Weather

Watts Up With That – Watts Up With That?


From Forbes

Tilak Doshi Contributors

I analyze energy economics and related public policy issues.

in a remarkable interview on Wednesday with Fox News host Laura Ingraham, Norman Fenton, Emeritus Professor of Risk at Queen Mary University of London, laid out what the “net zero” economy really means. Net zero is, to remind us, the rallying cry of all the major governments in the West and intergovernmental bodies such as the International Energy Agency, the World Bank, and the World Bank. United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the UK context, Professor Fenton points out that all airports except Heathrow, Belfast & Glasgow will close by 2030. No one will fly by 2050. There will be no petrol cars or cars. new diesel by 2030 and by 2050 road use will be limited to 60% of current levels. Food, heating and energy will be limited to 60% of current levels by 2050. Beef and lamb will be off the menu by 2050.

Many restrictions on movement and social activities will be addressed by “15-minute cities”. That is, Wikipedia inform us, where daily essentials and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare and entertainment “can be easily reached within a 15-minute walk or cycle from any point in the city.”

Professor Fenton gives his observations in a twitter thread scored an incredible number of views – around 3.3 million – followed by the Fox News interview. The consequences of net zero for the UK – and by extension the rest of the Western collective – are not just his conjecture. They are derived from a detailed documentation published by UK FIRES, a government-funded research programme. The program provides information on the government’s policy strategy to achieve the “net zero by 2050” goals in the 2019 Climate Change Act amendments. The act is warmed by all political parties. support without public consultation and surprisingly without controversy over the costs and benefits of the act.

Matt Ridley told his colleagues in the House of Lords the following: “I am truly shocked by the ordinary way that ‘other place’ [presumably the House of Commons] nod through this statutory instrument [the 2019 Climate Change Act amendment] on Monday committed future generations to spend a lot to achieve a goal we don’t know how to achieve technologically without destroying the UK economy and British landscape.”

How does a leading economy like the UK have governments (from both sides of the aisle) that promise their people poverty and a future without basic freedoms that Westerners have enjoyed for more than two centuries? This, it should be noted, is in the proud land of 1215 Great Charter, the first document to make the principle that the king and his government are not above the law. How does fear of a “climate emergency” prompt authorities of any kind of ideological persuasion to impose draconian energy policies that promise to send people of are they back to pre-industrial standards of living?

Good intentions and luxurious beliefs

Based climate model is not testable and a hockey stick charting global warming of dubious origins, Western policymakers assure us that “the end is near.” We were told that this was the “scientific consensus”, a proven fact that the BBC, for example, held so that they could see. no need for permission opposing views on any of its programmes. Michael Crichton was completely wrong, in this view, when he say:

“I consider consensus science to be an extremely dangerous development that must be stopped in its path. Historically, the consensus statement was the scoundrel’s first refuge; it is a way to avoid argument by claiming that the matter is resolved. Whenever you hear a consensus of scientists agreeing on one thing or another, grab your wallet, because you are. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics… The greatest scientists in history became great precisely because they broke consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it’s not science. If it’s science, it’s not consensus. Stage.”

What does luxury belief have to do with the declared “scientific consensus” on climate change? Rob Henderson who coined the term identify they are “ideas and attitudes that give status to the rich at a very low cost, while at the expense of the lower classes.” This is an update on sociology Thorstein Veblencenturies-old theory of conspicuous consumption. Veblen humorously describes a shallow, materialistic “idle class” obsessed with clothes, cars, consumer goods, and climbing the social ladder. But today, Henderson argues, “because material wealth has become a noisier signal of a person’s social status and economic resources, the wealthy have decoupled social status from wealth and attach it to faith.”

With the rapid economic growth brought about by modern capitalism, material goods have become relatively cheaper with affluence available to the majority of the population. Thus, virtue signaling and luxury beliefs now play a dominant role in elite behavior while consumption of conspicuous status goods and services plays a smaller or even reflected role. opposite to. A person’s moral worth today is related to his luxuries beliefs, of which “the fight against climate change” is the highest achievement. While the rich can drive”Clean Teslasordinary people can ride bicycles or take public transport in this most virtuous of all possible worlds.

Children of the upper bourgeoisie – eager to learn the tenets of the new left – no wonder the moral shock armies of climate alarmism. Convinced of their cause, they throw tomato soup onto masterpieces of art and paste yourself to block traffic and inconvenience people in general in their daily life with work and paying bills. They do this with no regrets, even ‘happy’. stop ambulance from transporting the injured or sick to the hospital. The Bigger Cause of “Saving the Planet” overwrite all, including the needs of the general population for temperature, mobility, and affordable food (depending on cheap fertilizers). Indeed, the economy is net zero threaten foundation of modern civilization.

Politicians of all backgrounds find it easy to join the great moral crusade to save the planet and win office. Targeting the noisiest people instead of serving the material interests of the masses seems to be the winning ticket. If the great essayist HL Mencken was correct in his view of the real politics as a means “to keep the populace alert (and thus noisy in order to be led to safety) by threatening them with an endless series of hobgoblins, all imaginary”, having a corollary : if a particular hobgoblin, which is the “climate of emergency”, has been fully formed through decades of iteration in the mass media, the easiest way is to build upon it. it let the “call to safety” bring good performance to the ballot box. The so-called conservative parties even try to outdo the liberal parties – as in England – to fight for justice.

The obsolescence of luxury beliefs

Luxury beliefs come with an internal obsolescence because of their luxury, well,. The costs of radical climate policies are becoming increasingly apparent,”even with Europeans“. The massive push for electric vehicles across the West provides a shining example of the beliefs about luxury and their cost among the average consumer.

As ideological green policies – Germany’s dominant belief in luxury – are decimating the country’s economy, warnings of social and economic disaster by local observers have increased. doubled in recent years. In one interview on Tuesday, the longtime head of the CDU Economic Council and former Audi and Daimler board member Professor Kurt Lauk accused Federal Economy Minister Robert Habeck (a Green party leader) about hostility to technology. “The counter-technology from the Department of Commerce is intolerable. Wherever we are or as world market leaders, we have begun to abolish it. For several years now, people have been working hard to destroy this competitive advantage of German industry or transfer it to other countries. The technological advantage of German carmakers over 150 years of experience with internal combustion engines, transmissions, etc. is being recklessly abandoned.” Pointing to the low affordability of electric vehicles, he said: “We’re in for a huge social conflict with this stupid, weird policy of battery-powered driving.”

The recent decision of the EU allows the sale of internal combustion cars using “electronic fuel” technology (mainly unproven on a large scale and very expensive) after 2035, instead of the outright ban proposed at the time, signaling an important retreat. Last-minute protests by the German, Polish and Italian governments suggest that crisis is imminent suicide destruction Europe’s industrial base is increasingly becoming the focal point despite the luxury beliefs of the past few decades.

On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, precipice Report on the US Environmental Protection Agency’s plan to announce new tougher emissions standards to force phasing out of gasoline-powered cars while boosting sales of electric cars to meet targets climate policy of the Biden Administration. “Up to 2/3” of cars sold is obligatory will become electric by 2032. Despite the relentless push towards electric vehicles, the working class is not much interested. In a recent time poll in Gallup reported Wednesday, only 2% of non-college-educated respondents said they currently own an electric vehicle and only 9% said they were “seriously considering” buying one. The results aren’t much better for the entire population: just 4 percent own one, and 12 percent say they’re seriously considering one.

The University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute in collaboration with AP-NORC conducts an annual survey of climate attitudes. survey this year found less, not more, urgency around climate change. The proportion of those who attribute climate change to humans, as opposed to natural changes in the environment, fell from 60% in 2018 to 49%. And most importantly, putting their money in their mouths, “the proportion of respondents willing to spend their money to tackle climate threats has also nose“according to the survey results. It would shock today’s privileged luxuries that only 38 percent of Americans would support a carbon charge of just $1 on their energy bill each month. And that’s 14 percentage points less than when they were asked the same question two years ago.

No wonder Professor Norman Fenton’s twitter thread has more than 3 million views and one of America’s most famous messengers interviewed him. Today, the luxuries of choice, net zero, and the climate crusade, seem to be collapsing right before our very eyes.

Tilak Doshi

I have worked in the oil and gas sector as an economist in both private industry and think tanks, in Asia, the Middle East and the United States for over 25 years. I focus on global energy development from the perspective of Asian countries that are still large markets for oil, gas and coal. I have written extensively in the fields of economic development, environment and energy economics. My publications include “Singapore in a Post-Kyoto World: Energy, Environment and Economy” published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (2015). I won the World Bank Robert S. McNamara Research Fellow in 1984 and received my Ph. Economics in 1992.

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button