbes

Letter-to-Editor-pen-mouse

Twenty-two years ago a bunch of green activists calling themselves “The Earth Summit” met in Rio and invented a way to tour the world at tax-payers’ expense – never-ending conferences on environmental alarms.

Like any good bureaucratic committee, they soon established sub-committees on sustainability, pollution, development, energy, forestry, water, biodiversity, endangered species, poverty, health, population and Agenda 21 (this item alone had 40 chapters each with its own sub-committee). Environmental conferences became the greatest multi-national growth industry in the world financed mainly by tax-payers via participating public servants, climate academics, employees of nationalised industries and tax-sheltered green “charities” such as Greenpeace and WWF.

They really hit the Mother Lode with their creation called “Global Warming”, and its proxies “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather”.

These “noble causes” generated a hierarchy of steering committees, reference committees, political committees, science sub-groups, working committees, reviewers and peak bodies and could muster meetings with 20,000 attendees from 178 countries at hardship locations such as Rio, Berlin, Geneva, Kyoto, Buenos Aires, Bonn, The Hague, Marrakesh, New Delhi, Milan, Montreal, Nairobi, Bali, Poznan, Copenhagen, Cancun, Durban, Qatar, Doha, Warsaw, Stockholm, Lima, Abu Dhabi and New York.

The 21st Climate Change birthday party will be held at the Conference of the Parties in Paris in December 2015, while the Small Islands Developing States will tour to Samoa, but any important decisions will be taken behind closed doors by the canny BRICS Nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).

The Climate Conference Circuit became a bigger boost to airlines, hotels and fine dining than the Olympic Games and G20. Australia alone sent the PM plus a team of 114 to the failed Copenhagen Conference. Rich and poor all over the world have endured 21 years of wasteful spending that could have built flood-proof infrastructure, drought-proof water supplies, erosion-proof beach fronts and pollution-free waterways. It has gone down the global warming gurgler without a single visible benefit for suffering tax-payers.

With most western governments running desperate financial deficits, it is time to cut the costs of this climate chatter. Australia should burn no more jet fuel sending people to any climate conference anywhere. If they want one, they should use bicycles, tele-conferencing or the postal service.

Viv Forbes,

http://carbon-sense.com

Rosewood   Qld   Australia

About these ads

44 thoughts on “Letter: Cut the Costly Climate Chatter

  1. Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
    I read about the Genesis of this World-wide Global Warming and Rio Conference; and it has mushroomed into air, water, climate, world domination and geo-engineering weather weapons on people all over the world. It’s insanity on a Global Level.

  2. In the US a “21st Climate Change birthday party” means that the 21 year olds are officially considered adults when it comes to the consumption of alcohol. Does this “Conference of the Parties in Paris in December 2015″ mean that our climateers will finally become adults on that date. Or, am I being overly optimistic.

    Yep; overly optimistic.

  3. And now the Sec-Gen has invited them all, at Heads of Government level (imagine the entourages!), to meet in Wahington on 22 September for a chat. It is expressly said that no agreements are to be negotiated, this is simply a giant rally. And tens of thousands are being encouraged to burn fuel to get to Washington and shout approval. Virtually nobody at this talkfest will be paying their own way.

  4. The entire COP thing is gut-wrenchingly stupid. With images of ‘crats and Bamboo Bicycles. Brrrrr-rrrr.

  5. without a single visible benefit for suffering tax-payers.

    Funny how the alleged “tax payer” aka Oil Companies don’t pay taxes they receive subsidies!
    these subsidies are often military actions to obtain control of Oil reserves.

    According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report published in October 2007, the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could cost taxpayers a total of $2.4 trillion by 2017 when counting the huge interest costs because combat is being financed with borrowed money. The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per U.S. citizen.[7][8]

  6. Contractors Reap $138 Billion from Iraq War, Cheney’s …
    leaksource.info/…/contractors-reap-138-billion-from-iraq-war-cheneys-h…
    Apr 8, 2013 – The US has overwhelmingly borne the brunt of both the military and reconstruction … The controversial former subsidiary of Halliburton, which was once run by Dick … supplied jet and convoy fuel in a war zone to the US military. … be changing, with the war in Iraq over and the conflict in Afghanistan winding …

  7. Viv your plea will probably fall on deaf ears. this is already published in Scientific American, no matter how factual or otherwise the claims may be:

    25 Aug: Reuters: Alister Doyle: Small island states, facing rising seas, seek economic overhaul
    (Editing by Andrew Heavens)
    “Frightening” prospect of rising seas – U.N.
    Islands say overlooked, fault inaction over climate
    Small island summit in Samoa from Sept. 1-4
    Small island states facing a “frightening” rise in sea levels will seek investments in everything fron solar energy to fisheries to boost their economies at a U.N. summit next week….
    Many islands from the Indian Ocean to the Caribbean are suffering erosion and coastal flooding from storm surges as global warming raises sea levels by melting ice from the Himalayas to Greenland…
    Sea levels have risen about 20 cms (8 inches) since 1900 and are projected to rise by another 26 to 82 cms by the late 21st century, threatening many low-lying atolls.
    Some communities are even moving. The authorities of Choiseul, a provincial capital in the Solomon Islands with about 1,000 people, said this month that they had decided to relocate from their small island.

    http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/08/25/environment-islands-idINL5N0QV1NP20140825

  8. dennisearlbaker
    August 25, 2014 at 7:42 pm

    On a KWh basis wind and solar get far more subsidies. Oil could survive at its present level without subsidy. Wind and solar couldn’t.

  9. Oil can survive without subsidies, wind and solar can’t
    we cannot survive without fossil fuels…take away wind and solar
    would anyone notice?

  10. 20,000 pigs at the trough producing nothing but porkies.

    We the people are not going to take much more of this.

  11. john piccirilli wrote:
    “take away wind and solar would anyone notice?”

    Maybe. When those ugly turbines are dismantled and hauled away to restore the beautiful environments in which there were erected.

  12. In reply to CG (Catholic Glasses). There is talk amongst my local Jesuits that Francis is likely to bring down an encyclical acknowledging climate science and demanding that Catholics work to abate CO2 emissions. What kind of eye wear will you adopt if this comes to pass?

  13. Islands are just mountains under the ocean. They have their own gravitational fields which regulate the height of coastal waters. The average height of the ocean doesn’t matter.

  14. .…….supplied jet and convoy fuel in a war zone to the US military. … be changing, with the war in Iraq over and the conflict in Afghanistan winding ……..

    Yea and the climate change folks that go to all of these conferences want to spend that much per year on climate change mitigation that won’t do anything but line pockets around the world for their friends.

  15. dennisearlbaker August 25, 2014 at 7:42 pm
    without a single visible benefit for suffering tax-payers.

    Funny how the alleged “tax payer” aka Oil Companies don’t pay taxes they receive subsidies!
    —-

    The “subsidies” you refer to are (almost totally) accelerated amortization of capital expenditures. These are available to to all businesses, up to a certain limit. Google Section 179 IRS code to find out more.

    These types of economic incentives were key parts of both TARP and Obama’s Economic Stimulus Package. In the long term they are revenue (tax collection) neutral. They simply shift the deduction for tax purposes forward, but do not reduce or change the amount of tax liability.

  16. Viv is a good letter writer, his name appears frequently in Australia’s dailies.

    I just hope that this one did not get edited down like mine do.

  17. “Cui bono?” The financiers of the farce of global warming are the dynastic families of Europe by WWF, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations with the agendas of the UN and UNESCO and by politicians from the former East Germany and Russia by Greenpeace.
    Brazil is the useful-idiot, which elected a communist government that serves these groups. These communists are destroying the most productive, inexpensive and fertile agriculture existing in the world. By being located a region of tropical-humid climate, farms suffers with international NGOs Lobby for the demarcation of these lands with “indigenous” forest reserves, which become prohibited for agriculture lands that has the size of many European countries combined.

    [Duplicate post, duplicated user_id. Please chose one, then use only one. .mod]

  18. “Cui bono?” The financiers of the farce of global warming are the dynastic families of Europe by WWF, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations with the agendas of the UN and UNESCO and by politicians from the former East Germany and Russia by Greenpeace.
    Brazil is the useful-idiot, which elected a communist government that serves these groups. These communists are destroying the most productive, inexpensive and fertile agriculture existing in the world. By being located a region of tropical-humid climate, farms suffers with international NGOs Lobby for the demarcation of these lands with “indigenous” forest reserves, which become prohibited for agriculture lands that has the size of many European countries combined.

    [Duplicate post, duplicated user_id. Please chose one, then use only one. .mod]

  19. dennisearl,

    In addition to the IRS 179 rules that Reg mentioned, the subsidies that are often counted towards oil are those that oil rich countries such as Venezuela and Quatar give to their own citizens. These are not necessary to keep the fossil fuel industry going as are wind, solar subsidies but are instead (depending on one’s view) either perks of living in an oil rich country or “bribes” to keep the citizen’s happy so they don’t overthrow their autocratic leaders.

    I agree with you that the US needs to get out of the wars they are in now and stop interfering in things we don’t have any control over. Many politically connected businesses and people get rich during wars. But they are not good for the economy as you will notice that stock markets go down when wars begin. It’s kind of a stretch to call a war an oil subsidy though. As fossil fuels power the economy, you could call almost anything an oil subsidy using your definition. Since wind and solar need backup fossil fuel plants, you could call wind and solar subsidies “oil subsidies”. Any highway spending, you could call an “oil subsidy”.

  20. phillipbratby
    August 25, 2014 at 11:18 pm

    “Didn’t somebody add up the total cost of the Copenhagen fiasco?”

    It was only a fiasco if you think they had any intention of doing anything useful, Philip.

    Aside from deciding the date and place of their next five-star p1ss-up, obviously!

    You don’t think these people actually want to put themselves out of business, surely?

  21. catweazle666
    August 26, 2014 at 5:02 am
    “It was only a fiasco if you think they had any intention of doing anything useful, Philip.”

    It was a fiasco for them. Carting 20,000 radicalized Green Youth shouting down all non-aligned voices, storming conference rooms, reminded many of the end of the Weimar republic. A picture that the Eurocrats probably didn’t intend. They haven’t repeated that stunt since then. I would love to know who had the idea, and what job they gave him after Copenhagen.

  22. Well said! This con job needs to ended right now and climate change units in government closed for good. We have been adapting and mitigating against the weather and climate for hundreds of years, no need for special committees, departments et al.

  23. This entire scam was designed to benefit the fabulous few who sucked in government grants not only for salaries but also for high-living. The scheme includes academics getting grants, publishing in peer-buddy journals, concluding “it’s worse than we thought; we need more money”, politicians feeding more to them to show how serious they are about climate change, etc. it’s quite a collection of rent seekers. The benefits of belonging to this liars club are enormous. Now they are being exposed like cockroaches in the kitchen when a light is turned on.

  24. Like any good bureaucratic committee, they soon established sub-committees…
    ————
    Bureaucracy is like a breeder reactor – it creates more bureaucracy.

    The half life of Ob is gonna last a long time I’m afraid.

  25. You are mistaken when they think that the issue is purely financial.
    The question has always been about GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.
    There was no agreement at the Copenhagen fiasco, because Agenda 21 has already been used in the West in its fullness, and the creators of the movement was to celebrate the successes of Agenda 21 as:
    Profound behavioral change of people (learning to live in scarcity and watching each other);
    Population control policies (sterilization, abortion and euthanasia).
    Demarcation of vast tracts of arable land as forest biosphere reserves, indigenous lands and lands of native populations.

    There are only a few agenda items 21 to be achieved as the demilitarization of the police and civilian disarmament.

    They do not care more about the term “global warming”, which has already been by themselves emptied of its ancient symbolic content and changed to the term pleonastic “climate change.”

  26. How many functions of government could be performed via Skype, Go-To-Meeting or other internet-based, collaborative solutions? Imagine how much less expensive and more accountable our Congress, for example, could be if they stayed in their districts and worked remotely instead of flying back and forth to Washington all the time?

  27. Very nice, Viv.
    The trail leads back farther than 1992, to the Villach meetings in the eighties, the Club of Rome reports in the seventies and Carson’s “Silent Spring” awakening before that, all put to use of the Maurice Strong and his UNEP team.

    But we are – as usual – preaching to the converted. In this time of starting doubt about the IPCC’s projections we should try to get this sort of message into the larger media.

    We have had some success with it in cooperation with several PR companies that distribute to media all over the world, but it must be done with original and referenced material.
    It is not how science should be distributed but it is the way the world works.

  28. How many bills must a man pay down
    Before you call him oppressed ?
    How many blades must a white dove dodge
    Before she’s sliced into bits?
    Yes, how many times must the rotor blades fly
    Before they’re forever banned ?
    The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Yes, how many years can a Wind Tower exist
    Before it’s dumped in the sea ?
    Yes, how many years can some people exist
    Before they’re allowed to be free ?
    Yes, how many times can the Government ignore
    crimes that they just do not see ?
    The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    Yes, how many times must a man look up
    Before he can see the sky ?
    Yes, how many ears must one man have
    Before he can hear turbines cry ?
    Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows
    That too many raptors have died ?
    The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
    The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

    With apologies to Bob Dylan…

Comments are closed.