Posted by Jeff Id on February 8, 2010
This is the kind of thinking which get’s us down the wrong path. The precautionary principle from Wiki stated below:
The precautionary principle states that if an action or policy has suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who would advocate taking the action. Effectively, this principle allows policy makers to make discretionary decisions in situations where there is evidence of potential harm in the absence of complete scientific proof. The principle implies that there is a responsibility to intervene and protect the public from exposure to harm where scientific investigation discovers a plausible risk in the course of having screened for other suspected causes. The protections that mitigate suspected risks can be relaxed only if further scientific findings emerge that more robustly support an alternative explanation. In some legal systems, as in the law of the European Union, the application of the precautionary principle has been made a statutory requirement.
I’ve seen several writings lately on the creating green jobs lie. Now keep in mind, I am president and owner of a green company and as such should have a bias. But as a small business of less than 100 employees, our company doesn’t have the sway with government officials to receive the breaks and incentives. What’s more, we, like any honest business, recognize that our customers buying power determines our sales to a large extent. Adding cost to energy, necessarily and absolutely will affect the cost of every single product on the planet, everything. This is a reduction in buying power which will separate further the haves and have nots. I plan to be on the have side of the line, but if our costs go up, our sales will go down from where they could have been. Across the world economy limiting policies will result in less purchasing and less consumption and of course LESS jobs.
The economics of the massive taxation’s proposed by the extremist leftist IPCC are absolutely economy crushing. It’s not even a close call, but this economic limitation is a large part of the openly stated goal of Greenpeace. Now my correct opinions are not shared by a number of readers here. I’ve heard that even though warming isn’t as severe as stated, we should still tax CO2 out of precaution. It’s wrongthink in my opinion, but as often noted, agreement here is not a requirement for opinion. I won’t have much time to join the discussion today again, but this is one of my biggest frustrations, the precautionary principle tells me that we should do nothing which would damage our economy and limit technology. It does NOT say we should limit CO2 through adding of cost.
This is especially true when you consider that CO2 output must go to zero to prevent a couple C of warming. One of the favorite claims of the defective envirowhacko IPCC is the CO2 won’t get removed from the carbon cycle for hundreds of years. This means CO2 output MUST go to zero, which it won’t and therefore the warming cannot be stopped with our current technology. How simple is that! Problem solved.
My proposal would therefore be to open the floodgates of oil and coal to the limit and give incentives for cost effective technology developments which meet milestones. I would eliminate entirely, ANY subsidies for implementation programs of any kind other than nuclear because nothing really works. I would fund research on programs to cost effectively use waste products only to make biofuel, improve solar, improve batteries, and improving of other alternative options. I would not fund “biofuel only” farm research (such as algae) because the photosynthetic efficiency is too low and will always be too low to be useful so is not a solution to anything, unless your goal is to waste land and water. Cheap fuel from waste food production bio-material would be ok though.
So with that said, I fully believe any of the ‘limiting’ output actions so preferred by the left will result in an increased TOTAL amount of CO2 being released before alternatives can be implemented. This happens simply because of the reduction placed on corporate funding for technology, lengthening the time for a suitable alternative. In addition, limitation policy guarantees increased cost for everything and additional poverty worldwide–a known goal of the power hungry. There simply isn’t another possible outcome from CO2 limiting policy.
So it seems that while agreeing with the concept of the precautionary principle, a fiscal conservative’s solution to the exact same problem, is the polar opposite from the extremist IPCC polyscienticians.