The Warmists just can’t help themselves
(Policymic) The International Energy Agency (IEA) recognized the greater political appeal of the “energy security†agenda. In an information paper on Policy Considerations for Deploying Renewables published on November 23, they rank energy security as the best reason for governments to increase investments in renewables. Economic development comes second, while climate change is third. The recommendation is to promote it as an affordable and secure energy source (in the long run).
The UK is demonstrating efforts at the rebranding exercise. Energy minister Chris Huhne sidelined global warming in a speech to the House of Commons in favor of the consumer, stating that “the decisions we make must ensure the consumer is protected as far as possible from rising prices.†He added that the UK would secure its energy “in the long term by steering us away from excessive reliance on fossil fuels and onto clean, green and secure energyâ€.
Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee also noted: “Given the difficulty in developing a new international treaty, this matter must be addressed in a way that strengthens our economy and bolsters our energy security.â€
The climate change movement needs to speak the language of politicians to get political momentum behind it. It needs to rebrand itself in energy security and cost-efficient terms, and less on altruism and saving the planet.
I have an idea: the movement (doesn’t that denote that it is all about politics?) should become more open and publish all the gathered raw data, particularly since so much is done on the public dime. Prove that it is a science. But, they can’t. They won’t. AGW is not about science at all.
