Guest opinion by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The Environmentalist Committee of the House of Commons, chaired by the ghastly “Tim” Yeo, who has profited to the tune of approaching $1 million from chairmanships of numerous shady windmill subsidy-farming corporations during his undistinguished and soon-to-be-terminated time in office, held a mutually sycophantic hearing last May with Sir David King, the ever-fatuous “climate-change ambassador” to the Children’s Coalition that has made amateur and costly attempts to govern Britain for the past five years.
In that time of supposed “austerity”, the national debt has doubled.
No small fraction of the rapid growth in debt arises from the vast sums the kids have been flinging at heroically stupid measures such as converting Drax, the world’s largest, cleanest and most thermally efficient coal-fired power station, from burning coal to gobbling wood-chips imported from America.
The tiny tots had not understood that the energy density of coal is many times that of timber. Even if Birnam Wood should come to Dunsinane, there are not enough trees in the whole of Europe to keep Drax going.
Then there was the London rent-a-bike scheme that came in at a mere $26,000 per bike, and no one blinked because this was Saving The Planet.
Then there were the recent decisions both by the Scottish Executive and by the UK Government that fracking would not be allowed. For more than a decade, Russia and other vested interests have been pouring money into “green” groups that have protested against fracking on the specious ground that it causes earthquakes, contaminates the water supply and will visit the Ten Plagues of Egypt on anyone who indulges in it.
Yet at the same time – one couldn’t make this up – Scottish and British Ministers have been subsidizing schemes to push CO2 from power stations deep underground through pipes under very high pressure. Er, hello, is there anyone at home?
Then there were the useless windmills. These bat-blatting, bird-blending eyesores now grimly overshadow close to two-thirds of Scotland’s once-beautiful land mass. Tourist numbers in formerly beautiful areas of the countryside now scarred by this pointless industrialization of the landscape are nosediving.
The vast sums once spent by various taxpayer-funded busybody agencies to protect Scotland’s rare raptors and game birds – the hen harrier, the golden eagle, the osprey, the capercailzie, the black grouse, to name but a few – have all gone to waste. The subsidy farms are mincing the birds daily. Soon they will have wiped out all of these noble but fragile constituents in Scotland’s environment, in the name of – er – preserving the environment.
Don’t get me started on the cost. Let me just point out that if in the recent referendum Scotland had separated herself from her nearest and dearest neighbor so as to become a more cringingly abject satrapy of the European tyranny-by-clerk (independence was not on offer), a situation unprecedented in the history of economics would have arisen.
Before long, as the last eagles flutter to their bloody deaths at the foot of these cruel towers of steel, more than 100% of Scotland’s electricity will come from wind on those rare occasions when it is blowing neither too little nor too much.
For geographical reasons the only grid interconnect with another nation is with England. So England will be the monopsony customer for Scotland’s intermittent surplus of electrical power, and can pay as little as she likes for it.
Yet most of the time the turbines are not turning – or, if they are, they are powered by the grid to stop their bearings seizing. At those times, Scotland will have to import most – and eventually all – of her electricity from England, which at these times will become Scotland’s monopoly supplier of power, and can charge as much as she likes for it.
Never before in economic history has any nation been so crass as to place itself at the wrong end of a monopoly and a monopsony simultaneously. This is a world first for economic stupidity.
Idiocies such as these are the policy context in which the Environmentalist Committee of the Commons operates. The Climate Change Act 2008, justly described as the costliest and most pointless law ever enacted by the Mother of Parliaments, was pushed through while inches of global warming were falling in Parliament Square, the first October snow to settle there for 74 years.
“Tim”, who sneers ignorantly at the very few skeptics allowed to appear before him and fawns upon the true-believers whose fraud has made him rich, asked King how many countries would back the dismal, world-government Treaty of Paris, due to be signed by most nations this December. King’s answer was as alarming as it was revealing. All but two nations would sign without hesitation, he said.
The first of the two standouts was Canada, whose Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has dismantled most of the enviro-boondoggle quangoes that once infested his nation. However, said King with his signature smirk, there is an election due in Canada this Spring. One got the impression that the U.N. would see to it – at all costs – that Harper was not allowed to win under any circumstances.
The second standout was Australia, whose freshly-elected non-Left government was also bent on dismantling many of its Socialist predecessors’ costly absurdities of environmental policy (hereinafter simply “’mental policy”). The CO2 tax was already on its way out as King spoke.
However, the electorate will not be able to remove Tony Abbott, Australia’s current Prime Minister, until long after December’s climate conference in Paris. And it is particularly necessary, from the U.N.’s point of view, to ensure that not a single nation dissents from the world-government treaty.
The reason is that, whatever the bureaucrats and “scientists” are saying publicly, in private they are terrified that they have gotten the science so grievously wrong that they will be publicly humiliated when it becomes apparent to all – as it is already apparent to all who read our WUWT monthly temperature updates – that the rate of global warming is a small and ever-dwindling fraction of the alarming rates that were once predicted with such “substantial confidence”.
Those soi-disant “world leaders” who once told us how sure They were that They were right cannot now be seen to admit that They were wrong. That would be a humiliation that the governing class has collectively decided it is unwilling to endure. Therefore, to these creatures, unanimous assent to the world-government treaty is essential.
For it is only if CO2 emissions are cut to almost nothing that They will be able to pretend that the real reason for the embarrassing and continuing failure of global temperatures to rise at anything like the predicted rate is that They have taken the tough decisions that led to the near-total suppression of CO2 emissions.
Indeed, I was on Russia Today not so long ago with some forgettable Minister or another (it did not seem at all clear even to her what she was Minister of), and she was already claiming credit for the pause in global warming, notwithstanding the continuing increases in CO2 concentration.
No more striking example of the Left-driven, hate-filled insanity of ’mental policy can be found than in an agonized email just in from Anne Easby, a doughty campaigner for common sense in Australia.
The Socialists and their friends in the governing Liberal-National coalition are attempting to unseat Australia’s non-Left Prime Minister Tony Abbott, so as to make sure he is not in office at the time of the new Versailles disaster this December:
“No doubt you have been watching the news unfold about the imploding Liberal Government and the unprecedented attack by the media, Labor and the Left on Tony Abbott. Now a leadership spill is planned for Tuesday by some very disloyal and very stupid Western Australian nobody MPs who are full of their own self-importance and full of vengeance for being overlooked.
“I have no doubt that this whole campaign of hatred against Tony has been aided and abetted by GetUP! (Soros) but I just don’t know how they’ve managed to be so successful. Social media, aided by the news services, report hourly on the failings of Abbott. Even Alan Jones’ 2GB has news reports that could have been written by the hateful ABC.
“At the Press Club address this week [live on TV every Wednesday lunchtime], during the question time afterwards, the Canberra press gallery (hyenas) were positively dripping venom with every question they asked Tony. They didn’t want to know the answer: they just wanted to stick their journalistic knives into his heart. It made me sad and ashamed that my fellow Australians could treat our Prime Minister in this way.
“The polls are always down for Tony, which makes me think the polls are being manipulated. Maybe that’s my conspiracy theory side taking over, but when you speak to people, it’s never as bad as the polls indicate.
“Tony has been PM with his hands tied behind his back. He’s done as much as he could with a hostile Senate full of unelectable bogans. Labor has been courting the Queen Bogan, Jacqui Lambie, and she hates Tony Abbott with a passion. What has the poor man done to her, except exist?
“All the while, Malcolm Turnbull [a global-warming profiteer whom Abbott ousted for the leadership of the Liberal-National coalition some years ago] and Julie Bishop (who is friends with Kevin Rudd [former Labor Prime Minister who signed Australia up to the Kyoto Protocol at Bali in 2007 immediately after being elected, and was subsequently deposed by Julia Gillard, authoress of the CO2 tax], no I’m not joking) are sitting quietly in the wings, waiting for Tony to be taken down so one or both can assume power. We all know what that means. Signing the UN’s climate agreement in Paris will become a priority and a certainty.
“There is a dark power behind what is happening in Australia and, Christopher, it scares the hell out of me. I can see my gregarious and proud country slipping into a dark, UN-controlled place where free speech is banned and we all worship at the altar of Gaia.
“I spoke to my MP and friend, Craig Kelly tonight and he is shocked and saddened by what is unfolding in Canberra. He stood up for Tony on Facebook and the Guardian attacked him (as did their readers). Craig is a decent man and even he was surprised at the hatred expressed on his Facebook page by savage people.
“Craig stood up for Tony because our Liberal branches demanded he did. There is much support on the ground for Tony, because more than anything, people still like to give someone a fair go and Tony has done what he promised as far as he could.
“This is what has me puzzled … are we all wrong with what we see in Abbott the man? No, we’re not. He’s a good man and one the Left has been after since the day after the election.”
“Next Tuesday is the day of the leadership spill and I and others like me will be hammering the airways, social media, politicians to try and knock some sense into their pickled brains.
“What sickens and saddens me is that Tony Abbott is a good man, a good family man, who has done nothing really wrong. He’s made a few mistakes but nothing major, and the press and Labor have dissected his every move.
“God, the poor man can’t even wink without it causing an uproar in the press. How must his family feel, seeing their husband and father being crucified on a daily basis when he’s doing his best?
“I saw a word called AGITPROP last week and that appears to be the tactic the Left and media are using to destroy Abbott. Agitation and propaganda. It’s an old Russian Marxist tactic and it seems to be working. Unfortunately, the stupid, traitorous Libs can’t see they’re being played.
“On Tuesday, my greatest fears for our nation will probably become reality and Turnbull or, worse, Bishop will be installed as PM. That will be the day the dark UN cloud will cover Australia because I can’t see how we can stop her signing that damned treaty in Paris.
“I’m sorry to rant and rave but my heart is heavy, watching what’s unfolding here. Our Liberal Party till be torn down the middle after Tuesday if Abbott is deposed, and we can all sit back and watch Shorten, that disgusting Oompa-Loompa freak-show of a man, drive in the Prime Ministerial limo to the Lodge.
“We may need you, Christopher, to help us start an Australian UKIP because the majority of us will not vote Liberal with Turnbull or Bishop in charge.
“The Left have been brilliant in their attack on Abbott – and the losers will be the Australian people. We won’t realise what a good man we’ve had in power until we’ve lost him. And until it’s too late.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not in OZ, but poll rigging seems a stretch. But, as abbot survived 2:1 yet polled abysmally, who were they polling? Likely voters I would hope. Perhaps media are cherry picking from certain favorable polls?
Or it could be party MPs do the spill voting, not citizens. Duh. Yet the implication is that MPs vote largely according to polling amongst constituents.
Brians356, in Australia we have compulsory voting. All adults (over 18) are likely voters.
Actually, you don’t have to vote for a candidate. You just need to register to vote. You can leave your ballot paper “blank”.
brians356 February 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm
I’m not in OZ, but poll rigging seems a stretch
Poll rigging happens all the time. Just not in the sense that you are thinking of. The first question to ask when you hear a poll result, is who commissioned the poll? Polling companies don’t conduct poll for free, they do it for someone and that someone in many cases (not all) has an agenda.
Suppose you are an environmentalist group fighting a pipeline project. You might commission a poll like this:
1. Were you aware that there have been X pipeline disasters in the last 10 years causing $Y billions in environmental harm? (Y/N)
2. Bob’s oil company wants to build a pipeline through this area, are you in favour of that? (Y/N)
Now suppose that you are Bob’s oil company trying to build support for your pipeline project. You commission a poll too, and yours goes like this:
1. Were you aware that the proposed pipeline will create X number of jobs and bring $Y billions in economic benefits to this area? (Y/N)
2. Bob’s oil company wants to build a pipeline through this area, are you in favour of that? (Y/N)
The second question is identical in both polls, but will yield completely different results. The polling company dutifully publishes the results, but they may be directed by their to only publish the results of the second question. So unless you know who commissioned the poll, what their agenda is, and if the question was asked in a context that influenced the outcome, you are at risk of being manipulated, and the case can be made that there was no lies were told in doing so. Not a stretch at all.
Adds new meaning to Quixotic. A modern Don might need to employ something more than a lance, but at least unlike most thermal systems, there is no boil.
The Scream painting by Edvad Munch is certainly appropriate image for Lord Monckton’s excellent post.
The Law of immutable Leftist Irony holds true for insane CAGW leftist energy policies.
China recently announced they have slashed their deadline to have a commercial Thorium reactor design ready for large-scale rollout from 2040 to 2024; a mere 9 years from now.
China’s first test thorium reactor goes online THIS YEAR!
So, while the West builds wind and solar monuments to leftist stupidity, China will be well on its way to 100% energy independenceb by 2030, with inexhaustible energy that’s 50% cheaper per kWh than natural gas/coal, and 10 TIMES cheaper than wind/solar.
In the meantime, the West prepares for Paris, where they will negotiate economically devasting energy policies to address the CAGW scam, while giving China and India special dispensation to pollute as much as they like until 2030…
China will, of course, show full support for CAGW in Paris, which will assure the West destroys their economies and force manufacturing to move to China.
When China’s CO2 sequestration limits start in 2030, China’s rapid deployment of thorium reactors will easily allow compliance.
China has played this CAGW scam perfectly.
+1
You’re right about China running rings around the West. Obama thought it was a big win that China would cap its emissions in 2030. A think tank in the US a few years ago studied China’s demographics, and concluded that their population would probably stabilise by 2030. What a coincidence! If the population isn’t expanding (and becoming more prosperous), then the need for heavily polluting industries (building, manufacturing etc) becomes much less.
You are off the mark completely if you think that Tony Abbott has lost support due to a climate change conspiracy. He has lost support for hiding his agenda of cuts to things he promised not to cut. If there is a case for it, he didn’t make it before the election and he certainly has been woefull at selling it since coming to power. And if the Left are attacking freedom through Green policies, Abbott has been attacking freedom through increased surveillance and so called anti terror laws. It should also be noted that even though Tony Abbott got rid of the Carbon Tax he increased the fuel tax in its place. A Carbon tax through the back door which mining companies are exempt from.
As someone who is Left leaning in political pursuation, let me tell you that Abbott’s global warming skepticism is not the thing to bring him down, rather it is the ONLY thing still keeping him up!!
1) The UK invests 300 times more investing in non environmental energy sources as it does for traditional ones. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/10/uk-spent-300-times-more-fossil-fuel-clean-energy-despite-green-pledge?CMP=share_btn_tw
2) Tim Yeo is not unusual, it is very common for Tory politicians to make substantial; amounts of money from others sources while working as politicians.
3) Using a term like “mental” to describe policies you disagree with is a dreadful reflection on your view of those with mental health problems. What next? Spastic politicians?
So too labour Politicans.
Has anyone been more successful at this than Blair?
Indeed you are right Richard, although Blair is no longer an elected politician, it’s just that a Tory politician was given as an example. The register of members interests in the commons is indeed hair raising. The lead for making a real killing out of milking the payments and expenses system is Nigel Farage who has managed to claim multi million pounds with of expenses for himself from the European Union which puts most run of the mill politicians in the shade.
The fact that you consider it routine for politicians to use their positions to make themselves rich, is truely sad.
Christopher, you made me laugh but I wouldn’t want to stand in the shooting line with you.
Er, no. The Moyle interconnector is to Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that the politicians failed to discharge the obligations imposed upon them, by not even scrutinising how effective the green policy would be, before putting that policy into place.
At the time, it was already known that solar cannot deliver 24 hours 7 days a week power, and therefore requires backup. Likewise, it was known that the wind does not always blow and requires back up. It was already known that conventionally powered fossil fuel generation works most efficiently when running at steady state 24/7 and is not efficient, and in relative terms consumes more fuel and therefore prodces more CO2 emissions when being used in ramp up/ramp down mode. Heck, every politician has a car and knows this from urban driving where a car uses much more fuel (and hence produces much more emissions) than compared to driving at a steady speed of say 60 mph (~100 kph).
Given these known facts 2 basic questions should have been asked:
1. How much CO2 will be saved over the course of the life of a wind turbine after taking into account, the CO2 used in its manufacture, transport to site, errection thereof, coupling it to the grid, and that expelled by the back up required for when wind conditions make the turbine in operative (whether because of too little wind, or because of too much wind)?
2. Given the above saving, if any, in CO2, how much will (i) the UK temperatures be reduced by building windfarms sufficient to supply say 12 to 15GW, and (ii) global temperaturesbe reduced by building windfarms sufficient to supply say 12 to 15GW
The answer to the first question is about zere tons, and the answer to the second, is again about zero.
If these questions had been asked, it would be immediately apparent that wind turbines are futile. They do not achieve the desired goal, ie., the significant reduction of CO2 (assuming that is a desired and/or necessary goal), and they do not result in the significant reduction in local or global temperatures.
Of course, the politicians should be asking how many turbines are required to produce 12 to 15 GW, what area of land is required to produce 12 to 15 GW, what are the costs involved, including the costs of coupling to the grid, what is the effect of this intermittent energy on the grid, what is the life span and maintenance requirements of the turbines etc.
The only incentive that should have been given is capital write down against tax. Most capital expenditure can be written down against profit, but instead of saying allowing qualifying capital expenditure to be written down over the expected life of the plant and machinery, or say over 10 years, it could, in the case of wind turbines, be written down over say 3 to 5 years. This would have helped the roll out of windfarms since energy companies would in effect be paying no tax as long as they were building windfarms. There should have been no floor price fixed on the selling price of the energy produced by wind turbines, it would be left to find its market value.
Politicians are in denial as to the true cost of their green programme. It has more than doubled electricity bills, and yet they suggest that it ads only about 7 to 10% onto the cost of duel fuel bills. It is about time MSM did a proper expose on the true cost of the renewable programme, including all the needless premature winter deaths thatb have arisen as a consequence of the vulnerable being in fuel poverty.
No, the really scary thing is that they didn’t continue scrutiny of the scheme and back once they found out it didn’t work. That’s the part of the Left I really don’t comprehend. Making a mistake is normal. It’s human. But you don’t compound the mistake by continuing on a failed path. That’s just, silly.
I was a little surprised when I read Alan Jones (radio commentator) thoughts on why there has been such a vitriolic campaign to unseat Tony Abbott.
I think that he hit the nail squarely on the head when he reveals the shadowy effect of GetUp a very small group of like minded extreme left wing agitators who have modelled themselves on the Fenton Communications strategy of working behind the scenes to bring about what they see as world wide social reform. What they do is grab any issue that they think might be dear to the heart of sections of the community, this week injustice or cruelty to animals, next week aboriginals, next justice for refugees, Peta style animal rights, saving trees, animal rights including farming and export issues, Sourcing and harvesting timber from non sustainable forests, boycotting Australian businesses rightly or wrongly for alleged participation in doubtful business practices, environmental crimes, saving the planet, the whales, Polar Bears or any other environmental issue that can emotionally be exploited.
The aim being to get their audience to email or write to them supporting one or any of their campaigns, once the have those contact details, that person becomes a “member number” and for the group that are pulling the strings these people become emotional puppets, a number to be quoted when influencing issues.
On the Global Warming front the wife of one of the leader group took part in a highly publicised and scripted TV program with the aim of discrediting the sceptical scientists and commentators.(JoNova has the full story on her site)
Getup also tried hard to keep the Gillard Green alliance alive and got huge funding that was channelled to them via the union movement and likely originating from the Labor government of the day. Fortunately much of their effect was blunted by their hope that the Greens would GetUp and roll both the on the nose Labor Government and Tony Abbot’s Liberal Party.
When Abbot won and the Greens were almost wiped out in Tasmania some of their most vocal and rabid followers could not believe they had lost and their minority wails of pain on social media has been worked very well through the ABC left wing taxpayer funded media, the Fairfax Media and of course the imported British left wing Guardian and associated newspapers and of course the Global Warming promoting university network former grant recipients that were so upset when the Flannery’s, Steffen and Co were effectively defunded and they were forced to fund the new Climate Council all of this out of a network of funding and jobs for the boys set up by the previous government.
With all this fifth column to deal with and the unfortunate fact that while the Abbott government had the power by weight of numbers in one house of Parliament, due to a convenient “lost” bundle of votes in the Senate in Western Australia , there had to be fresh elections in those seats.
By this time the wailers had re-grouped with hate Abbott as their aim and watchword, an with such effect that cautious electors put in place a loose group of blocking senators and the political loose cannon, Clive Palmer a disaffected former Liberal supporter and major contributor that didn’t get his way that he expected in return for his monetary support.
It is said that Clive supports Malcolm Turnbull the Liberal Communications Minister who is no friend of Abbott as Abbott rolled him as a former Leader of the Party, All water under the bridge, but that does set the tone for the very vicious and in my view quite unreasonable media campaign, where every trumped up issue could be slated as Abbott’s error in the social media as well, and you can see feeding frenzy of sharks developing around any leak from within the party due to discontent real or manufactured easily got traction.
The only way that most leaders could deal with blocking senators is to bring on a double dissolution which would lead to a fresh election of both houses, the kind of thing that usually, voters will have a re-think and re elect the government with a workable majority in both houses.
But this present need for Tony Abbott to re-assure his own party to keep him as leader has all but robbed him of that political reality.
Stack the additional issue on top of the Global Warming meme falling over worldwide and Australia and Canada leaders likely to oppose the stacked deck at Paris, means a last ditch movement to reach some UN binding solution, and a home front where many extreme left wing and emotion wracked conservative voters are being exploited and worked over by Getup and the ABC media manipulations it is unlikely to see a double dissolution happening.
So Yes I think Alan Jones is right to question why the vicious hate campaign, it is all they have. For conservatives who want to see stable and effective government and progress back to fiscal responsibility they have been stung into action by the awful reality of the consequences of a return to Malcolm Turnbull or “Turncoat” as he is known, or worse still, the installation of an inept fool like the present leader of the Labor Party Bill Shorten or worse again, that we could fall into the clutches of the Green left economy wreckers, either of course will mean chaos and waste for this country.
Thanks Alan Jones and it is time for all of us to get Tony and his party dealing with defeating those combined forces, that can only be done with 100 per cent commitment. .
Thank you Christopher Monckton for your continued analysis.
Environmental policy is the prisoner of politics. The first casualty of war is truth, and the climate wars are one more example. The very worst and most dangerous examples of this policy is censorship, and I just was censored by Scientific American online which responded to my one line post with a link thus-
Commenting has been disabled for this account, please contact webmaster@sciam.com for assistance
I disagree with some of the political rhetoric and bashing by political conservatives here, sometimes equating it to the over-reach and incivility of the CAGW folk they are criticizing, but we can all agree (I hope) that the free marketplace of ideas underpins everything we value in science and in democracy.
Scientific American’s shameful conduct requires exposure.
sometimes you have to stand up and shovel it right back at them – bullies hate that.
If Scientific American is anything like New Scientist then the problem for Scientific American is that they can’t refute your point.
If they could then they would.
If it was merely questionable then they could get a debate going and build comments and advertising revenue.
But if they know they are wrong they have a problem. They can’t back down and make their editorial policy of the last two decades look ridiculous. They will have actually equated catastrophic climate change scepticism to belief in astrology or homeopathy. When you lose credibility you lose everything – look at the US newsreader and his helicopter tales.
They have got themselves in a right pickle and in the meantime the internet has destroyed their business model.
Income is falling and readership is easily distracted. If they can find a group of middle-class well-paid obsessives who will buy their magazine they will grab hold of them like a lifeboat. And the last thing they want (or can afford) is to shake the faith or resolve or ‘willingness to spend’ of their special interest group.
I think it’s worth bearing in mind that HSBC ( a UK bank), robbed the UK tax payer of £78 billion pounds over the last 10 years through various swindles. This amount of money puts subsidies for renewables in the shade. Interestingly the boss of HSBC at that time was not punished, he did not go straight to jail, do not pass go etc. No, what happened is the Conservative government used him as a government advisor, then enobled him making him a Lord, similar status to Monckton. He now sits in the Lords reviewing legislation. The Conservative government have now belatedly tried to recoup some of this horrendous loss, but I fear it is too little and too late.
Gareth
i do not know the ins and outs of the HSBC’s actions and whether this was tax avoidance (which is legal) or tax evassion (which is illegal), but the public is being sold a pup with regard to corporate tax.
Companies do not pay tax. All expenses born by a company are pased onto its customers. It is the customer who pays the corporation tax since this is built into the selling proce.
If Amazon are forced to pay more corporation tax, then this will be paased onto Amazon Sellers who in turn will raise their prices so that in the end Amazon buyers will pay the extra price. So too with eBay. If eBay are forced to pay more tax, they will put up the price of listing, they will put up the price of using PayPal so as to cover the extra tax they are being asked to pay. The same is so with Starbucks and Costa, the price of coffee will be increased say by 5 to 10 pence.
At the end of the day, the consumer will pay more. With squeeze on wages these extra costs will dig into the pocket of every citizen since the cost of living will increase but wages will not increase in like manner.
Politicians like to grab money. If corporations are forced to pay more tax, at the end of the day, this will be a stealth tax on the consumer, and since we all consume from these big companies we will not reap the reward of these big companies paying more tax.
The position is different with individuals, if wealthy individuals are forced to pay more tax, then this could beneefit the public at large, but even then, it may be less than one thinks. A few years ago, there was a case with Elton John where some of his spending was revealed. he was spending £5million per year on flowers. This is £1million in VAT. IF he is forced to pay more tax, he may end up spending only £4million on flowers and therefore £200,000 less VAT. Other expenditure may also be curbed. Direct taxation take may go up, but indirect taxation receipts may go down. How this pans out, ie., the net bottom line, is moot.
But you should always be very sceptical of what a Politician tells you. They are after yout money, and they will almost cetainly waste it!
Excellent description!
I am not against industrialization, I am aghast at the hypocrisy and hubris of those that do not recognize wind and solar as having a much larger industrialized footprint on the environment than oil rigs.
Christopher, a very good and very true article, I cannot believe that it has taken so long for this scam to continue running.
We were told in the Eighties not to eat dairy produce and animal fat because it would fur up our arteries and we would suffer premature death. We were told not to expose our children or ourselves to the Sun for fear of developing skin cancer. Lead needed to be removed from our petrol to protect our health. All the advice of so-called “Experts”; the result? Diabetes and obesity through the roof because carbohydrates replaced fats, the return of rickets in children and an increase in auto-immune diseases in adults, due to lack of Vitamin D and an increase in cancers from benzene in unleaded petrol which is a 1000 times more toxic than lead.
Now back to the AGW experts:
1)Electric cars are more inefficient than petrol or diesel, especially in the winter when they need to have headlights turned on and be warmed. I have just read that their depreciation after a years ownership from new is 60%.
2) Wind power and solar power are intermittent and unreliable, they cannot provide power for a modern computer based society. Their actual output is a lot less than their claimed output as is their lifespan.
3) How is buying wood from the USA, pulverising it, gluing it to make pellets and then shipping it across the Atlantic going to produce less CO2 than not converting a power station to wood and continuing to burn coal?
4) CO2 has been almost 20 times higher in the past than it is now without any CGW
The £/$ billions spent on “climate research” could have been better spent in developing thorium reactors and/or fusion power.
Andrew,
Just a minor quibble: processed dairy milk (apart from not having any nutritional value) does cause congestion, but in the intestine, not the arteries AFAIK. And the heliophobia – my lord, we humans have grown up with the sun for over 100,000 years and suddenly we have to cower from it?
It’s not until you put Agenda21 and Climate Change together that it starts to make sense. Agenda 21 is the aim with Global governance, and Climate Change is the key to achieve it. Tony Abbott is a threat they want to remove.
I was fortunate to get to work in Australia for most of 2005. Several Aussies let me know that they were embarrassed by Steve Irwin the crocodile hunter and Crocodile Dundee. They knew that many Americans liked them very much and were puzzled by that fact. They knew that we Americans don’t know much about the rest of the world and even less about Australia. They were afraid that we think most Australians were like Dundee and Irwin.
I told one of my Aussie friends that I think the reason we liked those two was that they weren’t afraid of anything and were full of spunk. We long for the good ole days when we as Americans used to be like that. Now we are mostly a bunch of wimps and I was disappointed to find that Australia is becoming that way too.