To all of those cynics out there who consider the EU a black-hearted tyranny, chill. Richard Black, BBC Environment correspondent brings us good news…
The European Commission will not call for tougher targets on carbon emmissions despite analysis showing doing so would be cost-effective.
If you read the item he has posted, there is a distinct sense of disappointment that the noble Eurocrats have not imposed even stiffer targets on carbon emissions, thus implying that the 20% targets already in place are reaonable and sensible – when nothing could be further from the truth!
Fellow B-BBC writer Robin Horbury has done a great job exposing the activist role played by Black and others even as they posture as models of journalistic impartiality. I simply take the view that everything Black says is just…well, so much hot air. Can we cap that?
Well, Black is white, isn’t it?
They should just scrap the targets. I still wait to hear what is cost effective about this scam but no one seems to know. I do not suppose Black and his kind have the slightist idea of what a cost effective scheme is!
What don’t people understand about the phrase ‘cost effective’ in this context?
There is obviously a cost (pretty large at that!).
And, it is very effective at keeping the plebs under control!
EU Macht Frei.
Meanwhile, I see Clive James – as an aside really – in a scathing attack on the climate change numpties in Australia [ http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/critique-march-11-the-drumming-of-an-army-clive-james-australia-floods-global-warming-dorothea-mackellar?page=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C3 ], diagnoses our problems with the EU and our wretched politicos .. ‘and patriotism is a mood too. It’s a raw emotion and easily perverted, and a nation with too much of it is bound to cause trouble, but a nation entirely without it is lost indeed.’
Unless I misunderstood this bit…..
They also show that a 25% cut would set the EU on the most economic pathway to achieving an 80-95% cut by 2050, the agreed long-term goal.
…what’s really going on here is that the “study” is about which path to emissions reduction is the most econimically reasonable, and not that using targets to curtail industry makes more economic sense than not doing so.
Black is such a sad propagandist. My laugh-out-loud moment:
“Yet again it seems the scaremongering tactics of a handful of well connected industrial lobbyists have successfully castrated Europe’s climate ambitions,” said Baroness (Bryony) Worthington, director of the campaign organisation Sandbag.
Who was doing the scaremongering again? I forget.
It’s we well-connected industrial lobbyists that’re the scaremongers. The word sandbag as an organisational name is entirely concidental, and totally unrelated to the whole ‘Oh sweet Gaia, we’re all going to drown if we don’t do things like annihilate the very thing – industrialisation – that made us wealthy and free; hike taxes; redistribute wealth; subsidise inefficient, unviable methods of power generation et cetera, and don’t ask for any scientific explanation for or debate of our wacky ideas because there’s no time, we’re all going to die in the next five minutes’ fraternity (z0mg raycisum!!1!).
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve a meeting to attend wherein my associates and I – well-connected industrial lobbyists every last one of us – plan to build some big, phallic-shaped, coal-powered machines to wftpwn Mother Earth with for no reason other than hatred. Then I’m going to scaremonger some kids by telling them there’ no such thing as Santy Claus. Then I’m going to run over some bunnies in my SUV.