Right Wing Nut House



Filed under: Decision '08, Environment, Politics — Rick Moran @ 11:02 am

Hillary Clinton has apparently spurred world leaders to come to an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Was it the power of her personality? The moral suasion of her arguments? Her good looks?

More like her promise to help raise $100 billion a year to give to developing countries - in addition to the foreign aid we already are supplying - so that they can deal with the “effects” of climate change:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised the United States will help raise $100 billion annually by 2020 to assist poor countries in coping with climate change as long as America’s demands for a global warming pledge are met.

Clinton’s announcement, made during a packed news conference, represents a major breakthrough in the U.N.-led talks, which had all but ground to a halt last night. But Clinton emphasized that the money is only on the table so long as fast-growing nations like China and India accept binding commitments that are open to international inspection and verification. If other countries don’t bend, she warned, the poorest countries will suffer.

“In the absence of an operational agreement that meets the requirements that I outlined, there will not be that financial agreement, at least from the United States,” Clinton warned. And, she added: “Without that accord, there won’t be the kind of joint global action from all of the major economies we all want to see, and the effects in the developing world could be catastrophic.”

The pledged amount is less than what the European Union had laid out as necessary to help the poorest countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America prepare for climate disasters and develop low-fossil-fuel economies. Clinton said the funding would come from a mix of public and private financing, including revenue raised from the auctioning of emission allowances under a possible U.S. cap-and-trade system still under development on Capitol Hill.

There seems to be some confusion in the blogosphere over this figure of $100 billion. No, the US would not be paying all of it as many are reporting. But you can bet we’ll be paying a nice chunk of it, and that was music to the ears of the developing world.

President Obama arrived Friday morning and immediately went into a meeting with several dozen heads of state to try and save the conference by coming up with at least some kind of interim deal where the details could be worked out later:

A visibly angry Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet at China and other developing nations Friday, declaring that the time has come “not to talk but to act” on climate change.

Emerging from a multinational meeting boycotted by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Obama warned delegates that U.S. offers of funding for poor nations would remain on the table “if and only if” developing nations, including China, agreed to international monitoring of their greenhouse gas emissions.

“I have to be honest, as the world watches us. … I think our ability to take collective action is in doubt and it hangs in the balance,” Obama told the COP-15 plenary session as hope faded for anything more than a vague political in agreement.

“The time for talk is over, this is the bottom line: We can embrace this accord, take a substantial step forward. We can do that, and everyone who is in this room will be part of an historic endeavor, or we can choose delay,” he said.

He added, “The question is whether we will move forward together, or split apart. … We know the fault lines because we’ve been imprisoned by them for years.”

Back home, senators critical to getting a climate bill through Congress have stressed that developing nations must submit to international monitoring — particularly if they want the U.S. to pay hundreds of billions to help combat the destructive impact of climate change.

Rumors of a deal were greatly exaggerated. Evidently, everyone is hanging back until Obama commits the US to ruinous emissions targets. Obama is holding back until he gets China to walk the plank with him by agreeing to robust, on-site “verification” procedures. China won’t do it because, obviously, they want to cheat and don’t want anyone knowing it.

China will play the global warming game when they want everyone to believe they are being a good global citizen. But when it comes right down to it, any emissions targets would be ruinous to their coal-fired economy. Hence, they have not only been pushing for nebulous targets but for weak verification as well. And the US wants to deny China any of that climate change cash that great environmentalists and human righs champions like Hugo Chavez and Robert Mugabe are licking their chops over.

The kleptocrats of the world who have stolen hundreds of billions from their own people, as well as taxpayers in western countries as foreign aid has largely gone down a black hole of graft and corruption, are lining up for their cut of this bounty. And if you believe that much of this trillion dollar largess is going to be spent on efforts to mitigate the effects of climate change, I have a bridge over the Chicago river I would like to sell you.

The world has gone mad and our president is in lock step with them as they approach the precipice. Even if you “believe” the science - and not all climate change advocates are frauds, or evangelists for warming, or commies wanting to take over the world - the reaction of the planet’s leaders to this problem is blown titanically out of proportion. It is the Precautionary Principle run wild.

Why believe those scientists who say we must act now to avoid catastrophe? Why is their work any more believable than those who say it’s already too late or those who say we have at least another century before we have to start worrying? There may be “consensus” that the world is warming and that man is at least party responsible. But there is nothing approaching scientific agreement on how much the earth will warm, how long it will take, and - most importantly - whether reducing emissions will help alleviate the problem at all.

Is Friedman right?

When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is “irreversible” and potentially “catastrophic,” I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.

If we prepare for climate change by building a clean-power economy, but climate change turns out to be a hoax, what would be the result? Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices. But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. We would be much less dependent on oil dictators who have drawn a bull’s-eye on our backs; our trade deficit would improve; the dollar would strengthen; and the air we breathe would be cleaner. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent.

But if we don’t prepare, and climate change turns out to be real, life on this planet could become a living hell. And that’s why I’m for doing the Cheney-thing on climate — preparing for 1 percent.

Friedman’s scenario is a dream. First of all, there is nothing “gradual” about this switch. The president wants to cut our emissions 20% by 2030 and have 10% of our power output based in “renewable” sources by 2020. Currently, renewables account for around 3% - and most of that is nuclear which, as we all realize, is a no no in the environmental movement.

As far as the Precautionary Principle is concerned, Rand Simberg applies the necessary realism in his response to Friedman’s desire to “buy insurance” against his 1% probability of warming:

Well, I do that, too. But I buy insurance that has a price commensurate with the expected value (i.e., the cost of the disaster times the probability that it will occur). For instance, I’ll pay a few hundred bucks for a million-dollar policy against the small chance that I’ll kick off tomorrow. Presumably, Friedman assumes that the proposed palliatives of cap’n’tax or carbon taxes meet that criterion, but he doesn’t do the calculations for us, because he can’t. Warm mongers like him propose to spend trillions of dollars now to prevent an unknown amount of cost later, in defiance of the basic economic principle of discounting the value of future expenditures.

There is a variation on this fallacy, in fact. It goes: There is a crisis; something must be done! What we propose to do is something. Therefore, it must be done!

This invalid argument is otherwise known as false choice, of course, because the alternative to the particular something being proposed is not nothing (even if one accepts the initial premise that there is a crisis about which something must be done) — it is a variety of other somethings, some of which may be the something that is actually key to solving the problem, even if their own is not necessarily.

So in the next decade, we are going to ostensibly replace coal fired generating plants with either a massive program to put solar panels on tens of millions of structures, or simply do without power. That would mean frequent brown outs and perhaps even blackouts - you know, kind of like they have in the third world. Those coal plants will simply become too expensive to run and the electricity generated would be too expensive to buy.

Subsidy loving liberals will step in to solve the problem. Hey! Let’s give money to folks so they can make the changeover to solar! Or help the poor folks pay their massively increased electric bills! Or both!

Secondly, the massive dislocations caused by the precipitous changeover to a “green” economy are ill understood. Certainly there are millions of jobs in the coal, oil and gas, utility, and other fossil fuel industries that would be lost for good because of these goals. And to say they would be “replaced” by green jobs is idiotic. Is anyone seriously trying to make the point that a 40 year old coal miner in West Virginia could simply show up at a solar panel manufacturing plant and get a job? Or a roughneck find employment on a wind turbine farm?

Get real. Friedman will find out what a “living hell” looks like if the kinds of draconian measures being advocated in Copenhagen actually become reality. And it’s hard not to believe that literally destroying the capitalist economies of the west so that we just don’t feel sympathy for third world countries but actually become just like them isn’t part of the plan as the reaction to Hugo Chavez in Copenhagen made clear:

President Chavez brought the house down.

When he said the process in Copenhagen was “not democratic, it is not inclusive, but isn’t that the reality of our world, the world is really and imperial dictatorship…down with imperial dictatorships” he got a rousing round of applause.

When he said there was a “silent and terrible ghost in the room” and that ghost was called capitalism, the applause was deafening.

But then he wound up to his grand conclusion – 20 minutes after his 5 minute speaking time was supposed to have ended and after quoting everyone from Karl Marx to Jesus Christ - “our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell….let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” He won a standing ovation.

Note to Chavez; the most polluted places on this planet are in Russia and eastern Europe; nations where socialism reined supreme for decades and where profit was a dirty word. And Communist China is the second largest emitter of CO2 on earth.

This is not about the earth warming. It is not about temperature. It is not about saving the earth.

This is about control. And if you can’t see that after what has gone on in Copenhagen this week, then you deserve the absolute worst fate that these thugs and autocrats have in store for you.


  1. If we go with that “1 percent probability” strategy, we should now quite possibly be building a fleet of “?” to combat incoming meteors and comets. But let’s not leave out solar flares (”Knowing“) or perhaps God’s second coming (guess we will need mass conversions for that).

    Comment by Neo — 12/18/2009 @ 1:07 pm

  2. You’re right. It IS about forming a global gov’t. which is socialist. If you missed the last edition of it, there will be a repeat of the “Global Warming” on TruTV’s “Conspiracy Theory” w/ Jesse Ventura, Wed. Dec. 23rd.
    Be sure to watch this !
    It includes a lot of info. about what’s Really going on and exactly Who is behind it…..Not who you think, and it IS about the intent of forming a world gov’t.
    It started way further back than I ever imagined.

    At 9pm and again at 1am CST

    (On dishnetwork, TruTV is on channel 204.)

    Comment by SB Smith — 12/18/2009 @ 2:16 pm

  3. If the more industrialized countries are to subsidize poorer more, with funds for “going green”, what do these countries get in return?

    In the NY Times article cited I found the following: “Maria de Fatima Monteiro Jardim, environment minister of Angola, noted that African countries suffer dire poverty.”

    Angola is one of the more corrupt countries on the planet, no easy distinction to accomplish due to a lot of competition. After a 27 year Civil War, the management of the country is a bit disheveled, to put it kindly. Billions of aid dollars remain unaccounted for and it’s “great poverty” continues despite being a major producer of oil and diamonds, generating tens of billions of dollars each year.

    What guarantees can Angola and other “poor” nations offer to protect investing one hundred billion dollars for non-carbon based energy support? If history teaches us anything, there are no protections for the money.

    The while notion of a “green” economy has the same feel as getting rich selling Amway products or investing with Bernie Madoff. If your bulls**t detector is not going off at full alert, it should be. The demand for “green” is ginned up at best; using the same emotional appeal of feeding a child for $5.00 a month.

    And while we are at it, if one more person states that we must “save the planet” I will barf. The planet is in no danger. People may possibly be, but not the damn planet.

    It is absolutely self evident that if warming continues, mass migration of people will need to occur. Let’s save our money for that problem, not wreck Western (and Eastern) civilization with draconian fixes to what are only possible problems.

    Comment by still liberal — 12/18/2009 @ 2:42 pm

  4. still liberal said:

    If the more industrialized countries are to subsidize poorer more, with funds for “going green”, what do these countries get in return?

    What do we get in return? The question should be, what DON’T we get in return.

    The United States is like the giant floating party in The Douglas Adams book; “Life, The Universe, and Everyting.”

    Every time the party needs to be resupplied, we find a third world nation that has what we need and get to work. We swoop in under the cover of good will, then raid the cheese factories and vineyards for everything we need.

    After a bit of romancing, we leave the floundering third world country like it was a mistaken one night stand.

    Then, debt ridden and beholden to our corporations, they watch as the party takes off without them in search of whatever other resources are needed to keep the party going.

    The system works like a charm, as long as you’re a guest at the party. I never want to stop being a guest at this party. As long as you don’t look down, and continue drinking, it’s an incredibly good time.

    Comment by Chuck Tucson — 12/18/2009 @ 4:01 pm

  5. [...] how do we parcel out the credit? Rick Moran at Rightwing Nuthouse gives a backhanded compliment to the secretary of state: Hillary Clinton has apparently spurred world leaders to come to an [...]

    Pingback by Goodbye, Copenhagen - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com — 12/18/2009 @ 8:06 pm

  6. Hello Rick,

    If I end up misrepresenting your position with what I’m about to say, I apologize. I’m simply trying to think outside the box (that is, the topic) for a moment to compare your position versus a different “threat” than AGW; in this case technology.

    Suppose that in time one or more clean, scientifically proven energy technologies came along (maybe super solar cells or limited forms of fusion) that if rapidly implemented would have the same net negative effect on jobs in the oil/gas/utility/coal business as Obama’s emissions reduction proposals.

    Despite these consequences, would you support funding such technological innovations? That is, in the sense that something new replaces something old and that’s just life when it comes to business? Or would you still oppose new tech on the grounds that people will lose jobs and local economies will falter if the new stuff is implemented?

    In this scenario, do we still declare it impossible to retrain the long-time coal miner or the offshore oil rig deckhand? I know you weren’t saying it’s impossible in your post, but the tone -as far as I can tell- implies such people are SOL if they ever go out of work for any reason.

    If business grabs the tech and runs with it, do we implement legislation to slow them down? Or since its new business and not government that’s causing the major job losses, do we accept any large scale job losses as part and parcel of living in a capitalist society?

    In my opinion, that the AGW science isn’t 100% sound is a good plank in an argument against imposing disruptive economic change for the sake of AGW, but it’s not a good argument against aggressively moving forward with innovation and technology.

    Again I don’t think you’re specifically arguing this in your post, but the way the issue is presented it’s as though you’re saying if there’s no proven risk from AGW then we shouldn’t move forward with renewables or other tech like solar at all, because there are too many jobs at stake and because we (well, liberals only if I read you right) supposedly are not capable of handling the infrastructure changes.

    By my way of thinking, if AGW-imposed economic changes don’t shake things up for our established energy industries then in a short time a spate of newer technologies will. Thus it makes sense for the country and for our industry to start the changeover process now at a measured, sane pace.

    I’d rather us all get used to gradual change rather than wait for AGW or tech to force a far more abrupt and disruptive set of changes on the country.

    Happy Holidays everyone and thanks for writing, Rick!

    Comment by Jeremy G. — 12/19/2009 @ 1:58 am

  7. This post has been linked for the HOT5 Daily 12/19/2009, at The Unreligious Right

    Comment by UNRR — 12/19/2009 @ 7:56 am

  8. What Jeremy G said.

    Comment by Joe — 12/19/2009 @ 8:39 am

  9. The world can’t have its cake and eat it too.

    Relocating heavy industry to 3rd world nations may improve the appearance of our backyards, but it’s still taking a toll on the planet. It’s also taking jobs (i.e., prosperity) away from needy Americans — especially the lower class. (How many more people can McDonald’s employ?) And since hungry, 3rd world nations are not nearly as squeamish about impacting the environment, the toll on the planet for relocating industry is arguably larger.

    I think leaders of China and other developing nations understand this. They are not deluded by Western fantasies of restoring the earth to some pristine, paradisaical state. They’ll be more than happy to accept hard cash in exchange for hollow promises. I suspect much of that cash will end up in personal bank accounts, but even if it doesn’t I doubt few recipient nations have serious intentions of following through. They will simply follow Iran’s example with regards to its nuclear weapons programs — stall, obstruct verification, demand more money, promise whatever Westerners want to hear but ultimately do whatever they want anyway. (If I were a 3rd world leader, I would view the whole AGW premise as a crock promoted by the West intended to keep the rest of mankind from developing wealth.)

    Western leaders are desperate for a world-wide green economy while 3rd world leaders are desperate for prosperity. Put the two together and we have: A. More manufacturing jobs move to the 3rd world. B. Poverty continues to rise in America. C. The ecological state of the world does not improve.

    Comment by Doug King — 12/19/2009 @ 9:27 am

  10. The world hasn’t, but its elitists and kleptocrats indeed have gone mad. Nothing–mark my word, absolutely nothing–came out of this except a few warm fuzzies on the Western Left’s part and begging from thieves and bastards and whores from around the fly and human vermin-infested Third World. There will be no money, and the warm fuzzies will migrate to new, bright and shiny things by ignoramuses of the American and European Left once the Denmark delusions subside. The AGW Church will have to look for new converts, and the oppressors of Third World peoples new ways to shake down the West.

    It was about control as well as New Age religion and socialist redistribution. Unfortunately for those who want power, there are outposts of freedom like the United States (its people, at least) who put the brakes on this puppy before it was whelped.

    This was a farce, and to describe it as anything less is a lie. Even our left-wing media couldn’t work up a good narrative for the charade, which was the total madness in the end.

    The Copenhagen failure was this year’s Christmas present for the world.

    Comment by obamathered — 12/20/2009 @ 11:33 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress