Sydney Morning Herald Offers 10 Principles For Climate Change Hoax Rules

Said rules are supposed to come from the UN IPCC conference in sunny Durban, South Africa, starting at the end of November, to which a few climate scientists and tons of politicians, bureaucrats, and alarmist weenies will take private jets that were just “going there anyhow”: Ten principles for climate change

Therefore, the Durban conference should focus less on target numbers and more on what each country will do in terms of policies and initiatives to achieve its targets, binding or voluntary. It should first reach consensus on 10 principles that should underpin countries’ policies and actions.

So, ignore target numbers? Probably since Kyoto was a massive failure, with virtually no country hitting their targets

First, the aim should be for the world economy and individual economies to grow, but with low carbon emissions. (begs the question “how?“)

Second, countries should adopt a 40 to 50-year time horizon. Achievable and measurable targets initially are more important to acquire a credible scheme rather than ambitious but impractical short-term targets. (wait, I thought we were ignoring target numbers?)

Third, every country should work to continually reduce the energy intensity of its economy. Conversely, there should be disincentives for promoting or persisting with low energy-efficient technologies. (so, drag us back to the 1700’s, and punish people who haven’t replaced their incandescent light bulbs)

Fourth, all countries, particularly the developed ones, should work to reduce their per capita consumption of energy and actively discourage wasteful consumption. The direct link between individual excesses and global emissions must be recognised in national policy formulations. For example, Australia has no defined policy objective on this metric. (is this starting to sound rather fascistic?)

Fifth, the global post-Kyoto agreement should seek a commitment from all countries, particularly those with high populations, to curtail their growth rates to less than, or equal to, replacement levels. Simple arithmetic is that per capita emissions times the population gives total emissions from a country. The world needs action on both fronts. (another progressive idea, eugenics)

Sixth, policy initiatives in developed economies such as an emissions trading scheme should have maximum coverage, not just the big businesses. Let us not rule out this aim straight away on the grounds of high transaction costs. Maximum coverage and transactional simplicity need not be necessarily antithetical. (so, force individuals to purchase carbon credits/offsets. Which do nothing but make some people really rich)

Seventh, governments in developed countries should provide price signals and incentives to everyone, householders and businesses alike, to continually reduce their carbon footprints. Simply stated, if you reduce your carbon emission intensity in a year compared to the previous year, you should be rewarded, and vice versa. (Gaia punishments. More fascism)

Eighth, all governments should promote investments in renewable energy and carbon sinks such as forests; they should not rule out nuclear power as an option without detailed cost and environmental studies. (promoting is one thing: dumping money into worthless pits is something else)

Ninth, all governments should agree to develop policies that minimise “carbon leakage” – that is when highly emitting industries move their factories from countries with strong carbon price signals to countries where one can emit GHG without paying a price. In such cases, job opportunities in the former are reduced but global emissions remain the same. (one world government)

Tenth, each government should combat its emissions growth by undertaking ”local actions” and not rely heavily on measures such as international carbon trading to financially offset its emissions. (this is where “transfer of wealth”, redistribution, comes into play)

Notice what is missing? Anything related to science. Oh, and who is the writer? “Gujji Muthuswamy is a lecturer in carbon pricing in the department of accounting and finance at Monash University.” So, he has a big stake in carbon markets.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

5 Responses to “Sydney Morning Herald Offers 10 Principles For Climate Change Hoax Rules”

  1. mojo says:

    Maybe we’ll get lucky and the Zulu will exterminate these leeches.

  2. Word says:

    Rule 11………

    We believe in global warming because we want to destroy the economy so that WE CAN BE IN CHARGE.

    We know whats best for you.

    Take it to the bank.

  3. captainfish says:

    Let’s take the best hits from Socialism, Communism, Marxism, Neo-Fascism, Statism, Stalinism, Anti-Capitalism, Anarchism, and roll them all up in to a big huge red and white polka-dot bow.

    Then we can all pretend that the billions who have died, been enslaved, raped, tortured, evicted, forcibly relocated, jailed, and starved to death…. was for the “greater” greater good.

    Because, if it didn’t work quite right the first time, and millions died, well, then, it must work right again the next time. Because, dang it, I like me.

  4. Hit that one on the head. They like to take the worst of everything that is bad for freedom, individuality, modern life, etc, and give it yet another whirl. And expect a different outcome.

  5. […] Pirate’s Cove – Has Climate Change principals. (Note, he is not following me at the moment, but has sent a lot of traffic this way, so he gets a special mention) […]

Pirate's Cove