The reason emissions exist, they continue, is not because 57 corporations are doing us down. It’s because 8 billion of us have a sharp eye for what produces what we desire. Therefore we buy these things.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the day – three cheers for emissionsApril 9th, 2024 |
 13 comments to Samizdata quote of the day – three cheers for emissionsLeave a Reply |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
The demonisation of CO2 must be one of the biggest follies in human history. Think of all the wasted resources that have been expended on the ridiculous premise that a tiny rise in the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is dangerously affecting the weather.
Well put.
Quite. See how western economies have virtually flatlined since we started taking this boondoggle seriously.
If you were watching a documentary about an ancient civilization that decided they had angered the gods so shut themselves down, you would think, stupid primitive people believing in nonsense, yet here we are doing exactly that.
People used to say that “they” would tax the air we breathe if they could. Well now they have.
Is the concern (the concern of the powerful – not the ordinary “foot solider” types) really about reducing world C02 “emissions”?
I suspect it is NOT.
If it was then there would be a massive campaign against the People’s Republic of China which produces vastly more C02 than anyone else, and there is no-such-campaign.
It is almost as if the people behind the international policies against the West since the end of the 1980s (specifically since the Rio Conference) know perfectly well that C02 is not some terrible threat – but are specifically trying to harm the West.
“But they can not be trying to harm the West – they are powerful Westerners themselves” – societies are most effectively undermined by the actions of powerful people within those societies. Just because someone is rich and surrounded by praise, does not mean they are not filled with hate for their own society – nor does it mean they are not filled with dreams of absolute power, of reducing their fellow citizens to their tools or playthings.
Such attitudes do not start with William “Bill” Gates or the late David Rockefeller – they go all the way back to Plato.
In the case of Mr William Gates – his parents were punishing the same policies, radical reduction of population, control of society by a supposedly enlightened elite, and-so-on long before the C02 is evil theory became fashionable in the late 1980s.
The same is true of Dr Klaus Schwab – whose (totalitarian agenda) book “Stakeholder Capitalism” was published in 1971.
As the international elite were pushing such policies-of-control BEFORE the C02 theory was used as their justification, it seems unlikely that the policies they are now pushing (basically the same policies they have always pushed) are motivated by concerns about C02.
As the late David Rockefeller said after the Rio Conference of 1992 (which basically got the governments of the world to agree to United Nations Agenda 21 – now Agenda 2030) – we have got them to agree to international governance.
International governance (control) was always the aim – the justification (“end poverty!”, “save the planet from C02!” – “whatever…”) varies.
One obvious difficulty is that the (rather brutal) Dictator of the People’s Republic of China is not prepared to be the servant of Mr Gates, Dr Schwab, and-so-on.
I suspect (judging by articles in the, banker owned, Economist magazine and-so-on – which are hostile in tone towards Dictator Xi) that the Western elite have finally grasped that Dictator Xi is NOT willing to be their “partner” (i.e. servant).
They do not care about how much C02 China is producing – but they are concerned, indeed scared, by the obvious contempt Dictator Xi has for their orders – and for them personally.
When one sees someone like Mr Gates meet a Western politician – it is clear (from the body language and so on) that Mr Gates is the superior ranked person in the meeting – when such a Western elite member meets Dictator Xi the “vibe” is very different.
The “vibe” is – “who is this Western money-person and why is he not on his knees begging for his life – he soon will be”.
Can we reduce that to “two cheers for emissions”? The sentiment of the OP is one I agree with — it isn’t about evil corporations exploiting Gaia, rather it is amoral corporations providing customers things they want and need. This is why we are all so much more rich than the bands of chimpanzees we used to be.
However, it is also true that part of that richness comes from the fact that these same consumers aren’t paying the full cost of their goods and services. Some of the cost is being paid for in externalities.
For example, I love Sriracha hot sauce, but it used to be the factory that made it generated horrible noxious gasses that hurt the lifestyle of the people who lived around it. The cost of that pollution to those people (or alternatively the cost of preventing it) is not naturally included in the cost of the sauce, and it should be.
Do we need the government agencies to fix that? Definitely not, we need private property rights enforcement through laws enforced at the local level.
Fraser Orr – I agree with you that pollution is a tort and private property rights include not having one’s air and water supply polluted (i.e. that the 19th century Wensleydale Judgement was WRONG) – but you have not shown that C02 is pollution – if anything it is a “positive externality” that increases crop yields. So “some of the richness comes from the fact that these same consumers are not paying the full cost of their goods and services” – NO Fraser Orr, the people in my area are paying far too MUCH (not too little) for goods and services. The problem for the people I represent (for I am a “local level” politician) is not that they are too rich – but that they are too poor.
An institution such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is not interested in science, or in threats to “the planet” (whatever that is supposed to mean) – it is interested in the agenda of POWER, like the creatures of all such institutions the judges of the “ECHR” are always seeking to expand the power of international “governance” and will grab hold of any justification to push the agenda-of-power – if it was not C02 it would be “the Great God Pookong commands it” or “an end to poverty” or whatever…
Thus their recent judgement – although they may yet backtrack as abolishing democracy (the right of the people to vote on such matters – or to vote for those who decide on them) in the name of “reducing C02” has got a bit of a backlash.
As for the overall objective….
Some two centuries ago Henri Saint-Simon suggested a weird thing – socialism delivered by “capitalists” (especially Credit Bubble bankers who are, after all, con men by profession [they have a shell-game going] – and thus used to deceieving the public) – collectivism-delivered-by-“capitalists” and in the name of “science”.
That seems to be the agenda of the internatioal elite – including the corporate elite.
But who is to be the Big Boss?
I can not see Dictator Xi of China saying “yes master” to Jamie Dimond of J.B. Morgan Chase Bank – or William “Bill” Gates. Let alone to that clown Dr Schwab.
The “civilised enlightened” Western elite think they are going to rule the future world of digital vaccine passports, digital money, “Climate Lockdowns” and all the rest of it.
But Dicator Xi has other ideas.
He wants to be the Big Boss – he wants Mr Gates, Mr Dimond, Dr Schwab (and so on) to say “yes master” to HIM.
The people are not paying the full cost of good and services – the people are too rich, they should be more poor than they already are.
No – a hard NO, to all that. In reality the people are paying vastly more for good and services than they should be paying.
As for “the science” – it is Francis Bacon “The New Atlantis” style “science” – it is about the lust for power over other people, and does not give a damn about truth (objective and universal truth) for its own sake.
Anyone who thinks that the judges of the ECHR, or any of the international elite, really believes that the slight increase in C02 levels has reduced the life expectancy of a 1000 elderly women in Switzerland – is an idiot.
The judges, and the international elite generally, do not really care about C02 – other than to use as an excuse to get rid of both democracy (or what is left of democracy) and national independence, that is now obvious.
Indeed international elite types have been making speeches about the “need” to get rid of democracy (or what little is left of democracy) for some time.
I suppose that is what is meant by “laws enforced at a local level” – note NOT “made” at a local level, enforced at a local level (but made – internationally), and not about upholding “private property rights” but about subverting private property rights.
They are not even hiding it any more – the elite, including the international judges, want unlimited power and they want ordinary people to be their serfs – in fact, if not in name.
It is NOT about C02 – other than as an excuse.
@Paul Marks
I didn’t intend to — the example I gave didn’t pertain to CO₂ but to emissions in general. One of the great advantages of a private property system to solve this problem is that the complainant has to show that they have suffered actual harm to some reasonable level of proof.
I am largely in favour of reducing emissions of particulates, uncombusted hyrdrocarbons and of the oxides of sulphur and nitrogen. Let us not forget, the obsession with CO2 led to the pushing of diesel engined personal cars, which are particularly bad for particulates…
Anyhoo, may I recommend the more technically minded look up the Allam Cycle – it looks like a goodd way to burn natural gas without getting the combustion products one does not want…