 |
|
|
|||||
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
16 Nov 2008
We hear a great deal about 'dangerous climate change' from the likes of Al
Gore and Nicholas Stern.
By contrast, I wish to speak about dangerous 'Green' economics.
We forget at our peril that a significant portion of the 'Green' movement
has striven for over 40 years to undermine the whole of our economic system,
and to replace it with a 'Green' autocracy that can rule all our lives and
decisions. Unfortunately, until the present economic crisis, too many of our
bien pensant classes, along with their preferred media, such as the BBC and
the New York Times, have been happy to play along with this trope, paying
lip service to it intellectually and at dinner parties, if not much in
practice. The trope has been reinforced by a legion of sloppy-minded
university products from far too many ill-conceived MAs and MScs in
development studies and environmental studies.
These forces have worked hard to undermine the economic world by adopting
three quite deliberate tactics.
Impossible Externalities
First, they have tried to usurp economic decision-making by inserting a
zero, or an infinity, in cost benefits. In other words, they have raised the
importance of non-market, often unmeasurable, externalities to the point
where you are forced to ignore, or to destroy, market decisions. In doing
this, they aim to remove the ability to choose anything other than their
'Green' choices.
As The Observer unwittingly illustrates so well today ['Recycled waste could
be stored on MoD bases. Sites are desperately being sought to house the UK's
unwanted mountain of recyclable rubbish', The Observer, November 15, News,
p. 5], a fine example of this is recycling in the UK. There has never been a
real market for many 'recycled' items, so that much of the process has been
driven by 'moral' fiat, but, even more significantly, by bureaucratic EU
edict. Now that economic realities are biting hard, with collapsing demand
for virtually all waste, recyclable or not, the unreality of all this is
brutally exposed.
As The Observer is forced to report:
"Huge waste mountains could be sited on military bases under emergency plans
to protect Britain's recycling revolution from the economic downturn.
Local authorities have requested government permission to site rubbish dumps
on Ministry of Defence land in order to stockpile growing amounts of
recyclable waste for which there is no use and no market."
A moment's analysis of this comment illustrates the bien pensant - and The
Observer is the quintessential bien pensant newspaper - rubbish behind such
'Green' economics. The article admits that there is "no use" and "no market"
for the waste, but we must still continue the "revolution", whatever the
costs. How can something be "recyclable" if it has no use and no market?
Other noteworthy examples of impossible externalities include a long list of
highly dubious 'ecosystem services' (nearly always, of course, including
trees).
Moreover, the artificiality of carbon trading is palpable, while, in the
present economics of crisis, the price of carbon has inevitably plummeted.
The 1984 Syndrome
The second tactic has been to try to manufacture, in the style of George
Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1947), an all-encompassing external threat
against which there must be perpetual war. The prime example of this is
'global warming', which has been likened in gravity to the Great World Wars.
Such a perpetual threat demands the downplaying of democracy, the
legitimising of 'Green' totalitarianism, the destruction of markets, and the
establishment of Ministries of Truth. The last are increasingly serviced by
a regiment of civil servants who are locked into the current belief system.
I find it not only amusing, but also a tad terrifying, that, in the UK, we
have actually created a Climate Department [Newspeak: Miniclim?] to maintain
the perpetual war.
It is worth recalling that Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, an Outer
Party member, was set the task of rewriting historical documents to match
the party line, the orthodoxy of which could change weekly. This process
included destroying evidence [cf. "There was no Medieval Warm Period and
Little Ice Age"], amending newspaper articles ["Cooling is Warming"], and
deleting the existence of people identified as "unpersons" ["Global Warming
Denial is a Thought Crime"]. Interestingly, one of our finest novelists
e-mailed me recently to inveigh against her local council's creation of
precisely such a Winston Smith post, namely a Climate Change Officer on a
large salary paid for by us good citizens out of an ever-increasing Council
Tax.
The 'Greens' are especially happy to follow the climate-change orthodoxy
because it gives them enormous political power. As a minor party or
influence, they can hold the balance of power, and the major parties dare
not offend them.
'Green' Bureaucratic Language
The third approach, as in 'London', the chief city of 'Airstrip One', a
province of Orwell's 'Oceania', has been to try to control the official
language on economics and the environment, and to build up a cadre of
officials and employees with vested interests in maintaining the myths of
Envirosoc [our equivalent to Orwell's 'Ingsoc'?] through the use of this
metalanguage - hence that meaningless, but stunning, example of Newspeak,
namely 'sustainability'. As I wrote as far back as 2002 ['"Sustainable
development" is just dangerous nonsense', The Daily Telegraph, August 16,
2002]:
"Sustainable development was defined in 1987 as 'development that meets the
needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their needs'. This was a good motherhood and apple pie
sentiment, but how has it worked out?
Today, sustainable development is a ubiquitous, politically compliant
phrase, a pleasant-sounding palliative to inexorable and inevitable change.
It is dished up as a placebo to eco-chondriacs the world over. Ecological
and economic change are the norm, not the exception. Equilibrium solutions
are impossible; we inhabit a disturbing, non-equilibrium world, in which
volcanoes erupt, earthquakes quake, seas rise and fall, and climate changes,
whether under human influence or not.
Sustainable development lurks everywhere - for business, it is a neat PC
word: all PR and ethical investment, but signifying little; for scientists,
it means: 'Give me funds for research'; for politicians: 'Give me your nice
Green vote'.
The biggest problem arises when authoritarian environmentalists hijack the
phrase. Then sustainable development becomes either no growth at all or
limited growth of a type approved by an elite few - wind farms, yes: nuclear
power no; organics, yes: GM no. This is why, so often, environmental
organisations try to portray business as the arch-enemy of sustainable
development. Like biodiversity, another key word from Rio, sustainability is
thrown into the argument to block development and growth, to conjure up a
return to an imagined, usually rural, Utopia."
The Paradox
Just so. Yet, paradoxically, it is the genuine crisis in world economics
that could well put paid to the dangerous trope of 'Green' economics. We can
no longer tolerate the bien pensant fantasies and utopias of Prince Charles
and the middle classes.
I have little fear of climate change, so long as we can maintain strong,
flexible economies, and support the less rich countries of the world. By
contrast, naive, utopian 'Green' economics both frighten me and anger me, as
they heap unwonted costs and taxes onto both the poor and the economy in
general.
Except for the well-heeled few, dangerous 'Green' economics have always been
an indulgence too far; in the present state of affairs, they are suicidal.
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics
/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/16_Dangerous_Econo
mics.html
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:18:36 +1100, "nbzoo" <n...@...com> wrote:
>
>
>16 Nov 2008
>
>
>
>We hear a great deal about 'dangerous climate change' from the likes of Al
>Gore and Nicholas Stern.
>
>
>
>By contrast, I wish to speak about dangerous 'Green' economics.
>
>
>
>We forget at our peril that a significant portion of the 'Green' movement
>has striven for over 40 years to undermine the whole of our economic system,
>and to replace it with a 'Green' autocracy that can rule all our lives and
>decisions. Unfortunately, until the present economic crisis, too many of our
>bien pensant classes, along with their preferred media, such as the BBC and
>the New York Times, have been happy to play along with this trope, paying
>lip service to it intellectually and at dinner parties, if not much in
>practice. The trope has been reinforced by a legion of sloppy-minded
>university products from far too many ill-conceived MAs and MScs in
>development studies and environmental studies.
>
>
>
>These forces have worked hard to undermine the economic world by adopting
>three quite deliberate tactics.
>
>
>
>Impossible Externalities
>
>
>
>First, they have tried to usurp economic decision-making by inserting a
>zero, or an infinity, in cost benefits. In other words, they have raised the
>importance of non-market, often unmeasurable, externalities to the point
>where you are forced to ignore, or to destroy, market decisions. In doing
>this, they aim to remove the ability to choose anything other than their
>'Green' choices.
>
>
>
>As The Observer unwittingly illustrates so well today ['Recycled waste could
>be stored on MoD bases. Sites are desperately being sought to house the UK's
>unwanted mountain of recyclable rubbish', The Observer, November 15, News,
>p. 5], a fine example of this is recycling in the UK. There has never been a
>real market for many 'recycled' items, so that much of the process has been
>driven by 'moral' fiat, but, even more significantly, by bureaucratic EU
>edict. Now that economic realities are biting hard, with collapsing demand
>for virtually all waste, recyclable or not, the unreality of all this is
>brutally exposed.
>
>
>
>As The Observer is forced to report:
>
>"Huge waste mountains could be sited on military bases under emergency plans
>to protect Britain's recycling revolution from the economic downturn.
>
>
>
>Local authorities have requested government permission to site rubbish dumps
>on Ministry of Defence land in order to stockpile growing amounts of
>recyclable waste for which there is no use and no market."
>
>
>
>A moment's analysis of this comment illustrates the bien pensant - and The
>Observer is the quintessential bien pensant newspaper - rubbish behind such
>'Green' economics. The article admits that there is "no use" and "no market"
>for the waste, but we must still continue the "revolution", whatever the
>costs. How can something be "recyclable" if it has no use and no market?
>
>
>
>Other noteworthy examples of impossible externalities include a long list of
>highly dubious 'ecosystem services' (nearly always, of course, including
>trees).
>
>
>
>Moreover, the artificiality of carbon trading is palpable, while, in the
>present economics of crisis, the price of carbon has inevitably plummeted.
>
>
>
>The 1984 Syndrome
>
>
>
>The second tactic has been to try to manufacture, in the style of George
>Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four (1947), an all-encompassing external threat
>against which there must be perpetual war. The prime example of this is
>'global warming', which has been likened in gravity to the Great World Wars.
>
>
>
>Such a perpetual threat demands the downplaying of democracy, the
>legitimising of 'Green' totalitarianism, the destruction of markets, and the
>establishment of Ministries of Truth. The last are increasingly serviced by
>a regiment of civil servants who are locked into the current belief system.
>I find it not only amusing, but also a tad terrifying, that, in the UK, we
>have actually created a Climate Department [Newspeak: Miniclim?] to maintain
>the perpetual war.
>
>
>
>It is worth recalling that Orwell's protagonist, Winston Smith, an Outer
>Party member, was set the task of rewriting historical documents to match
>the party line, the orthodoxy of which could change weekly. This process
>included destroying evidence [cf. "There was no Medieval Warm Period and
>Little Ice Age"], amending newspaper articles ["Cooling is Warming"], and
>deleting the existence of people identified as "unpersons" ["Global Warming
>Denial is a Thought Crime"]. Interestingly, one of our finest novelists
>e-mailed me recently to inveigh against her local council's creation of
>precisely such a Winston Smith post, namely a Climate Change Officer on a
>large salary paid for by us good citizens out of an ever-increasing Council
>Tax.
>
>
>
>The 'Greens' are especially happy to follow the climate-change orthodoxy
>because it gives them enormous political power. As a minor party or
>influence, they can hold the balance of power, and the major parties dare
>not offend them.
>
>
>
>'Green' Bureaucratic Language
>
>
>
>The third approach, as in 'London', the chief city of 'Airstrip One', a
>province of Orwell's 'Oceania', has been to try to control the official
>language on economics and the environment, and to build up a cadre of
>officials and employees with vested interests in maintaining the myths of
>Envirosoc [our equivalent to Orwell's 'Ingsoc'?] through the use of this
>metalanguage - hence that meaningless, but stunning, example of Newspeak,
>namely 'sustainability'. As I wrote as far back as 2002 ['"Sustainable
>development" is just dangerous nonsense', The Daily Telegraph, August 16,
>2002]:
>
>
>
>"Sustainable development was defined in 1987 as 'development that meets the
>needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future
>generations to meet their needs'. This was a good motherhood and apple pie
>sentiment, but how has it worked out?
>
>
>
>Today, sustainable development is a ubiquitous, politically compliant
>phrase, a pleasant-sounding palliative to inexorable and inevitable change.
>It is dished up as a placebo to eco-chondriacs the world over. Ecological
>and economic change are the norm, not the exception. Equilibrium solutions
>are impossible; we inhabit a disturbing, non-equilibrium world, in which
>volcanoes erupt, earthquakes quake, seas rise and fall, and climate changes,
>whether under human influence or not.
>
>
>
>Sustainable development lurks everywhere - for business, it is a neat PC
>word: all PR and ethical investment, but signifying little; for scientists,
>it means: 'Give me funds for research'; for politicians: 'Give me your nice
>Green vote'.
>
>
>
>The biggest problem arises when authoritarian environmentalists hijack the
>phrase. Then sustainable development becomes either no growth at all or
>limited growth of a type approved by an elite few - wind farms, yes: nuclear
>power no; organics, yes: GM no. This is why, so often, environmental
>organisations try to portray business as the arch-enemy of sustainable
>development. Like biodiversity, another key word from Rio, sustainability is
>thrown into the argument to block development and growth, to conjure up a
>return to an imagined, usually rural, Utopia."
>
>
>
>The Paradox
>
>
>
>Just so. Yet, paradoxically, it is the genuine crisis in world economics
>that could well put paid to the dangerous trope of 'Green' economics. We can
>no longer tolerate the bien pensant fantasies and utopias of Prince Charles
>and the middle classes.
>
>
>
>I have little fear of climate change, so long as we can maintain strong,
>flexible economies, and support the less rich countries of the world. By
>contrast, naive, utopian 'Green' economics both frighten me and anger me, as
>they heap unwonted costs and taxes onto both the poor and the economy in
>general.
>
>
>
>Except for the well-heeled few, dangerous 'Green' economics have always been
>an indulgence too far; in the present state of affairs, they are suicidal.
>
>
>
>http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politic
s/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/11/16_Dangerous_Econ
omics.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Warmest Regards
>
>
>
>Bonzo
>
>
Already happening.
Australia has department of Climate Change.
God knows what they do.
Where I live we recently had a local election where the
greenies won the balance of power, and the first thing they did was
to block the construction of a natural gas fired power station.
Reasons given are vague and based on fear not science.
Ntural Gas power stations are about the only current alternatives
to coal fired power if you dont like nuke, but they are too dirty and
produce poisonous toxic gasses, if you beleive the greenies.
| « Previous thread | Next thread » |
Huffington Post CENSORS Skeptical Aticle
Global Cooling Set To Continue, So Says The Sun
The Medieval Warm Period And Little Ice Age In San Francisco Bay
Global Cooling Bulletin: Record Cold Weather Payouts Triggered As Temperature Hits -11ºC
No Dramatic Warming In 29 Years Of Satellite Data
MEGAFIRES LOOMING ON THE HORIZON FOR AUSTRALIA... as the recent California scenario confirms !
Re: Schwarzenegger Blames Global Warming for Elongated Fire Season
Global Warming Numbers Get A Little Help From Their Friends
Filthy Aussies, Filthy Muzzies & Filthy Jews - Of No Use To The White Race - Expendable
Up