MPs have no idea how to meet the 'carbon' target they voted for ... When readers asked their MPs to explain how the UK would cut emissions by 80 per cent, the answers made worrying reading ... The great scare has long been dying on its feet, but that sad fiasco of a conference in Rio last week saw it finally dead and buried. "It's pathetic, it's appalling," wailed a spokesman for , one of the thousands of green activists who flew to Rio, many at taxpayers' expense, to see the last rites read over their lost dream. Their cause has even been abandoned by one of its most outspoken champions, the green guru James Lovelock of "Gaia" fame, who now admits that the warming scare was all a tragic mistake, and that talk of "sustainable development" is just "meaningless drivel." – UK Telegraph
Dominant Social Theme: It's very hot in here, and you better be scared!
Free-Market Analysis: This is a pretty incredible observation – that British politicians have no idea how they are going to attain the "goals" they voted for regarding the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
This ludicrous assertion will surely go down as a case of mass hysteria. The idea that one can achieve a target of an 80 percent reduction – yes 80 percent! – is only outdone by the idea that the world NEEDS this sort of reduction.
There are two gases necessary to life on this planet, and one of them is carbon dioxide. Even if the Earth WERE warming, and there are grave doubts about it, removing 80 percent of carbon from the atmosphere would more likely have the effect of, well ... choking us than freezing us.
It is really a case of the Emperor's New Clothes writ large. The behind this nonsense has promoted it heavily over the past decade. Fortunately, the larger population has rejected the idea of carbon capture as rubbish. It is perfectly predictable, however, that politicians have not. Here's more from the article:
The "epic failure" of Rio, as Friends of the Earth called it, is an apt cue to recall how this leaves Britain as the only country in the world committed by law to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent in less than 40 years. The Climate Change Act, on the Government's own figures, faces us with a bill of up to £18 billion every year until 2050, making it by far the most costly law ever passed by Parliament.
More important still, however, this raises the question: how do all those MPs who voted almost unanimously for this target (only three voted against it) think we can meet this obligation without closing down virtually our entire economy?
This is the question which, in April, I invited readers to put to their MPs, and I am very grateful to all those who have now sent me the replies they received, from nearly 50 MPs. These, I fear, are even more depressing than I anticipated.
The article's author, Christopher Booker, goes on to explain most of his responses seemed to rely on a form letter supplied by the Department of Energy and Climate Change that began with the sentence: "Decarbonisation does not mean de-industrialisation."
Some used the letter; others simply signed their own names to it. Apparently, Booker received correspondence from climate change minister Greg Barker, who "chirped about the Green Deal, Renewables Incentives and ."
Others claimed that onshore wind would provide a low-carbon energy future, one that would create an additional half-million jobs by the year 2020. The "silliest response," Booker writes, came from Oliver Letwin, who claimed the costs of the Climate Change Act had been greatly exaggerated. This, Booker notes, was unfortunate, as the numbers came from the government's own DECC website. Letwin also claimed that solar, wind and carbon capture were becoming so efficient that they "will be able to operate without subsidies."
As reader after reader observed, not a single MP addressed the question. Not one had done any serious homework or showed the slightest practical grasp of how electricity is made and how our transport system is powered. They merely regurgitated irrelevant, jargon-ridden propaganda passed on to them by others. As one reader put it: "What is infinitely depressing is that all these idiots believe the nonsense they are fed."
Booker points out that Britain depends on CO2-emitting fossil fuels for 75 per cent of its electricity and almost all of the transport system. Arguing that renewables such as wind and solar will do the job seems a kind of non-starter, he explains, as both wind and solar are undependable and demand a fossil fuel backup.
The most important point of the article, however, is that British pols voted for an 80 percent reduction in atmospheric carbon with no plan in place to achieve the reductions and no idea of what the consequences would be in any case. This only reaffirms our perception that Western politicians generally are controlled by a larger, private power elite that promotes these fear-based "scarcity" promotions in order to propound world government.
Whatever it is that the top elites (who want to run the world) propose, these rubber stamp Western parliaments and congresses will apparently approve, no matter how nonsensical.
Democracy under these conditions is certainly a farce. It's a bought-and-paid-for performance that has little or nothing to do with the "welfare" of the larger mass of people and everything to do with obeying the dictates of a small group of enormously powerful people who promote these to frighten middle classes into accepting increasing amounts of .
It is evidently and obviously a lie that Western democratic governments are anything but the obedient mechanisms of the modern power elite. It is surely illustrated by the votes of one of the oldest parliaments in the world to extract 80 percent of carbon from the atmosphere and then "sequester" it.
Conclusion: One is apt to wish that they "choke" on the atmosphere they wish so cavalierly and thoughtlessly to produce.