In less than one year since a German Environmental Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, referred to US President George W. Bush as a Neanderthal for not reducing US CO2 emissions more and sooner, the worm has now indeed turned. Gabriel opined in high dudgeon back in April of this year.
In a statement called “Bush’s Neanderthal speech,” German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said: “His speech showed not leadership but losership. We are glad that there are also other voices in the United States.”
Sigmar is accurate that other voices exist. They may emit nonsense, but they do exist. Al Gore’s call for civil disobedience against the building of future clean coal plants is perhaps the sort of voice Gabriel Sigmar enjoys hearing. Al Gore’s idiocy certainly would inspire anyone who rooted against the continued expansion of American industry.
“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering to loud applause.
“I believe for a carbon company to spend money convincing the stock-buying public that the risk from the global climate crisis is not that great represents a form of stock fraud because they are misrepresenting a material fact,” he said. “I hope these state attorney generals around the country will take some action on that.”
This would make people believe Climate Change truly threatens the commonweal and, to borrow a brilliant movie analogy from Ace of Spades, leaves us calling for Captain Walker to lead us to “Tommorrow, Morrow Land.” When a former US Vice-President speaks this strongly of the need to reduce and control carbon emissions, it lends credence to the otherwise fanciful drivel being pedaled by the IPCC.
So then, what happens when the political processes both in The United States and in Europe demands answers to this grave existential threat? To measure the true magnitude of an impending threat, examine just exactly what politicians will sacrifice to stave off said looming Sword of Damocles. In the United States, the answer became immediately clear, as Senators Warner and Lieberman offered a Cap-In-Trade Plan to the US Senate to limit the emission of carbon dioxide within the United States.
As I blogged here, the actual opportunity to solve the problem led to a dramatically different view of how serious the threat from climate change truly was. The entire US Senate talked like they wanted to prevent global warming. Everyone sidled up to the bar of moral self-righteousness. Then, the bartender attempted to hand out the tabs.
Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown told the Cleveland Plain Dealer this week he was holding out in his support for the Lieberman-Warner bill because it did not do enough to protect his home state’s manufacturing jobs while still stimulating investments in alternative energy. “I have serious concerns about any climate-change bill that doesn’t take into account energy-intensive industries like we have in Ohio — glass and chemicals and steel and aluminum and foundries,” Brown said.
And I only pick on Sherrod Brown because Dennis Kucinich hasn’t been elected to Ohio’s other Senate seat yet. Several other Democrats were incensed that their home states would lose revenue or jobs to a law that quite frankly seeks to make combustion a legally limited activity. Perhaps Sherrod Brown could patiently explain to Ron Paul and his Merry Band of Truthers that fire really is capable of melting steel.
This suggests that environmental regulation of greenhouse gas emissions doesn’t represent a desperately needed step to salvation. It would be something our senators would believe in, if it were possible to accomplish at Wal-Mart prices. In truth, it would be best accomplished if we were to imitate Wal-Mart and outsource much of the reduction work involved to India or China. As the data below indicates, countries not invited to join Kyoto do not seem to believe they have any reason for concern.
Developing countries not asked to reduce greenhouse gases by the 1997 Kyoto treaty – and China and India are among them – now account for 53 percent of carbon dioxide pollution. That group of nations surpassed industrialized ones in carbon dioxide emissions in 2005, a new analysis of older figures shows.
None of this could possibly reside above the intellectual pay grade of Nobel Prize Winner and former VPOTUS Al Gore. Nor do I think that scientists monitoring the situation and calling it “scary” do so out of shock and surprise. Scientists, politicians, and lately Wall-Street High-Binders have made a profitable shtick out of calling things “scary”. And boy do our scientific rent-seekers call this scary.
What is “kind of scary” is that the worldwide emissions growth is beyond the highest growth in fossil fuel predicted just two years ago by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Ben Santer, an atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab.
Oh, and it gets even “scarier”….
If this trend continues for the century, “you’d have to be luckier than hell for it just to be bad, as opposed to catastrophic,” said Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider.
Not only should this man stop blaspheming in public, he should also stop taking his talking points from Thomas Malthus and Sec Tres. Paulson. Quite frankly, I am as disgusted with this alarmism in the pursuit of unbridled and unwarranted individual power as I am cynical over what our environmental and financial “saviors” would do with this extra-constitutional power to govern by fiat.
I’m reminded that Danton, Marat, and Robespierre assumed the authority that they assumed in the name of a Committee of Public Safety. They cried “Wolf!” to get the keys to the armory. Then they gleefully chopped a bunch of people’s heads off. When these “emergencies” let that big, red dog off the chain, the consequent tyranny is well nigh irreversible.
So here it is in black and white. I oppose the bailout, I oppose cap and trade and I oppose every other “emergency” measure our leaders dream up to protect us until I’ve seen a lot more actual desperation and sincerity on the part of those who are here to save us. A $700B housing bailout that includes a $140B contribution to ACORN is about as desperate and honest as a cap and trade bill that doesn’t require sacrifice out of any industries in Ohio, Washington, North Dakota, Nebraska…..
I don’t want to be saved. I don’t want to be bailed-out at a cost of my rights or as an excuse for me to pass the buck on my fundamental responsibilities as an adult. The next time some, Senator, President or appointed Bureaucratic Boogeyman, posing as a subject matter expert, tells me “The Sky is falling! The sky is falling!”, I, for one, won’t buy it until I see the pictures of