Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Hypocrisy of a Liberal


Paul Krugman has been running his yap for the New World Order ever since they gave him that the Nobel Prize, but when you hear bull sh!t like this you just know that he's jealous of Al Gore's Academy award. Why else would Paul ignore the simple commonsense solutions in favor of complex and expensive ones that benefit Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.

It's not so much the outright lies that gets me in his most recent propaganda piece, but the unconscionable hypocrisy. Paul should pony up for some carbon credits of his own if he insists on pumping out this much hot air.
Maybe I’m na├»ve, but I’m feeling optimistic about the climate talks starting in Copenhagen on Monday. President Obama now plans to address the conference on its last day, which suggests that the White House expects real progress. It’s also encouraging to see developing countries — including China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide — agreeing, at least in principle, that they need to be part of the solution.
No, what Paul really means is that he is in the know and he knows the fix is in, in Copenhagen.
Of course, if things go well in Copenhagen, the usual suspects will go wild. We’ll hear cries that the whole notion of global warming is a hoax perpetrated by a vast scientific conspiracy, as demonstrated by stolen e-mail messages that show — well, actually all they show is that scientists are human, but never mind. We’ll also, however, hear cries that climate-change policies will destroy jobs and growth.
Yeah never mind THAT, Paul. And never mind that Obama admitted that electricity rates would skyrocket under his Cap and Trade plan.
The truth, however, is that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is affordable as well as essential. Serious studies say that we can achieve sharp reductions in emissions with only a small impact on the economy’s growth. And the depressed economy is no reason to wait —
That just means that, Paul has his job and he doesn't care about yours.
-- on the contrary, an agreement in Copenhagen would probably help the economy recover
Just like going into more debt will help the economy get out of debt. Didn't I just tell you that Obama admitted that electricity rates will skyrocket, dummy?
Why should you believe that cutting emissions is affordable? First, because financial incentives work.
Yea they worked soooo, well Paul.

Financial incentives work to divert investment money from wind power to keep coal power plants operating, as well as produce a secondary financial derivatives market for Goldman Sachs and the like to plunder.
Action on climate, if it happens, will take the form of “cap and trade”: businesses won’t be told what to produce or how, but they will have to buy permits to cover their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. So they’ll be able to increase their profits if they can burn less carbon — and there’s every reason to believe that they’ll be clever and creative about finding ways to do just that.
As a recent study by McKinsey & Company showed, there are many ways to reduce emissions at relatively low cost: improved insulation; more efficient appliances; more fuel-efficient cars and trucks; greater use of solar, wind and nuclear power; and much, much more. And you can be sure that given the right incentives, people would find many tricks the study missed.
An old study that you ignore is that environmental regulators who regulate environmental poluters work best to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Krugman misses this one just like he missed it in the banking crisis. You can best police the banking, too big to fail godfathers, by letting them fail. But instead Krugman pushes back breaking bail out for the bankers and now throws a carbon tax to do it their way.
The truth is that conservatives who predict economic doom if we try to fight climate change are betraying their own principles. They claim to believe that capitalism is infinitely adaptable, that the magic of the marketplace can deal with any problem. But for some reason they insist that cap and trade — a system specifically designed to bring the power of market incentives to bear on environmental problems — can’t work.
I just told you that Obama already said so, dumb dumb.
Well, they’re wrong — again. For we’ve been here before.
The acid rain controversy of the 1980s was in many respects a dress rehearsal for today’s fight over climate change. Then as now, right-wing ideologues denied the science. Then as now, industry groups claimed that any attempt to limit emissions would inflict grievous economic harm.
But in 1990 the United States went ahead anyway with a cap-and-trade system for sulfur dioxide. And guess what. It worked, delivering a sharp reduction in pollution at lower-than-predicted cost.
Yeah we been here before and Krugman is lying again. The cap and trade in sulfur dioxide, worked because it was easy to change the sulfur dioxide and install cheap scrubbers to the stacks, neither of which was related to the cap and trade.
Curbing greenhouse gases will be a much bigger and more complex task — but we’re likely to be surprised at how easy it is once we get started.
Krugman is finally right about something but he still misses the point and wants you to miss it as well. Man made global warming is a farce, but if you really want to reduce global carbon dioxide levels, then plant a tree.
The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that by 2050 the emissions limits in recent proposed legislation would reduce real G.D.P. by between 1 percent and 3.5 percent from what it would otherwise have been. If we split the difference, that says that emissions limits would slow the economy’s annual growth over the next 40 years by around one-twentieth of a percentage point — from 2.37 percent to 2.32 percent.
Well I have no argument with the Congressional Budget Office, but the economy will come to a screeching halt without any help from a carbon tax, thanks to the banker bailouts that you were cheer leading.
That’s not much. Yet if the acid rain experience is any guide, the true cost is likely to be even lower
Dummy, I have just explained to you: the acid rain experience is no guide whatsoever.
Still, should we be starting a project like this when the economy is depressed? Yes, we should — in fact, this is an especially good time to act, because the prospect of climate-change legislation could spur more investment spending.

Consider, for example, the case of investment in office buildings. Right now, with vacancy rates soaring and rents plunging, there’s not much reason to start new buildings. But suppose that a corporation that already owns buildings learns that over the next few years there will be growing incentives to make those buildings more energy-efficient. Then it might well decide to start the retrofitting now, when construction workers are easy to find and material prices are low.
Right on Paul, those incentives will come from the government. The government is already giving out billions of dollars worth of carbon credits to the utility companies. Those free credits will actually allow the companies to pollute more than they do right now.

Notice how it just as it was with the bankers Paul's conscious is always on the side of big business.
The same logic would apply to many parts of the economy, so that climate change legislation would probably mean more investment over all. And more investment spending is exactly what the economy needs.
I just got done telling you that the investment will be spent on keeping old power plants running instead of getting wind power, Paul.
So let’s hope my optimism about Copenhagen is justified. A deal there would save the planet at a price we can easily afford — and it would actually help us in our current economic predicament.
There is nothing to hope for Paul, the fix is obviously in in Copenhagen, but the only thing that will save the planet environmentally is the only thing that will save it economically, which is for you to shut up and the governments to do nothing.

No comments: