Recent comments

“Here, we discuss how the GOP’s sustained opposition to meaningful climate and energy legislation played a larger role in sending green jobs overseas than a vote for the stimulus” (to underscore Brendan Fischer’s intro). And in his parry to my response “The basic premise is that the countries whose governments have provided the (‘Green’) industry with support and incentives have pulled ahead (my parentheses for clarity).” Thus, my appropriately highlighting the article for taking such a biased political stance (Republican blameworthiness) on a fundamentally flawed proposition, ‘Green’ (or however the article explores convenient terminology for ridiculed climatic theories and champions), to justify some fatuous demand for increased taxpayer subsidies, incentives and sacrifices through government-sponsored interference and prejudices aimed directly at America’s regular enterprise and resources, was precisely to the point. With the article so focused and dependent on ‘Green’ for its raison d’être (regardless of any intended premises and logic), it was clearly shown to suffer a lack of any cohesive relationship with climate change and viable job creation, especially when it denounces or precludes alternative/competing theories. It is presumptuous at best, and simply non sequitur to present an under-debated ‘Green,’ in principle or form, as if automatically acceptable to most Americans, or, for that matter even directly related to either a de facto or contrived “Climate Change.” And, it must be patently obvious to Brendan by now that neither a ‘Green’ nor ‘man-made global warming’ agenda is considered desirable enough for US tax-paying citizens to be continually forced to spoon and force-feed consequent fantasies. Thus, the article’s bandying around of superfluous ‘facts’ as if trying to resuscitate any past ‘Green’ credibility, now through ‘man-made’ global warming for its justification, while condemning America’s entrepreneurship and global corporations for protecting their proven business interests, renders the term “green jobs” oxymoronic and redundant to begin with - particularly if sponsoring any assumed demands for such jobs is insidiously designed to be achieved through government, and solely at the cost and replacement of prevailing, proven enterprises. In short, with no ‘man-made global warming’ and/or alternative economic basis defined to truly create and drive viable ‘Green’ opportunities in the first place, Brendan’s article is reasonably challenged on motive and logic, not opinion. But, in addition, Brendan’s emphases on bonding ‘Green’ with public concessions, incentives, subsidies and regulation, as if over the years government ‘stimulus’ (just like ‘climate change’) isn’t also now ‘sly-speak’ for something completely different (bail-outs, pork, earmarks and corruption etc), is not only also illogical and indefensible, but fully arms antagonists: The world’s largest industrial company, and ”one of the world’s leading wind turbine suppliers”, GE (Obama funder/financial advisory team and owner of left-wing media loss leader MSNBC (also paying anchors million $ salaries)), has “over 13,800 worldwide turbine installations.” Yet, after 25 years in turbines and initially receiving government subsidies/incentives for 10 years, it is yet again fleecing the taxpayer, having claimed financial disaster without a contrived 2009 $15 Billion odd Government bail-out (shades of Unions, Goldman and Fannie/Freddie, etc)! Its cost per ‘Green’ job opportunity created? Roughly $250,000 (refer its proud ‘Green’ website)! This is not desirable or sustainable job creation – it is pure corruption for enriching and protecting select interests, the political elite and their allies! Next. Is China for real with Wind Turbines, Brendan? Try Bloomberg Dec 2, 2010 “China’s President Hu Jintao wants non-fossil (note) fuels to produce 15 percent (only) of China’s energy by 2020. Although the Chinese have spent plenty on wind turbines and solar panels, only a buildup of nuclear power (note) can make that target reachable.” And, “Developing clean, low-carbon (note) energy is an international priority,” says Zhao Chengkun, vice-president of the China Nuclear Energy Association. “Nuclear is recognized as the only (note) energy source that can be used on a mass scale to achieve this.” And, “China’s energy planners say they aim to have 40 reactors by 2020 and, by 2030, enough additional reactors to generate more power than all 104 reactors in the U.S., the leader (note) in nuclear energy. The Chinese are ready to spend $511 billion to build up to 245 reactors. Just 13 nuclear plants operate in China today. Now they are building 25 facilities, accounting for close to half the reactors under construction worldwide.” (my parentheses for emphasis). So doesn’t even China, with its huge disadvantaged labour pool being desperate for viable opportunities, see any validity in the article’s ‘Green’ growth logic for jobs and replacement of existing economies either? Not even when flooded with record private enterprise funding, is not a democratic republic suffering Republican challenge and competition, AND, is ruled by decree and absolute control, rather than citizen-elected leadership? But perhaps such ideals also resonate somewhere behind the article’s disclosed aims and rationale? Nevertheless, the article and response thus shoot themselves in all 3 feet of presumptive relationship between Global warming for Global warming’s sake, Green for Green’s sake and jobs for job’s sake. All three tenets are reflected as destructive forces against any others for them to succeed. More significantly, in combo, they are proven to self-destruct at inception if not tempered with common sense and understanding. ‘Environmental activism’ based on politically/socially-biased premises, pollutes rather than purifies. What matter which party, group or individual objects/promotes, provided all sincerely seek truthful solutions for the good of all in a community; rather than for everyone else but? Yet the article ignores sound reasoning for obligatory and unending tax-payer support for other’s flights of fantasy. Hence, do we subsidize a fact or a myth? Let's simply get real and agree first. Climate change is just that. Nothing sinister. We can agree. Natural warming or ‘Man-made’ warming? Either agree or not – because, either way the vital agreement FIRST is: ‘Is there anything mankind can do about it? So, before ‘Green’ and jobs, Brendan, please get ‘global warming’ out of your way. Even with Soros always funding its promotion along with upheavals for polarising change and yet again (yawn) ‘influencing’ the UN (instead of simply subsidising all the (nonviable?) ‘Green’ projects he also pretends to support), he and the UN bring no credence to the table, with their history too of progressing debilitating handouts, crony favouritism and corruption being no better than in US politics. Then without “squawking,” we could agree at the same time that, were it not for mal-intended interference in our US domestic enterprises, there’d probably be more than enough ‘Green-alternative’ and ‘Renewable (unsubsidized) energy’ opportunities also to satisfy everyone ... and all without having to trash the US Constitution with its individual rights and self-endeavour so as to absorb America into some megalomaniac's global oligarchy. But I don’t suspect the article was written for ensuring such self-preserving reasoning following ‘We the People ...’