Global warming alarmists in recent years have applauded Europeans for fighting the warming boogey man the way Americans so far have been hesitant to.
Before Americans buy into the European way, they might check how things are developing across the pond where the fight against so-called global warming has been waged longer, and stronger - with (gee here’s a surprise) unintended consequences. (Emphases ours)
“Labour’s foolhardy policies are shaped by the conviction that, in the words of David Miliband, tackling climate change is ‘the mass mobilizing movement of our age.’ The principles of fairness and equality used to stand at the heart of centre-left governments. Protecting the interests of poor and disadvantaged members of society was essential to the popular appeal of left and labour parties. Those parties have substituted these ideals with an environmental program in which saving the planet for the generations of the future has taken priority over the principle of liberating the underprivileged and disadvantaged from poverty and restitution today. Britain’s Labour government may believe that its climate policies are saving the planet. But in the process they are destroying the foundations of the party.” - Benny Peiser, Financial Post, 27 May 2008
Why does Peiser say this? Here’s just one reason:
“Gordon Brown is facing a fresh tax rebellion as Labour MPs demand the repeal of a £200 increase in vehicle excise duty on environmentally unfriendly cars purchased in the past seven years. As lorry drivers prepare to stage a slow-moving protest through London today against rising fuel duties, a ministerial aide broke ranks to brand the levy an unacceptable retrospective tax that would discredit green taxes. More than 30 Labour MPs have signed a Commons early day motion demanding repeal of the £200 increase in duty, due to be introduced next year.” –Nicholas Watt, The Guardian, 27 May 2008
It’s a pretty common theme these days…
“Mr. Brown had joined other European leaders two years ago in placing targeted taxes on large vehicles, fuel, plastic bags and air travel with the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 60 per cent by 2050, in accordance with the Kyoto agreement. Experts had said that even with these policies, that target would be difficult to meet. But European voters have begun to rebel against these measures.” -Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, 28 May 2008
Common indeed:
“After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe’s ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned. While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along. Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices?” –Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, 28 May 2008
RELATED POSTS:
Unintended consequences of global warming policies
Global warming saves (you read it right) lives
Global warming quote of the day . . .
Global warming quote of the day
Global warmists to gather in their limousines
Global warming causes so much. Or does it?
Oops, another major crack in the global warming armour
Just when you’re feeling safe, they decide again to fix global warming
Fresh evidence that the global warming alarmists are causing hardships over in Europe. Hopefully, U.S. politicians. will not follow their lead and example. Otherwise, we who commute to work in our cars, are going to have a rough and more expensive future.
Does anyone think that the fact that every airbreathing lifeform on this planet has been expelling c02 24 hours a day every day and that amount dwafs any amount of carbon we artificially pump out?and that this little “inconvienent “fact is completely ignored?
[Sigh] the issue, maxxx, isn’t whether living organisms expel CO2 - that’s a given. The issue is whether the EXCESS amounts that we put into the atmosphere, as a result of burning fossil fuels - whch are, of course, the remains of millions of years of living organisms, and so have sequestered their CO2 for that long - are having, or will have an effect on climate. The CO2 emitted and absorbed by the planet’s present biomass etc is relatively constant - it’s the wrench thrown into the works by fossil fuel emissions that’s the concern. Like a river that’s fine day to day, but dangerous when you dump a major rainstorm into it and it floods. OK?
Sure we can look at whether “usual” emission sources that under normal cirsumstances might not be an issue should be addressed too, but that’s trimming the nose hairs on a poodle - it doesn”t deal with the major issue.
Now the fun begins. Benny Peiser is a Lecturer in the School of Sport and Exercise Science at John Moores University in Liverpool - his training is likewise in that field. There are loads of jokes that come to mind here, but I think Mr. Peiser is enough of one all by himself.
As for the protests in Europe, That’s their issue ,with how they want to deal with the issue. What it has to do with the question of whether we have a problem on our hands is frankly beyond me. I’ve said before that I’m skeptical of the utility of a lot of the measures being proposed to address the climate change issue, but the fact that those chosen by folks in Europe have become controversial doesn;t mean they, or we, or anyone, should do nothing, or not give up thinking of better ways to skin this particular cat. Change is not fun, and it’s dislocating, but it’s also an inevitable fact of life.
And, of course, the issue in these protests was fuel costs - if they were lower, do you think the measures imposed to address climate change issues would be so controversial? They weren’t when those prices were lower, so my guess is not. This news doesn’t mean that the populace over there denies the reality of the problem - they just are angry over gas prices (sound familiar?). We need to not mix apples and oranges here.
Wait a minute. Let’s suppose for a moment that global warming is completely made up — or that humans can do nothing to prevent it. There are still policies that would slash energy costs and carbon emissions at the same time. And those should be adopted whether you’re an environmentalist or a capitalist.
I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that turns manufacturers’ waste heat into clean power and steam. The result is far greater efficiency, cutting energy bills considerably for industrialists that do it. The only reason more isn’t being done is that regulations protecting monopoly utilities make it hard for more efficient options to emerge. In other words, the government is distorting the market.
So if conservatives could stop getting mad at environmentalists long enough to notice a common cause, we’d all be better off.