Every once in awhile a window opens and shows us the dark, illogical souls of the bureaucrats in the climate cabal. This is one of those times.
Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.
There’s more.
Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?.
These are the views of the EU climate commissioner, Connie Hedegaard.
Read it all here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
h/t to Dennis Wingo, and many others.
The motto of the World’s Leftists in a nutshell, “Even if the FACTS prove we wrong about the issue, we were still morally correct in pursuing it.”
– – – – – – – –
Allan MacRae,
Thank you for compiling those quotes.
John
Somehow these people have got the idea that fossil fuels per se are bad and evil–the modern original sin. If the “other” reason to not use coal was pollution, they should be thrilled about natural gas: no particulates (soot), half the CO2, 1/7 the N and S pollution, and cheaper also. What could be better?
@ur momisugly kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney
Delusional twits – tweedle dee and tweedle dumb, why don’t you take an objective look at the historic cost chart of solar and wind (with or without subsidies) and extrapolate to the future – what do you see?
@ur momisugly kadaka (KD Knoebel) & richardscourtney
Then while you’re at it take a look at the historic chart of oil, and compare to solar and wind, picture getting any clearer for you now?
SideShowBob says:
September 17, 2013 at 1:25 am
Nothing wrong with Europeans moving away from Russian oil and gas
===============
Why not mandate limits to Russian oil and gas imports rather than mandates to CO2? If energy security is your goal, then why the need to dress it up as saving the world?
After all, it was the Europeans that made the decision to buy Russian oil and gas. If they were worried about security of supply, why not simply say no? Why risk having a Russian knife at your throat every winter? Surely that is much more dangerous than a slowly warming climate.
Anyone compute how much solar energy is removed from the atmosphere by solar devices? Would that be considered a negative forcing? It must remove some.
I got about 20 comments into the comments section of the Telegraph article. My god these people are religious zelots. Dear lord. This is not over …… not by a long, long long shot.
Tom
Who is Connie Hedegaard? Let us see. According to Wikipedia she is:
‘Connie Hedegaard holds an MA in Literature and History. She has been a member of the Conservative Party and active in government on and off since 1984, when she was elected as the hitherto youngest member of the Folketing, the Danish national parliament, where she sat for six years.[6] In 1990, she left politics to pursue a career in journalism. Over the next 14 years, she worked as a journalist at the newspaper Berlingske Tidende, took the post of Director of DR Radio News, and was the anchor for Deadline, a Danish TV news program.’
Ah, so our dear bureaucrat was … a journalist. Well, what a noble profession that has shown itself to be. I particularly like the way those hard charging, truth gathering, fact finding, holding-governments-and-government officials’-feet-to-the-fire, professional journalists have diligently avoided developing cozy, revolving door relationships with those very same governments they seek to hold accountable. Except when they haven’t diligently avoided it. And, lo and behold, our former journalist, and now government official, Connie Hedegaard, has done the proper thing to do, as the above describes, and dispensed any ethical concerns, and charged right on in to that revolving door. It’s nice to know that the free West has maintained a free press.
Might I suggest that the TV news station that Connie Hedegaard anchored for, ‘Deadline,’ may more accurately describe itself with a name such as, ‘Bottom Line.’ Or, if it wishes to predict the future of societies that listen to its climate and energy nonsense, it might describe itself with a name such as, ‘Flatline.’
@Konrad: Very very good.
So no need for subsidies soon?
PS: Don’t forget to look at the chart for natural gas.
I am a life long / contining part-time student of the premises of the most fundamental concepts and of arguments associated with them, my real love . . .
I think the premise at the root of Hedegaard’s statement and of all the other people’s statements in the compilation provided by Allan MacRae (on September 17, 2013 at 2:25 am) is well known.
The premise has been identified often at skeptical venues.
I think the premise is a dislike for mankind’s capacity to know nature and dislike of using it for promoting well being. For those people who dislike it, controlling mankind’s capacity is the solution.
You might reasonably ask me why do they have that premise; isn’t there some deeper premise? That is what I am a student of . . . . seeing how far down the
turtlespremises go.My thought on a deeper premise is that it is envy. Those people who productively use mankind’s knowing capacity to successfully produce wealthy achievement are envied by those who don’t use man’s knowing capacity in that way.
There even might be a deeper premise below envy. It might be fear of others who know by those who don’t.
And so on and so forth . . .
John
Global warming activism (now called climate change activism… until a more politically convenient name is needed) is little more that a philosophical and political movement based on Malthusian thinking; activists object to human wealth on a moral basis, because they believe that wealth is a product of the availability of raw materials, or if you prefer, “exploitation of Nature by man”. The idea that restricting wealth is “a good thing” has been around for a very long time, and it is not going to go away any time soon; it has nothing to do with the probability or size of consequences from global warming, and everything to do with a desire to restrict economic growth, and even drastically reduce existing material wealth. The simultaneous opposition by green (Mathusian) activists to both nuclear power and fossil fuel based power is the logical consequence; sincere concern about emissions of CO2 would logically lead to strong support for nuclear power… that it almost always associated with strong opposition to nuclear power is telling. The more extreme believers in the Malthusian POV take it one step further and call for both vast reductions in wealth and vast reductions in human population (to preserve ‘Nature’ in a condition similar to what it would be absent a large human population).
Those who are most strongly opposed to global warming/green/Malthusian activism believe that wealth is primarily the product of human knowledge, investment, and most of all, the availability of inexpensive energy. This group can be called cornucopian optimists, and believe humanity is morally obliged to help poor people to become more wealthy to reduce disease and suffering, and to improve their quality of life. Cheap energy, combined with human knowledge, is the ultimate solution to the Malthusian argument: unless we start rocketing vast quantities of Earth’s surface off into space, there is no real limit on available raw materials, since nothing is physically leaving the Earth’s surface, no matter the level of human economic activity or human population. There really are no plausible raw material based physical ‘limits to growth’; the only real limit is the energy needed to convert existing materials, whatever their form or concentration, into useful products.
If political efforts by Mathusians to restrict energy use and increase its cost are successful, then exactly the kinds of ‘limits to growth’ that Malthusians have always argued are inevitable will in fact, and for the first time, become inevitable… a perfect self-fulfilling prophecy… and that inevitability will extend to large reductions in global wealth and continued poverty for many. This is and has always been the desired outcome for Malthusians.
Malthusians have considerable influence in the governments of most developed economies (Mr Obama’s science adviser Dr. Holdren is an outspoken Malthusian, and has been for 40+ years!), and they consistently try to and use the levers of government power to advance their philosophy. Malthusians dominate academia (consider where most climate research is being done), while conucopians are rare… and mostly shouted down if they dare voice their opinion. Conucopians currently have much less influence in government, if only because their inclination to promote growth and wealth requires a more-or-less free market economy…. and that is inconsistent with the extensive government control over private activities, and large scale redistribution of wealth, desired by the political left. It is the nexus of leftist politics and Malthusian/environmental philosophy which magnifies the potential economic damage which could take place due to global warming hysteria. The political reality is that people (aka voters), if given a choice, will almost always choose to be wealthy instead of poor; there is a natural political support for the conucopian POV. Malthusains understand this, and so use “environmental catastrophes” to demand that people not vote in their own best economic interest.
The outcome of the political struggle between Malthusians and cornucopians will ultimately be decided at the ballot box. The global warming debate, is, and always has been, more a political and philosophical disagreement than a disagreement about science. The specific issue of projections of ‘catastrophic warming’ may be (and I strongly suspect will be) shown by reality to be a gross overstatement within the next decade or so, and ultimately projections of warming will become more realistic and not catastrophic. But that will not in any way end the debate, because there is no limit to the number of potential environmental catastrophes which are (constantly!) postulated. Malthusians have been around for a long time, and they are not going to disappear any time soon; all I can hope for is that they become much less influential in government, so that future economic growth is not reduced too much.
And that depends on how we vote.
SideShowBob, if renewables can reliably produce cheap energy without more subsidy than other forms of energy generation then I would wholeheartedly support them. Who wouldn’t?
If.
But, so far the combined wisdom of the world – expressed through the market – states that they cannot reliably produce cheap energy without more subsidy than other forms of energy generation.
SideShowBob:
Your post at September 17, 2013 at 6:52 am says in total
I am familiar with the data you want me to “take a look at”.
Importantly, the issue is very clear to me; i.e. you are a shill for Big Wind.
Please read my above post addressed to you at September 17, 2013 at 3:32 am. It may help you to get a clue. This link jumps to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/17/quote-of-the-week-the-recasting-of-the-argument-begins/#comment-1419170
Richard
I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices, I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.
In a world with nine billion people, even 10 billion at the middle of this century, where literally billions of global citizens will still have to get out of poverty and enter the consuming middle classes, don’t you think that anyway it makes a lot of sense to get more energy and resource efficient.
I know I personally am not surprised by this, but it is still infuriating to hear pompous AGW zealots such as Commie Headagourd nakedly expose their real anti-human agenda of control and punishment. They wrap it up in harmless sounding terms like Sustainable Development, but as I say in my post, they only offer Sustainable Misery. They aim to make the wealthy poor and keep the poor impoverished. It will be a death sentence for tens of millions and they just don’t give a bleep. So no, it would “not have been good in any case” Ms. Headagourd and you know it as proven by your own totalitarian words you human-shaped pile of excrement. I hate to quote myself, but I think I capture it fairly well in my recent letter to National Geographic:
Under the guise of the innocuous-sounding Sustainable Development banner, this edict to de-develop developed nations and cripple the growth of developing nations will do nothing to affect climate but much to promote poverty, wealth destruction, loss of national sovereignty, energy and resource rationing, restriction of property rights, further environmental degradation, and a general continued withering of Liberty.
…Finally, to lend weight to my previous statements of fact, not conspiracy, regarding the impact of Sustainable Development, I offer figures derived by the UN, its chief promoter. If we continue upon this deviant course instead of the natural course we were following (the UN termed it the Golden Economic Age), by the year 2100 the global GDP will have contracted by $200 trillion ($350 trillion vs. $550 trillion). That equates to a 40% decrease in per capita income for developed countries and a 50% decrease in per capita income for developing countries. Read that again. Eighty percent of humanity lives in developing countries and this agenda aims to cut their projected wealth in half. Please keep that in mind whenever you hear it parroted that these efforts are primarily meant to help the poor. They do the exact opposite and instead will ensure that poverty is unforgivably sustained for the world’s poorest. I conclude with my earlier premise that those propagating this agenda wish only to control and punish humanity. When enough people awaken to that reality, this backward opposition to humanity’s natural course of development, this Golden Economic Age, will be swept aside. My advice to you is to join us to that end, or step aside.
No.
There are some German companies that are relocating. If one gets higher unemployment and yet you were wrong, how can that be right?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/merkel-s-switch-to-renewables-rising-energy-prices-endanger-german-industry-a-816669.html
Patrick Hadley says:
September 17, 2013 at 2:45 am
The irony is that EU policy is wrong even if the climate scientists are right.
______________________________________________________________
Brilliant. I love it when irony is highlighted.
However, on a more sombre note, this all means that her definition of “good” is radically different than ours.
Apples vs. oranges. Solar and wind provide electric power and thus must be compared to natural gas, nuclear, or coal, not to oil, of which only 1% produces electric power.
As a quick follow-up to my previous post, I was reminded of that old quote from the Vietnam War. With a slight edit, it captures Ms. Headagourd’s anti-human philosophy fairly well:
We had to destroy the economy in order to save it.
Or:
We had to destroy humanity in order to save it.
We must act now even if we’re wrong. There are many more of them harboring doubts but prefer to remain silent lest they be called the “D” word.
“Regardless of whether or not scientists are wrong on global warming, the European Union is pursuing the correct energy policies even if they lead to higher prices, Europe’s climate commissioner has said.”
I am so grateful to Ms. Hedegaard for informing me that “the correct energy policies” have nothing to do with climate science and always have had nothing to do with it. I am sure that she will now stop backing or promoting climate science because she knows that it is irrelevant to her job as energy commissioner.
Now, Ms. Hedegaard, what are “the correct energy policies” and what are your reasons for them? In addition, why are higher prices for energy not a reason against some energy policies? Are you planning to compensate energy users for higher prices?
@Swiss Bob says:
“Most of these apparatchiks are communists, which should tell you everything you need to know. Can’t quite understand why the US Govt loves the EU so much…..”
That’s because the head of our government is a closet communist, although no one in his party will admit it, and no one wants to impeach the guy for fear of being called “raaaascist.” Communism has always been about totalitarian control and collectivism – the subordination of the individual’s wants, needs and creative energies to the wants and needs of the collective. The “collective good,” however, has always just been a clever lie designed to persuade the masses and bring them under the control of a few political and financial elite. When you also control the media, you can define everything for everyone for whatever your purpose. Protection of the masses from their own folly by feeding them a lie about the climate has always been a perfect vehicle for collective control.
Putin was right. There is no longer anything exceptional about the US. We are no longer a country defined by individual responsibility, self-determination and the freedom of choice. We are rapidly becoming a country of people with their hands held out, expecting cradle-to-grave care-taking by government, another failed, socialist republic that will soon be the envy of no one.
Hedgie Connard…