The Guardian comments:
Instead of preaching to the choir the plan is to show how to achieve key economic objectives – growth, investment, secure public finances, fairer distribution of income – while at the same time protecting the planet. The pitch to finance ministers will be that tackling climate change will require plenty of upfront investment that will boost growth rather than harm it.
Will this approach work? Well, maybe. But it will require business to see the long-term benefits of greening the economy as well as the short-term costs, because that would lead to the burst of technological innovation needed to accelerate progress. And it will require the same sort of commitment it took to win a world war or put a man on the moon.
Quite right. And its easy to see why they would be attracted to the Lunar imagery.
“long before any apeman was around to throw a bone at some black monolith.”
Wonderful reference!
Exactly. I’ve never quite worked out the logic. They talk about the planet, but what they really mean is a planet favorable to man. However, they claim that man is supposedly a pestilence upon the earth and making his life better is making things worse for the planet. But in reality the only things we are supposedly destroying are the conditions that make man thrive. So if man changes the conditions that make man thrive, isn’t he actually doing the earth a favor by eliminating himself? That’s assuming the earth has the capacity to care. (and if it does, I’ve been going to the wrong church).
The earth has had abundant life in all sorts of climates and conditions long before any apeman was around to throw a bone at some black monolith. So following that line of reasoning, the sooner we eliminate ourselves, the better off the earth will be. But without man, there’s no one or no thing to determine what is better or worse. As you say, the earth is a big wet rock. It really doesn’t care, because it doesn’t possess self-awareness, it’s just a thing. It won’t even care when the sun fries it to a crisp in 5 billion years, because only humans have the capacity to think in terms of better or worse, good or bad.
Even the animals don’t think in those terms. Either they have enough to eat to live and procreate, or they die. They don’t have the capability of saying things would be better if the humans weren’t around muddling in everything.
What climate change? What is happening that has never happened before? Nothing. Corruption had always happened, but now it is on a bigger scale, I suppose the word global is warranted when talking about corruption. So called scientists, governments, and countless non government organizations attaching themselves to the word green are all in on it, worldwide. Oops, should that word be the PC word, globally?
Gosh, JohnB, you say “…lectured by the same looters…” as if it were a bad thing. Or hypocritical. Or something.
The “planet” is a big ball of rock with some water on it (and a few organic life forms).
You can destroy everything on its surface and it will still be a PLANET.
There’s that word “investment” again. And no, they don’t mean “investment,” they mean “waste.”
I disagree–they don’t mean “waste”. They mean corruption and favoritism. Take the people’s money and give it to those who are part of the AGW elite. They get rich while proclaiming they are saving the world. We get poorer because of their corruption and we then get lectured by the same looters who are taking our money and ruining our lives.
I have gotten to resent any project that involves the any form of the word “green.”
Also when you divert resources to government sponsored idiocy – to take that money away from private industry and private research which companies more efficiently devote to products that people really want.
Good example – do I buy LED flash lights to save the environm ent? No I buy them because they are convenient – smaller and I don’t have to find batteries every few hours and will light up even when they are almost dead. The power savings and conservation of battery resources is just a good side effect of making a better product.
We have a long history of doing this. Did watt invent the the steam engine? No but when he was asked to fix a demo Newcomen engine he found a way to more than double the efficiency – allowing them to be made smaller and used for applications like steam locomotives. I could give other examples as well.
This whole thing is a bunch of voodoo-economics doublespeak.
“…how to achieve key economic objectives – growth, investment, secure public finances, fairer distribution of income – while at the same time protecting the planet.”
Using their definition of “protecting the planet” — impossible. Because their definition MEANS destroying growth, investment, etc. Talk about snake-oil salesmen.
“…tackling climate change will require plenty of upfront investment…”
There’s that word “investment” again. And no, they don’t mean “investment,” they mean “waste.”
Putting a man on the moon involved NASA and some aerospace companies. It is a complete fraud to refer to what they are up to as merely a man-on-the-moon project. They are talking about materially adversely changing the life of every person on the planet and every governmental and regulatory system for no net effect.
Coal is why you are not suppose to wear white after labor day. Once it got cold and folks all lit their coal stoves and furnaces – the air was thick with soot which would spot your clothes and make the white look really yucky.
I think Boston took care of the soot problem.
BTW . . . “Saving the planet.” The planet doesn’t need saving. It doesn’t care what we do. This big dirtball will keep flying around the sun, regardless of what we do.
We see climate change being confused with human problems in the environment for the nth time. The evidence supports the idea that human activity is too small a climate factor to care about.
Burning coal does produce real pollution and that’s true of gasoline and other transport fuels. We have excellent and sustainable ways of mitigating the real pollution. If we could eliminate it without ruining people’s standards of living, I’d be in favor of it. So far, that’s way beyond our technology and looks like staying beyond us. So I vote for a decent standard of living; as productivity improves, we’ll have more opportunity to mitigate.
Meantime, the pollution of modern industry is far less dangerous than the pollution associated with horses or wood fires in homes.
“But it will require business to see the long-term benefits of greening the economy”
Fascist ba$tard thinks businesses exist to do governments’ bidding.
“fairer distribution of income”
More to people who vote for Libtards.