| Author | Message | ||
     Ferris_von_bueller |
Wall Street Journal By BJORN LOMBORG Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets. The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the "military-industrial complex," cautioning that "the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." He worried that "there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties." This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a "climate-industrial complex" is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain. This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers -- the Copenhagen Climate Council -- hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol's replacement in December. The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy. Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations. The term used by economists for their behavior is "rent-seeking." The world's largest wind-turbine manufacturer, Copenhagen Climate Council member Vestas, urges governments to invest heavily in the wind market. It sponsors CNN's "Climate in Peril" segment, increasing support for policies that would increase Vestas's earnings. A fellow council member, Mr. Gore's green investment firm Generation Investment Management, warns of a significant risk to the U.S. economy unless a price is quickly placed on carbon. Even companies that are not heavily engaged in green business stand to gain. European energy companies made tens of billions of euros in the first years of the European Trading System when they received free carbon emission allocations. American electricity utility Duke Energy, a member of the Copenhagen Climate Council, has long promoted a U.S. cap-and-trade scheme. Yet the company bitterly opposed the Warner-Lieberman bill in the U.S. Senate that would have created such a scheme because it did not include European-style handouts to coal companies. The Waxman-Markey bill in the House of Representatives promises to bring back the free lunch. U.S. companies and interest groups involved with climate change hired 2,430 lobbyists just last year, up 300% from five years ago. Fifty of the biggest U.S. electric utilities -- including Duke -- spent $51 million on lobbyists in just six months. The massive transfer of wealth that many businesses seek is not necessarily good for the rest of the economy. Spain has been proclaimed a global example in providing financial aid to renewable energy companies to create green jobs. But research shows that each new job cost Spain 571,138 euros, with subsidies of more than one million euros required to create each new job in the uncompetitive wind industry. Moreover, the programs resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,000 jobs elsewhere in the economy, or 2.2 jobs for every job created. The cozy corporate-climate relationship was pioneered by Enron, which bought up renewable energy companies and credit-trading outfits while boasting of its relationship with green interest groups. When the Kyoto Protocol was signed, an internal memo was sent within Enron that stated, "If implemented, [the Kyoto Protocol] will do more to promote Enron's business than almost any other regulatory business." The World Business Summit will hear from "science and public policy leaders" seemingly selected for their scary views of global warming. They include James Lovelock, who believes that much of Europe will be Saharan and London will be underwater within 30 years; Sir Crispin Tickell, who believes that the United Kingdom's population needs to be cut by two-thirds so the country can cope with global warming; and Timothy Flannery, who warns of sea level rises as high as "an eight-story building." Free speech is important. But these visions of catastrophe are a long way outside of mainstream scientific opinion, and they go much further than the careful findings of the United Nations panel of climate change scientists. When it comes to sea-level rise, for example, the United Nations expects a rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100 -- considerably less than a one-story building. There would be an outcry -- and rightfully so -- if big oil organized a climate change conference and invited only climate-change deniers. The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else. Mr. Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank, and author of "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" (Knopf, 2007). | ||
| Johnnylunchbox |
Just because unscrupulous people are trying to profit from global warming doesn't mean that there aren't really any environmental problems. | ||
| Hughlysses |
No, but it does mean we should be skeptical of WHO is telling us what HAS to be done. | ||
| Aesquire |
Clean = good. Sure. "We're all going to die in a fiery flood, so give us your money" = Con job. For Sure. It's not the concept of human created climate change that is wrong. Uncertain effects, yes, but a field worthy of study. It's the "global warming" con now relabeled "climate change" that is a pack of lies, greed, and more lies. There is no existing "computer model" that can predict the last 5 years given the real world data for all the years before that. Show me predictions close to reality, & you might have a useful tool, for something other than scamming the public out of freedom & cash. The current admin does not want cheap, plentiful energy. They oppose coal as evil, ( and have a valid point ) refuse to consider nuclear ( and follow the nuke scare lies promoted by the Soviet propaganda machine to reduce "western" power ) and claim unrealistic results for imaginary fuels and uneconomical & part time solar & wind power. Why? to take your money & increase their power. You want a rational, green life? For electric cars you have to nearly double the amount of available electric power in the grid to re charge them. There is NO plan from this admin ( Or the previous 3, to be fair ) to do so, and every expectation of the price going way up, all because of much higher taxes on power. That's not right wing extreeemist talk, that's from the President of the U.S. during his campaign. You will pay. Recharge electric cars? They are brain washing our children to be sad about recharging their cell phones & Ipods. The "climate change" movement is a scam. Used car dealers are beacons of honesty in comparison. Johnny, did you even notice the temperature DROP in the last decade? The environmental problems worth dealing with are things like: heavy metal from computers & CFL bulbs, the massive pollution produced by former & current Communist run countries, ( the eastern bloc in Europe & China are ecological disasters, even today.... the Soviets KILLED A SEA! ) and helping up & coming developing nations build a cleaner industrial base. But polar bears drowning for lack of ice? Lies, cons, and panic propaganda to steal your freedom & money. Bet you a dyno tune. | ||
| Xbrfirebolt |
Global Warming is not because of us! If so, how come the other planets in our solar system have also experienced a temperature rise? How is it we have only broken a few high temperature records from back in the early 1900's? What caused the record high temps back then? We didn't have the population or industrialization back then. Have you forgotten about the former ice age in our own country, or world? The earths temperature has changed through out time. Who can say what is the ideal temperature of our plant? You can't believe the people who are trying to sell their own ideas, if they are going to make themselves rich in the process! This isn't a forgone conclusion like they would have you believe. Question the logic of their ideas, after all they are mostly the same experts who said we were going into an ice age back in the 80's. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
I would be more inclined to buy into this hysteria if the powers to be actually had a plan other than imposing new taxes through schemes like carbon credits. Like Aesquire pointed out, it's just a scam. While we relegate ourselves to a reduced standard of living countries like China and India will continue to pump out CO2 at an increasing rate. It's like sitting on the deck of the Titanic, knowing it's going to sink and you're going to die, and worrying about whether or not you have a life preserver. It reminds me of those religious folks that beat themselves on the back until they bleed trying to prove something. I guess the believers can feel good about themselves knowing they tried to do something even though it was all in vain. I say screw it - party on !!! | ||
| Baybueller |
I use state of the art temp monitoring equipt. and the temp varies 1 degree between sensors. 1900s tech. was, Im shure, less accurate. How much did the temp actually rise and was co2 the root cause? | ||
| Vanvideo |
There is no man-made global warming. There is no man-made global warming. There is no man-made global warming. It is a scam. | ||
| Imonabuss |
Yes, but it is a first class PT Barnum-worthy scam that will transfer plenty of money from the poor and fearful into the hands of the rich and controlling. Plus que ca change.... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
What is funny is that they folks who bitched incessantly about Haliburton have no problem with the relationship between Obama and GE. They aren't even trying to hide it. | ||
| Ducxl |
It seems to me to be what Capitalism is ALL about. The proponents of "Global Warming" are trying to grow an industry around EVERYTHING that will lessen Petro demand. If i were machining widgets for wind turbines i'd REALLY like the wind turbine industry to boom.I'd do everything to advocate for them. As a famous friend once said...."There's no greater deterrent to action than.........The knowledge that something HAS to be done.....but not just yet." | ||
| Reepicheep |
Ducxl, it's not just wind turbines. New jet engines are better then old jet engines because they make 3% better economy. Same with generators, locomotives, etc. GE no doubt sees this as a "looks like you have to upgrade... look what we have for you" type deal. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
It seems to me to be what Capitalism is ALL about. Yea but this form of capitalism can't work without massive forced government intervention in the marketplace AND infusion of capital in the way of subsidies. Both wind and solar are not very cost affective and don't produce many watts for the surface area they occupy. Solar, which I have more knowledge of, is extremely expensive. Here, in Maryland, it costs about $10/watt in upfront costs. Furthermore, these systems are not linear in their production of electricity - in other words, their output varies with changing conditions. In order for them to work with some degree of efficiency they will need to be connected to a smart power grid. As far as I'm aware, the smart grid hasn't made it past the talking stage, yet. If it were really about producing cleaner energy we would go with the nuclear option, in the present, and invest in R&D on other forms of energy (solar, fusion, etc) for the future. However, it's not about that. It's about politics. All the government is going to accomplish with their scheme is inflate the price and decrease the supply of energy. If this goes forward expect to pay more to shiver in the winter and sweat in the summer. | ||
| Jimidan |
If it were really about a producing a cleaner world, we would take Chinese steps to drastically reduce human population. It is the only way. There is no way to out-engineer this, as all half-stepping measures have side effects and unintended consequences that we cannot begin to understand at this time. Of course, we know that humans do not have the capacity to rein in their "But I want a Bay-bee!!" instincts, so we are doomed to travel down the same road as yeast. Which is the more advanced species? There is more room for debate on this topic than whether or not global warming is caused by human activity. That debate ended long ago in the scientific community...but obviously it is still raging with the "ex" "spurts". Y'all have fun fiddlin' with it as Rome burns. It is going to get very interesting in short order...and most of us will have a ring-side seat, if you live on the coasts. | ||
| Xl1200r |
The Earth has been both MUCH warmer and MUCH cooler than it is today. In terms of wide-spans of history, we are still on our way OUT of an ice age, meaning temps SHOULD be rising. Do you have any knowledge of the Medevial Warm Period, where temps were about as warm as they are now? (Side note - there wasn't much in terms of industry during this time, around the year 1000). How about the Little Ice Age, where the temps dipped DRASTICALLY for hundreds of years (around 1200 to mid 1850s, resulting in ADVANCING glaciers that destroyed farms and entire villages, and snowfall in parts of new England in JULY. Againt, not much in terms of industry during this time. And 'global warming' is the enemy? Look at a graph of recent global temps (the last 2000 years or so). The huge "spike" in temps over the last century only exists because temps were so low during the previous couple hundred. If these "scientists" had any credibility, they would elimate the extremes from the results. The global temp has riden appx. 1 degree in the last 150 years. The global temp has risen appx. 1 degree over the last 2000 years. The global temp has had negligible change in the last 1000 years. These are all true statements. Pay attention to whichever you'd like. Bottom line - solar output has WAY more to do with Earth's temperature than the SUV in teh driveway. Only difference is no amount of money can alter solar output. Oh, and in terms of Earth's history, CO2 levels are at teh second lowest they've ever been in MILLIONS of years. When the dinosaurs were around, CO2 levels were something like 700 times what they are now. Like I said, believe the facts you chose to believe. I'm going to continue going for joy rides and wasting gas and not feeling guilty about it. (Message edited by xl1200r on May 26, 2009) | ||
| Blake |
"That debate ended long ago in the scientific community." Right, just as more and more previous believers in the scientific community are reversing their stance on the issue. The debate may be over only when the farce is 100% exposed. "It is going to get very interesting in short order...and most of us will have a ring-side seat, if you live on the coasts." That is 100% absolute baloney. Only the most ardent supporters of the church of Gore's man made global warming will accept such nonsense. Not even the UN believers (the ones that are left) endorse such nonsensical views. | ||
| Limitedx1 |
"No, but it does mean we should be skeptical of WHO is telling us what HAS to be done." isnt this true for everything you read or hear unless u witness it first hand....... | ||
| Strokizator |
Global warming is so last year. I suggest we move on to the new universal crisis of Continental Drift. Scientists have know about for years yet nobody proposes we do anything about it. Left unchecked, the impact on all species on planet earth will be devastating. Who's with me on this? Or are you going to stubbornly deny that it exists? | ||
| Xl1200r |
Who's with me on this? Or are you going to stubbornly deny that it exists? I don't think anyone with a rational mind is denying that climate change exists, only that humans are not the root cause of it. I can look at a graph and see that the Earth's temperature has changed since man started burning dinoaurs. I can also look at a graph and see that the Earth's temperature has changed, in far greater numbers, long before anyone was burning anything. It's not a question of "if it exists", but a question of "are we causing it, and can (or SHOULD) we do anything about it?" I like the idea of green technologies - I really do. The idea of doing more with less has always interested me, and I fully support ANY research that looks for new ways to accomplish things, power cars, pump water, whatever. But to create sweeping government legislation on speculation? I don't think so. Truthfully, your continental drift comparison is a really good. Does it exist? Yes. Did we casue it? No. Can we stop it? No. Are there other things we should concentrate on, like maybe feeding the hungry, eliminating N. Korea from the globe, or bailing out Enron? Most definately. A little off topic, but the government is about to write legislation based on a report of if CO2 emissions are harmful to humans, who they asked the EPA to write and no one else. What the hell did they think the report was going to say? | ||
| Strokizator |
Hey XI1200r, Glad you're not taking me seriously. However, there a power-hungry factions out there who like to create crises and then produce regulations to that will somehow benefit us all; meanwhile given them even more control over our lives. We have to "save it for our children" (will they be allowed to use it?). Make millions of acres of PUBLIC land inaccessible to the public. Don't do this, don't do that. I'm seriously tired of this $hit. | ||
| Aesquire |
I'd rather we spent a few Billion on meteor defense. We are seriously OVERDUE for a major meteor/comet impact. Without a defense system we are DOOMED!!!!!!! It would give us much better side benefits than the "global warming" scam. Cheap access to the riches of space, better astronomy data, and, possibly, a laser system that could save us from the lizard guys in "v", if they ever show up. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
The real present danger is population overgrowth. Its headed right for us. | ||
| Ferris_von_bueller |
Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking Greg Roberts | April 18, 2009 Article from: The Australian ICE is expanding in much of Antarctica, contrary to the widespread public belief that global warming is melting the continental ice cap. The results of ice-core drilling and sea ice monitoring indicate there is no large-scale melting of ice over most of Antarctica, although experts are concerned at ice losses on the continent's western coast. Antarctica has 90 per cent of the Earth's ice and 80 per cent of its fresh water. Extensive melting of Antarctic ice sheets would be required to raise sea levels substantially, and ice is melting in parts of west Antarctica. The destabilisation of the Wilkins ice shelf generated international headlines this month. However, the picture is very different in east Antarctica, which includes the territory claimed by Australia. East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica and parts of it are cooling. The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations in Washington noted the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades". Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica. "Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said. The melting of sea ice -- fast ice and pack ice -- does not cause sea levels to rise because the ice is in the water. Sea levels may rise with losses from freshwater ice sheets on the polar caps. In Antarctica, these losses are in the form of icebergs calved from ice shelves formed by glacial movements on the mainland. Last week, federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett said experts predicted sea level rises of up to 6m from Antarctic melting by 2100, but the worst case scenario foreshadowed by the SCAR report was a 1.25m rise. Mr Garrett insisted global warming was causing ice losses throughout Antarctica. "I don't think there's any doubt it is contributing to what we've seen both on the Wilkins shelf and more generally in Antarctica," he said. Dr Allison said there was not any evidence of significant change in the mass of ice shelves in east Antarctica nor any indication that its ice cap was melting. "The only significant calvings in Antarctica have been in the west," he said. And he cautioned that calvings of the magnitude seen recently in west Antarctica might not be unusual. "Ice shelves in general have episodic carvings and there can be large icebergs breaking off -- I'm talking 100km or 200km long -- every 10 or 20 or 50 years." Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded. |
