Friday, August 31, 2012

From Steve Milloy’s Junkscience.com: My Picks

 According to Professor Frank, stopping global warming may require carbon taxes of about $300 per ton of carbon dioxide emitted, and by implementing such taxes, we can also balance the federal budget. “If such a tax were phased in,” Frank says, “the prices of goods would rise gradually in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide their production or use entailed. The price of gasoline, for example, would slowly rise by somewhat less than $3 per gallon.  Motorists in many countries already pay that much more than Americans do, and they seem to have adapted by driving substantially more efficient vehicles. . . . many budget experts agree that federal budgets simply can’t be balanced with spending cuts alone. We’ll also need substantial additional revenue, most of which could be generated by a carbon tax.” …..But that’s not all. Because the green tax targets carbon, rather than income, it would act as a dirigiste economic policy favoring businesses that make money trading in paper instruments over those that produce real value through industry, agriculture, transport, mining, and construction. This would impoverish society overall, once again hurting the vulnerable the most, and would destroy tens of millions of blue-collar jobs.
Was ever a more regressive tax policy proposed? And has anyone ever demanded that the United States launch a trade war to force other countries to impose such oppressive policies on their own people, most of whom can afford them even less? There was a time when the Democratic party concerned itself with the needs of poor and working people. Alas, those times are past.

The green tax plan is a declaration of war on the poor.
China’s push into solar energy was supposed to be a proud example of how the country was advancing into hi-tech manufacturing. But now the whole sector is on the brink of bankruptcy.   Two years ago, LDK Solar, one of China's largest solar panel makers, built a new, state-of-the-art factory in the central city of Hefei.  It sits in one of the city's industrial parks, a big LDK Solar logo on its wall, with the New York-listed company's slogan underneath: "Lighting the Future". "It cost 2.5 billion yuan (£250m) to build, the majority of the equipment was imported from Germany, and it hired 5,000 staff," said Jie Xiaoming, a 30-year-old who works at the plant's quality control and packaging department.
Last month, however, 4,500 of the staff were put on gardening leave. They receive 700 yuan a month to stay at home. The factory has shut down 24 of its 32 production lines. "There do not seem to be any orders. People are still turning up for work, but mostly just sleeping. The management has not said much, just that the United States has a new policy that is stopping our exports," said Mr Jie.
My Take For those who have been reading Paradigms and Demographics you are aware that I think this whole bugaboo about the Chinese economy was bogus from the beginning.  It can’t be denied that they did a lot of business, but the fact remains that they only started booming when they reduced their iron grip on the economy.  Having said that, we still have to understand that the country is still run by a socialist elite that believe central planning schemes “MUST” work….otherwise….there is no reason for them to exist as the ruling elite.   Therefore they are never going to give up on their “MUST” work central planning schemes; so ultimately they have to fail. What fascinates me is how many supposedly “really” intelligent people don’t get it!  How could I say such a thing?  As always, the answer is; “It’s history”….get over it!
It’s what we non-alarmists have long wanted: the climate change racket on trial in a court of law. In threatening National Review and its international columnist Mark Steyn with legal action over alleged “defamatory remarks” in his ‘Corner’ column, inventor of the famously debunked “hockey stick” climate graph, Dr Michael Mann, may have finally bitten off way more than he can legally chew…… But why get so upset about this single short blog post when whole books, countless articles and websites have said far worse? ……I rather suspect it is because the Steyn post was savagely witty and stung poor Michael.” I agree. Whenever I have invoked wit against the frailty of climate change rhetoric and its proponents, the blowback in online comments usually, with those ideologically wedded to alarmism, borders on the vitriolic……At time of writing the ball is firmly back in Mann’s court and we await his next move with considerable interest. For my money, don’t expect Mann to carry through on his threat. Once he realises just exactly who he is up against….what is at stake for the whole climate change racket, for Penn State’s coffers, and for his reputation, expect weasel words to the effect that “on reflection, it’s not worth it”.
 After all, he won’t want to risk killing the golden ‘public climate cash’ goose.
My Take – I am inclined to agree that there will be no action from Mann against Steyn or National Review.  However, he has sued Dr. Ball in a Canadian court and Ball has decided his defense will be the truth. In Canada this is called “The Truth Defense to Libel”, which “places a higher – more onerous – evidential burden on the parties. This means any and all evidence demanded by either party in the ongoing discovery process must be revealed. So effective can the “truth defense” be that some cynics refer to it as the “scorched earth” defense.”

Nature assesses the aftermath of a series of nanotechnology-lab bombings in Mexico — and asks how the country became a target of eco-anarchists. … Aceves sat down at his desk to tear the box open. So when the 20-centimetre-long pipe bomb inside exploded, on 8 August 2011, Aceves took the full force in his chest. Metal pierced one of his lungs. “He was in intensive care. He was really bad,” says Herrera's brother Gerardo, a theoretical physicist at the nearby Centre for Research and Advanced Studies of the National Polytechnic Institute (Cinvestav). Armando Herrera Corral, who was standing nearby when the bomb went off, escaped with a burst eardrum and burns to his legs.
The next day, an eco-anarchist group calling itself Individuals Tending Towards Savagery (ITS) claimed responsibility for the bombing in a 5,500-word diatribe against nanotechnology that it published online

Economists are famous for disagreeing among themselves. Yet on the subject of free trade, economic opinion speaks almost with one voice. In a recent survey, 87.5 percent of PhD members of the American Economic Association agreed that “the U.S. should eliminate remaining tariffs and other barriers to trade.”

My TakeWe often hear about industry being responsible for the price of gasoline, which of course implies that all energy prices are fixed by the major energy producing companies.  Horsepucky!  Only ten percent of the oil is owned by private companies.  The rest is being produced by socialist states…including England….and many of them are run by tyrants.  Between socialists and environmentalists (same thing) they have managed to make everything expensive.  We really do need to get this:
They are irrational and misanthropic!
I know I have said that before.  Well, the reason is that nothing has changed!
Germany’s energy revolution is the government’s only major project — but the problems keep piling up. The pace of grid expansion is sluggish, and electricity costs for consumers are rising. The environment minister wants to fundamentally alter the way green energy is subsidized, but will it mean putting the brakes on the entire project?
 
###

No comments: