Wouldn't be US, now would it?ontinuing the UN's Slow-Boiled Frog® approach to swindling the world United States out of her honest, hard-earned wealth and globally redistributing and consequentially reducing that and all nations' wealth:
Climate change cost to be outlined
Financial Times, 04.05.2007
Preventing climate change from reaching dangerous levels will cost between 0.2 per cent and 3 per cent of the world's gross domestic product in a few decades, the world's climate experts are expected to conclude on Friday.
Let's do the math, shall we kiddies?
One year's cost: On the low end we have 0.2 per cent of $45 trillion (source: World Bank — PDF), or $90 billion. We'll call this the Very Conservative Happy Cuddly Flying Unicorn Estimate, or HCFUE.
On that high end of 3 per cent, it's $1.4 trillion per year. This we'll call our Silver Cloudy Rainbow Estimate (SCRE).
Of course, given that government long-term estimates are nominally several factors lower than actual costs to begin with, and given that world bureaucrats have done the estimating here so theirs is more than likely at least a couple of factors lower still, and given that those bureaucrats and the self-righteous elitists enlisting them are all on a self-delusional Holy Mission To Save Mother Gaia From Evil Capitalist Consumption (©1917-2007 Lennin-Gore Ultd.) and thus have a glaring self-interest to underestimate that cost to just above the Pollyannaism Point™ in order to obfuscate as much as possible their true motives and intentions (aka Camel. Nose. Tent. Soon much squeezing required.) so the difference between the actual cost and any of their estimated ones reaches at least the "a world of" level, and finally given that the time span over which our Gaian Missionaries' estimates are supposed to apply would give pause to even the most irresponsible of gypsy soothsayers, we would do well to either dismiss HCFUE and SCRE altogether or take them with every grain of salt ever "rapaciously" strip mined out of the earth object of their worship.
However, although realizing it's always a mistake, let's be charitable towards the deluded zealots. Therefore we'll say they're off by only a factor of five — from their high end. That makes the cost come to at least $7 trillion a year. We'll call this a Compassionately Conservative Estimate.
Now at this point most of us are probably asking ourselves who's going to pay for all this wonderfully good intentioned Mother Gaia saving? If we're assuming the burden will be equally shared by all nations, with each one contributing the same fraction of its GDP as every other to some UN-managed Oil-for-Food Sex-for-Food Magic-for-Fuel Program®, then we obviously have no concept of what liberals mean by "paying your fair share." But don't worry. It's really very simple(-minded): If you're an Evil Rich Capitalist, your "fair share" is 100% of the program's entire cost, while everyone else's is merely to watch you pay it. So with that cleared up, let's MoveOn.soros.
The bottom line is that the United States, whose $12.4 trillion annual GDP is 27.5 per cent of the world's total, won't only be paying its $1.9 trillion a year true fair share, but almost all of the remaining $5.1 trillion as well. Or, in non-socialists terms, over half of our total GDP every year for the next "few decades."
Makes us feel all warm and tingly inside, doesn't it?
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to finish its week-long meeting in Bangkok on Friday, says the money will be needed for low-carbon technologies such as nuclear power and renewable [magic] energy.
Given that the first low-carbon technology mentioned produces highly radioactive waste that must be buried somewhere (just don't ask these elitists, such as T-boat al-Qennedy, to let you bury it anywhere near their backyards), the only thing we'll see happening in the next few decades is the G'liberal W'alarming crowd and the Anti-Nuke one constantly seeing each other in court.
Of course, by the time we get all the new nuclear power plants designed, licensed, constructed, tested, fully fired up and running, and ready to even partially replace present energy producing systems, al-Gore will already be a few decades into experiencing the inconvenient truth of a subterraneanly global warming that justly awaits all unrepentant frauds, cheats, swindlers, and other overly selfish and incredibly conceited holier-than-thou egomaniac liberalsbirm:
- A key aspect of regulatory development for near-term deployment is the efficient implementation of 10 CFR Part 52. Created in 1989, this regulation established three new licensing processes for future plants: early site permitting (i.e., NRC approval of a site before a decision has been made to build a plant); design certification (i.e., NRC approval of a standard design); and combined licenses (i.e., a combined construction permit and operating license). These processes could provide a dramatic improvement over the two-step process used for existing U.S. plants. NRC has stated that an application for a combined license that references an early site permit and a certified reactor design could result in an operating license being granted in as little as one year (Jeffrey S. Merrifield, NRC commissioner, remarks to American Nuclear Society Conference, June 7, 1994). In actuality, however, only the design certification process has been demonstrated thus far, and it has taken as long as 10 years.
Finding the wizard or space alien undocumented extraterrestrial who can suspend E=mc2 and zap us up a miraculous source of magically renewable energy would take even longer.
These costs will be partly defrayed by substantial savings arising from greater energy efficiency needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Let's just ignore the partly bit and focus on the fact that if we're going to take what now works and what now fuels an economic engine that's now efficiently outputting goods and services valued at over $12 trillion and rising, and flush over half of it down the pipe dreams of bobbing bubble-headed
"scientists" bureaucrats and hysteria-mongering fanatics whose sole measure of productivity extends to how much hydrogen-based balloon juice they spout, straight into that untreatable backed-up
tank pond lake ocean of raw sewage known as the United Nations so it can increase its coffers and expand its already
overly lucrative make-"work" jobs program for many tens of thousands more
inefficient, overpaid, ineffective, and unaccountable bureaucrats —- And that brings us to a feature of the UN system... that has helped to shield it from thoroughgoing investigation. Since its founding, the institution has added untold numbers of agencies, funds, commissions, programs, "ad-hoc bodies," and "other entities," to the point where most of the UN's own personnel do not know who reports to whom, or how. The Secretary-General himself, when questioned last year by the Volcker commission, professed not to understand his own chain of command.
— our country will wind up so impoverished there won't be enough of its wealth left to swindle for any part of the UN's Save Mother Gaia Program.
Before any of us start thinking this is some unintended consequence of that proposed path paved with their goods intentions, to such fanatics on a mission it too "sounds like a plan."
The final outcome still would be the only one they prefer: An "Evil" U.S. undergoing reductions not just in her carbon emissions but also in terms of her economic and military strength and, consequently, her global influence and power.
So, boys and girls, do any of you know why they would want to harm us like that? Yes, Billy? What? No, it's not because "they're on a meth-crazed murderous rampage." Although you're close. OK, Jane, I see your hand up. What's your answer?
Bingo! For those in the back who couldn't hear, Jane said it's because "they want to teach us a lesson." Now I'll give a gold star to whoever can tell me exactly what that lesson is. Jane? Not sure yet? All right, let's hear from... John. Yes, John, what lesson do you think they want to teach us? No, I'm not picking on you. We really want to hear what you think. Just take your time.... Ah, very good. John says it's "stop being soooo arrogant!" But that's not specific enough. Anyone else want to give it a shot? Mary, I just saw your eyes light up. Do you know what it is? That's right!
Mary said the lesson they want to teach us is "stop being so successful, it's making the rest of us look very bad." I'm awarding her the gold star.
And with that we can ignore the rest of the sentence too.
However, there is still fierce debate over the projected costs and the economic models on which they are based, and arguments continued late last night in Bangkok.
It ended with a toss-up between the French socialist's slightly battered Magic 8-Ball® (after ignoring its frustratingly frequent "Answer Unclear — Please Try Again's") and the Cuban sycophant's uncheery assortment of fingernail clippings and chicken bones.
The IPCC's estimates could change markedly in the report it is due to release on Friday.
That is, once someone throws that idiotic 8-Ball straight out the window.
"The models assume a perfect world, of perfect information and perfect markets," said a delegate to the negotiations.
What else would liberals assume? Being they're always so perfect and all.
"But there is more and more convergence, things are speeding up."
As is often the case whenever a swindler starts to realize his potential swindlee isn't buying any of his concocted swill. That fearful desperation he feels deep in his gut is saying most insistingly, "Talk faster. You're losing him!"
This is the third and final part of the most authoritative assessment of climate change to date, which has been six years in the making and drawn on the work of more than 2,500 scientists.
None of which or whom has applied any such parts or years towards authoritatively assessing the effects of, say, a certain 865,000-mile-wide object with a core temperature of 27,000,000°F only eight light-minutes away whose interior could easily hold over a million Earths Mother Gaias.
Nah. How could any of that be relevant to UN-authorized "scientists"?
Its key findings have to be unanimously agreed upon by more than 100 governments, including the US, China, India and the European Union, and will form the basis for international policy for years to come.
The hysterical fanatics are letting those governments swindlees believe they have a real say-so in the matter? Haven't the former already decided what's best for them all?
Anyway, by the time such agreement is reached the duly departed al-Gore will be working on his hundredth inconvenient snowman. In the meantime, we'll be hearing the fanatics claim "there's so much more that needs to be done" as they head off to their hundredth UN-approved "conference." Sweet "work," if you can get it.
Kiddies! I believe we just answered our own questions.
Friday's report aims to set out the likely costs of cutting emissions and to recommend the methods of doing so. It is the most contentious, because governments such as the US and China disagree with the EU on how much should be spent on the problem and by what means.
It's so simple even a knuckle-dragging liberal could figure it out: We all ride around on our bicycles while al-Gore and his flock fly around the globe in their carbon-emitting private jets to see whether we're all riding our bikes like good little workers of the world.
Then we could all unite or something. After all, all we have to lose are our bicycle chains!
If the governments fail to agree the report on Friday, it will be a severe setback for negotiations on a successor to the Kyoto protocol, whose provisions expire in 2012.
Obviously, "more work [grants awarding] needs to be done."
China is poised to take over from the US as the world's biggest emitter and is anxious that an agreement to cut emissions could put a brake on its economic growth.
Silly, China. It's very easy: Stop being so economically successful and the hysteria mongers won't whine about you anymore.
The US wants the emphasis to be on new low-carbon technologies and voluntary measures rather than binding targets.
Zinz ven ist eeny thingz „wolenteerie“ arrroundz zeer, sie eewil dummkopf? Herr doktoor Clyme E. Tallgest hazt zeelected ihr arrrrogintz kontree für seins sozialistisch injeenneerrrreen eggsparamintz.
There is no agreement among governments about whether the world should set a target for stabilising the quantity of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that scientists argue is safe.
By Fiona Harvey in London
Might as well set targets for stabilizing the number of sunspots at a more safe level.
But don't expect us to take any wooden sunspot credits from Generation Investment Management then, either.
Labels: g'liberal warming
Comments (registered users)
Post a Comment