Throughout the West, the cult of fossil fuel suppression presents itself as an orthodoxy from which no dissent is permitted.
In the U.S., there has been substantial and growing resistance to the enforcement of that orthodoxy, among Republicans in general and particularly from red and energy-producing states. By contrast, in Europe, there has been little push-back. Somewhere along the line, in country after country, the drive for Net Zero carbon emissions got the backing of an effective all-political-party consensus. In a gigantic political miscalculation, many mainstream center-right conservative parties got fully on board. That mistake now looks to destroy several of these parties in the major countries.
From when it was first proposed, Net Zero was something with which no rational right-of-center party should ever have associated itself. Whatever you think about whether carbon emissions from fossil fuels are “warming the planet,” or even causing a “climate crisis,” the proposed solution of building lots of intermittent electricity generation never had any chance of working at reasonable cost. This was always an unproven socialist central-planning scheme that could only succeed in driving up energy costs and impoverishing the population. Such utopian socialist schemes are the business of the left. If center-right political parties have any purpose, it ought to be to stand up against these kinds of schemes, and for the working and middle-class people who stand to be harmed by them.
But that’s not how it has played out. Consider just two of the leading countries, the UK and Germany.
In the UK, the Conservative Party jumped in with both feet to champion the Net Zero agenda. Although the first Climate Act got passed during a Labor government in 2008, in 2019 the Conservatives took the lead to amend that Act to set legally binding targets, and then doubled and tripled down with new targets and mandates. From a January 2023 House of Lords Report:
In 2021, the [Conservative] government set two additional interim targets to run a net zero power system and reduce emissions by 78% by 2035. . . . In the UK, the policy pathway to achieve net zero was launched in the ‘Net zero strategy’, published by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in October 2021. Some of the key policies include:
- ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars
- promoting the use of sustainable aviation fuel
- investing in clean electricity and hydrogen production
- providing funding for households to switch to low-carbon heating systems
- incentivising farmers to use low-carbon farming methods
- planning to triple the rate of woodlands creation in England
To the surprise of no one who pays attention, the price of energy for UK consumers has soared. Greenmatch here in a piece from March 15, 2024 reports that the average annual electricity bill for a UK consumer rose from £764 in 2021 to £2000 in 2022. By 2023, the price per kWh for electricity for a UK consumer had hit an average of 27 p. That’s equivalent to about 35¢ U.S., or well more than double the average U.S. consumer electricity price.
There are surely other reasons for the current unpopularity of the Conservative government. However, this issue clearly ranks at or near the top. Here is a chart of polling for the next election from Politico’s UK branch:
It looks like the Conservatives are set up to get wiped out.
The situation in Germany is similar. The mainstream center-right parties, the CDU and CSU, under long-time Chancellor Angela Merkel, led Germany to the “Energiewende.” They got massive building of wind turbines and solar panels, and the closing of all their nuclear plants. Result: consumer electricity prices of triple or more the U.S. average. The recent news from Germany is that the CDU and CSU see their popularity fading, while a populist right-wing party called the AFD is on the ascendant.
There is a lesson to be learned here for U.S. Republicans. As the cost of crazy green energy schemes becomes more and more apparent, standing up against them looks to be increasingly a political winner.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Story Tip
How has organic farming worked out for you?
Champions of organic farming have long portrayed it as friendlier to humans and the earth. But a new study in a California county found a surprising effect as their acreage grew: nearby conventional farms applied more pesticides, likely to stay on top of an increased insect threat to their crops, the researchers said.
https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/04/01/do-organic-farms-cause-unintended-harm-study-finds-uptick-in-pesticide-use-in-neighbouring
“How has organic farming worked out for you?”
Blimey! Has everybody forgotten Sri Lanka already? As I recall, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, vacated the country, molto presto.
“It looks like the Conservatives are set up to get wiped out.”
What difference will that make ??
Whatever happens at the ballot box, a ‘nut-zero’ authoritarian government will get in & continue the vital work of bankrupting the UK, whilst lining their own pockets.
Doesn’t matter who you vote for, the government wins. All political companies in the UK are wedded to Net Zero – they are the uni party set on completing the country’s destruction. Some say Reform offer an alternative, but like any socialist party they believe in nationalisation of the energy industry. We’re lost.
Sorry, Bil, but “socialist” is one thing they are not!
If they believe in nationalisation then they are socialist. Simple as.
There is no escape on the horizon from net zero insanity in the UK. From everything they have said to date, Labour are even dumber on this then the ‘Conservatives’ have been. As for the Lib Dumbs, Greens, SNP etc. they all fall over themselves to demand that we go further, faster, towards net zero. To a great extent the government (and all the other net zero fan boys) have been able to hide behind international events to explain away the surge in energy prices over the last couple of years – consumers can hardly not have noticed the ramping up of the standing charges even as the unit costs have dropped a bit, but there isn’t yet much evidence that they are linking this to net zero. The government has resolutely refused to require energy companies to show the fraction of people’s bills that is going towards green subsidies.
And meanwhile with all the ‘cheap energy’ supplied by unreliables Ofgem report that the daily rise in total household energy debt was £2.8m in the second half of 2023
Still using “then” where “than” should be, I see.
Here in the US, there is a false belief that if conservatives become progressives-lite they will dominate elections. How is that working out in Europe?
The few Republicans in Wokeachusetts barely even qualify as progressive-lite. I don’t think there is a single politician in the entire state who’ll speak against net zero. Not even the libertarian party. I emailed them asking their energy policy- all I got back was “we’re for small government”. Duh….
Well, that didn’t work out in Australia with the Morisson liberal/conservative government that went soft on climate/energy issues and lost to the woke Net Zero Laborites, who are now totally screwing up the economy with their `renewable fantasy’ of trying to replace reliable fossil fuel power generation. All, they are doing is creating high-cost power and driving industry to the wall, will no possibility of effecting climate change, which was the whole purpose of the failed exercise. However, the public is finally waking up to the scam as living costs soar, petrol prices are getting unsustainable, people are being impoverished for no gain whatsoever. Revolt is on the way!
In most European countries, the only difference between liberal and conservative, is how quickly they want to implement socialism.
The liberals want to go as fast as possible. The conservatives want to slow the pace, marginally.
Anyone who thinks socialism is a bad idea and should be scaled back, is declared a far-right wing nut job and instantly banned from polite society.
Once again, Orwell chose the windmill to represent the boondoggles that governments use make it look like they are making progress.
Not a week goes by where BlackoutNews doesn’t report on another German company going bust, reducing jobs or moving production out of Germany. The only reason the UK does not see this is that most of our industrial production has already gone due to high energy costs – even higher than Germany’s as they have been given no protection from high costs. You have to be sceptical of announcements of companies coming here to make batteries for battery cars because you know the energy cost is too high even though they are being given wads to taxpayers cash to come here.
At least Germany has an established opposition in AfD whereas here in the UK we have two main socialist parties. There is one thing that is different to when the governing party here has changed previously. For the first time a Labour government – assuming they are the largest party in what will be a much closer election than the polls suggest – will takeover a country with no money to spend. The Tories have been so incompetent and socialist that the tax take is at a generational high. The idea of going on a borrowing spree when the country’s borrowing is at record levels will cause problems in the financial markets, so Labour have had to dump its plan to piss away £28bn a year on green nonsense and make a vague promise to spend more if they somehow work an economic miracle. You can see the disconnect they have as the idiot Miliband is still promoting a Net Zero electricity supply by 2030 – less than 6 years – based on hugely expensive ideas that are unproven such as floating windmills and without the capacity to build enough normal windmills either. After 14 years of student union politics from the opposition benches they will get a massive punch in the face from Reality.
Maybe don’t read blackoutnews. It’s just fearmongering.
Maybe don’t hide your head in the sand.
Maybe you should
Hiding from the economic deliberate destruction wrought by the anti-science cult agenda you have stupidly chosen to follow… That’s the ticket.
It’s reality. To bad you have no concept of what that is.
If they mention “another German company going bust, reducing jobs or moving production out of Germany”- is that fearmongering?
Maybe don’t read Renew Economy. It’s just bullshit.
“MyUsername
Reply to
gezza1298
April 5, 2024 6:04 am
Maybe don’t read blackoutnews. It’s just fearmongering.”
So do you believe “Blackout news” shouldn’t even exit?
Do you believe “Big Government” should be able to shut them down?
If so, why?
That’s funny, considering the types of news sources you have been quoting.
“European Conservatives: How Has…?”
The comparison UK-vs.-BRD (Federal Republic of Germany) is a most instructive one.
Especially since the UK narrowly managed to escape (BREXIT) the tyranny of Brussels only to lapse into the homegrown socialism & accelerated de-industrialisation …
… whereas the BRD remains (for now) in the grips of the EU, but has an active anti-socialist movement (AfD, ever-growing in popularity, so it seems), to replace their totally captured ‘liberal democrats’ (FDP).
Regarding the vexing issue terminology, brought up by so many:
It helps to recall that the Right-Left distinction was ALWAYS in reference to an internal struggle AMONG Socialists (national vs international varieties).
So it totally misses the broader picture, in which
Anarchy is at one pole and
Tyranny (all socialist gov’ts whether ‘right’ or ‘left’) is at the other pole.
Liberty, better referred to as ‘Ordered Liberty’ is at the Center, and is always threatened by both the Anarchy (libertarian) and Tyranny (all socialists of whatever label).
In the Menton article’s title is this “European Conservatives: How Has …?”
‘Conservative’ is a most slippery term, meaning something totally different depending on the local traditions. In other words, its meaning depends totally on what it is that is being ‘conserved’:
In much of Europe, it has the meaning of Tradition ( Church – Nobility – Monarchy – Feudalism ), which one may justly interpret as traditional forms of Tyranny however familiar & sometimes benevolent.
Whereas in the Anglosphere it may (or may not) imply the ‘Ordered Liberty’ typified in the Magna Carta (+ Glorious Revolution), the USA’s Declaration of Independence & Constitution / Bill of Rights. Again, at the Center of the Anarchy-Tyranny axis
These are radically different systems, to put it lightly.
Francis Menton would thus be well advised to avoid the use of ‘Conservative’ when writing for a non-USA audience.
My best to you all! — RLW
While there are libertarians that are also anarchist, libertarian philosophy does not exclude all government. Just most of it.
GOLD is up… again.
“an orthodoxy”
Or generally accepted “beliefs”. The Orthodox Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming is united in faith and by a common approach to theology(climate catastrophism), tradition (getting what they want), and worship (of the models).
As I recall, the word ‘Orthodox‘ takes its meaning from the Greek words orthos (‘right’) and doxa (‘belief’). Or correctthink in today’s terminology. Either way, orthodoxy is entirely accurate.
For my money, what we once called conservative, or even the centre right, has been shamed and shifted leftward. For quite a few years now, they have embraced all the ‘new ideologies‘ in play with no hint of opposition – apart from a casual soundbite on the news. But that’s just window dressing for public consumption.
Take the migrant – south coast – crisis. We’ve had at least 8 years of being told that something will be done and the exact opposite has consistently proven to be the case. You have to wonder what the Royal Navy is actually for. It certainly isn’t the defence of the realm.
“The Royal Navy had been temporarily in charge for the past eight months, during which a record number of people made the journey from France.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64461908
We have a Parliamentary dictatorship. The net result – apart from zero – will merely be a rearrangement of the deckchairs and nothing more than that.
There was a shift away from politicians with previous careers in the private sector towards career politicians that had taken political orientated degrees at university and worked their way up the political hierarchy. Given what universities have become is it really any wonder that the whole political class have shifted leftwards and embraced insane and unworkable ideologies?
I favor a requirement that one must be at least 30, preferably 40, before one is allowed to run for any office, at any level.
I would also make it a requirement that only those who are net tax payers, are permitted to vote.
I suspect many politicians don’t really believe what they say- they just like the job and benefits. Go along to get along. Don’t rock the boat. I consider such people the lowest form of coward.
It’s not just the politicians, it is the bureaucracy. The size of the bureaucracy is fast approaching a tipping point whereby the only thing left for them to expand into is a planned economy. The mandates on vaccines and masks was just a trial for what is to come. No more ICE, only EV’s, no more diesel trucks just ET’s, no more gas appliances or utilities just electric. It only a start as other varied policies and practices will be mandated for the deplorable masses to meet. Sooner or later the drive for equity of outcome will result in price AND wage controls so everyone is the same, i.e., equal. A short step from there to full blown communism with the elitist class controlling everything. Think 1984 by George Orwell.
‘The size of the bureaucracy is fast approaching a tipping point whereby the only thing left for them to expand into is a planned economy.’
Exactly. We now have a fourth branch of the Federal government, versus the three branches enumerated by the Constitution, and that branch overwhelmingly and unambiguously supports the political party that supports government expansion, i.e., the Democrats.
And the Biden administration and Congress are about to pass a law making it next to impossible to dismiss any Federal employee.
It’s already next to impossible to dismiss any Federal employee. This new law will just make it much harder than it already is.
Sadly Britain has not had a Conservative government since John Major took over from Margaret Thatcher.
This present group masquerading as Tory politicians that have been in control, oh sorry, I mean in office sorry, simple mistake to make, for the past 14 years are simply another group of WEF disciples doing as they are told.
Whoever is elected this next time of asking will carry on with open borders, Net Zero policies to destroy energy security, and more gender blending laws along with so called ‘hate crime’ legislation.
There will be no change in our daily dose of misery. A seamless change over to the next administration is guaranteed to keep up the good work of the Woke brokers and backers here in the UK.
More taxes anyone?
“John Major”
The boy who ran away from the Circus to become… a banker.
Also the PM who cratered the economy and made Soros a billionaire with his crack pot scheme to join the EMU.
It should be pointed out hat shovelling taxpayers’ money to private industry and larger landowners – which is what wind and solar does – is clearly a right-wing policy, not left.
A centralised state run infrastructure plan for the whole country, like a national grid that works or large power stations, would be left-wing.
Green policies are invariably right-wing. It’s always about empowering private industry to build electric cars rather than just subsidising the busses for collective transport.
Good God you are misinformed!
I don’t always agree with Mr Courtney but on the question of nationalisation of the Grid I do agree. The experiment with privatisation of utilities , which I initially supported , has not proved to be of benefit to the consumer , contrary to expectations. The energy grid set up between the wars was a massive and succesful operation that survived the biggest test ; the sustained German bombing of towns, cities and facilities . That it should collapse (from the customer’s viewpoint , not that of the owners) is an indication of the fragility of a disparate, privatised industry vulnerable to the point of disaster to a doctrine as idiotic and thin as “Net Zero”.
Yep. National Grid once knew it’s job was to keep the lights on and the country going which is why it showed no interest at all in unreliable wind during the oil crisis of the 1980’s. Once it was privatised it ‘s responsibility became making a profit to keep the company going – hence its massive investments into the grid in the US whilst often ignoring problems here in the UK.
Similarly the privatisation of the water companies in the UK has been a disaster.
The collapse came from something no one could have anticipated, more so than bombing. To blame that on free markets is wrong. To say government, which created the collapse, is the only way to prevent a collapse, makes no sense. The only real solution is get government out of it altogether, both causing and preventing the collapse.
You make a valid point scarecrow and I am not sure whether to agree with you or not . I am not against free markets and privatisation as a principle (Tory since the day I was born) and some privatisation , eg railways seems to have been a success , from my experience as a hapless commuter on BR Southern Region. So the question is : is the present unsatisfactory state of the UK Grid due to the push for being , eventually, wholly reliant on expensive , unrelaible renewables – a project pushed by Net Zero and the climate change adheerents in Govt and the industries dependent on Govt support.
If so , would a nationalised Grid as we used to have , run by engineers rather than financiers , be less inclined to go with the nonsense of Net Zero. I dont know , but just feel that they would have been more resistant – but I may have been influenced by the Govt information films about the heroic building of the National Grid that we were shown at school , and on ’50s BBC TV.
True privatization means government has little responsibility for the running of the utilities. That has never occurred.
There is no free market in energy, or any of the utilities.
They may be privately owned, but the government still runs them. Fascism at it’s finest.
Privatization, never was.
If you think that the government is capable of running anything, then you have never bothered to pay attention to the real world.
Do you really think a government owned and operated grid with no accountability will provide optimum results at the lowest cost?
If so, I’ve got some cow manure I’d like to sell you. It’s only $100 a bag. The government controls how I get rid of it so I would be happy to let you take it off my hands.
I keep thinking about the Russian adage that goes something like, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”.
I think that “right-wing” and “left-wing” don’t mean quite mean the same thing in the UK as they mean in the US.
It just goes to show that the terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ have become almost devoid of any real meaning in today’s politics. It’s not ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing” to be in favour of Net Zero. It’s not ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ to be in favour of reducing legal immigration and putting a stop to illegal immigration. It’s not ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ to be in favour of, or opposed to, Wokism. The whole nature of political parties needs to be re-structured with one party being in favour of Net Zero, unlimited immigration and Wokism and another party opposed to all three. Then people would have a real choice and could actually have some influence on these issues.
What is wokism? And imagine a world with more than two parties.
Wokeism is fundamentally leukophobic
How foolish of me to expect a reasonable answer
Ask a stupid question, expect flippant replies.
a new word for this septuagenarian!
And it’s hateful of ordinary folks- what Hillary called deplorables.
I can only imagine 2.
yin and yang
more than than and you get chaos
Wokeism is the propensity to feign offence on behalf of others, when you yourself have no direct, first-hand personal experience of the behavior you are feigning offence over.
Virtue-signaling is basically what wokeism is about.
Ingratiating yourself with others you perceive to be influential.
Because countries with more than 2 parties work soooo well.
Didn’t you state once before that you are a Communist? That would make your misinterpretation an honest mistake.
I am not and have never been a Communist. Nor have I ever claimed to be a Communist.
Labour are closest to me. I’m a Socialist.
Of course, if you don’t know the difference then your misunderstandings on politics are assuredly honest.
The only difference between a communist and a socialist, is in how quickly they want to implement communism.
Also, it’s built into communism that it’s OK to use violence to arrive at Utopia. Not all socialists believe that- most probably don’t.
There are countless varieties of socialist. What’s your variety?
Similarly, if you’re not a socialist at 20, you haven’t got a heart.
If you’re still a socialist at 40, you haven’t got a brain.
Apparently I never had a heart then.
I had a heart but now I have a brain, it works better this way!
One can be compassionate without being a socialist. The difference is that you believe you should use your own time and resources to help the less fortunate.
The socialist believes that the best way to help the poor is to take money from everyone who has more money than the socialist, and give that money to the poor.
Green policies are not right-wing. But maybe Exxon or BP could use you on their PR team?
Left-wing and right-wing imply far out, extreme or adjacent-to, not mainstream.
A big reason why we effectively have ‘uni-parties’ throughout the West is because the Left has succeeded in defining fascism, which is just one of many forms of socialism, as ‘right-wing’. I wish I had a dollar for every time someone referred to DJT, or even RINO squishes like Mitt Romney, as right-wing ‘extremists’.
Let’s get back to basics:
’Left’ means collective decision making and coercive implementation.
’Right’ means individual decision making and voluntary implementation.
’Left’ means collective decision making – Yes.
… and coercive implementation. – No. Do you really think Scandinavia is a collection of totalitarian states?
’Right’ means individual decision making – Yes. As property qualifications allow.
…and voluntary implementation. Sometimes. Consider the traditional right-wing regime of Franco. Church, State and the Military all idolised. Not very free at all.
This confusion of libertarian/authoritarian with left and right explains why there is so much confusion here. And why the political views expressed here fail so badly in the wider debate.
I suggest looking at the political compass and learning.
The Political Compass
I’m virtually central in the bottom left libertarian square,.
The only thing right wing about Franco, was that all the communists declared that he was one. The only way to implement socialism, is through coercion. The forcible taking and money and property from those who work in order to buy votes from those who would rather not.
The only way to implement socialism, is through coercion.
This.
What do you do if someone wants to opt out of the socialist society?
‘I suggest looking at the political compass and learning.’
It looks like complete nonsense based on the embedded chart. For example, how could anyone be hard Left on the economic axis and be anything but an absolute Authoritarian?
‘This confusion of libertarian/authoritarian with left and right explains why there is so much confusion here.’
The (your?) confusion stems from arbitrarily ‘scoring’ two attributes of human action, i.e., economic activity and societal mores, on orthogonal axes and ignoring the hopelessly incongruous results. Try this hypothetical – Vladimir Lenin, when he’s not busy collectivizing the Russian economy and ordering the murder of his opponents, thinks that everyone should be allowed to freely take drugs, say heroin, in a school yard – are you saying he’s a Libertarian?
‘Do you really think Scandinavia is a collection of totalitarian states?’
No. And most Scandos would also take umbrage at being called socialists. They may have a large, but decreasing, welfare sector and high taxes, but many measures of economic freedom place them higher than the US. They also don’t meddle in the affairs of other nations.
You’ve almost understood something about economics.
But… then you fell back into circular reasoning that ‘I think left means no economic freedom so high taxes to pay for social security cannot be left wing’.
Actually, economic freedom is not just about the right of those who have wealth to be free. It also means that the poor can have self-empowerment too. If the economic system lets them.
The US South, before your civil war, was very economically free. Entrepreneurs ran everything. They could even disregard the state, until the state was reduced to its very last recourse, of violence.
But those who were so poor that they were disempowered, to the point of slavery… they understood that economic freedom and social freedom are not related
Economic freedom and Social freedom are on orthogonal axes.
‘Economic freedom and Social freedom are on orthogonal axes.’
You are a wonder to behold.
He views himself as a philosopher, or at least a sophist.
I see you define economic freedom as always having enough money to do what you want.
So to you, having government take money from others and give it to you, means that your economic freedom has gone up.
The fact that somebody else’s economic freedom has gone down just doesn’t matter.
Socialism, at it’s core, is a philosophy based on greed and jealousy.
I think reddit is more your speed.
A chart that had wet and dry on one axis and libertarian/authoritarian on the other, would make just as much sense.
In what passes for your opinion, anything short of total government control of everything, is right wing.
Good God, where have you left your brain?
Wokeachusetts is extremely left wing and it’s climate crazy- which proves you’re wrong. Hardly a right winger in the entire state. But, the use of “wings” of any sort is not informative. It’s more about conservative vs. liberal policies. Liberals think they can fix all problems by spending money. Conservatives think problems will often work themselves out by leaving people and businesses alone to solve problems. In both cases- what’s got to be avoided is anyone having too much power- either oligarchs or power mad bureaucracies.
Let’s also distinguish between “liberals” and “Liberals” (I.e., those who espouse Classical Liberalism). Don’t let some people redefine words to win arguments
REJim that’s why I prefer “leftist” vs. liberal.
“I think that “right-wing” and “left-wing” don’t mean quite mean the same thing in the UK as they mean in the US.”
In the US, “The Green New Deal” type philosophy has enriched it’s proponent, AOC. She’s now gone from being a barmaid to being a (multi?) millionaire. Yet she’s never done anything other than being elected in a district where Pelosi said, “We could run a glass of water with a “D” on it and it would win.”
(AOC has a long way to go to get as rich as Pelosi got after being elected!)
With the campaign finance laws we have now, the U.S. has become an oligarchy. The rich controls who runs and wins and what policies are implemented. If anyone truly believes that the Green New Deal will pull the masses up, they have been brain-washed into a progressive cult.
If only campaigns could spend advertising and no one else (no PAC’s), and all donations must be directly from citizens and limited to a given amount, we might get back to electing those politicians who can implement policies to truly help the masses.
It is all part of the descent into the abyss of totalitarianism. The lefty power elites line their pockets at the expense of the people.
“the CDU and CSU see their popularity fading,”
Really?
In Germany the CDU/CSU are up from 24 percent at the last Federal election in 2021 to 30 percent in the latest opinion polls. Moreover, the CDU/CSU are currently the most popular party in Germany.
Not much sign of the conservatives in Germany suffering from miscalculating on energy.
If a General Election were to be held in Germany just now it would be almost impossible for a government to be formed which excluded the CDU/CSU. In which case, the Chancellor would come from the CDU/CSU as they are the most popular party.
I wish people would look at the opinion polls before writing something which is plainly nonsense.
“In the U.S., there has been substantial and growing resistance to the enforcement of that orthodoxy, among Republicans in general and particularly from red and energy-producing states.”
Unfortunately, our largest state is not on board with this. California is our European-style experiment with green nuttery. The problem is that it’s spilling over into other parts of the country.
Democrats are destroying California.
Democrats destroy everything they touch.
California Democrats remind me of the alien invaders from Independence Day. They destroy everything and then move on to another state and repeat. People should be stopped at the state border and questioned before they are allowed to relocate.
And New York. And Massachusetts (Wokachusetts) was a lost cause several decades ago.
California is totally controlled by Democrats (Leftists) and is a net energy importer. It is not a “red” state as defined in the news, but it is definitely Red as was used in the 1950s – 1990s.
“California is our European-style experiment with green nuttery. The problem is that it’s spilling over into other parts of the country.”
California’s efforts at Net Zero combined with Oregon’s and Washington’s buy-in to California’s Net Zero ambitions threaten to take down the Western Interconnect.
IMHO, the power grid reliability modeling done by WECC and the NWPPC has become a smoke screen to hide the dangers of going forward with the planned shutdowns of the Western Interconnect’s coal-fired and gas-fired power plants.
Oh, New York and much of New England, have been just as nuts, for quite some time. California may be primus inter alles, but only somewhat.
Well it’s the same in Oz with the wishful thinking of Tweedledum and Tweedledee pouring money down the drain for no benefit or worse-
National Electricity Market’s first coal power increase in seven years raises pressure to extend Eraring (afr.com)
Gas shortages could see Australia unable to create plastic (msn.com)
UN’s Agenda 21 is playing out exactly as it was planned. One World Government, hosted by the UN of course, is on its’ way. The collapse of Capitalism is happening and funded by the very people that benefited the most from it. AGW, forced mass immigration, complicit media, judicial control, vote tampering, dividing the people, are all playing out. AGW will be forgotten as soon as total control is accomplished.
The world isn’t that scary.
What planet-of-denial do you live on?
Outside, it’s called outside. You should visit it sometimes.
Care to, for once, actually refute something written?
That there are people still trying to push back against this authoritarian takeover lends hope but it IS a scary prospect – the UN, WEF, WHO with backing from governments, international financiers and finance companies is a daunting collection of vested interests in such an agenda.
Capitalism isn’t collapsing, it is being destroyed by bureaucrats assuming the authority to tell capitalists how and where to spend their money.
What does conservative mean in Europe? Can we generally agree on some definitions?
Or is the term conservative as fuzzy as it is in the US?
Left of centre at the very least
In Europe, a conservative is someone who wants to slow down the imposition of socialism.
Only far right extremists think that scaling it back would be a good idea.
My personal embrace of conservatism is rooted in my adherence to the Hippocratic principle –
“First do no harm”.
This simple statement neatly sums up the difference in approaches by that of conservative public policy-makers to that of leftist public policy-makers.
(The latter more aptly described in the Australian vernacular as “rip, shit or bust”).
Very much like the libertarian (not Libertarian) “non-aggression” principle.
The difficulty is that policy-makers, and the bureaucrats who implement the policy, never, ever, remember that the law of unintended consequences is not subject to Congressional repeal or judicial review. The harm will always be there – they just never consider the possibility.
The California government just arbitrarily raised the minimum wage for workers in fast-food restaurants from $US16 / hour to $US20 / hour, on April 1st. (Somehow fitting) When it was announced, many folks pointed out that it cause serious problems in the fast-food industry, that restaurants would close and the workers with the new, improved wages, would be worse off. It was implements on April 1st, and restaurants are closing, with attendant job losses, or severely reducing the workers hours, meaning lower pay. But the Government, particulalry Gavin Newsom, just smile for the cameras and point out what a great thing they did for the workers.
The bill as it was originally written included a provision that the workers for all the franchises were to be considered as employees of the parent company for unionization purposes.
The unions were pushing for this provision, because they have had no luck trying to unionize individual franchisees.
To me the path would be to NOT attempt to deny that there has been some warmth since the Little Ice age and that SOME of that is anthropomorphic; but rather that hard data shows that a little more warmth and increase CO2 is BENEFICIAL.
Hammer data (from IPCC and US gov) showing extreme weather events are NOT increasing over the last 50 – 100 years.
Then stress the economic and quality of life hardships likely with NET ZERO policy.
Why are we not making more of this revelation by the CEO of Siemens UK wind energy, Joe Kaeser from The Telegraph this January. He confesses that Net Zero by windmill will cost an enormous amount of taxpayers money. If the link doesn’t work just search Daily Telegraph for his name.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/21/energy-bills-must-rise-pay-for-net-zero-siemens/
The people making these decisions have no clue about science, engineering, or economics.
“Economics”.
What that comes down to is that people will buy what’s available that meets their needs if they can afford it.
It’s not Big Government’s job to decide what is available or what are their actual needs.
Government’s “job” is to keep it all “honest”. The “seller” can’t usurp the rights of the “buyer” OR vise verse.
(Very over simplified, I know.)
A suggestion for WUWT.
“Liberal” and “Conservative” and even “Green” mean different things, politically, in different countries.
I might take a bit to make it and keep it “unbiased”, but how about a drop down “glossary” of what those terms mean politically in different countries?
I mean, in the USA we don’t even have a “liberal” or “conservative” party. But other country’s do have political parties that use those names that might platforms the opposite of what the party’s name means to an American (or an American party’s name might mean to someone outside the USA).
Just a thought. I know it would be hard to do.
There, you see – you’re doing it yourself.
Utilising upper and lower case letters can help understanding if the reader is looking for it. For example, the UK Conservative party should not be confused with the US conservatives, nor should the UK Liberal Democrat party be confused with the US liberals, or the US Democrat party for that matter – although they both appear to be firmly against democracy.
Exactly. A perfect example would be the Liberal Democrats…of Japan. They’re roughly analogous to the GOP (the Republicans) in the United States. The Democrats in the USA are neither liberal nor democratic.
An actress of some show I’ve never watched recently declared that if Trump wins, he’s going to declare himself king and put all minorities in camps.
There was a lot of discussion on the original post and I posted that I didn’t think it was useful to frame energy sanity as a conservative issue. For example, the decouple podcast advocating nuclear power is from a Canadian liberal. Robert Bryce is definitely centrist if not liberal. And as people have commented here conservative doesn’t mean the same thing in every country.