Thursday, January 31, 2008

Global Warming Advocates Are Truly Anti-Western

I keep telling you that while some members of the Church of Global Warming may be sincere in their beliefs (reader/commenter Cameron among them), the High Priests of the Church have hidden, sinister motives.

And I keep telling you what those motives are: ruin the "decadent" West, and create a new ruling elite (with themselves at the top, of course).

Apparently, Bill Clinton agrees with me.

Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.

In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren."

Slow down our economy. Some people just don't approve of prosperity for the masses (only for themselves, of course).

Update, 2/11/08: Here's another interesting link with an author who agrees with me:

I've always suspected that some environmentalists would only be happy when they had returned humanity to the Dark Ages, but I'd never expected this....
Go see for yourself what "this" is =)


Ellen K said...

And here's the problem. If, God forbid, Clinton wins the election, she will sign the Kyoto Accord. You think the Sub-prime mess is bad? This enforced economic slow-down will cause factories and jobs to exit pronto to the nearest haven. And with so many of the "poor" countries more than willing to build all kinds of smoky, dirty, unsafe and unmonitored factories at pennies on the dollar, those businesses will end up in India, China, Taiwan, Indonesia and South American nations. This is a systematic demolition of the economic system of the west. There's no question they mean to cut us off at the knees.

allen said...

Ellen, take a breath. The Kyoto Accords have been sitting around for quite a while. Bubba wouldn't send them to the Senate because a straw poll showed the Kyoto Accords losing ratification by something like 92-2. I'm not sure of the exact number but there wasn't a chance in hell of it passing.

Nothing much has changed since then. The Kyoto Accords are just as much a set of economic shackles sized for the U.S. now as they were then and there's not much support for consigning the U.S. to an economic catastrophe on par with the Great Depression.

Also building "all kinds of smoky, dirty, unsafe and unmonitored factories" is a phase. China's starting to come out the other side and it's driven by the same market forces that drive the smoky, dirty, etc. factories.

As wages go up it begins to make more economic sense to knock down the old, high-labor factories which are inevitably also greater polluters and replace them with factories which need fewer of the now more highly-paid workers and also use newer, less-polluting processes.

Ellen K said...

And where did all those lead covered toys and poisoned pet foods come from? They won't monitor. They will give lipservice to the public concept of monitoring, but this recent fiasco should be a pretty serious indication that China is going to make their own rules, as will India, Indonesia and the rest. In the end, if the Kyoto Accord is signed as is, the U.S. will be the main nation that ends up with sanctions, limitations and loss of economic power, period.

Quincy said...

ellen -

They won't monitor so long as it ain't hurting their profit margin. With all the anti-China press that's been floating around the last year, you can bet that they've already started working on ways to improve quality. The free market has whacked them over the head with a clue bat, and they're beginning to listen.

Conversely, if they go back to their old ways again, we can go back to not buying what they produce, though I have to admit that Kyoto's econoshackles would make avoiding Chinese goods harder than it already is.

David said...

Chinese power production will naturally get cleaner over time, if by "cleaner" you mean less black smoke and pollution in the sense the word was used until recently. Because better equipment & controls means the coal burns more completely, which saves on the coal bill as well as reducing pollution.

This natural process, however, does *not* apply to CO2 reduction, which from the standpoint of the power producer is a pure cost. (Except in the special cases where there's another industry nearby which can use captured CO2)

Ellen K said...

Before you all get misty eyed over the Kyoto Accord, you might want to read at
It seems that not everyone is enamored of Al Gore's World View. And while you are at it, follow the links in the story to the part about how South Africa is strongarming their population into PC Green compliance, even when it is seriously handicapping their economy. Taken out to the developing nations, how much slow is their development going to become when they can't use power sources which are abundant, but forbidden? Such is the case right now with nuclear energy in the US, thanks to environmental groups that get most of their information from movies.