Tag: carbon dioxide

Revenge for the Opium Wars: China treats the U.S. like a drug dealer teasing a pathetic junkie

Todd Stern, President Barack Obama’s special envoy on climate change, tried to sound optimistic when the US delegation ended its China visit but could hardly conceal that little had been achieved

Sad to say, that's us, squatting in some squalid alley getting our daily fix of Chinese money.
Sad to say, that's us, squatting in some squalid alley getting our daily fix of Chinese money.

The Obama administration just concluded climate negotiations with China. No breakthroughs were achieved, but at least both nations now understand their respective roles:

China is the drug dealer, America is the junkie. They have the really good stuff we want: money. Just like any good drug dealer, they got us hooked with cheap prices, but now that we’re addicted the price they demand is going up.

Here’s how the Financial Times reports the results of the Obama administration’s recent climate negotiations with China:

Todd Stern, President Barack Obama’s special envoy on climate change, tried to sound optimistic when the US delegation ended its China visit but could hardly conceal that little had been achieved…

Chinese officials maintained that the two countries should have a “common but differentiated approach” – code for Beijing’s reluctance to adopt a formal domestic mandate to reduce its carbon emissions. The US Congress is considering a bill that would reduce US emissions to 83 per cent of 2005 levels by 2020. China wants the US to cut its emissions to 40 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 – a different order of magnitude. It also wants the US to pledge up to 1 per cent of its gross domestic product to pay for clean technology in China and elsewhere.

Read that again. The Chinese want us to cripple American industry with carbon emission regulations from which they’ll be exempt. Then they want us to pay them 1% of our GDP to give the latest technology to their industries.

Sadly enough, we’ll probably do it because we’re addicted to their money. And like any good junkie, we’ll steal to feed our habit. Unfortunately, we’re stealing from our children and grandchildren.

Source: Financial Times via Tim Blair

Beware the “Climate-Industrial Complex”

Al Gore, frontman for the climate-industrial complex
Al Gore, frontman for the climate-industrial complex

President Eisenhower warned of the “military-industrial complex.” Now on the eve of the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen, “Skeptical Environmentalist” author Bjorn Lomborg warns of the “climate-industrial complex.”

Lomborg, hardly a conservative, writes, “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 global warming…oops…climate change cabal has invited none other than Al “He Played On Our Fears” Gore to be the keynote speaker. How is it that this Oscar/Grammy/Nobel “Peace” Prize-winning crackpot is still taken seriously after being thoroughly debunked for his phony “documentary” and general hysteria? *Sigh*

As Lomborg rightly points out, Gore represents all three groups that stand to benefit. “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.”

Coincidentally, all the so-called experts at this Summit hold the same alarmist views of global, er… climate change.

So whatever happened to diversity and tolerance of other viewpoints? It’s nowhere to be found in this forum. As Lomborg notes, “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. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.”

Obama once said, “The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works…” Our question is, what if it’s too big and still doesn’t work?

Source: Wall Street Journal

Leading climate change scientist says carbon offsets won’t work, “Enjoy life while you can”

James Lovelock says, "The world is doomed, so let's party, dude."
James Lovelock says, "The world is doomed, so let's party, dude."

On one hand, renowned climate expert James Lovelock thinks the global warming will destroy the world. On the other hand, he thinks all the political solutions are a scam.

The Guardian UK reports Lovelock’s heresy:

He dismisses eco ideas briskly, one by one. “Carbon offsetting? I wouldn’t dream of it. It’s just a joke. To pay money to plant trees, to think you’re offsetting the carbon? You’re probably making matters worse. You’re far better off giving to the charity Cool Earth, which gives the money to the native peoples to not take down their forests.”

Do he and his wife try to limit the number of flights they take? “No we don’t. Because we can’t.” And recycling, he adds, is “almost certainly a waste of time and energy”, while having a “green lifestyle” amounts to little more than “ostentatious grand gestures”. He distrusts the notion of ethical consumption. “Because always, in the end, it turns out to be a scam … or if it wasn’t one in the beginning, it becomes one.”

The Guardian continues:

You’re never going to get enough energy from wind to run a society such as ours,” he says. “Windmills! Oh no. No way of doing it. You can cover the whole country with the blasted things, millions of them. Waste of time.”

So given all this, what would Lovelock do now? “Enjoy life while you can. Because if you’re lucky it’s going to be 20 years before it hits the fan.”

A round of applause for James Lovelock for his honesty. Anyone Al Gore disagrees with is alright with us.

Source: Guardian UK

EPA blows smoke, White House memo says CO2 isn’t harmful, but regulating it is.

As anyone who took high school science knows carbon dioxide (CO2) is what people and animals exhale and plants “inhale”.

Yet environmental zealots call it a “greenhouse gas” to make it sound harmful.

What would be really harmful, though, is if the Environmental Protection Agency starts regulating CO2. Well, hang on to your wallet, Money Bags, because that’s exactly what they’re considering.

Last month, the EPA issued a proposed finding that greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.”

But now an internal White House memo reveals glimpses of sanity within the administration. A memo sent by the Office of Management and Budget to the EPA says that greenhouse gasses have “no demonstrated direct health effects” but that regulation “is likely to have serious economic consequences.”

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson was confronted about the memo at a Senate hearing. Watch how she tap-dances around the question, misrepresents the Supreme Court’s ruling (as if the Supreme Court makes laws) and downplays her agency’s finding, saying it was preliminary and “might not” lead to regulations. But if they did decide to start regulating CO2, they’d “make regulations smartly.”

God help us. If anyone’s responsible for global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions, it’s bureaucratic windbags.

Source: Wall Street Journal

I HATE THE MEDIA ™
Verified by MonsterInsights