Economics and Climate Change

I was watching a report on TV about a town in Kansas which is "going green", spending a fortune on a green school, houses powered by sun and wind and so on, and how it would create jobs.

Now, this is a "nails down the blackboard" thing for me because "creating jobs" using government money simply means "destroying jobs" elsewhere. It may be desireable as a public service, but it doesn't "create jobs".

But I had a new thought tonight. Why is "climate change denial" considered to be so criminal, yet "broken window fallacy denial" OK? And why are so many broken window fallacy deniers quick to talk about science when it comes to climate change, yet ignore the (very simple) science behind the broken window fallacy?

To anyone not familiar with Bastiat's theory, it says that one way of looking at someone breaking a shopkeeper's window is that they're doing a service. The broken window means that a glazer gets employed by the shopkeeper". What's not seen is that the shopkeeper now has less money to spend on the things he wants to do (such as buying some new shoes or a book) which would themselves employ people.

Now, Bastiat's fallacy doesn't take much proving. You can do it with a diagram with 4 stick men. It's been around since the middle of the 19th century.

And let's remember Gordon Brown, the man who talked about the "flat earth" climate change sceptics was also the man who backed a chancellor who believed in quantitative easing. The history of QE (or printing money) is basically proven. The science is settled, if you like. The Mongols and Persians tried it in the 13th century. The Chinese carried through to the 16th century. Germany in the 20th century and Zimbabwe now. As a model being tested, it's run for a lot longer than the CRU models on climate have, and we know that it doesn't work, and the science says it shouldn't work too.

The reason is, of course, that most greens are watermelons who will gladly wave the flag for science when it suits them (climate change) but when it comes to economics, mathematics, psychology, medicine or genetics, they frequently choose to ignore it.

Copenhagen: Insane

From The Times:-

China has indicated that it is likely to scupper a far-reaching climate deal at Copenhagen as Gordon Brown downgraded his ambitions for the outcome of the 192-nation summit on global warming.

The Copenhagen Summit is like a bacon producer phoning up an Israeli supermarket, getting politely declined and sending their sales team anyway: a team selling something that has not only been refused, but which the client has no incentive whatsoever to buy. Anyone in a company who did this would be fired or sent for psychological evaluation.

But no. We sent thousands of people at a huge cost to the taxpayer (and the environment) to a conference which was going to result in nothing but political blather (and anyone who'd read the position of China and India knew this).

Climate Change Update

From the Daily Hate:-

The Met Office said 'disruption to travel networks' was likely tomorrow following heavy snow showers across London and the home counties.

It issued a severe weather warning, with forecasts of two to four inches of snow on lower ground and six to eight inches over hills.

I've got this wonderful vision in my head... a story about the Copenhagen agreement following a story about traffic disruption due to severe snow

Magic Non-Carbon Burning Pixie Dust

Definition:

A special type of non-polluting airline fuel used to transport celebrities, pop stars, politicians and musicians around the planet to make them very rich. Not to be confused with standard, polluting airline fuel used to transport evil capitalists around the planet to make them very rich.

Fuckwit of the Week

This is just nuts:-

An electric car created by ex-McLaren Formula One designer Gordon Murray has been unveiled.
Three prototypes of the T.27 model will be developed over the next 16 months.
The manufacturing process, called iStream, has received £9m of investment, half of which came from the government's Technology Strategy Board.

So, that's £9 million of your money going on a golf cart with no roof and no sides.

All the parts are designed by computer and welded together rather than being stamped out of metal sheets, explained David Bott, director of innovation platforms at the Technology Strategy Board.
"It's a very radical approach to manufacturing," he told the BBC. "Usually you talk about high value, or low carbon, or resource efficient manufacturing - this ticks all those boxes."

"Cars don't tend to be heavy because of safety; they tend to be heavy because of luxury," added Mr Bott. 

Like a roof? And windows that can be wound up? No-one is going to buy this. They'd rather take the bus. If there was demand for such a vehicle (and let's face it, a Land-Rover is not dissimilar), they'd be buying it already.

So, the government has spent £9 million on a car based on what it thinks it needs, rather than what the public wants. Fantastic.