Green hypocrisy


Tim Ball, who received a Phd in climatology from the University of London and teaches at the University of Winnipeg, was accused of "getting money from the oil companies" because he is sceptical that green house gases cause global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists and other agencies accuse respected scientists of the same crime.

Time will answer the ifs, hows, and whys of global warming. We may or may not be in danger of melting ice, but we are definitely in danger of alarmist hypocrisy. Several industries already receive huge subsidies, including the corn farmers, and other special interest groups and green companies are lining up fast.

Will these green economic policies be effective? According to the Wall Street Journal:

An estimate by the International Energy Agency holds that, to ward off the worst of climate change, the world by 2030 must build 34 hydroelectric dams the size of China's Three Gorges Dam, 510 nuclear plants, 289,000 wind turbines, 6,800 biomass plants and 714 fossil fuel plants equipped with unproven CO2 capture technology.

Will this happen? Considering more nuclear power plants have been decommissioned than built in the last decade and that locations for dams that size are scarce, it seems unlikely. So why the speeches and promises from McCain and Obama (and let's not forget Ken Livingstone)?

Real solutions are lacking so politicians can only devote themselves to telling voters what they want to hear… Then what, as a practical matter, would be the aim of global warming policy? Our political system permits only one answer: to please the special interests that even now are gathering at the trough for subsidies in the name of climate change.

So while environmentalists accuse scientists of being paid off by oil companies, they’ll pad their own wallets with subsidies from the government.