Just read the Wall Street Journal article about the meeting last week of economists in Copenhagen, Denmark. Seems the consensus coming out of the meeting is the one myself and many others in the "Denier" community has been saying all along, people such as Bjorn Lomberg who fell from favour for his realistic approach to environmentalism. This meeting determined we are not really being very prudent with our resources and investments, nor our priorities for the planet, simply put we are on the wrong path. How can they say that? Simply because economists use a mankind first approach and environmentalists use a nature first set of values. This is the fundamental argument that should be taking place in the halls of power inside the world's governments, not the emergency taxing of the population to create common property funds to expand state control over energy delivery and full control over research funding. Money that will go into general funds and never see the light of day for the intended purpose. Like the irresponsible bill debated this week in the US congress ( where it died a undignified death, tarnished by Senator Boxter's lies to media regarding its widespread support and Congresswoman Maxine Waters socialist slip to oil executives), yet Cap and Trade was passed in the BC Provincial legislature legally binding our regional government to the recommendations and polices to be divined by the environmentalist controlled Western Climate Initiative.
I digress, so now back to the article... below is the priority list that the economists determined were the main five issues and the lowest five priorities for helping the poor, you know that pesky mankind first approach I discussed earlier. So where does Global Warming Mitigation land? Why there it is... LAST PLACE! How did it get to be last place? I keep hearing about how damaging it will be to undeveloped countries if we do not address Global Warming today, how they will be the hardest hit. Is it possible the "Nature First" crowd is using this to appeal to the sensibilities of people who are mankind first? I think so.
When are we as a society going to wake up and stop thinking emotionally about the green agenda and see it for what it is. Even if the worst case scenarios are reached in the IPCC projections and we pour every once of treasure into it the lost opportunities to feed the starving and save the lives of millions of HUMANS must not be allowed to slip past. We have stopped caring about people and placed their real and immediate dangers behind an invisible gas boogeyman, why? Because people do not feel guilty about starving people as much as they feel guilty for living in an advanced society that adapts it's surroundings and consumes resources. They have been conditioned to think that Human Development and advancement is a sin against nature, it is the left over beliefs that were passed down from the Eugenicists that founded conservationist groups like the WWF. The belief that humans are a blight on the planet, a virus eating away at our host body (planet) and we must be culled so that only the best of us remain. So eugenics was unmasked for what it was and fell out of favour, but it did not go away, it changed it's hat and is back in the game. It and it's core principals are now are our single largest special interest group in western society. The Environmental Movement.
We need to force the politicians to live up to their promises to stop pandering to special interests, ALL special interests! If not then replace them with ones who will, impeach or recall them, our leaders work for us, not for the WWF and the Sierra Club.
Read the Article: A Different Consensus