The Green Gulag
|
8,000 people die in the UK every year due to what is being called
"Fuel Poverty". Fuel Poverty is a trendy term for those who can't afford
to heat their home because all the solar panels and windmills, the coal
bans and the wars on fracking have made it too expensive for people not
to freeze to death..
The left, which never misses a chance to blame profiteering for the failure of its policies, is staging "Die-Ins" outside energy companies to protect the real "Die-Ins" that they caused. But the real "Die-Ins" don't involve bored university students lying down on the concrete and posting the results to Tumblr. They end with the generation that saved Europe from Hitler dying in their own homes. Rising fuel prices can in no small part be attributed to environmental mania. Energy companies are not run by saints, but neither do they have an interest in pricing their product out of the reach of ordinary people. It's hard to sell home heat to the dead or the destitute. On the other hand environmentalists do indeed want to make it hard for ordinary to be able to afford to heat their homes. That's not a conspiracy theory. It's their policy. Talk of using carbon credits for "super-energy efficiency" is an admission that a movement using dead seniors as a prop is actually pushing to make energy use as expensive as possible and to reduce its use as much as possible. The "Die In" crowd isn't for lowering energy prices, it's for adding more taxes that will benefit their own parasitic clean energy experts. Say what you will about energy companies, but their business plan involves selling a product. The anti-energy environmentalists want to make it as expensive as possible. The costs of their policies are not just a talking point, but a grim reality. The family that has to choose between feeding their children or being able to drive to work and heat their home is not a talking point; they are the new Kulaks, the victims of an ideological activist policy that is killing innocent people for the Green greater good of the environment. Stalin killed millions to industrialize the Soviet Union, the Green Left is preparing to kill millions to deindustrialize North America, Europe and Australia. It's already doing it. While its activists are trying to peg the blame for fuel poverty fatalities on a government which is badly out of cash, it need look no further than its own activists and celebrities who preach the green life from their mansions. Clear energy has become the new Communism, an ideological program that can never be achieved, but for which we must all strive no matter how many die all along the way. In Scotland, the perennially deranged Scottish National Party called for generating 100 percent of the country's electricity from wind, wave and tidal power by 2020. This plan would add 900 pounds to the average fuel bill. And that is how fuel poverty gets started. Wales, which has the highest fuel poverty rate in the UK, is working on one of Europe's largest wind farms and has a plan for total clean energy by 2025, if anyone is still alive and hasn't frozen to death. Wind farms don't tend to do too well in the cold and human beings don't do too well without heat. The current "green" policies will see higher prices for two out of three homes in the UK by the end of the decade. It's not energy companies, but government policies that are responsible, especially when companies and homeowners get saddled with the cost of wind farms and various voodoo measures to fight global warming that mainly end up putting money in the pockets of well-connected Greenies. Americans complaining about high gas and oil prices can buckle up because that is only a taste of what is coming this way. Two years ago UK petrol prices hit 6 pounds per gallon. That's nearly 10 dollars, though for the imperial gallon which is higher than the US gallon. If you think it costs a lot to fill up a tank now, consider that the UK has a better ratio of production to population than we do. The high prices aren't an accident, they're part of the green program. The Obama agenda isn't to make energy prices affordable, it's to make them so horribly impossible to afford that we'll use less energy. Fuel poverty is the agenda here and we know that's so because he told us so. "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times and then just expect that other countries are going to say ok," he said. And, "If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted. That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches." That doesn't mean Obama can't heat the White House at 72 degrees or Hawaii level temperatures. It means that you can't do it. That's what fuel poverty really means. It means you have to freeze and if you die, then the community organizers of tomorrow will use your corpse as a prop in their ghoulish protests outside energy companies which have to not only cover all the clean energy boondoggles, but also take the blame for passing on the costs. Every clean energy program comes with a rider for ending fuel poverty by 2015 or 2025 or 2255, which would be at least slightly more realistic, but it's the clean energy that's causing the fuel poverty. A program to create fuel poverty cannot be expected to prevent fuel poverty. A plan that makes energy use more expensive will not end fuel poverty, even with any amount of government subsidies. The only thing that can end fuel poverty is cheap energy and that is what the left is dead set against. Yet oddly enough there was a time when people were able to heat their homes and drive their cars, when they were even able to carry shopping bags, minus Wales' tax on shopping bags, and afford to eat. That brief golden period was stomped out by the friends of the working class, who knew how urgent it was to make life harsh and miserable and who are busy finding ways to make it even worse. All this is for the greater good. Someone's greater good anyway. Clean energy is supposed to make for energy independence, but since going green the UK has become a net energy importer. Scotland risks going the same way. Enough ideological investment in not-ready for prime time technologies leads to people freezing to death and purchases of energy from outside to cover the shortfall. When all else fails, fake the figures. Promise impossible energy savings from energy efficiency. Obama's original stimulus plan focused heavily on energy efficiency in order to save money and create jobs. It accomplished neither goal, but the right people in the right companies got paid, which is how it always works. Green is too big to fail, even when people are turning blue. The left from Prince Charlie to the Caliph of Chicago keep telling us that we have to make do with less and part of making do with less is shivering in homes without heat or the planet will be destroyed. You can't make an energy efficient omelet without killing 8,000 or so people a year. Progress doesn't just mean unsightly factories and people putting on suits and going to work in corporations and all the other things that the left despises. It means the technological progress to keep large numbers of people from dying. If the US or the UK are to embrace the living standards of Africa as Prince Charles would like us to, they will also embrace its mortality rates. A reduction in the standard of living at this scale and on such a comprehensive level amounts to mass murder. The Soviet Union killed millions for its ideology. The Western left has only begun and the day will come when a few thousand pensioners dead in their homes will be weighed as the smallest part of their toll.
Daniel Greenfield is a New York City based writer and blogger and a
Shillman Journalism Fellow of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
|
| from Sultan Knish |
Big Lies, Little Lies, Made Up Numbers, Phony Projections, and Meaningless Statistics
This is how it
works.The Los Angeles Times, the left-coast cousin of the New York
Times, had a headline yesterday, in their SCIENCE NOW section that stated positively “Climate change brings more crime.”
They explain: A new study
broadens a notion held by criminologists. “Periods of higher
temperatures — on an hour-by-hour or week-to-week basis— are likely to
produce more crime. The study suggests global warming will trigger more
crimes including murders and rapes over the next century, with social
costs estimated to run as high as $115 billion.”
Between 2010 and 2099, climate change can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft, the study published this week in the Journal of Environmental Economics and Management says.Compared with the number of crimes expected to occur during this period in the absence of climate change, these figures represent a 2.2% increase in murders, a 3.1% increase in cases of rape, a 2.3% increase in aggravated assaults, a 1.2% increase in simple assaults, a 1% increase in robberies, a 0.9% increase in burglaries, a 0.5% increase in cases of larceny and a 0.8% increase in cases of vehicle theft, the study says.
There has been no warming,
none, zilch, for 17 years. The sun has gone quiet. Much as we would
like to, we cannot predict the future. We don’t know if we are entering a
new ice age. We do know that meteorologists, those folks who have made a
profession of studying weather patterns, and tell us what to expect for
tomorrow on the nightly news, can’t forecast beyond a week out.
The climate scientists who
have attempted to duplicate the world climate in computerized climate
programs are constrained by the fact that we just don’t understand very
much about how climate works. We know, for example that clouds are
important in the process, but we don’t know how much and just how.
Anyone who has lain on the grass in the summer, watching clouds,
understands the problems. There are all different kinds of clouds, and
they move. The wind is different at different levels and one level of
clouds may be moving to the East while another level is moving West.
Some levels move fast, others don’t.
When you get a study that
is projecting out to 2099, with nice round numbers of burglaries and
assaults, you can be confident that the numbers are made up and
accompanied by a dog and pony show designed to show the importance of
the study and the amazing smarts of the company receiving a humongous
check for their services. “An immediate and permanent 4% increase in the
size of the U.S. police force would be required to offset the aggregate
climate-related increases in murder, manslaughter, robbery, burglary
and vehicle theft likely to occur over the next century.” My family
always used a term left over from horse-and-buggy days. They called it,
politely, “road apples.”
The scary thing is that
this is how our government operates. The EPA will tell you exactly how
many children will die from asthma over the next 20—50 years. They make
up the numbers, because Congress is impressed by numbers, and “the
study” sounds much more impressive bolstered by numbers. Our president
is quite comfortable making up numbers to lull his audience, as
ObamaCare should have taught you by now. The Federal Government floats
on a sea of paper, most of it including made up facts, estimated
effects, and completely phony numbers.
| by clyde |
by Brendan Bordelon
Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer questioned President Barack Obama’s new climate change push on Monday,
claiming “the president pretends that this is settled science” when in
reality there is little the United States can do to reverse global
carbon emissions.
Krauthammer spoke on a Fox
News panel along with The Hill’s A.B. Stoddard and The Weekly
Standard’s Steve Hayes about the White House’s new push on global
warming. The columnist warned about the dangers of crafting policy based
on unsettled scientific theory — especially when that theory admits
there is little one country can do to halt runaway greenhouse gases.
“The president pretends
that this is all settled science,” he began. “Newton’s laws were
considered settled for 200 years until a patent clerk [Albert Einstein]
in Switzerland turned them over with a single paper in 1903 — and that
was pretty settled science. The idea that this is all settled is
absurd.”
“However, even if you
accept it, then you look at what he did last week,” Krauthammer
continued. “He wants to pretend that these individual weather events are
caused by global warming, which is supposedly the settled science. And
The New York Times — which is not exactly a right-wing rag — it says
that there is no definitive evidence that it is causing the drought in
the West Coast.”
“In fact — and I’m quoting
here,” he said, “the most recent computer projections suggest that as
the world warms, it should be getting wetter, not drier, out there in
the winter. So if you accept the settled science of climate change, you
would have the exact opposite affect of what we saw last week in
California.”
“So the arrogance of this
is rather appalling,” Krauthammer claimed, “but worse is the application
of it to our economy. Shutting the coal industry, hurting us in mass
transit, getting us out of our large cars. All of this is driven by this
ideology, which in and of itself is a matter of almost theology.”
No comments:
Post a Comment