Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 6:46 AM
Subject: WE FACE EXTRAORDINARY RISKS - and they are created by GOVERNMENT

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121597161575549059.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The Wall Street Journal

July 14, 2008

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Cap and Redistribute

FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL ASIA
July 14, 2008

The Group of Eight may be waking up to the cost of fighting global
warming, but in Australia, the opposite is happening. Prime Minister
Kevin Rudd has promised to implement an emissions trading scheme by
2010, claiming it would be "reckless not to act." Rhetoric aside, Mr.
Rudd just wants to do what every Labor pol likes: tax industry and
redistribute the proceeds, at huge cost to the economy.

The Australian public saw an outline of these plans earlier this
month, when economist Ross Garnaut released a Labor-commissioned
report on climate change and how to combat it. Mr. Garnaut starts with
the premise that it isn't "desirable" or "feasible" to "slow living
standards" to fight climate change. Yet "the solution," he argues, is
in "removing the links between economic activity and greenhouse gas
emissions."

If the government-directed breakdown of free-market price signals
sounds like creeping socialism, it is. The Garnaut Review suggests
selling artificial permits that allow companies to "pollute." Industry
would either fold under the cost burden or pass those costs onto
consumers. Canberra, on the other hand, would haul in huge revenues
from the permit sales. Mr. Garnaut will estimate this tax take when he
issues his final report in September. The Rudd government is releasing
its own paper on the subject this week.

Mr. Garnaut and Mr. Rudd both acknowledge that emissions trading would
be costly especially in a country where natural resources account
for around half of all exports. Agriculture and mining together
represent about 9% of GDP. Taxing emissions could cripple these
industries and would percolate through every corner of the economy,
raising energy prices. The ultimate cost in terms of jobs and growth
is unknowable.

To alleviate this government-created problem, the Garnaut Review
suggests some government-directed money shuffling. Up to 30% of "sales
revenues" would go to "trade-exposed, emissions-intensive export
industries." In English, this means Canberra would pay companies to
stay in Australia rather than move to a country that doesn't impose
arbitrary costs on business.

Another 30% of this indirect tax would go to "research, development
and commercialization of new, low-emissions technologies." So instead
of encouraging the whole of Australian industry to invent cleaner
business practices through transparent tax incentives, Mr. Garnaut
wants government to give money to selected institutions to work on the
problem. Australia, with one of the world's biggest supplies of
uranium, already has at its disposal a cleaner form of energy that it
doesn't use: nuclear power.

The bulk of the proposed handouts are reserved for "households," to
relieve the "regressive income distribution effects of the emissions
trading system." Translation: Poor Australians will suffer most from
higher energy prices as companies pass on costs. The report doesn't
specify which households would receive handouts. But it's safe to say
that with the Labor Party controlling every Australian state and its
federal government, it would be tempting to shovel that cash pile to
Labor constituencies.

The Garnaut Review estimates that Australia accounts for only 1.5% of
the world's total greenhouse gas emissions. China, the U.S. and the
European Union are the biggest emitters by a long shot; what Canberra
does is largely irrelevant. Mr. Rudd waves this aside, claiming that
other countries will follow Australia's example. The lesson of last
week's G-8 summit is that developed and developing countries alike are
moving in the opposite direction.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121597161575549059.html
=============

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121573566257544347.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

The Wall Street Journal


July 11, 2008

Kyoto's Long Goodbye
July 11, 2008; Page A14

One of the mysteries of the universe is why President Bush bothers to
charge the fixed bayonets of the global warming theocracy. On the
other hand, his Administration's supposed "cowboy diplomacy" is
succeeding in changing the way the world addresses climate change.
Which is to say, he has forced the world to pay at least some
attention to reality.

That was the larger meaning of the Group of Eight summit in Japan this
week, even if it didn't make the papers. The headline was that the
nations pledged to cut global greenhouse emissions by half by 2050.
Yet for the first time, the G-8 also agreed that any meaningful
climate program would have to involve industrializing nations like
China and India. For the first time, too, the G-8 agreed that real
progress will depend on technological advancements. And it agreed that
the putative benefits had to justify any brakes on economic growth.

In other words, the G-8 signed on to what has been the White House
approach since 2002. The U.S. has relied on the arc of domestic energy
programs now in place, like fuel-economy standards and efficiency
regulations, along with billions in subsidies for low-carbon
technology. Europe threw in with the central planning of the Kyoto
Protocol -- and the contrast is instructive. Between 2000 and 2006,
U.S. net greenhouse gas emissions fell 3%. Of the 17 largest
world-wide emitters, only France reduced by more.

So despite environmentalist sanctimony about the urgent need for
President Bush and the U.S. to "take the lead" on global warming, his
program has done better than most everybody else's. That won't make
the evening news. But the fact is that the new G-8 document is best
understood as a second look at the "leadership" of . . . you know who.

The G-8 also tends to make grand promises that evaporate as soon as
everyone goes home. This year, picking up the "accountability" theme
pressed by the U.S., envoys grudgingly accepted a plan that will track
-- and publicize -- how well countries are living up to their word. So
when the G-8 endorsed greenhouse reduction "aspirations" that are
"ambitious, realistic and achievable," the emphasis fell on the last
two attributes.

Put another way, global warming is an economic, not a theological,
question. It is not at all clear that huge expenditures today on
slowing emissions will yield long-run benefits or even slow emissions.
Research and development into sources of low-carbon energy is almost
certainly more useful, and the G-8 pledged more funding for "clean
tech" programs. This is vastly preferable to whatever reorganization
of the American economy that Barack Obama and John McCain currently
favor in the name of solving this speculative problem.

The G-8 also conceded that global-warming masochism is futile and
painfully expensive. If every rich country drastically cut CO2, those
cuts would be wiped out by emissions from China and India. "Carbon
leakage" is a major problem too, where cutbacks in some countries lead
to increases in others with less strict policies, as manufacturing and
the like are outsourced. This whack-a-mole won't stop without
including all 17 major economies, which together produce roughly 80%
of global emissions.

Much to the ire of Kyotophiles, Mr. Bush started this rethinking last
year when he created a parallel track for talks on a post-2012 U.N.
program, luring China and India to the table with more practical
options. But developing countries, led by that duo, still refused to
sign on to the G-8's 2050 goal. They aren't eager to endanger their
growth -- and lifting people out of poverty -- by acquiring the West's
climate neuroses.

The irony is that Kyoto has handed them every reason not to
participate. Europe knew all along that it couldn't meet its quotas,
so it created an out in "offsets." A British factory, say, buys a
credit to pay for basic efficiency improvements in a Chinese coal
plant, like installing smokestack scrubbers. This is a tax on the
Brits to make Chinese industries more competitive. Sweet deal if you
can get it.

It gets worse. The offsets are routed through a U.N. bureaucracy that
makes them far more valuable in Europe than the cost of the actual
efficiency improvements. So far, Kyoto-world has paid more than 4.7
billion to eliminate an obscure greenhouse gas called HFC-23; the
necessary incinerators cost less than 100 million. Most of the
difference in such schemes goes to the foreign government, such as
China's communist regime.

Given these perverse incentives, the magical realism of Kyoto has
backfired in a big way. The global warming elite will never admit
this, because that would mean giving up their political whip against
George Bush. But Kyoto II is already collapsing under its own
contradictions. By sticking to a more realistic alternative, this
reviled President has handed his green opponents a way to save face.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121573566257544347.html
4.242.120.55
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government
ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public
liberty.
John Adams, Journal, 1772

*****

Try out Wikipedia's entries on say, Roe v. Wade
or Intelligent Design, and you will see that Wikipedia
is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are
not conservatives, writes The National Review. (Wikipedia)

Wikipedia filters out any information that is contrary to the Gore/UN
view of Global Warming. Orwell's 1984 is here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/07/08/opinion/main4241293.shtml

Wikipropaganda On Global Warming

July 8, 2008(National Review Online) This column was written by
Lawrence Solomon.Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and
company continue to get away with their claim of a "scientific
consensus" confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no
farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the
global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely
used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in
the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a "people's encyclopedia" written and edited by
the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on
controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of
opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style:
a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page
on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper,
published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have
exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one
single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes's conclusions were absurd, and have been widely
ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent
scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global
warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find
hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the
Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface.

Naturally I was surprised to read on Wikipedia that Oreskes's work had
been vindicated and that, for instance, one of her most thorough
critics, British scientist and publisher Bennie Peiser, not only had
been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.

I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing. I then
corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.

Peiser wrote back saying he couldn't see my corrections on the
Wikipedia page. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that
the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone
again. I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly
after they were made.

Turns out that on Wikipedia some folks are more equal than others. Kim
Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia "editor" who seems to devote a
large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages
to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or
make disappear the arguments of skeptics.

I soon found others who had the same experience: They would try to
squeeze in any dissent, or even correct an obvious slander against a
dissenter, and Petersen or some other censor would immediately snuff
them out.

Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia "editor." Holding the far more
prestigious and powerful position of "administrator" is William
Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist
(he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a
serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England's Green
party.

And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless
enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world's most
influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore.
Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists
of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the
U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling
achievements. Under Connolley's supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly
smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay
of the oil industry.

Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, and it
has a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to
Connolley, or to those he favors.

"Peisers crap shouldn't be in here," Connolley wrote several weeks
ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an "edit war," as
they're called. Trumping Wikipedia's stated rules, Connelly used his
authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to
see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia's 2.5 million
English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of
climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.

Nor are Wikipedia's ideological biases limited to global warming. As
an environmentalist I find myself with allies and adversaries on both
sides of the aisle, Left and Right. But there is no doubt where
Wikipedia stands: firmly on the Left. Try out Wikipedia's entries on
say, Roe v. Wade or Intelligent Design, and you will see that
Wikipedia is the people's encyclopedia only if those people are not
conservatives.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and author of
The Deniers.

By Lawrence Solomon
Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

Last Edit: July 14, 2008, 12:38:17 AM by sailboi 4.242.120.3
There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government
ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public
liberty.