Josh writes:
There was a debate last night at the Royal Society entitled “London’s Policy on Climate Change Should begin in Beijing“.
Event info:
If a windmill is about to blight your cherished view of the green English countryside, you might start to wonder why on earth the Department for Energy and Climate Change thinks it is a good idea to subsidise the monsters at vast cost to the British taxpayer. Why not retune some boilers in Guangdong instead? Or encourage the booming cities of China to power themselves with gas, not coal? There’s a whole raft of practical, carbon-saving steps which can be more cheaply achieved in the growing, bustling emerging world. After all, a ton of carbon saved in China is as good in global terms as a ton saved in the UK. So why ever spoil our green and pleasant land?
Hang on, though. Wasn’t the “green new deal” all about creating jobs in a new sort of economy? Making Britain a leader in an industry of the future? Not to mention making us just a little less dependent for our energy on geopolitically unstable regions of the world. Make China the focus of all our policy effort, and it will be China that reaps the knock-on benefits. Why would we realistically agree to that?
I did some sketch notes which I have put together on one page but they probably make as much sense as the title of the debate – more unintelligible than intelligent.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A fine question, above. Why bother with windmills when you can just pay China to clean up a few of their innumerable old coal-fired generators? Inquiring minds want to know.
Otter17, excellent point. That bit illustrated Malcolm Grimston calling out the Green movement. I have used a clichė to express what he said so those are not his exact words. If I can get see a playback I can make it super accurate… As long of course as it is not even more offensive. It was one of the more shocking moments during the evening, which is why I drew it big.
otter17 says:
October 22, 2011 at 3:41 pm
@ur momisugly Brian H
My masters? Who specifically are they? Are they watching me right now? :-P…..
________________________________
He is talking about those who manipulate naive activists.
Specifically??? Try JP Morgan Chase for one. It is the biggest company in the world (Forbes) It has controlled the media since 1917 (US Congressional Record) Ex PM Tony Blair will earn around £2 million a year in his part-time role as adviser and the bank has major ties to the World Bank via David Rockefeller. (Chase served as training ground for World Bank Presidents)
Then there is the World Bank. At Copenhagen the so-called Danish text, a secret draft agreement would hand effective control of climate change finance to the World Bank. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
To top it off we again find the World Bank and Al Gore (as the New Forest Co.) tossing Africans off their land. Only 10% of Africans actually hold “Legal Title” so they are in the same position as America’s Native Americans were when the Europeans tossed them off their land here in the Americas. See Anthony’s: They had to burn the village to save it from global warming: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/
One comment is
Josualdo Silva says @ur momisugly September 25, 2011 at 4:39 am
“These people are indeed on a war of extermination of life itself. Where eucalyptus are grown, nothing else will ever grown again.”
I detail exactly what he is talking about in my comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/25/they-had-to-burn-the-village-to-save-it-from-global-warming/#comment-754959
Note: Eucalyptus is very oily, a major fire hazard, an invasive mono-culture weed, sprout 20 feet in one year from a cut stump and is inedible to livestock even GOATS! No one in their right mind would plant this tree if they cared about biodiversity. However it is a great weapon for genocide of third world peasants. It is difficult to kill, spreads, soaks up water and kills off other plants thereby starving animals and humans.
HOWEVER World Bank and Al Gore will get rich in the emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits for the CO2 the trees will soak up.
@otter17: By “black carbon” do you mean soot? I don’t think anybody here is opposed to reducing actual pollution, of which soot is merely one example. There are hundreds and thousands of substances produced by industrial processes that are actually harmful to humans, animals and plants, and I’d be surprised if anyone is opposed to controlling those (within reason). Nowadays that is a mainstream viewpoint, and it makes perfect sense, even economically.
Meanwhile the green movement has gone far beyond mere pollution control. In many of its incarnations it has become a cult or religion demanding others to follow their rituals. Climate changeism is merely one example, there are other even whackyer green beliefs.
I disagree with those who equate the green movement with communism. The two have nothing in common, they are antagonists. Communism wants to maximise industrial production and make everyone wealthy (if with morally questionable means and ultimately futile). The green movement is attacking industrial production, it blames consumerism for all kinds of problems, and it will accept the decrease of wealth and the increase of poverty for those goals, in some incarnations actively strives for poverty.