Richard Morrison, William Yeatman and Ryan Young join forces to bring you Episode 74 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We investigate the Department of Homeland Security’s antiterrorism efforts, China’s climate change conundrum and California’s chance at closing her budget gap. We finish with some dangerous snowballing in the streets and the last echoes in the Ballad of Kwame Kilpatrick.
copenhagen
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez couldn’t resist another opportunity to bash capitalism — and the COP15 Copenhagen Conference on global warming gave him a perfect setup. Protesters against globalization, capitalism, energy use, and other aspects of modern life thronged in the streets, while in the conference center, leaders from rich nations that want to “level the playing field” for CO2 emissions and poor countries looking for massive handouts gave Chavez a warm response.
In his harangue posted on YouTube, Chavez hit the “group of countries who think they’re better than us” and that provide a “world imperial dictatorship.” He, of course, made reference and deference to his hero Karl Marx:
There’s a ghost lurking…and Karl Marx said…a ghost running through the streets of Copenhagen. And I think that ghost is silent, somewhere in this room…amongst us…coming thru the corridors and underneath. And that ghost is a terrible ghost. Nobody wants to name him or her…it’s capitalism. Capitalism is that ghost. (applause)
Chavez got a lot of applause here too. He tied capitalism to the degradation of the earth: “the destructive model of capitalism is eradicating life.”
President Robert Mugabe, credited with destroying the economy of his own country, Zimbabwe, also railed against Western countries and capitalism:
“When these capitalist gods of carbon burp and belch their dangerous emissions, it’s we, the lesser mortals of the developing sphere who gasp and sink and eventually die.”
And this is the conference where “world leaders” are supposedly coming together to plan the world’s energy future? It’s a scary thought.
Your host Richard Morrison teams up with collaborators Jeremy Lott and William Yeatman to bring you Episode 72 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We begin with UN climate hypocrisy in Copenhagen, presidential arm-twisting on health care and a cloudy look at government transparency. We conclude with the end of the tobacco road in Virginia and scandal of banking and nepotism in Venezuela.
Today’s New York Times carries an article, “Hopes fade for comprehensive climate treaty.“ It’s not that important an article about the lead-up to Copenhagen. What’s most interesting are the comments from these NYT readers — many expressing skepticism about catastrophic global warming, confusion about the science, and linkages between energy use and economic growth. Here are some examples of those views – of course, the usual “sky is falling” comments are there too.
MrPitchfork
Maybe some day, someone will finally say, “Global warming is a fraud perpetrated by Al Gore and other green technology invested twits to make themselves rich at tax payers expense” and it fall and die and turn into “Global cooling”… again..
Dan DiLeo
Faced with the pressing desire of their citizens for improved living standards,it is hard to imagine the leaders of poor and emerging countries to do anything that might conceivably inhibit the most rapid and most well-tested possible path to development. The only conceivable way to get them to sign on is through some enormous and very reliable transfer of wealth to those countries. Very hard to envision.
Paul
Good news! I knew we could count on the international bureaucrats to disagree and throw a monkey wrench into this farce called global warming. As the world starts a cyclical cooling trend maybe they will come to their senses, if that is even possible for these people.
Glenn
[Excerpt from lengthy comment]… My suggestion? I would love for a news source like the New York Times to host a series of debates between the scientists on both sides of this issue. No politicians or other loudmouths allowed. I’d like to see an agenda created ahead of time, negotiated by both sides so the issues are framed properly and also have the encounters structured so that the key issues are given enough time to be thoroughly explored. If the AGW folks win this hands down – as they should if the debate it’s structured properly, than folks like me can feel more assured in demanding the very difficult policy decisions that we must make from our leadership.
Finally, I know that the Gore’s of the world, and many other’s, say “the debate is over” but clearly, in the real world, it’s not, otherwise we’d be seeing different behavior. Let’s do this, let’s make it global and make it a learning experience for all of us. Instead of cursing the darkness and hoping our government can force policy on folks who don’t believe in AGW, let’s lead people to understand this issue more clearly. I think that may be the only chance we have, and if the planet is really at risk, then of course the effort is worth it.
AlexBell
The USA march toward European Socialism will result in the colapse of our ecconomy and way of life. Countries like Brazil, India, China, and Russia are growing because the have and is energy as a way of growing their ecconomy. The USA can not shrink its self to propserity. Renewable energy – Yes. Energy indepentence – Yes. Cap and Trade (tax) – NO NO!!
Your host Richard Morrison welcomes returning guest co-host Jeremy Lott of the Capital Research Center and special guest Sean Higgins of Investor’s Business Daily for Episode 58 of the LibertyWeek podcast. We begin with a revolt against congressional incumbency, wicked and foolish climate policy and a political sea change in the land of the rising sun. We continue with a technology news interview with Ryan Radia and finish with some fiscally sound Olympic News.
The global warming community have suggested for a while now that, given the almost-certain change in US administration policy on global warming (remember John McCain’s position), the conference of the Kyoto Treaty parties in 2009 at Copenhagen would result in a sea change in global action on greenhouse gas emissions. Copenhagen would produce a new treaty, son-of-Kyoto, that would have full US participation, set stringent and enforceable emission limits aimed at getting the world to the sort of emissions levels some scientists demand, and start to involve the developing world in emissions reductions.
This is not going to happen.
For a start, it looks like US policy is going to concentrate on getting a domestic settlement in place before agreeing to any international action other than the traditional “agreeing to agree.” Secondly, with the world in financial chaos, governments are going to look askance at any possibility of deep emissions cuts in the short term because they know how costly that will be (the recent EU agreement – in actuality an agreement for just 4% cuts by 2020 – is a great example). This will make the drastic emissions cuts supposedly necessary in the medium-term well-nigh impossible to achieve. Finally, developing countries have consistently stated that they will not take on any emissions reductions, demanding the developed world move first. Yet even if the developed world reduces its emissions to zero by 2050, the developing world will have to keep its emissions at around today’s levels to meet just a 50% global reduction by 2050. That represents a reduction from expected developing world emissions of 57%. To meet the 80% reduction demanded by most scientists will require a severe reduction in emissions from today’s levels that represent widespread energy poverty.
So despite the optimism, a genuine international agreement looks some way off. Copenhagen will doubtless be sold as a triumph, but in reality the world will be no closer to a genuine, binding international agreement than it was in 2001.
So if the EU has just put together an agreement to reduce emissions by 20% by 2020, why are the climate alarmist groups calling it “a dark day” and “an embarrassment”?
Well, the answer is because the actual agreement is for a 4% reduction (also explained in the last link, but Roger Pielke Jr does it better). And that may be null and void if a global agreement doesn’t emerge at Copenhagen next year, which it probably won’t.
Note also that the “rich” countries of the EU-15 have actually failed to make any dent in their emissions since the early 90s and that the former Eastern bloc countries have also not really lost much ground since 2000 either. Of course, they have a recession that will reduce emissions over the next couple of years, and if they’re silly enough to adopt the policies that will turn it into a Great Depression, they might just hit their targets. There will be singing and dancing among the ruins, I am sure, when that takes place.
RSS Updates 
RSS E-Mail Updates 
Twitter 
Facebook 
CEI.org 
WorkPlaceChoice.org 
GlobalWarming.org 
CEI On Demand Video 
Liberty Week Podcast 