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.
– – – – – – –
Craig,
I agree with your observation of net sacrifice being the result of the bad economic consequences of some ideological ’causes’ (eg CAGW & Hedegaard’s statement).
The more interesting question to me is whether, in the case of IPCC CAGWism & Hedegaard’s statement, the sacrifice is an expected / desired outcome or is it unintended. The deeper you dig into the world views of many involved
then it looks to me that such sacrifice is considered a primary, if not the primary, virtue they hold.
John
For Craig, John, William, Richard and several billion others:
More quotations from http://www.green-agenda.com/
It is truly amazing that these people actually believe they are ethical, and of above-average intelligence.
Regards, Allan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
– Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
– John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
– Christopher Manes, Earth First!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
– Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
– David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club
philjourdan says:
September 18, 2013 at 9:59 am
” No. It does not come from tax payers. All TAXES do. But NOT paying taxes is not a charge to anyone else. Period. It is not a subsidy. period.”
Same result and you know it philjourdan, it take money out of the tax pool.
This will be my last post on the matter .
Governments should not favour any industry or company (except for special interest purposes) with tax [breaks], exploration concessions or subsidies or anything other monetary or non monetary means full stop ! Companies should pay tax and stand on their own, and if they can’t do that then in the capitalist tradition they should die and make room for the true innovators. That’s the capitalist way, that’s what makes surviving companies lean and strong globally, not fat and inefficient asking for tax brakes/concessions/subsidies. What happenings in the solar PV industry while painful is good in the long run as it weeds out the weak and inefficient companies.
All tax [breaks]/concessions/subsidies should now be removed from wind, solar and fossil fuels to level the playing field. (the German case is different as they have a national interest to get off Russian energy supplies). Tough love but that the way it should be.
@Sideshowbob – NO. As an economist the difference is both critical and vast. You missed it completely. To call tax DEDUCTIONS (like the one you take on your 1040 – it is called the standard deduction) is NOT a subsidy. PERIOD. It REDUCES your tax liability. A liability that goes against YOUR EARNINGS. Same way with oil companies. The deductions they get are all in accordance with GAAP. In other words, they get to deduct COSTS before reporting (and paying taxes on) NET PROFITS.
And this:
<blockquoteGovernments should not favour any industry or company (except for special interest purposes) with tax brakes, exploration concessions or subsidies or anything other monetary or non monetary means full stop !
Is pure stupidity on your part. “should not favor” but then you write “(except for special interest purposes)”????? What do you think a “favor” is? It is the government picking winners! DUH! So you are basically saying they should do it whenever they want! Good luck with that contradiction. The old USSR was great at “picking” winners. And we saw how well that worked. As well as with the current regime and Solyndra, and 63 other “green” companies. Unfortunately, they are not “gambling” with their money. When they GIVE (the real subsidies) money to losers (pick the winners), they are giving YOUR money. Money you worked (or maybe not if you do not work) hard to EARN. The government did not earn it. Indeed, they “did not build that”.
Your economic knowledge is non existent. Stick to climate science. At least there you have some supporters, if no facts either.
SideShowBob says: September 18, 2013 at 5:18 pm
“All tax [breaks]/concessions/subsidies should now be removed from wind, solar and fossil fuels to level the playing field. (the German case is different as they have a national interest to get off Russian energy supplies). Tough love but that the way it should be.”
Perhaps surprisingly Bob, I agree with you, but here is the outcome:
All grid-connected wind and solar power schemes would be shut down, because they are hugely uneconomic. They generate NO tax revenue, and require huge consumer-funded subsidies.
In North America, all new grid-connected power generation would come from natural-gas fired power stations at current natural gas prices, which are about 20% of the price of oil on an energy-equivalent basis. Repeating, that is about 20% of, or one-fifth the price of oil. That is the huge energy-cost advantage that North America has now compared to Europe and Asia, and it is due entirely to the shale gas fracking technological revolution.
Elsewhere in the world, other forms of electrical energy-generation (typically oil, natural gas, coal, hydro and nuclear) will continue to dominate the energy mix, with tiny amounts of geo-thermal. This does not preclude future technological improvements that could improve the cost-competitiveness of alternative energy schemes, but unfortunately they are uneconomic at this time and forcing them into the power grid has wasted a trillion dollars of scarce global resources, and left us with an ugly mess to clean up.
I suggest that I understand the fiscal structure of the fossil fuel industry reasonably well. I personally co-initiated the new tax terms and initiated the new royalty terms that revitalized the Canadian oilsands industry, now the economic mainstay of the Canadian economy, the strongest in the G8. See http://www.OilsandsExpert.com
There are two main fiscal terms systems for oil and gas in the world: tax-royalty is one, typically favoured in the Western world, and Production Sharing is the other, typically favoured in the Muslim World. In both cases, there is a tendency to initially enable the investor to recover his costs while the government takes a lower share of profits, and then the government share increases substantially, sometimes to as much as 80% of profits.
That right – the governments, who have invested nothing, take as much as 80% of profits after cost recovery, and the investor, who has risked everything, takes only 20%.
That is why energy-rich governments are so wealthy.
In some countries like Canada, this wealth is transferred across the country, such that the province of Alberta, for the past sixty years or so, has supported the entire country economically – which has had both good and bad consequences.
In other countries, energy wealth is used to provide lavish lifestyles for a ruling elite, and this leads to huge economic disparity and, not surprisingly, the degradation of rich and poor alike – the endemic conflict and corruption of some energy-rich countries is a direct result of internal competition to become this ruling elite.
Regards to all, Allan
Allan MacRae:
Thankyou for your excellent brief summary at September 19, 2013 at 4:02 am.
Sadly, people of the ilk of SideShowBob are incapable of understanding your summary because it states inescapable realities and not their ‘world view’.
Richard
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
The house built on sand is being seen to be crumbling!