Has the UK Steel Jobs Bloodbath Broken Union Support for Climate Action?

Port Talbot, By Grubb at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Port Talbot, By Grubb at English Wikipedia (Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons.) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Guest essay by Eric Worrall

There are intriguing signs of a softening of political resolve to act on Climate Change, on the left wing of Australian Politics. Perhaps the Climate Policy driven jobs bloodbath, in the British Steel Industry, is starting to have a wider impact.

Labor is moving towards announcing an inquiry into Australia’s electricity industry — which could be charged with developing a plan to shut down ageing coal-fired power stations — under an opposition election policy that seeks to avoid a carbon tax scare campaign.

The climate change policy is also expected to outline a “staged’’ reintroduction of an emissions trading scheme, but will shy away from specific details on how it will reach its goal of 50 per cent renewable energy by 2030.

With Bill Shorten also vulnerable to charges that the policy will drive up electricity prices, Labor is being urged by experts to keep some of the Coalition’s Direct Action policies, rather than move immediately to an ETS, and adapt them over time to maintain policy certainty for industry and encourage investment.

Read more (Paywalled): http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/old-power-stations-under-fire-in-alps-climate-change-plan/news-story/141b978dfe948a623f2bc8cf4dfdc36d

WUWT recently reported, how the devastating job losses in the UK Steel industry have been firmly linked to climate policy inflated energy prices. This softening of Australian resolve on climate action may be a direct consequence, of growing union membership disquiet about the impact on jobs, of trying to “save” the planet.

One obvious question is, why did labour unions ever support job destroying climate policies?

The answer is that the green narrative, of exploitation and environmental destruction, fits neatly with the left wing narrative, that profiteers who exploit the workers, would not hesitate to also exploit defenceless nature. As George Galloway, a prominent left wing UK politician once said in an interview;

“If you have an economic system for which nothing but profit matters, why would you care any more for the environment, than for any of the other factors which you employ?”

The reality of climate policy driven job destruction may be starting to challenge this implicit left wing position. While it is a tragedy that it has taken so much individual pain and hardship, to create a wider awareness that climate policies kill jobs, the silver lining is that just maybe, greens will no longer be able to automatically count on the support of the left, when promoting their economically destructive environmental policies.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Norman Baillie
April 11, 2016 7:33 pm

maybe the worm is tuning 😉

Reply to  Norman Baillie
April 11, 2016 9:18 pm

Nothing grates on the ear like an untuned worm …

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 12, 2016 1:51 am

Disappeared down a worm hole.

Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 12, 2016 5:25 am

I think their lack of ears makes them tone deaf and hard to keep in tune.

NW sage
Reply to  Willis Eschenbach
April 12, 2016 5:39 pm

Does the worm tune when turning or does it turn when tuning? Is there a worm tuning fork or is it a turning fork in the road?

April 11, 2016 7:41 pm

The “madness” of crowds. The deepest insight I gained from my degree in Physics (1966) was that every single adavance in science came from the activities and thought processes of heroic individuals. From Kepler to Einstein from Rutherford to Higgs. Each and every new insight destroyed the prevailing consensus. And the politicians try & tell me that I must bow down to this mythical & profoundly unscientific notion. History will classify them as idiots.

Dale Muncie
Reply to  johnofenfield
April 11, 2016 9:45 pm


Reply to  johnofenfield
April 11, 2016 11:15 pm

I would say science advances on the singular backs of stubborn people.

Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 12, 2016 4:26 am

It advances one funeral at a time I’m afraid …

Reply to  Donald Kasper
April 12, 2016 5:30 am

Pointman, that may have been true in our past but, with radio, television and now the internet it is possible to destroy the madness of CAGW right in front of Gore, Hansen, Mann et al.

Reply to  johnofenfield
April 12, 2016 1:41 am

“The deepest insight I gained from my degree in Physics (1966) was that every single advance in science came from the activities and thought processes of heroic individuals.”
Amen brother, amen. The one thing we know for sure is that science is always wrong. Science is supposed to be our best approximation of reality (or truth for some) and not “the final product”. So it stands to reason that most of what we call “the consensus” is wrong to some degree or the other. It may be close to reality or it may be the best we have now even if not very close to reality; and the individuals who challenge the consensus are doing science and mankind a great service.
One thing we know for sure. When that next new insight that might destroy the prevailing consensus comes along — the people of the “consensus” will fight it tooth and nail.

Doug S
Reply to  johnofenfield
April 12, 2016 4:18 am

I agree John, you have the same intuitive insight that I do. I got my Physics degree in 1986 and observed the same “two steps forward and one step back” march of scientific progress. Anytime we hear a Poly Sci major proclaim “the science is settled” it’s a clear indication that a fool has been given a microphone.

Reply to  Doug S
April 12, 2016 4:19 pm

My first Physics degree was in 1974 — at that time people still believed that theory was a formalized process to enable our limited minds to summarize and simplify the universe. However, to be credible and useful this simplified view had to be able to predict power the results of future observations
Thus as our tools for making observations improved — we would expect to find gaps in our understanding that needed filling and sometimes entire chapters of the “story” needed to be added or rewritten from a new perspective.
Thus the insanity of the popular greenies statement that the “Science is Settled” — science never settles, from time to time it may rest on the side of the path of the search for knowledge waiting for some event such as LIGO detection of the colliding inspiral black holes GW150914
“The description of this observation is beautifully described in the Einstein theory of general relativity formulated 100 years ago and comprises the first test of the theory in strong gravitation,” LIGO team member Rainer Weiss, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), said in a statement. “It would have been wonderful to watch Einstein’s face had we been able to tell him.” – See more at: http://www.space.com/31900-gravitational-waves-discovery-ligo.html#sthash.eB5jWT6S.dpuf

Winnipeg boy
Reply to  johnofenfield
April 12, 2016 12:15 pm

I presently classify them as idiots.

April 11, 2016 7:43 pm

The Washington Times, April 6, 2016
‘Hanging together to save affordable power’
“Conventional energy suppliers are all threatened by radical green advocates”
Link to this article at:
Manufacturing and resource unions have already taken a bit hit with job losses. So they may not go along with the present and proposed energy polices. White-collar workers employed in these sectors may not go along as well.

Reply to  Barbara
April 11, 2016 11:15 pm

Greens sound like Pagan worshipers.

April 11, 2016 7:45 pm

“Read more (Paywalled)”
google -old power stations under fire-

April 11, 2016 7:46 pm

The green policies are not policies, they are ideological positions, very much devoid of the need to consider reality and the day to day needs of people and the environment said people live in. They are so ‘left’ as to be utterly over the cliff swimming with the fishes… They need to be ‘left’ well and truly alone or the political fallout will be terminal to any main party.
Businesses can operate with respect to the environment, education and accountability go a long way to covering this. Just make it unacceptable in the market to pollute and it won’t happen.

Reply to  ecoguy
April 11, 2016 11:19 pm

Yeah, like always being on a Royal Caribbean cruise where they say how much the love the environment, then we find out they were dumping trash and black water out the back door at night and doctoring the records. Came up a number of times, especially for Alaskan cruises. So there are two responses to public pressure for green initiatives by industry. One is the clean up their act, but the much cheaper alternative is to just lie about it and doctor the records, and do absolutely nothing.

April 11, 2016 7:54 pm

I have been cynical about the greens ever since I had to deal with VOC standards on paint thirty five years ago. The Greens tend to be a a collection of fund-raisers, lawyers, and other persons not accustomed to thinking about economics. In California, the Volatile Organic Compounds standards were not only silly, but chasing a moving target. Every timne the standrds changed, it required a learning curve to figure out how to use the new product.
As painters had no real lobby in Sacramento, we got screwed. Notably, charcoal lighter fluid was kept legal. Eventually, the coalition between organized labor and the greens will break down, but “eventually” can be a damn long time.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 11, 2016 10:35 pm

“The Greens tend to be a a collection of fund-raisers, lawyers, and other persons not accustomed to thinking about economics.”
The Greens are half-lawyerers half-lawbreakers (forcing entry in power plants, blocking nuclear fuel transport, destroying innovative agriculture technology…).
Why should society allow lawless criminals to use every law in the book to add delays by endless debate about every single word in industrial regulation?
I say: you break the law, you encourage others to break the law, you are anti-society, then you don’t get to obstruct in courts. Also, if they want to obstruct in an industry with huge capital immobilization, destroying economic value, let them pay for the intermediate interest!
They are the enemy of society. They are doing the antinuc intifada, the Rousseauiste djihad.
Also, society should “peer” pressure them into living according to their “principles”. Isn’t nature marvelous? Why would they need modern technology?

Owen in GA
Reply to  simple-touriste
April 12, 2016 4:20 am

I always thought the response to the blocking of nuclear transport should have been:
“for nuclear security reasons, the trucks transporting nuclear materials will not stop for any reason. If you chain yourself across the road an officer will be by to get your next of kin data for notification after you are run over.”
I am sure there would have been a few that would stay, but most would clear the road.

Reply to  Tom Halla
April 12, 2016 6:54 am

the Volatile Organic Compounds standards were not only silly, but chasing a moving target.
However, that’s just perfect for the job security of paper shufflers. I.e., government-funded functionaries.

Patrick MJD
April 11, 2016 7:56 pm

Wealth managers are divesting from fossil fuels;
I smell a rat. Divest in fossil fuels, invest in heavily subsidies re-newables? Wealth managers typically go for where there is least risk with maximum return, ie, taxpayer funded subsidies.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 11, 2016 8:03 pm

Yes, they can see the momentum of the UN-mandated Ponzi Scheme and want to get in at the top.

Reply to  Moa
April 12, 2016 12:51 am

I would consider carefully the pendulum.
It always swings back the other way eventually.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
April 12, 2016 6:55 am

“Flight to security”.

April 11, 2016 8:12 pm

Unfortunately we are a society that only fixes things once they get broken . Foolish union supported global warming policy is a travesty . The union executive has a contractual obligation to protect it’s union member interests . Selling them out by supporting incredibly naïve and stupid energy and environment policies should be grounds for dismissal at the very least . USA Presidential candidate Clinton has vowed to shut down fossil fuels and singled out coal employees and their companies . Why would any union support a candidate vowing to eliminate union membership jobs ? Why would any industry , steel for example , support a candidate that pledges to eliminate their key local supply(coal for steel ) . What’s next steel workers jobs ?
How thrilled will the Navy be about having to rely on a foreign country for the steel in the USA Navy ships ?
All this over inaccurate climate model predictions and the maybe potential to adjust the earth’s temperature by a fraction of a degree decades from now if it is not completely overwhelmed by natural variation from the sun etc as it always has been ? This massive scam has caused tens of thousands of fuel poverty deaths and held back developing nations from improving their standard of living . Any politician that attaches their name to this scam deserves to be run out of office for stupidity .

Reply to  Amber
April 12, 2016 10:09 am

Will this now split the Democratic party which has enjoyed union support for many years?
Public service unions likely will stay with the Democratic party as they are not as affected by job losses.
You have to have a company before you can have a union. Destroy a company and destroy its union.

Javert Chip
Reply to  Barbara
April 12, 2016 3:28 pm

Democrats HAVE NOT enjoyed union support for years…Democrats HAVE enjoyed union leadership (and financial) support for many years.
Union leaders no more represent their membership than your local congressman/woman represents individual voters.
“…Destroy a company and destroy its union….” so what happened to the UAW after Ford, Chrysler & GM were destroyed?

April 11, 2016 8:16 pm

The left only stop their insane plug down the wormhole when they hit the bottom with nowhere else to go!

April 11, 2016 8:18 pm

Short renewables because we are going to see lots of Solyndra and Sun Edison debacles . Too bad the tax payers got hosed but any time government creates” winners” by tax subsidy tax payers lose .
The pension plans that bought into the hoax are going to lose their ass .

April 11, 2016 8:20 pm

Not all climate policies threaten all jobs. There are entire businesses that would not exist without them, who must see climate realism as a threat to their livelihood. See for example http://www.nzcarbonfarming.com

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 11, 2016 8:48 pm

The business of harvesting and replanting trees used to be known as “forestry”.
Environmentalists want to simultaneously ban the practice as “destruction of forests” and make it mandatory as “carbon sequestration”. As long as cash flows in the right direction, it’s all good.

Reply to  TonyL
April 12, 2016 12:36 am

Forestry doesn’t remove carbon in the long term. We would to destroy trees, maybe by sending them into space, to remove them from the carbon cycle in the long term. (I need one million dollars presto to study this innovative idea.)

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 11, 2016 9:29 pm

From the first page the words “wealth”, “land” and “owners”. Now, Richard, tell us all who is by far the largest “land owner” in New Zealand? Would that be the Crown (Govn’t)?

Brian H
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 11, 2016 9:50 pm

The economics of trees-as-crops baffles leftists.
“Recycle your breadcrumbs! Save the wheat!”

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 11, 2016 10:14 pm

Economists call it either 1) misallocation of resources, or 2) inefficient use of resources. Either way real economic growth and worker prosperity suffers by the resulting fewer good jobs created. But the Left knows it is impossible to “count” jobs not created or private business investment in capital not created. Which by corrollary when here is growth and private jobs created, the Left claims credit by saying, “you didn’t build that (factory, business, enterprise, commercial development)!”

Reply to  Richard A. O'Keefe
April 12, 2016 6:48 am

Nothing more than conartists.

April 11, 2016 8:30 pm

Unions, for whatever reasons, seem to work tirelessly for the destruction of the industries which employ them. One can only marvel at the sight of coal and steel unions supporting politicians who are in bed with environmental extremists. How on earth they think anything good can come of it is anybodies guess.
It certainly does seem to be an international phenomena, the US, UK and Aus., all the same story.
In the US, the unions support and have supported the Democrats, and have done so since unions first achieved political power decades and decades ago. The support has been strong and deep, with campaign contributions running ~90+% Democrat, and large reliable voting blocks from well disciplined memberships. As it turns out, the Democrats advocate Big Govt. with it’s Big Regulatory State, and industry after industry has been regulated into oblivion.
None the less, loyalties remain strong, and the band plays on.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  TonyL
April 11, 2016 11:17 pm

Tony, I think public employee unions are among the fastest growing unions. Big government is good for them. They do not have the long-term perspective to see that big government hurts everyone and freedom helps everyone.

Reply to  TonyL
April 12, 2016 4:15 am

Unions supported the left because the right wing wanted slave wages.
Look, BOTH left and right are attacking workers these days. Both are nasty.

Reply to  emsnews
April 12, 2016 12:27 pm

In the immortal words of Arnold J. Rimmer, “Wrong, wrong, absolutely brimming over with wrongability!” In a prosperous and expanding economy, workers become valuable assets. Nothing harder to manage than a crucial asset of your business completely changing every 9 to 12 months. In a competitive employment marketplace, wages and incentives rise to retain the single most important asset a business has – its employees. It’s not altruism, it’s not social justice, it’s simple economics that forces those “evil reich wing capitalists” to improve things for their employees.
You want things to improve for workers? Then I propose that we create a business environment where businesses are competing for workers instead of one where workers are competing for jobs. Hint: You can’t tax your way to that point.

Tom Harley
April 11, 2016 8:34 pm

Palau is having unprecedented drinking water problems. Maybe it’s time for Queensland to save the day and export their mothballed desalination plant, along with the work force from SA steel factories to operate it, and help them out.

April 11, 2016 9:01 pm

One unfortunate affect of Democracy and Capitalism is they breed complacency because the people are content. It takes more than scare tactics and bullying to make the people abandon either though. People are beginning to understand the real affects of CO2 mitigation. Maybe now they’ll start questioning its’ veracity.

April 11, 2016 11:00 pm

Unions here run Super Funds (superannuation) and you only need to follow the money to see why they supported the renewable crusade. The previous Labor government threw enormous amounts of monies into renewable funds, grants, tech, start-up and the likes. The Unions could connect their funds to these government subsidised entities and reap returns. To attack these cash-flows was the endanger their nice little earner from the taxpayer.

Ed Zuiderwijk
April 12, 2016 1:07 am

George Galloway is a maverick who is considered a fool by most British.
Otherwise, the fact that March and April till now have been miserable, wet and cold will have made any climate awareness less acute.

April 12, 2016 2:05 am

I wrote this in 2010, “Changing the Engine of the Global Economy – The Next UN Strategy”:
“The process whereby developed countries sacrifice their home industries and populations by imposing ever higher taxes on energy, is known in UN parlance as “Contraction and Convergence.”
It is described by its initiator as “An International Conceptual Framework for Preventing Dangerous Climate Change” and has been adopted and subscribed to by the UN and member countries of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, (UNFCC).
The narrative says that there is a finite global budget for carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere, a total amount beyond which the world will heat uncontrollably and human kind will be visited by dreadful climate disasters, including, but not limited to, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels, droughts, floods and plagues.
“Climate justice” demands that everyone on the planet has an equal right to emit the same amount of CO2. Greedy western nations have, since the industrial revolution, used up their share of this allowable CO2 amount and must now pay reparation to the undeveloped nations who have not industrialised.
Developed nations must “Contract” their economies by cutting fossil fuel usage to levels reported in 1990 (the Kyoto Protocol) and then transfer knowledge, technology and finance to developing nations, to bring them up to the new lowered expectations of the developed nations, described as “Convergence.”
However, there is a problem and it is that there are two paradigms in force, mutually antagonistic to each other. “Climate Equity and the Millennium Development Goals” require that undeveloped nations are allowed to use fossil fuels to lift them from poverty, whereas “CO2-induced Climate Catastrophe Theory” says global emissions must peak by 2015 and then start coming down to save the planet.
There are no targets, caps or limits on the emissions of CO2 by developing nations and it is unlikely they will wish to, at some point in the future, give up their improved standards of living brought about by greater access to fossil fuel energy. Emissions from developed nations are being replaced by emissions from developing nations.”

Richard G
Reply to  dennisambler
April 12, 2016 3:21 am

Developed nations are the only ones doing their part to increase the CO2 levels. We need at least 1200 ppm atmospheric concentration. The developing nations need to get it together.

April 12, 2016 2:19 am

Canada’s federal NDP socialist party held its national convention this weekend. They threw out their leader, and introduced their extremist Leap Manifesto, a document of breathtaking incompetence that, if implemented, will lead to a much poorer Canada and an increase in Excess Winter Deaths, especially among the elderly and the poor.
These leftist extremists are delusional and dangerous – they have no comprehension of the vital importance of cheap, reliable abundant energy to a cold northern sparsely-populated country like Canada. They are part of an international movement of global warming extremists who say that we must get rid of fossil fuels, which currently provide 86% of global primary energy, and replace them with intermittent and expensive renewables, that currently provide only about 2% – despite decades and trillions of dollars in subsidies for renewables.
I went through Checkpoint Charlie into East Germany in July 1989, just four months before the Berlin Wall fell, and saw firsthand the socialist East German regime, which was extolled by a former NDP leader as the “economic model for Canada”. I recall that 44-year experiment with socialism, or its much longer experiment in Russia, did not work and ended badly.
Simply, the prosperity of the western-Canadian (mostly Albertan) energy industry has carried the Canadian economy for the past ~60 years. Transfer payments from Alberta to the other provinces total about one million dollars per Alberta family-of-four, with nominal interest.
The NDP is advocating that Canada shoots itself in both feet. This is what happens when extremists and imbeciles take over political parties.
The following is excerpted from two front-page articles in today’s National Post:
The Leap Manifesto says, boiled down, that there should be no more oil pipelines built in Canada. Its thrust is that the 173- odd billion barrels of oil locked in the oilsands should remain there, and that ending pipeline development will bring this about.
As for the party, it has now cast its lot with the Lewises and their Manifesto. This amounts to a plan for Canada to cast aside the free market in favour of a deeply protectionist, managed economy, in which the happy citizenry drive state-funded electric go-cycles fuelled by state-funded wind turbines and live in straw bale houses that don’t require heat in winter. It is an addled, cockamamie vision like something out of Orwell, or the fevered imagination of British Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 12, 2016 10:18 am

This is Post COP 21 in action in Canada!

Terri Jackson
April 12, 2016 2:39 am

The press must be held responsible for their part in spreading the lies that humans are the cause of climate change. they are not. Nearly all the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere comes from natural sources(Professor Salby, Professor Lindzen, Professor Plimer etc). The extreme environmentalists are winning. thanks to the fools in the media. Abandon fossil fuels and all manufacturing will cease. the British Prime Minister David Cameron said only a week or so ago in the British parliament decarbonisation must continue! He knows fine well that will mean the end of manufacturing in Britain. these fanatics in parliament and in the media must be stopped at all costs. they are liars. (last year alone 250 peer reviewed scientific papers published showing that climate change is mostly natural, over 1000 international scientists have signed the US Congress Environment report exposing the lying alarmists, over 30 000 graduate scientists have signed the Oregon petition that fossil fuels use will not harm the environment.
Stop decarbonisation, promote fossil fuels, back prosperity. reject the alarmist politicians before there is no industry left. http://scientificqa.blogspot.co.uk

April 12, 2016 3:34 am

The Canadian NDP (New Democratic Party) is about to tear itself apart. It does that occasionally. Avi Lewis and Naomi Klein are pushing for a ban on new pipelines. That means no new markets for Alberta’s crude which, in turn, means more unemployment for Alberta oil workers. link link Naturally, Alberta and Saskatchewan (and maybe Newfoundland) delegates aren’t taking that lying down. I can also see union deligates (they’re an important part of the NDP) in Ontario being swayed.
This isn’t the first time the party has faced an existential crisis. At the very beginning of the party, Tommy Douglas was forced to leave Saskatchewan to become the leader of the federal party just to keep it alive. link And then there was the waffle

Reply to  commieBob
April 12, 2016 7:45 am

Hello Bob,
Please see my post just above yours on a similar subject.. The NDP’s new Leap Manifesto is a leap off a high cliff – a surrender to global warming fanatics who seek to force their false religion on us all.
I recall reading that Tommy Douglas stated that his original Medicare plan should include a small minimum users’ fee to encourage responsible use of the medical system,
Is that correct?
That minimum users’ fee has since disappeared in all provinces.
How did this change happen?

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 12, 2016 9:32 am

Tommy Douglas said that people should not be bankrupted just because they had the bad luck to get sick. He never said that medical care should be absolutely free.
Here are the principles of the original Medical Care Insurance Act:

1. Universal coverage for all residents.
2. Comprehensive benefits based on residence, registration and payment of personal premiums with additional finances to be drawn from general government revenues.
3. Utilization fees.
4. Fee-for-service payment.
5. The creation of a commission responsible to the government to administer the plan.

There are people for whom even a tiny payment is a major hardship. Even in Canada there is a major problem with people not buying their prescription drugs because they can’t afford them. Nobody should avoid going to the doctor because it’s too expensive.
One solution is to have a means test, which is expensive to administer. The easier solution is to get rid of all fees. Ultimately, it’s cheaper to encourage people to get treatment before their condition gets more serious and expensive. One of the most expensive populations is street people. They end up in the hospital a lot more and cost more when they are there. link They aren’t able to take very good care of themselves and guess what …
My guess is that the user fees and premiums disappeared because it is ultimately cheaper to get rid of them. As with everything, it’s complicated.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
H. L. Mencken

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 12, 2016 12:52 pm

Thank you for your response Bob,
Fro about 15 years I have been on the Board of Directors of the largest homeless shelter in Canada, and probably the largest in North America. We sleep up to 1300 people per night and serve about 1.5 million free meals per year.
I think our most economical and humanitarian medical solution is when we provide medical care within our homeless shelters, so that health problems do not become major issues that often require emergency medical care, including surgery.
There is a clear humanitarian and cost-benefit to people receiving medical care before a problem becomes acute.
There is also a problem of overloading the medical system, when some people make a habit of visiting their (free) doctor too often because he is the only one who will listen to their complaints and treat them with respect.
Perhaps we should have nice dogs in doctors’ waiting rooms, and people can talk to the dogs instead of wasting the doctors’ time. If they still want to see the doctor, it will cost them $20, which will be applied to their prescription should the get one. 🙂
As you say, it’s complicated…

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 12, 2016 1:55 pm

I’m from Ontario and read (I can’t remember where) about ten years ago about his original idea for medicare. Douglas basically wanted citizens covered by a government plan for catastrophic medical issues like cancer or heart disease. That is the kind of medical issues that could bankrupt a family. He never envisioned that the government would cover free of charge every medical situation; it just morphed into that over the years. Now we have some on the left (Liberals and NDP) who want the government to introduce “Universal Free Pharmacare”. With our medical system already groaning under the weight of an aging population, where is the money going to come from? Especially with Trudeau Jr. lifting restrictions brought in by the Harper government on “family reunification”, that is recent immigrants bringing to Canada their elderly parents and/or grandparents. Trudeau has also reversed the Harper government’s coverage for refugees that gave them the same medical coverage as citizens. Refugees now (again) have “free” prescription drugs, dental and eye care that citizens have to pay for out of their own pockets.

Steve from Rockwood
Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 12, 2016 5:07 pm

How did this happen? It was replaced with a health care surtax of $800 depending on your income.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
April 12, 2016 6:08 pm

Allan MacRae says: April 12, 2016 at 12:52 pm
… Perhaps we should have nice dogs in doctors’ waiting rooms, and people can talk to the dogs instead of wasting the doctors’ time.

Dogs are super good for people’s health even for the homeless. If I had to pick two things to improve health, it would be dogs and exercise. 🙂
BTW – Thanks for volunteering. It’s important.

April 12, 2016 6:36 am

Interestingly I have just received a response from my UK MP (Sam Gimiyah) confirming that it is now government policy to target zero carbon emissions rather than the previous 80% target. So closing down the steel industry, cement industry, oil industry etc. is now official policy. My MP is gracious enough to apologise that I might not be happy with his response. Honestly I am not making this up.

Reply to  spen
April 12, 2016 6:48 am

..ZERO carbon emissions ?? Does that mean he expects everybody to stop breathing too ???

Reply to  spen
April 13, 2016 9:01 am

That must be the official civil service letter, because mine always says exactly the same. They give the impression they are sending a personal response.

Gary Pearse
April 12, 2016 8:21 am

If you are having trouble bending your minds around lefty workers’ unions looking like they are going to square off against lefty green movements, it’s simple. The workers’ unions have been pitifully, abused useful idiots of the green lefty elitists who are the ones profiteering from the renewables scams. I hope they are very pi55ed off. Al Gore, for example, is about as green as a pig wallow. He has made hundreds of millions on his “lefty” stance and even sold his reality TV station to oil baron interests’ Al Jazeera. He did get to preserve his first name in it “Al”, though.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
April 13, 2016 3:18 am

Al Gorezeera?

April 12, 2016 11:24 am

@Ownen in GA
“for nuclear security reasons, ….”
What reason would you authorize taking a human life?
We work very hard in the nuclear industry to protect human life and the environment. Security personnel at US nuke plants are armed and authorized to use deadly force. I coached a root cause investigation of an event where three of the interviewees had decided to use deadly force when repeated warnings were not headed. We also interviewed the two idiot who were playing a practical joke.
Civil disobedience is not a capital offense. If you want to the news media to listen, do it a nuke plant. The judge will listen too. He is also looking at his watch to decide what court costs go along with your night in jail.

April 12, 2016 4:06 pm

Unions and Leftists were quite in favour of increasing electricity prices to cut CO2 emissions when they thought that it was only going to cost the bosses some of their profits. When it turned out that increases in electricity prices were going to cost Unionists their jobs and salaries, the enthusiasm tended to go away.

April 12, 2016 4:30 pm

Vaclav Klaus, economist and former President of the Czech Republic, noted in his book “Blue Planet in Green Shackles,” “It should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism (or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans, about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a “noble” idea.”
Or as the Greens themselves wrote in the infamous Club of Rome book “The First Global Revolution,” they declared: “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Klaus has the proper rejoinder — “ the world went through 70 years of communism, so why the hell would you want to go back to it? “

Reply to  TedK
April 13, 2016 3:32 am

TedK I agree with you – this is called the Watermelon Movement by some.
Some comments follow, written in 2014:
TODAY is the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. The Wall was opened on November 9, 1989.
Four months earlier, in July 1989 I had travelled through the Wall via Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. I was with three colleagues on a business trip. It was not a fun trip , but it was highly educational. East Berlin and East Germany were everything Ronald Reagan said they were – repressive, backward, and evil – families were spying on each other and ratting to the Stasi, the dreaded East German Secret Police. I wrote about this trip one year ago today, at
At that time, I re-printed an article called “The Rise of Eco-Extremism”, written in 1994 by Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace. Moore stated, in part:
“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.”
I believe that Patrick Moore was correct, but this is a more personal story.
I went back to Berlin and former East Germany several times in the mid-1990’s, the first time with two colleagues. I recounted to them how, during my first trip there in 1989, I had asked our host if I could go for a jog and was advised that “We do not jog in East Berlin”. He added “You can walk anywhere you want – it is completely safe – not like your London and New York.” We took a walk later that evening from our hotel, the Metropole, and found there were eight armed guardposts in every block.
Now, however, the Berlin Wall had fallen, the Stasi files had been broken open, and East Berlin breathed free after more than 40 years of Soviet domination. It was early on a warm summer evening, and I asked my friends if we could take a long walk to the Brandenburg Gate, once one of the entry points through the Wall. As we approached that grand monument from the Tiergarten, I asked for my friends’ indulgence and broke into a slow jog. I passed under the Brandenburg Gate and continued a short way down Unter den Linden.
You see, after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the entire Soviet Union, we do jog in East Berlin.
Regards to all, Allan

April 13, 2016 3:51 am

Re-posting, for the benefit of British and German steel workers.
Best wishes to the good people at Krupp and O&K who we met in Germany in 1989.
Presentation of Evidence Suggesting Temperature Drives Atmospheric CO2 more than CO2 Drives Temperature
September 4, 2015
By Allan MacRae
Observations and Conclusions:
1. Temperature, among other factors, drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature. The rate of change dCO2/dt is closely correlated with temperature and thus atmospheric CO2 LAGS temperature by ~9 months in the modern data record
2. CO2 also lags temperature by ~~800 years in the ice core record, on a longer time scale.
3. Atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales.
4. CO2 is the feedstock for carbon-based life on Earth, and Earth’s atmosphere and oceans are clearly CO2-deficient. CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes are nonsense.
5. Based on the evidence, Earth’s climate is insensitive to increased atmospheric CO2 – there is no global warming crisis.
6. Recent global warming was natural and irregularly cyclical – the next climate phase following the ~20 year pause will probably be global cooling, starting by ~2020 or sooner.
7. Adaptation is clearly the best approach to deal with the moderate global warming and cooling experienced in recent centuries.
8. Cool and cold weather kills many more people than warm or hot weather, even in warm climates. There are about 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths every year in the USA, up to 50,000 in the UK and several million worldwide.
9. Green energy schemes have needlessly driven up energy costs, reduced electrical grid reliability and contributed to increased winter mortality, which especially targets the elderly and the poor.
10. Cheap, abundant, reliable energy is the lifeblood of modern society. When misinformed politicians fool with energy systems, real people suffer and die. That is the tragic legacy of false global warming alarmism.
Allan MacRae, Calgary, June 12, 2015

%d bloggers like this: