Climate change a democratic scandal

The climate change debate highlights the problem with democracy. In this Sydney Morning Herald article, the CEO of Coca Cola Amatil argues that:

"Mr Davis said while it was important for Australia to be a part of the debate around climate change, and seeking solutions, we shouldn't be leading the charge.

"All I'm saying is that Australia should... be a fast follower rather than leading the charge," Mr Davis told reporters after an Australia Israel Chamber of Commerce lunch today".

The folly of this is that he does not want us to 'metaphorically' be the first to jump off the cliff, but jumping second makes a lot of sense. The point is one of degree. Bad policy is bad policy in absolute terms, as well as relativist terms. There is no climate change 'effect' that we need to worry about...its a natural process, and a chorus of populist, politically aligned scientists with no capacity for critical thinking, is not going to sustain the debate, which will ultimately be used to justify a plethora of energy taxes, currently restricted to oil.

The fact that this CEO is guarded about the comments he makes highlights the fears of extortion that arise when any corporate leader dares to speak. They would be criticised by shareholders for making statements injurious to shareholders. This is why we can expect business leaders to pull the government line, just as business pulled the Nazi line when confronted by the same type of extortion.

Such sentiments of public interest traditionally have been repudiated by collectivists/environmentalists as 'vested interest' talking. The issue is not however whether one is 'self-righteously' acting in one's own 'vested' interests, or some purported 'others' interest, but rather the facts which one acts upon are valid. We have traditionally seen companies and government bow to the noble idea. We will eventually find that ideal is less than ideal, and rather a grave tragedy. There is no better example than democracy itself. In the 1880s, when the UK was debating universal suffrage in Britain. The wealthy politicians conceded the appeals for the right to vote. The government merely gave them their wish - at the point of extortion. Threats to seize property. The Liberal Party and Tory Party after decades, finally capitulated. They allowed the extortion of the poor non-enfranchised to drive policy, not for good argument, but because they had no better. The reason why logic lost that debate is because reason was not the standard of value. Nothing has changed today, even though there are better thinkers in our midst. They have no stature in a democracy. A genius is as good as a beggar in the modern economy. In the 1880s, the philosopher John Stuart Mill was one of the MPs who oversaw the travesty of universal suffrage.

--------------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com

Japanese government climate change funding a facade

According to the Japan Times, "none of the government's 214 biomass promotion projects — with public funding coming to ¥6.55 trillion — over the past six years has produced effective results in the struggle against global warming". The implication that the government:

1. Is a very ineffective agency for performing any effort, so ought to be dumped

2. The government was only managing 'perceptions' rather than intending to do any good, i.e. Acting with utter disdain for the public's pecuniary interests, and really treating taxpayers as slaves to its political agenda.

Of course these arguments can be made against any Western democracy, insofar as they are all engaged in the same schemes. In Australia and NZ, its subsidies for heat pumps, solar panels and insulation, which have only forced up the price of these products. Its actually cheaper to use a non-approved, less efficient product which does not get the subsidy. Such is the diseconomy of government intervention. Another example is the very efficient heat pump. It would be the choice for many people in urban areas, but they sell for $3000-5000 because of the subsidy. A heat pump is actually just a refrigerator in reverse, and they sell for $800-1000. So such is the premium people are paying for an efficient solution. The fortunate ones are the rural folk who are able to purchase a wood furnace because timber is relatively cheaper than electricity, and its old technology. Even here prices have been pushed up by new standards attempting to achieve higher efficiencies...even though most heat in an open house is wasted anyway. Open fire places are very wasteful. There is no need to heat the whole house. A better solution would be better personal insulation. Its a wonder why the wool producers are not investing in superior 'personal insulation' garments so we don't need internal heating solutions at all.

It goes without saying that the problem is democracy, in which perceptions are more important that facts or 'results'. So long as the dumb nut voter thinks something is being done because a budget allocation has been made, and so long as they have no choice about the way their taxpayer funds are spent, the 'great extortion racket' will continue.

-----------------------------------------

Andrew Sheldon www.sheldonthinks.com