If you are a skeptic you may think that you are winning the science battle with the warmers. You probably have always thought that in the end you would win that battle and that would settle things. You were half right, you are winning the science battle but you have not yet deterred the politicians. The science has never mattered much to them. The warmer’s programs to combat “global warming” are really the only things that matter to them. Whether it is Cap & Trade, Carbon tax, or some other scheme, they are for it. They tell you they are doing this for your own good. But in fact most of them want greater control of your life and they can do it through taxes and regulations that are at the heart of these schemes.
The IPCC’s new report on Climate Change is expected to show that previous positions on the topic have been proved to be inaccurate. The European Union (EU) leadership wants to keep these schemes going anyway. According to the UK Telegraph’s posting “EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner”, they interviewed leading EU officials to source the posting. Quoting from the posting:
“In an interview with the Telegraph, Europe’s most senior climate change official argued that the current policies are the correct ones because a growing world population will put pressure on energy supplies regardless of the rate of global warming.”
Europe’s climate action commissioner Connie Hedegaard said “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change? “
She also provided the following opinion:
” The Danish commissioner also rejected public complaints over increases in electricity prices to subsidise renewable energies, such as wind farms, as unrealistic because, she said, increased competition over diminishing energy resources such as oil and gas will lead to higher bills.
“I believe that in a world with still more people, wanting still more growth for good reasons, the demand for energy, raw materials and resources will increase and so, over time so, over time, will the prices,” she said.
Madame Hedegaard’s University education was MA in Literature and History. Now people without science background need to be part of these discussions and often their common sense surpasses that of scientists. But to hold this top EU position where the science should be driving the bus, leads me to believe she is in over her head. Having said that, the US had Dr Steven Chu heading the Obama Energy Department and Dr John Holdren as Obama’s science advisor, and that did not turnout so well. So the problem may be deeper than the University education.
The US is on the same track thanks to a Supreme Court decision giving the EPA the right to regulate CO2 despite the fact that Congress had considered and chosen not to regulate CO2. The EPA is full speed ahead in implementing a carbon control program. A number of organizations have appealed the Supreme Court’s ruling. The Court will decide soon on whether or not to rehear this issue during the next session that begins in October. We can only hope that the Supreme Court will recognize that it has stepped over the Constitutional line that denies them the right to legislate and rein in the EPA.
Good on the Aussies, who kicked the carbon regulators out of office recently.
What Hedegaard wants to do is to use the “precautionary principle”. The Precautionary principle can be likened to insurance. The next posting will show why employing the precautionary principle with respect to global warming is a looser.
there is one other factor (isn’t there always) that argues against the idea of excessive taxation to help against running out of oil based energy i.e. there is now a projection out there (theory at best) that world population will begin to top out sooner rather than later. Maybe that idea can be woven into your follow up article. Precautions are laudatory, however, preservation of capital is worth quite a bit it seems to me.
Here is a good article/link from Forbes that you might be interested in, it strips away the nonsense about the effects of “collectivism”.
You are right on. Thanks for the Forbes posting. The Government is currently penalizing the wealth producers and that is hindering our recovery. The marketplace, not the government, should determine the price of energy and other commodities.