Are you concerned that governments may use climate change policy to limit your lifestyle choices

Yes

1 of 6

by Allan Taylor

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Yes, I am very much concerned about proposed, planned and already enacted climate change policies of state and federal governments. They are an example of the maxim that government policy based on bad science produces bad policy which results in bad outcomes.

Not only will these climate change policies limit, either directly or indirectly, my lifestyle choices, but they will cause a decline in the living standards of everyone living today and for future generations to come. Ultimately there is the potential of destroying Western civilization as we know it, if nations try to follow through with the futile and unnecessary drastic cuts in man-made CO2 emissions as proposed by the UN sponsored Kyoto Protocol.

It is a credit to the USA that the Bush administration has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which is best described as a nightmare of confused religious thinking by the Loony Left. We should take heed of the wisdom of the American journalist, H.L. Menken, who in the 1920's commented "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false-face for the urge to rule it."

Here are few examples of the stupidity of current climate change policies:

Government subsidies for development of renewable energy such as production of ethanol from corn and other grains for reason that it is "cheaper" and saves on petroleum usage and provides a security of supply. The farmers love the idea and who cares if the price of grain skyrockets and this leads to food shortages and riots around the world, and starvation for many more millions of people in the third world.

The farm production of ethanol requires the input of more energy than it provides as a transport fuel in place of gasoline, so energy wise, you are going backwards. The unsubsidized cost is greater than the cost of gasoline. With regard to it being a "cleaner" burning fuel forget it, because, contrary to the climate change alarmists, CO2 gas is not an atmospheric pollutant but an essential fertilizer for crops and forests and does not cause global warming.

Government subsidy of wind farms and promotion of Green power is a misapplication of tax funds as it provides very expensive and unreliable electricity (compared to base-load gas and coal fired stations) besides the towers being a blot on the landscape and hazard to bird life. The land owners like the rental for doing nothing and electric companies profit well by manufacturing wind turbines. The global warming hysteria maintains this unnecessary activity for without it we would not worry about using cheap carbon-based fuels for electricity generation.

The most bizarre of all climate change policies must be the government subsidy of R & D for sequestration of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants. This is a gross waste of tax payers' money and has resulted in building of pilot plants and surveying large areas for safe underground storage of CO2 gas. I admit that there is within the petroleum industry usage of this technology for reason of boosting oil production from depleted fields, but to think that you are going to help stop global warming by doing it, well, really, you must also believe there are fairies at the bottom of your garden!

The sad effect of this government policy is that it has discouraged, if not stymied, the planned building of coal-fired power stations which in many countries is the cheapest way of producing electricity. Of course, this is what the EU wants because it is dependent on more costly nuclear power and sees a trade advantage by promoting the CO2 myth and consequences of following the Kyoto Protocol. China couldn't care less and is continuing to build coal-fired powers stations at a great rate and wisely so. China is like the cat playing with the mouse.

In Australia, where I live, there is currently a double "bizarreness" (if there is such a word) in action. Our new Labor Government brings forth its first budget next week so all the zealots and climate change alarmists have crawled out of the woodwork to implore the Government to enact policies to "stop climate change and global warming" before it is too late. The Greenpeace organization has presented a 30,000 person petition to Government to ..... wait for it ..... stop wasting tax payers' money on funding the coal industry's project of carbon capture and storage of CO2 emissions from coal-fired power stations!

Wow! For once I agree with Greenpeace. Such enlightenment! However, on reading the fine print I find that diametrically opposed logic has arrived at the same conclusion, hence the "double bizarreness" of the event.

The Greenpeace view of the world and Australia is that this government funding would be better spent on subsidizing renewable energy projects, like wind power, solar and geothermal energy. Time is too short to develop a viable so called "clean" coal - fired power station, if in deed it is possible at all. We are rapidly approaching the "tipping point" where catastrophe will ensure from global warming caused by manmade emissions of CO2. It seems they envisage a future Australia covered in solar panels and ghastly wind farms, which would provide unreliable electricity at exorbitant cost.

Greenpeace make no mention of nuclear power generation of electricity (a No No) , which in the long term will be our ultimate source of energy, and Australia has the world's largest reserves and production of uranium (but no reactors). Australia is the lucky country as far as energy resources go, it having plentiful coal and uranium and significant natural gas.

So, I say to Greenpeace, I agree, let's stop this stupid wastage of government R& D funds to the coal industry. There are more important things to spend government money on, such as better hospitals, more pay for nurses, school teachers, policemen, firefighters and a never ending number of inadequately funded social services. These things effect my lifestyle. Greenpeace, please don't try and impose your bad-science derived eco-religion on everybody else. We don't want it.

Ends

Learn more about this author, Allan Taylor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.