Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Oil industry consultant Dana Nuccitelli, writing for the Guardian, has launched yet another green attack on democracy, by suggesting that older people who voted for Brexit, or who vote against green policies, are committing “intergenerational theft”.
The inter-generational theft of Brexit and climate change
Youth will bear the brunt of the poor decisions being made by today’s older generations
In last week’s Brexit vote results, there was a tremendous divide between age groups. 73% of voters under the age of 25 voted to remain in the EU, while about 58% over the age of 45 voted to leave.
This generational gap is among the many parallels between Brexit and climate change. A 2014 poll found that 74% of Americans under the age of 30 support government policies to cut carbon pollution, as compared to just 58% of respondents over the age of 40, and 52% over the age of 65.
Inter-generational theft
The problem is of course that younger generations will have to live with the consequences of the decisions we make today for much longer than older generations. Older generations in developed countries prospered as a result of the burning of fossil fuels for seemingly cheap energy.
However, we’ve already reached the point where even contrarian economists agree, any further global warming we experience will be detrimental for the global economy. For poorer countries, we passed that point decades ago. A new paper examining climate costs and fossil fuel industry profits for the years 2008–2012 found:
“For all companies and all years, the economic cost to society of their CO2 emissions was greater than their after‐tax profit, with the single exception of Exxon Mobil in 2008”
…
It now falls to the US to do better than the UK. Risk management and the well-being of future generations must trump ideology and fear in the November elections. We simply can’t afford two of the world’s superpowers being dictated by populism and xenophobia at the expense of our youth’s future.
Most old people I know would throw themselves into a fire if they thought it would somehow improve the lives of their grandkids. Claiming old people en-masse do not care about the young is utterly obscene.
When older people vote for Brexit, or vote against fanatics who think it is OK to advocate disenfranchising groups who oppose their views, just maybe it is because they have the life experience to see through the lies of would be tyrants.
The twitterati failed to vote and lost the referendum, historians will have a field day.
What no trigger warning :/
Racism – climate change, Brexit -climate change.
At least she is on the back of the bus where she belongs…oops sorry
The brain of a female typically matures at about 18. The brain of a male at about 24. So the 18-24 demographic really aren’t up to making rational decisions.
Youth have little intelligence and experience and no wisdom, which would explain why these adults have successfully corralled them into being used to support global Communism.
I have met some brilliant and smart people aged between 18-24 when I was, myself, aged between 18-24. I am not sure intelligence makes a difference IMO and in my experience. I once, in the 80’s, trained a university student on his “work experience” part of his study. He had 8 or 9 London Board “O” level A and B grade certificates. A few “A” level A and B grade certificates, and I think even an “S” level pass certificate too. Some of these were in electronics, and yet, he did not know what an AVO was or what AVO means!!!
Communists spread the same lies in the 60s. Remember the inane saying, “Don’t trust anyone over 30!”
By the way, the guy who coined that phrase turned 30 in 1970 and is now approaching 80. Do you think he went quietly into the night back in the year that Apollo 13 was nearly lost?
“However, we’ve already reached the point where even contrarian economists agree, any further global warming we experience will be detrimental for the global economy.”
What the??? Evidence please.
Dana, please share your wisdom – what is the perfect global temperature? If any further temperature rise is detrimental, was the world a better place economically 50 years ago, 100 years ago, when the temperature was about 1 degree cooler?
Seems to me that we cope very successfully with significant daily temperature variations and even more significant seasonal temperature variations, yet another a degree rise in global average temperature will be catastrophic? Evidence please. Else label your blog as unsubstantiated opinions.
Isn’t it interesting that the greens are snuggled up in bed with the bankers, free-traders and multinationals? These sought of people will sell their souls for power
What fascinates me is the anger being spewed by the losers. They thought it was slam dunk. Politicians, financiers and economists who proclaim to know better than the common people were mostly all wrong footed. Experts?
The anger now will be nothing compared to what would happen should they decide on a re-referendum. Britain would be the laughing stock of the world
On the vote day here in the UK West Midlands my wife mentioned that quite a few people were walking by and to the nearby polling station. That was about 07:30. Never saw that behaviour with local and general elections in the past. Usually lethargic 20% – ish attendance
I thought Remain would win due to the heavyweight VI’s appearing in the media and in rapid succession that week (Branson for instance). Think these strident walkers were the OUT brigade and they were between age 30 and 40. The walking stick brigade were much later after Pimms.
I voted for the Common Market having lived in Germany/Holland in the 60s and 70s. Pleasant places then. Don’t think I would recognise it now…don’t want to really. Hopefully it all unravels shortly!
No you didn’t, well not before the UK was already inserted into the common market (CM). Ted Heath (Conservative) committed the UK to the CM before Jan 1st 1973, effective Jan 1st 1973. Labour at that time were bleating on about “we will hold a referendum about entering the CM”, an obvious vote grab as there was significant voter displeasure at what Heath did. A referendum was held in 1974, or more likely 1975 IIRC. That is when the people of the UK actually got the option to voice their opinion. I would say you voted to stay in the CM if you voted at all for the CM in 1974/1975. But by then the damage was already done.
Heath was booted out in favour of Labour and after the winter of discontent in 1979, Thatcher won in a landslide win! She was the last to endorse the UN drive to “tackle climate change” which lead to the UEA CRU and the IPCC.
And I am sure you recall the hot summer of 1976!
Just wondering what the age demographics of WUWT commentators is, and whether this explains the absence of any counter-arguments here.
No mention by Dana of the criminal waste of public resources on “climate change” sourcery and the inevitable impoverishment of western democracies like the UK.
Without doubt no regime has more to answer for in this regard than the EU dictatorship.
If they want to inherit our money they can suck it up.
The whole premise is bollocks, 73% of 18-24 year olds did not vote remain. Yes 75% of those that voted chose remain but only 36% voted.
They had a vote and over half of the 18 to 35 year olds couldn’t be bothered to use it. We old farts used ours. Theft? Huh!
I suppose this lot read bits and pieces of Lord Stern’s Review, the cost-benefit study of energy austerity that ignred most of the benefits of global warming and enhanced CO2.
They were probably looking for sound-bites and punchy headlines.
Because they missed the voodoo economics related to intergenerational equity.
Professor Stern tells us we must make sacrifices today to preserve the health and well-being of future generations. But look more closely, and you will see that this virtuous purpose would make future generations richer than we are today and richer thn our children and grandchildren.
But the whole Stern Review is vitiated by the choice of a discount rate so low as to place almost no time value on the present.
The Stern Review is all “pie in the sky, bye and bye”.
Richard Lindzen once remarked that ordinary people have common sense but academics have no sense at all.
Based of almost 50 years experience of cost-benefit analysis in the public sector, I think Dr Lindzen was too optimistic in limiting this judgment to academics
What do you mean the academics have no sense. They know they are on EU grants that may or may not be forthcoming after exit.
So voting to leave the EU is “intergenerational theft,” but charging billions to the credit cards of our children and grand children to subsidize unreliable green energy and fund the UNFCCC ‘s Green Climate Fund is not? Does Dana Nuccitelli really believe future generations will thank us for wasting such huge sums of money and leaving them the bill?
I’m tongue tied. I really don’t know what to say or write. The author openly suggests killing everyone to make the world a better place. There’s just no arguing with that; fewer people, fewer mouths to feed.
Difficulty being they’ll be fewer to work.
This was the inevitable conclusion of the Great Green Grave; live fast, die young, make a beautiful corpse. It was the goal of my generation.
I’m sorry, that was in bad taste.
Frustration often comes out that way.
Dana has got it all arsey-versey. What a surprise.
I have been better off than my parents, thanks to their efforts and the efforts of their contemporaries, including their paying for my education.
My children are better off than I was at their age, I am delighted to say. As a result of the efforts of my generation.
And so it goes on from generation to generation.
About 80% of the older generation voted. But only about 35% of the younger generation did.
If you want a voice, vote…
When it’s being pitched as “carbon pollution” how do you expect the young, miseducated textgen to vote Dana?
Intergenerational theft is Governments borrowing money today which will have to be paid back by children who are just beginning primary education – and their children too.
The consensus in neuroscience is that your Prefrontal Cortex isn’t fully developed until you are about 25.
An underdeveloped Prefrontal Cortex results in the following:
The under 25s are more likely to succumb to peer pressure and to act emotionally rather than logically.
Total unmitigated bollox. Hundreds of generations of homo sapiens lived short, brutal lives curtailed by acute infection, infant maternal mortaility and acute injury ever before they reached 25 yoa, but long enough to advance and procreate. Evolution certainly doesn’t leave us short of a full deck until we’ve surpassed 25 yoa – “fully developed” doesn’t necessarily mean fully competent. Try telling that to Lancaster and Spitfire pilots of WW2, together with some of the youngest commanders in Fighter Command, all of them well under 25 yoa who in the modern, infantile parlance of the politically correct were able to “multi-task” brilliantly against nearly insurmountable odds, and who responded sublimely to the threat of Nazi totalitarianism. God help the Green totalitarian globalists when they loose their propaganda war, which they surely will. They’ll be intellectually slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands by motivated, focused young people who’ve suddenly decided to grow-up rather than put-up with the mind-dumbing, impoverishing and incarcerating drivel .
Also notice people like Bil Gates – doing some outstanding business at young age, and basically giving up at late thirties…
Among the Brexit first casualties, the hugley expensive, proposed Hinkley Point C nuclear power station in Somerset. A Franco-Chinese funded project guaranteed sales of electricity at hugely inflated prices.
Bob in Castlemaine has it , the inter generational theft that Dana refers to is every single cent that’s been wasted trying to mitigate a gas that’s vital for the life of every creature on earth .
Put that sort of money into medical research and new technology we would be in flying cars and cancer free .
All of this smells like another referendum will be held. Or at least they are trying really hard to scare everyone post Leave win in preparation for another vote.
Ireland voted no to Nice and Lisbon and were made vote again
So true! Ireland was a very depressing place to live, and trying to work. I know I was there! But then the EU stepped in and demanded Ireland change their tax laws, effectively making Ireland a tax haven, attracting many international companies to setup their HQ’s in Dublin. I believe Google is still there. So from the mid-80’s billions and billions of Euros entered Ireland and so lead a boom. International companies migrated to Dublin, even forcing the country to build it’s first motorway. Then the claims that the multinational companies were not paying their way…y’know the 1%’ers.
This action lead to a boom in property prices in Dublin, not much else anywhere else, and then came the collapse. Not many happy people in Ireland, esp, after having to vote “right” on Nice and Lisbon.
In the case of the UK, Cameron resigned. That did not happen in Ireland with their PM. So, a 3 month or so delay while a new leader of the Conservative party is found and thus, by default, becomes PM of the UK. Brexit will happen, for good or bad.
What’s interesting is liberal fervor for Globalism. Soros and Rockefeller all the way.