Finally somebody comes right out and says it: climate + world governance is a match made in green heaven

Manhattan Beach, USA

Protesting for world climate governance - Manhattan Beach, USA (Photo credit: 350.org)

To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers.

Skeptics get scoffed at when we say the burdensome regulations that have been and have been sought to be imposed by the alarm over global warming are just a tool to secure a larger governance control. In today’s society, if you control how energy is generated, used, and tax, you pretty much control the modern world. People will do almost anything to keep that computer, iPhone, and electric heat and appliances.

Now in Scientific American, one writer just lays it all out for us to see, pulling no punches.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm.

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

Unfortunately, far more is needed. To be effective, a new set of institutions would have to be imbued with heavy-handed, transnational enforcement powers. There would have to be consideration of some way of embracing head-in-the-cloud answers to social problems that are usually dismissed by policymakers as academic naivete. In principle, species-wide alteration in basic human behaviors would be a sine qua non, but that kind of pronouncement also profoundly strains credibility in the chaos of the political sphere. Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow? Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries? How do we create new institutions with enforcement powers way beyond the current mandate of the U.N.? Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?

Read it all here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

This guy is surely one of those that drove me to cancel my subscription to SA!

JDN2

No matter what the UN does, or attempts to do, China, India and Brazil will just keep on chugging along and spewing who knows what into the atmosphere. And everyone knows it.

Ted G

Are the reeducation camps and the Ministry of Truth big enough? Forced marches, Jack booted green enforcers and so called western democratic governments lining up to sign up for this. YES, Obama, the EU collective and the present government in Australia immediately comes to mind. The trouble is extreme left or right wing governments are as hard on the people as each other. and the right to live a peaceful life should be sacrosanct. When will we learn that governing from the center is always the best option for mankind, warts and all!!!!!

crosspatch

I think I ended my subscription with them in 2006 or 2007. I started referring to them as “Scientific” American but I guess these days they have devolved to Scientific “American”.
It’s sad as it was a pretty fine science magazine back in the day.

Dan in California

I just got back from the beach. It’s still there. No Star Trek universe transnational government needed to sweep back the sea level rise because there hasn’t been any since I started going there 50 years ago.

Louis

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer.”
Was that an intended pun? Social engineering is indeed the “killer”! Haven’t we already been down that road with Stalin, Mao, and Hitler? Putting politicians in charge of enforcing “science” is never a good idea. At best, it will end up forcing science into the dark ages to preserve the status quo. And, at worst, it will end up in mass slaughter.

oMan

Stix really believes this. That’s scary. On the other hand, he’s so in love with his notion that he has lost any sense of proportion, which makes his advocacy much less credible. That tends to happen to people who have tuned out any fact or argument that might weaken their belief or put them to real intellectual effort. True believers self-destruct.

Meanwhile in Syria and a dozen other hotspots (of a different kind) in the world.

John F. Hultquist

A perfect explanation of why we are bitter and want to cling to our guns.
[some words in the above have been borrowed from Barack Obama]

“Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
——————————————————————————————————————
Yes, Oceania comes to mind. The author of this can find his blueprint in “1984”.

Louis

When you have scientists, professors, and the media all clamoring to establish a world government to protect the climate, it spells trouble. Now all that is needed is a powerful religious figure to add to the chorus. Oh wait, that’s already happened:
“…the protection of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly…”
“…to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority…”
— POPE BENEDICT XVI,Jul 6, 2009, Charity in Truth

John West

I thought journalists were trained to think critically:
Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte?”
http://worldsciencefestival.com/participants/gary_stix
WUWT?

Keith Minto

Gary Stix is the author and I can find no further qualifications other than ‘journalist and author’. This apparently is enough to qualify to be Senior editor at SA.
I am still steaming at this gibberish. Another screwy offering from our Sydney Morning Herald, that attempts to demolish sceptics, Heartland, the Galileo Movement, and then has the cheek to say we need to prioritise science over politics. All this from a lecturer in public policy and politics and whose doctoral thesis examined the role of neo-liberal ideology in Australia.
I note the SA article produced a backlash in comments, deservedly so.

David Ross

“It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. ”
True on so many levels. And a killer quote.

gregole

Nice to know he is looking out for our best interests. /sarc
But may I ask, what ever happened to global warming?

Remember, this is ALL based on 0.7 degrees C warming over the last 150+ years, and a bunch of computer models programmed by advocates. The “Age of Information” has becime the “Age of Disinformation,” and we are all the poorer for it…

Truthseeker

I think that the UN is already trying to make this happen through international legistlation …
http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/EPLP-031-rev3.pdf
I am not fluent enough in legal-speak to be sure how binding this will be on sovereign states …

Joachim Seifert

In two years time we will cross the psychological threshold of 400 ppmv in CO2
and only a meager 160 ppm increase is left until the Day of Reckoning, when
Earth will be unlivable……
I like to buy some real estate where the future world government will reside …..
…….Geneva is already expensive, I prefer Kasachstan or Turcmenistan (places with
an …stan on end) but another good place for me would be Micronesia, there are
good solid atolls about….Each visitor has to bring a bag of sand as sustainable
contribution as 20 kilos suitcase …..
JS

Allan MacRae

Excerpt below, from an article written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.
Please note that this article was written by Moore in 1994.
The Berlin Wall fell on November 9, 1989.
The Earth Summit in Rio occurred just 2 1/2 years later, in June 1992.
Twenty three years after the Fall of the Wall…
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale (and Global Warming) unites the human race.
So comrades, come rally
And the last fight let us face
The Internationale (and Global Warming) unites the human race.
🙂
___________________________________________________________
http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3
The Rise of Eco-Extremism
Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.
Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:
• It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.
• It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tragedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.
• It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are criticized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?
• It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – – too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is absurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.
• It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are successful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.
• It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.
• It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.
***************

John Trigge

No doubt Gary Stix would readily volunteer (and expect) to be one of the architects of the social change and hence would not be subject to the ‘radical solutions on the social side’.
As with most people who advocate radical changes to society, they are not willing to be the first in line. Euthanasia/suicide is available to those who wish for a smaller population but they don’t line up to start the process. Those that want more control over resources don’t seem to want to limit their own use and even argue that they need to fly around the world to deliver their message without acknowledging the hypocrisy of doing so (Al, put your hand up).
‘Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?’ – As Louis points out – YES! Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler – insert your own crazy, freedom-hating, megalomanic dictator here.
‘Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?’ – Stix needs to look in the mirror when asking this as he is sounding like the very thing he is asking about.

John Bills

The Green Movement’s True Colors: green on the outside and red on the inside.
Watermelons as James Dellingpole calls them.

Carlos

This is fascism, plain and simple.

pat

World Science Festival: Gary Stix: Senior Editor, Scientific American
Gary Stix commissions, writes, and edits features, news articles and Web blogs for Scientific American. His area of coverage is neuroscience. He also has frequently been the issue or section editor for special issues or reports on topics ranging from nanotechnology to obesity. He has worked for nearly 20 years at Scientific American, following three years as a science journalist at IEEE Spectrum, the flagship publication for the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. He has an undergraduate degree in journalism from New York University. With his wife, he wrote a general primer on technology called Who Gives a Gigabyte?
http://worldsciencefestival.com/participants/gary_stix
for those able to listen to BBC, which it seems is possible at this link.
this program, along the same lines as Stix, was on BBC World Sce Business programe last nite. listening to BBC’s Peter Day encourage/contribute to this nonsense is painful. it would seem we are in a new phase of CAGW PR:
BBC World Service: Global Business with Peter Day
Peter Day hears from Alan Moore author of No Straight Lines: making sense of our non-linear world and asks him ‘what next’ for the industrialised world.
In his book he argues that the industrialised world is facing the combined problems of social, organisational and economic complexity.
In this edition of Global Business he tells Peter Day how No Straight Lines interprets the disruptive trends shaping our world and how companies can address the challenges and move onwards and upwards.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p00ph35n/Global_Business_No_Straight_Lines/

David Ross

“Would any institution be capable of instilling a permanent crisis mentality lasting decades, if not centuries?”
Eh…you mean like fire, brimstone, fear of an apocalypse.
or
Fighting sabateurs, splittists, deviantists, reactionaries, counter-revolutionaries.
or
Blaming all the failures of your utopia on an often vulnerable or arbitrary minority[, or deniers,] or the 1%.
NOTE: I made an edit in [brackets] since your wording might push some buttons like what happened on the other thread – Anthony

“Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
As the saying goes, that’s not a bug, that’s a Feature!

AJB

Same sort of delusional crap at the Guardian … and similar comments.
How Rio+20 can herald a constitutional moment

Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?
No, we cannot do that.

Q. Daniels

What would John Galt do?

Dave Wendt

It only took this cluck 30 years to figure this out. It has been the plan all along. It’s why arguing the science with these creeps from the UN has always been pointless. “Climate Science” has always been just the magician’s buxom, scantily clad assistant flouncing about the stage to distract the pigeons from from what is really happening. It’s why the focus for Rio has moved from the climate catastrophe loser to the even more ephemeral and ambiguous “Sustainability” which can be manipulated to justify almost anything they care to attempt. This stuff has been obvious from before the time when they got around to publishing Agenda 21, although if wanted to know about it you were always on your own because all those hard working “investigative journalists” couldn’t be bothered to do a simple Google search.

wermet

Everyday my faith in humankind seems to drop a little lower… 🙁
We have fought wars against tyranny, fascism, communism, slavery, racism and encroachment of freedom. What is wrong with us now? Why are we so unwilling to stand against this brainless nonsense and its blatant power grab? Can we really not see that this is a battle we must fight for our sakes as well as the future of our children?

pat

AJB –
thee Guardian article by Biermann and Bernstein mentions the ICSU-sponsored Planet Under Pressure conference in London later this month. here is a partial list of Plenary Speakers & Panelists:
Planet Under Pressure 2012
26-29 March 2012 London
Plenary Speakers and Panelists
John Beddington
UK Chief Scientific Advisor
Jeremy Bentham
Royal Dutch Shell plc
Frank Biermann
VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Richard Black
BBC
Yvo de Boer
KPMG, The Netherlands
Georgina Mace
Imperial College London, UK
Lord Martin Rees
Past President, The Royal Society, UK
Mark Stafford-Smith
CSIRO, Australia
Will Steffen
Australian National University, Australia
Achim Steiner
United Nations Environment Programme
Sir Bob Watson
Department of Environment and Rural Affairs and University of East Anglia, UK, on behalf of the Blue Planet Laureates
http://www.planetunderpressure2012.net/
think Rio.

David Ross

CLIMATEGATE EMAILS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Climategate Email 0889554019.txt 10 Mar 1998
From: Anne JOHNSON
To: [multiple agencies]
Subject: new IPCC-SRES Zero Order Draft
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0889554019.txt&search=governance
[…]
Zero Order Draft
IS99 Storylines and Scenarios
February, 1998
Ged Davis et al
For Comment Only
Draft Paper for the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios
[…]
1.1 What are scenarios?
Scenarios are pertinent, plausible, alternative futures.
[…]
The scenarios we have built explore two main questions for the 21st
century, neither of which we know the answer to:
– Can adequate governance — institutions and agreements — be put in place
to manage global problems?
– Will society’s values focus more on enhancing material wealth or be more
broadly balanced, incorporating environmental health and social well-being.
The way we answer these questions leads to four families of scenarios:
– Golden Economic Age (A1): a century of expanded economic prosperity with
the emergence of global governance.
[…]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Climategate Email 1265.txt 21 Nov 2000
from: “Institute for Global Futures Research (IGFR)”
subject: Global Futures Bulletin #118
to: (Recipient list suppressed)
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1265.txt&search=democr
REVOLUTION (PART 3/3)
REACTIONARY RESPONSE TO A NEW REVOLUTION
In considering the possibility of a major political revolution, it is
necessary to consider the prospect of a counter-revolutionary
response. To what extent are conscious, coherent and possibly
centralised agencies working to derail the growing revolutionary
movement ? Afterall, the future of capitalism may be at stake.
It is likely that a majority of those engaged in the proto-revolution are
seeking major reforms of capitalism rather than the overthrow of
capitalism. This is because alternatives to the current capitalist world
system have not been clearly articulated (unlike with previous Marxist
revolutionary movements). Also, disillusionment with experiments in
state socialism in the Soviet Union and China is still strong.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Climategate Email 2919.txt Apr 19 2001
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: Cross section of climate opinions
to: “Simon Torok”
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=2919.txt&search=democratic
[…]
Our late 20th century democratic process however is not well suited to
finding and implementing solutions to very (in political terms) long-term
problems such as climate change management.
[…]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IPCC OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IPCC-SRES
Emissions Scenarios
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=91
4.2. SRES Scenario Taxonomy
4.2.1. Storylines
[…]
The writing team spent the better part of the first year (1997) formulating the storylines…
[…]
Box 4-2: “Neutrality” of the SRES Scenarios The SRES scenarios are intended to exclude catastrophic futures. Such catastrophic futures feature prominently in the literature. They typically involve large-scale environmental or economic collapses, and extrapolate current unfavorable conditions and trends in many regions. Prominent examples of such scenarios include … “A Passive Mean World” (Glenn and Gordon, 1997, 1999). In this last scenario the world is carved up into three rigid and distinct trading blocs, with fragmented political boundaries and out-of-control ethnic conflicts.
[…]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A “world…carved up into three rigid and distinct trading blocs” you mean like Orwell’s 1984?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[…]
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=93
4.3.1. A1 Storyline and Scenario Family
[…]
In the A1 scenario family, demographic and economic trends are closely linked, as affluence is correlated with long life and small families (low mortality and low fertility). Global population grows to some nine billion by 2050 and declines to about seven billion by 2100.
[…]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Where the hell did two billion people go in the space of fifty years!!!?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4.3.3. B1 Storyline and Scenario Family
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/sres/emission/index.php?idp=94
The central elements of the B1 future are a high level of environmental and social consciousness combined with a globally coherent approach to a more sustainable development.
[…]
The “Ecologically Driven” scenarios by WEC (1993) and IIASA-WEC (Nakic?enovic? et al., 1998) – with accelerated efficiency improvements in resource use – share several of the characteristics of the B1 type of future, as does the egalitarian utopia scenario in the TARGETS approach (Rotmans and de Vries, 1997).
[…]
A strong welfare net prevents social exclusion on the basis of poverty. However, counter-currents may develop and in some places people may not conform to the main social and environmental intentions of the mainstream in this scenario family.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
“Counter-currents may develop and…people may not conform” -you can count on it.

Louis

Carlos says:
This is fascism, plain and simple.

Yes. And it makes you wonder why anyone in the free world would desire to live in such a society. Why would they want to give up freedom so easily to a dictator they can only hope is benevolent? Only the ruling class could be happy in their “utopia.” Then it dawned on me. These people don’t expect to live in such a society; they plan to rule over it.

Rosco

Send the little Hitler round to my place and I’ll give him a damn good thrashing to re-educate him and demonstrate the humanity of the totalitarian “utopia” he seems to think can exist.
Unlike facists of his ilk I promise not to extract the extreme penalty.

pat

Yeah. First lets have the catastrophe.

Gary Hladik

“Some of the things that would need to be contemplated: How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?”
Hmm. I guess the old saying will become “a bird in the hand is worth 0.61523 in the bush.” And I suppose hookers will no longer want the money up front. Hey, maybe I can tell the tax man to wait for his money! This has possibilities… 🙂

Rosco

Send the little Hitler round to my place and I’ll give him a damn good thrashing – simply to demonstrate how totalitarian regimes function you understand !
These people are a joke – how do they intend to decide who dies and when the genocide is necessary??
How do they live with themselves ??
[Moderator’s Note: they both got caught in the spam filter. Patience is good. Sometimes repetition is worthwhile. -REP]

u.k.(us)

Second Amendment – Bearing Arms
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
===================
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II

Roger Carr

It would be enlightening to know just what position Gary Stix sees himself holding in such a new order.

LazyTeenager

But, but, I thought it was you climate skeptic guys working to establish world government.
After all at the moment there is no real incentive to establish a world government. Everything is peaceful and happy the way things are.
To establish a world government is going to take a multinational crisis to occur. The most likely crisis is severe, damaging and obvious climate change requiring draconian measures.
This is most likely to be the situation if action is left til the last minute.
So what kind of world government are you guys aiming for?

Anon
pat

stop it before they’ve looted our last dollar…
19 March: Daily Mail: Tom Leonard: Broken down and rusting, is this the future of Britain’s ‘wind rush’?
Broken promises: The rusting wind turbines of Hawaii
A breathtaking sight awaits those who travel to the southernmost tip of Hawaii’s stunningly beautiful Big Island, though it’s not in any guidebook. On a 100-acre site, where cattle wander past broken ‘Keep Out’ signs, stand the rusting skeletons of scores of wind turbines.
Just a short walk from where endangered monk seals and Hawksbill turtles can be found on an unspoilt sandy beach, a technology that is supposed to be about saving the environment is instead ruining it…
Yet the 27-year-old Kamaoa Wind Farm remains a relic of the boom and inglorious bust of America’s so-called ‘wind rush’, the world’s first major experiment in wind energy.
At a time when the EU and the British Government are fully paid-up evangelists for wind power, the lesson from America — and the ghostly hulks on this far-flung coast — should be a warning of their folly…
But most importantly for the scrum of investors who were thrusting their snouts into the trough, there was the extraordinary generosity of the government.
Between 1981 and 1985, federal and state subsidies in California were so favourable that investors could recover 50 per cent of the cost of a wind turbine.
Even better, the amount they were paid for their electricity was tied to the price of oil, which had shot through the roof…
Not to put too fine a point on it, for some wind energy investors it was simply a tax scam.
But as tends to happen with a business that is driven by financial incentives, it lasted only as long as the subsidies…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2116877/Is-future-Britains-wind-rush.html

Goldie

Lunacy, these people really don’t get it – they actually need to offer something now apart from a Jack boot or whatever the Marxist equivalent of one is. Consider what would have happened if these bozos were in charge of the problem of removing waste pollution problems related to horses prior to the introduction of the motor car – instead of ending up with motor cars we’d still be trying to get people to use their horses less.
Two years ago, nobody used a tablet for anything, now practically eveyone is using them.
20 years ago nobody used mobile phones and barely anyone had heard of the internet.
30 years ago barely anyone used PCs
Behaviour change is easy when you have something atractive on offer, but impossible if you want to treat people like morons.

Lazy,
That governs best which governs least, and you are a certifiable lunatic.

Claude Harvey

The political aspect of AGW has always been crystal clear. The left likes where it takes us and the right does not. In my experience, most of the non-scientific proponents and skeptics (present company excepted) don’t know beans about the truth or fiction of the science involved and do not care. That’s the fundamental nature of politics and should surprise no one. The tragedy from which we may be a long time recovering is the wholesale corruption of large segments of the scientific community by vested financial and professional interest (no mystery there and its an old, old story) and by the infusion of political motives. The politically driven corruption of large segments of the scientific community is a relatively recent (over past 30 years) development from my observation and has its roots in “environmentalism as a religion” movement where “good” is an article of faith and whatever means are required to achieve that good are justified.
We may be witnessing the passing of “The Age of Reason”.

ImranCan

Apart from the Lenin-esque type of language …. indeed lets alter society for soem defined greater good …… we all know how that worked out last time !!
But this sentence really got me : “How do we overcome our hard-wired tendency to “discount” the future: valuing what we have today more than what we might receive tomorrow?”
Overturing centuries of basic economic principles ….. !! Such complete and utter socio- bollocks.

EJ

A little bit of this and a tad more of that. Then we can end climate change. Vote for him, not her, and we can end climate change.
It is so simple, why didn’t we think of that?

“Could we ensure against a malevolent dictator who might abuse the power of such organizations?”
—————————————–
Stix would happily be just that dictator. If not him, another would surely rise to assume that role.
The greens are a scary lot!

DBCooper

Absolutely beyond belief!
How can anyone be that stupid?