One every year for 25 years
James Delingpole on the myth of the Chinese “green economy”. China is building power stations equivalent to one “Australia’s worth” of emissions every year for the next 25 years. Which kinda makes our ridiculous ETS (that will cut at most a few percent of “one Australia’s emissions”) seem even more pointless than we already knew it was:
One of the great lies told us by our political leaders in order to persuade us to accept their swingeing and pointless green taxes and their economically suicidal, environmentally vandalistic wind-farm building programmes is that if we don’t do it China will. Apparently, just waiting to be grabbed out there are these glittering, golden prizes marked “Green jobs” and “Green technologies” – and if only we can get there before those scary, mysterious Chinese do, well, maybe the West will enjoy just a few more years of economic hegemony before the BRICs nations thwack us into the long grass.
This is, of course, utter nonsense. The Chinese do not remotely believe in the myth of Man-Made Global Warming nor in the efficacy of “alternative energy”. Why should they? It’s not as if there is any evidence for it. The only reason the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming myth has penetrated so deeply into Western culture is… No. I’m going to save that stuff for my fairly imminent (Nov?) book on the subject which I hope you’re all going to buy.
What do the Chinese think about CAGW? Well, until now it was largely a question of educated guesswork, based on inferences like the fact that it was the Chinese who derailed the Copenhagen negotiations. But thanks to a new book called Low Carbon Plot by Gou Hongyang we know exactly what the official view is.
Can you guess?
Read it here.
Australian Climate Madness 
I suggest that you adopt a strict policy of putting the word “emissions” in quotation marks every time you use it in this context, to show that you’re imitating the parasites’ arrogant presumptuous misuse of it to refer to only the dreaded carbon.
The word “emissions”, but perhaps not “emission”, seems to be about to become yet another perfectly good word that the gutless majority have permitted to be hijacked by a particular industry with the keen cooperation of the infotainment media, along with “discriminate”, “exploit”, “gay”, “indigenous” etc.
Maybe I should have included “sexist” in the list. If an artist is one who practises art, and a pragmatist is one who practises pragmatism, then a sexist should be someone who … ummm, errr, well, you figure it out.
Laurie, here’s another hijacking of the English language, also related to “emissions”:
“Carbon” = Carbon dioxide
“Black carbon” = Carbon
I’m pretty sure this misuse is and was intentional, and must have been dreamed-up by the propagandists of Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Federation.
Subliminal mass manipulation