Dec 14

Exactly.

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
May 21

Dovetailing nicely with Bjørn Lomborg’s column, The Climate-Industrial Complex (which we posted last night), GE’s CEO, Jeff Immelt, validates Lomborg’s position.

…GE’s CEO Jeff Immelt appeared on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” May 20 to discuss the White House meeting of President Barack Obama’s 16-member Economic Recovery Advisory Board headed by former Federal Reserve chief Paul Volcker.

Immelt used his platform at CNBC to make the case for a cap-and-trade program to curb emissions – something Obama has called for and one Congressional committee is debating this week.

“There’s going to have to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “In some way, shape of form, you’re going to have to create some certainty. You have to make technology your friend in this debate. But we sit here today Becky, I think about things like global warming. We’ve been on this for four or five years.”

Immelt contended he wasn’t an environmentalist, despite criticism that his networks’ have patterns of promoting the green agenda. Immelt told “Squawk Box” the science surrounding man-caused global warming was “compelling” and that it was only a matter of time before something will be done about carbon emissions.

“I think the science, as a CEO I’m not an environmentalist – just purely as a CEO that has to make a payroll – things like that,” Immelt continued. “The science is compelling, so it’s a question of when and not if there’s going to be something done on carbon. Give us some certainty and let’s go.”

The General Electric CEO said he favored a cap-and-trade system to regulate carbon emissions versus a carbon tax.

“Look, I’ve said it – there’s got to be a price for carbon,” Immelt said. “I’ve come to the conclusion that cap-and-trade is the most effective way to create a market and go. There’s going to be people that argue for taxes. But, I – I just think cap-and-trade is the more practical approach. But let’s debate all that stuff, but let’s get it done.”

Austan Goolsbee, a former campaign flack now serving on the Council of Economic Advisers and staff director and chief economist of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, joined Immelt in the CNBC segment. Goolsbee called for cooperation between the private sector and the federal government for the sake of the green agenda.

“Here’s a case where government policy with the private sector working together is the only way that it really can get done,” Goolsbee said. “And looking at it internationally too, it’s got to be done in an international context, so the U.S. isn’t the only one passing these rules. But we’ve fallen behind in this. This is a place where the government’s energy policy could be used in a way that would help American business and thus far you know, has been less so we’re trying to push that today in this meeting.”

Hat tip: Drudge

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
May 20

Bjørn Lomborg writes in The Wall Street Journal:

Some business leaders are cozying up with politicians and scientists to demand swift, drastic action on global warming. This is a new twist on a very old practice: companies using public policy to line their own pockets.

The tight relationship between the groups echoes the relationship among weapons makers, researchers and the U.S. military during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned about the might of the “military-industrial complex,” cautioning that “the potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” He worried that “there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.”

This is certainly true of climate change. We are told that very expensive carbon regulations are the only way to respond to global warming, despite ample evidence that this approach does not pass a basic cost-benefit test. We must ask whether a “climate-industrial complex” is emerging, pressing taxpayers to fork over money to please those who stand to gain.

This phenomenon will be on display at the World Business Summit on Climate Change in Copenhagen this weekend. The organizers — the Copenhagen Climate Council — hope to push political leaders into more drastic promises when they negotiate the Kyoto Protocol’s replacement in December.

The opening keynote address is to be delivered by Al Gore, who actually represents all three groups: He is a politician, a campaigner and the chair of a green private-equity firm invested in products that a climate-scared world would buy.

Naturally, many CEOs are genuinely concerned about global warming. But many of the most vocal stand to profit from carbon regulations.

The partnership among self-interested businesses, grandstanding politicians and alarmist campaigners truly is an unholy alliance. The climate-industrial complex does not promote discussion on how to overcome this challenge in a way that will be best for everybody. We should not be surprised or impressed that those who stand to make a profit are among the loudest calling for politicians to act. Spending a fortune on global carbon regulations will benefit a few, but dearly cost everybody else.

Read it all at The Wall Street Journal.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
May 18

The Business and Media Institute reports:

One of the tricks in the global warming alarmist playbook over the years has been to show how global warming will cause sea levels to rise and flood the low-lying coastal areas where population centers happen to be, specifically lower Manhattan in New York City.

However, the imagery used by Al Gore in his “An Inconvenient Truth” and by various other global warming made-for-television specials isn’t scientifically accurate according to Bjørn Lomborg, author of “Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.”

Lomborg was asked by Gene Epstein in the May 18 issue of Barron’s if it would be “smart to prevent global warming as soon as possible — to avoid seeing Manhattan under 20 feet of water in ten years?”

“That makes for vivid imagery, but it isn’t what the science is telling us,” Lomborg said. “According to the thousands of scientists the U.N. asked to evaluate the data, the sea-level rise between now and 2100 will be somewhere between six inches and two feet — not 20 feet — with most estimates around one foot.”

But even if this doomsday scenario were true, Lomborg contended it’s too late for a preventive measure as such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade legislation to take effect. And anyway, people would build the necessary infrastructure to keep sea-level rise from interfering with day-to-day life.

“And if it really were true that Manhattan will be 20 feet underwater in 10 years, there would be no time to reverse global warming anyway,” Lomborg said. “Once Manhattanites witness the first three feet of sea-level rise in three years, the only sane thing would be to build dikes.

Read it all at The Business and Media Institute.

Hat tip: Climate Change Fraud

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Sep 26

This is a great video. Highly recommended viewing.

One of the subjects covered are the ideas of Julian Simon (one of our heroes), which Bjorn Lomborg enthusiastically agrees with and inspired him in his research which resulted in his book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. For those unfamiliar with Simon, his grand idea was:

More people, and increased income, cause resources to become more scarce in the short run. Heightened scarcity causes prices to rise. The higher prices present opportunity, and prompt inventors and entrepreneurs to search for solutions. Many fail in the search, at cost to themselves. But in a free society, solutions are eventually found. And in the long run the new developments leave us better off than if the problems had not arisen. That is, prices eventually become lower than before the increased scarcity occurred.

This is the kind of idea that, as Glenn Beck might say, would make blood shoot out of Al Gore’s eyes. Which is why we are posting it here.

Julian Simon’s book, The Ultimate Resource II, is here. The best book I ever read.

Be the first to like.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
preload preload preload