WORLD COOLING ON WARMING

“The first victims of poseur environmentalism will always be developing countries,” writes Mark Steyn:

In order for you to put biofuel in your Prius and feel good about yourself for no reason, real actual people in faraway places have to starve to death. On April 15, the Independent, the impeccably progressive British newspaper, editorialized: “The production of biofuel is devastating huge swathes of the world’s environment. So why on earth is the Government forcing us to use more of it?”

You want the short answer? Because the government made the mistake of listening to fellows like you.

Another enviroscam may cause hardship locally:

Low-income families in areas with poor public transport will be hundreds of dollars a year worse off than hard-up households in the inner city, under the Federal Government’s plan to introduce a carbon trading scheme.

Some politicians are wising up, according to Newsweek’s Evan Thomas:

In the summer of 2006 I went to see Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who was running the Democrats’ successful effort to regain control of the House of Representatives …  I asked Emanuel, how are the environment and global warming playing out there in the heartland? Is it stirring voters? No, he replied. In the 2006 congressional elections global warming was virtually a nonissue, he said, a low-priority item way behind the war and the economy and old staples like education and health care. Global warming is an issue for the elites, he said, not for the average voter …

There is an enormous class divide on the subject. The chattering classes obsess about greenhouse emissions. The rest of the country, certainly the older and less well-off voters, can’t be bothered.

Good.

(Via AJ)

Posted by Tim B. on 04/27/2008 at 10:51 AM
    1. The problem will only get worse before it gets better: once a gubmint program has been set in motion, it is virtually impossible to stop it. Especially since all three remaining candidates for US President are true believers.

      GAH!

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 04 27 at 11:05 AM • permalink

 

    1. The rest of the country, certainly the older and less well-off voters, can’t be bothered.

      How about “the rest of the country” “can’t be bothered” because we don’t consider greenhouse emissions to be a problem?  Evan Thomas writes as though “the rest of the country” are a bunch of embittered, xenophobic religious fanatics clinging to their guns.

      Why do I say that?  ‘Cuz of this point he made near the end of the article:

      The only way to get from here <i.e., “Making a serious dent in global warming”> to there on slashing greenhouse emissions is by massively enforcing limits on consumption, which means heavy regulation, or much higher taxes.

      I’m glad that I’m not categorized under the “chattering class”, but it’s not that I’m indifferent to the environment; I refuse to support a bunch of watermelons imposing their socialist paradise on people through trumped up environmental hysteria.

      And not all politicians are wising up.  I change channels IMMEDIATELY when those silly “green” commercials features Pelosi/Gingrich and Sharpton/Robertson came on.

      Thank you, Al Gore.  May you rot in Hell, surrounded by the shards of smashed compact fluorescent light bulbs and recycled toilet paper.

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 04 27 at 11:20 AM • permalink

 

    1. We Americans have our heads on our shoulders quite firmly compared to some of our international superfriends…which makes me wonder how loony the lefties in Europe and Australia must be.

      If I think the lefties in Georgia are nutty, how screwy must they be in Berlin or Sydney?

      Posted by quickrob on 2008 04 27 at 11:26 AM • permalink

 

    1. I just love it when urban leftist elites call for “heavy regulation, or much higher taxes” on the working classes, and others they consider “beneath” them. That has always been such a recipe for success…

      Idiots!

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 04 27 at 11:33 AM • permalink

 

    1. NYTimes Headling:

      GLOBAL WARMING CURED, WOMEN AND MINORITIES SUFFER

      Posted by Blue on 2008 04 27 at 11:47 AM • permalink

 

    1. The people in “flyover country” could just starve for all the narcissist urban greenies care. That’ll get Jesusland for voting Republican…

      Posted by Spiny Norman on 2008 04 27 at 12:19 PM • permalink

 

    1. The Real Jeff S #2 says:
      I refuse to support a bunch of watermelons imposing their socialist paradise on people through trumped up environmental hysteria.
      That sums it up about as succinctly as I have ever seen.

      Posted by Latino on 2008 04 27 at 01:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. Labor is out to crush rural Australia and the carbon trading scheme is the weapon it will use to do that. It believes that Australia can be sustained entirely by mining and, like so many oil states, we can import all our food requirements.

      The irony is that imported food costs more in carbon inputs to get on to the supermarket shelves, something that can be measured in so-called “food-miles”. But it is not about saving the environment. It is all about removing conservative electorates.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 04 27 at 07:35 PM • permalink

 

    1. Mark Steyn nails the “Independant” beautifully.  Today decrying the biofuels as creating starvation but 3 years ago arguing for buiofuels tio save humanity. In the editorial pages. People should riot .. or at least unsubscribe.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 04 27 at 07:55 PM • permalink

 

    1. I asked Emanuel, how are the environment and global warming playing out there in the heartland? Is it stirring voters? No, he replied.

      Unfortunately, what does play well is doling out massive ethanol subsidies to overall-clad Iowa welfare queens (i.e., farmers.)

      Posted by Dave S. on 2008 04 27 at 08:06 PM • permalink

 

    1. the Independent is Independent in its thinking the grey matter does not work.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 04 27 at 09:40 PM • permalink

 

    1. #3

      If I think the lefties in Georgia are nutty, how screwy must they be in Berlin or Sydney?

      Tarred with the same brush.

      … now there’s an idea!

      Posted by kae on 2008 04 27 at 10:48 PM • permalink

 

    1. #8 don’t know about teh ALP’s intetnettions regarding the landed gentry are that well thought out, contrial, but the issue of ‘food miles’ is a total crock.
      A lamb raised in New Zealand, slaughtered and airshipped to the UK still uses less total greenhouse gas equivalents in its production than a lamb raised and slaughtered in the UK.  Only counting the GHG emitted in the transport leg is pure protectionism.

      Posted by entropy on 2008 04 27 at 11:18 PM • permalink

 

    1. #13 With NZ farmers to be crippled with the same carbon trading scheme proposed for Australia, NZ may lose its advantage. Europe, wisely, has exempted agriculture from carbon trading costs.

      The alternative food I was thinking of is the stuff that comes out of China. China is managing to rid itself of some its toxic waste by exporting it to the west as food. Food samples tested in Australia have contained excessive lead and cadmium levels. Food, like everything Chinese made, is substandard to the point of being deadly.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 04 28 at 03:48 AM • permalink

 

  1. #14 China is managing to rid itself of some its toxic waste by exporting it to the west as food.

    Not just human food (remember pet food was the iceberg), but flip flops, and kids toys too.

    Posted by Deborah Leigh on 2008 04 28 at 03:30 PM • permalink