Who says so?
A certain Lord Redesdale of the all-party parliamentary climate change group.
"We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both. There really does need to be much tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes."
Of course, when he says "we" he means you and me - not him. I really can't imagine his Lordship giving up his hot bath and foreign holidays - sorry, I mean fact-finding missions to the Caribbean - can you?
What is all this about? "Tougher policies on reducing carbon emissions from the homes"? That sounds suspiciously like compulsion to me - i.e. we (the ruling elite) have to force you (the mug electorate) to use less energy because we (the ruling elite) can't be arsed to have an effective energy policy.
So we're going to be forced to use less energy - and for what? Man's CO2 contribution is but a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of CO2 that enters the atmosphere naturally - and Britain's contribution to that drop is negligible. If everyone in Britain stopped producing C)2 tomorrow it would make absolutely no difference whatsoever - so why are we to be forced to use less energy?
The answer, of course, is that it isn't about using less energy - it's about raising more money through taxation. We'll be forced to use less by being taxed more on the energy we do use - one way or another.
Partly it will be through the general taxation - money taken from the taxpayer to pay for the largely useless and heavily subsidised wind farms which are not economically viable without huge subsidies from the state.
And then they'll be the money raised through indirect taxation - taxes or costly requirements placed on energy suppliers which they will recoup by charging us more for using less energy which is increasingly unavailable when we need it anyhow.
And all this for what? An imagined problem that exists only in the minds of "green" fools and the computer programs of climate models and which real world data tells us does not exist.
6 comments:
So true. The whole thing is a political movement, not a scientific one.
Another clear analysis. Whenever i hear 'Green' this that or the next thing, 'Tax' is invariably mentioned in the same breath.
Like the anon commenter above, I think it is a political movement.
As well as increasing the taxes, it's about having a common cause between countries which allows the globalists to tighten control...
And finally, what do we propose doing about cow farts?
"And finally, what do we propose doing about cow farts?"
That's already on the agenda - the proposal being that we eat less meat or - preferably from certain "environmentalists" perspective - no meat at all.
"So true. The whole thing is a political movement, not a scientific one."
It's more of a religion, actually. Or a cult.
Your lower order members bring in the tithes, and the high priests live high on the hog.
"That's already on the agenda - the proposal being that we eat less meat or - preferably from certain "environmentalists" perspective - no meat at all."
Cue WWF.
And you thought they spent your donations on cuddling pandas and saving elephants, didn't you?
'We can either heat our homes and have hot baths, or fly but not both'.
Is Redesdale, wherever it is, notorious for incest and in-breeding? If one follows the 'noble' idiot's line of 'reasoning' we can keep flying and have hot baths comfortable in the belief that doing so ensures that we need never worry about heating our homes again.
The man is clearly a bloody fool.
Post a Comment