It lives ... Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, April 09, 2008
I'm not sure who Ernest Partridge is (apparently one of the Partridge Family who didn't make the cut and took up writing instead), but if ever anyone wanted a perfect example of why the politics of the AGW crowd are so dangerous, he manages to provide that perfect example. Prepare to see the words such as "consensus", "policy", "libertarian" and "free market" wielded with all the deftness of a meat axe in the hands of a butcher with the DT's.
This is one of those posts which you could fisk almost word by word. Instead here's the link to our environmental category - you can do your own fisking.
And yes, I know it's a "DU" production, but I belive it's indicative of a large population out there for whom he speaks.
I will regale you with my favorite part though (that is after his rather lame libertarian bashing which caused me to take a look at the article in the first place):
In a New York Times article, published just two days ago, Andrew C. Revkin reports a growing consensus opinion that:
What is needed ... is the development of radically advanced low-carbon technologies, which ... will only come about with greatly increased spending by determined governments on what has so far been an anemic commitment to research and development. A Manhattan-like Project, so to speak....
In an article in the journal Nature last week, researchers concerned with the economics, politics, and science of climate also argued that technology policy, not emissions policy, must dominate.
"Policy" means guidance "from the top." No place for an "invisible hand" of the market here. "A Manhattan-like Project" means government funding and administration today, just as it did sixty-five years ago at Oak Ridge, Hanford and Los Alamos. Exxon-Mobil won't do it. Why should they? They are flourishing quite well, thank you very much, in the "awl bidness." Global warming is a public emergency, requiring a public response.
"Market forces" are not irrelevant to this vast undertaking. Tax incentives and competition for government contracts can stimulate incentive, innovation, and enterprise. For example, windfall profit taxes could be levied on the oil companies, with the proceeds directed back at them earmarked for alternative energy research and development. But market forces, thus utilized, are subordinated to public policy. And the libertarians will have none of it.
"'Policy' means guidance from the top!" As only the boys and girls "at the top" can provide as we've witnessed many times in the past. Any doubt in your mind where this person sees this going and how thankful he'd be for that to happen?
Read the rest of it and enjoy how this bird gets to this point of celebrating subordinating "market forces" to "public policy" - and while it is amusing, it's also a bit terrifying.
Let’s see... European governments have had 100% to 300% carbon taxes on petroleum products for 100 years and it’s supposed to have produced a viable alternative [besides conservation] to carbon. Nothing has come from Europe in the form of carbon alternatives. All this has done in the past century is provide us with ever tinier alternative cars and refrigerators, and higher costs for everything else. For ever plentiful and cheap carbon, only consumption and depletion works. There is only a zero sum or negative gain in government intervention to provide alternatives. Anyone betting on the congressional mandated less efficient ethanol which has helped ’fuel’ carbon and food inflation causing riots world wide knows this by now.