Consensus of the Elite

Ah climate change. Each time I write about it here, I feel like I'm giving a dead horse a few more kicks. I suppose it's apt to keep bringing it up, especially when it's an issue that refuses to go away. For the first time in 86 years, it snowed in metropolitan London today. Such an October snowfall is rare in southern Canada and even rarer still in normally dreary London. It is a twist of irony as the UK Parliament discusses a major climate bill. The bill introduced and quickly forced through promised that the United Kingdom would cut its current carbon emissions by 80% by the year 2050. Britain's Labour government has already pushed through radical and aggressive anti-anthropogenic global warming reforms. The bill was passed into law with a vote of 653 to 5. That's rather unusual for a bill of this nature.

Part of the new law put strict carbon limits on aviation and ocean shipping. This has Northern Ireland worried. Belfast is of course one of the country's major shipping centres. Sammy Wilson of the Democratic Unionist Party said that it threatened to make Northern Ireland uncompetitive since the Republic of Ireland does not have such climate laws. As shipping costs increases in the UK, companies will turn to its western neighbour as the new shipping hub. With industry closing up within the UK, the country is having to rely more and more on imports. Increasing shipping costs would threaten to sharply rise the price of everything. This is what Britons have come to know as fuel poverty. These are households that are now having to spend more than 10% of their income on fuel. The vast majority of fuel poverty comes from rising global energy costs but increasingly aggressive anti-AGW programs in the UK have also contributed significantly to the the increased costs. Rising costs that can at least partially be attributed to aggressive climate action are threatening to lower the standard of living for many. While many North American left wing politicians point to Europe as a shining beacon of how to combat climate change, the UK example has shown how if unchecked, climate action can be disastrous to a state's economy. Some sceptics have described this as the "cooler but poorer" plan. It means that we must sacrifice our current standard of living for a lesser one in order to combat what is supposedly an immanent danger. Those who would be affected by this mantra disagree.

Consensus of the Elite

A recent survey showed that 60% of the British public now doubt that mankind is having an effect on climate change. Furthermore, most people think that global warming is not as bad as has been claimed. This is vary interesting since it shows that despite media carpet bombing and fear mongering on the subject, the sceptics are still in the vast majority. These numbers are also on the increase. This goes against what scientists in the IPCC have been saying that there is consensus in both the scientific community and the global community regarding the AGW crisis. The only consensus that exists in a consensus of the elite. Elitist politicians are those who wish to rule their subjects like a king with divine right. The survey shows to them that we are indeed ignorant fools who need to be told, and eventually forced to do what they think is right since only they know the right answer. This arrogant, conceited, holier than thou attitude is precisely why they have tried to stifle debate on the subject. Your typical climate elitist is someone like Al Gore or Stephane Dion. Gore would never get elected today due to this attitude, the same attitude that saw Dion loose the 2008 federal election. People do not like being told by politicians that they are wrong or ignorant. 60% of Britons don't support the climate theory yet 99% of the politicians do represents a huge disparity between parliament and public. It seems that British MPs are not responsibly representing their constituents' wishes.

Climate Colonialism

Foreign nations have also jumped on the bandwagon in a tactic I'm calling climate colonialism. The People's Republic of China has demanded that wealthy nations give the world's poor states money to combat climate change. I can't help but feel this is a bit tongue in cheek on their part. I have no love for the PRC's government. However, despite their atrocious human rights record, many developed nations just before the Olympics blasted them for environmental issues, notably Beijing's infamous smog. As nations struggle to develop, they are going to pollute more. The basic attitude is that if the West got to where they are by burning cheap fossil fuels, so will we and what are they to tell us otherwise. Therefore, if the West wants the developing world to "go green," they should pay for it. In a way, the treatment of developing nations in regards to global warming is a form of climate colonialism. Powerful nations trying to force their ideals on "less developed" ones in a paternal and hypocritical fashion. These are the same values they are trying to forcibly impose on their own citizens while at the same time living lavish, jet set lifestyles. Once again, Al Gores travel record (he flies in a private jet to all his conferences) clearly illustrates the hypocrisy that exists within the clique of climate elitists.

Is it responsible to even be discussing climate at a time like this. The global market is currently teetering on recession. At the same time, industries are being told they will be taxed more for carbon emissions, people are being told that energy is too cheap, jobs are being lost as factories go to more friendly locals. Right now, the government's priority should be on stabilizing the economy. Even thinking about climate change is highly irresponsible let alone wasting vast amounts of time in parliament on marathon debates that force legislation through without considering the economic consequences. The British law will probably not kill their economy but its not exactly helping it either.

Source: The Register , The Washington Post