Our Response Page 4

Remember the crux of this issue.  The theory has been falsified and without correlation you cannot have causation.

Introduction

Ask any Western politician to tell you how much of the taxpayers’ money they have spent combating global warming and the results they have achieved – they will not be able to answer when asked.  Even after researching the expenditure and results, you will not get a sensible answer from any politician.

If the same question was asked about other government expenditure on say; Social Security, Age Care, Health, Education or Defence you would receive a very accurate answer very quickly.  All these portfolios had to undergo a rigorous process in justifying their bid for taxpayers’ funds. 

They would have clearly identified their goals and would have explained how they intended to meet those goals.  All this would be known by the taxpayer before the funds were allocated.  Then, each year, parliamentary committees would monitor and investigate that expenditure to ensure the taxpayers money was being spent effectively (i.e. meeting the goals) and efficiently (i.e. using the least amount of resources to achieve the goals).

None of this rigour and accountability is applied to Green issues combating global warming.  Our approach is different and irrational.

A “Light Bulb” idea will pop into someone’s mind, the Green Machine will convince the public of its merits, and then the public will force the politicians to act.  Each light bulb issue will receive separate taxpayers’ funds and some may be monitored but there is no comprehensive portfolio of all the light bulb ideas trying to combat global warming.

Consequently, we do not know how successful we have been nor the total amount of money we have spent.  This means we cannot compare the benefits of spending a million dollars on global warming with a million dollars spent on health.  This is unhealthy.

Also, there is a significant amount of money being removed from the taxpayer that is not counted in any of the considerations above.  This expenditure (Invisible Taxation) needs to be considered as it is also focused on reversing global warming.

When we do this rationally, we find that we are spending a ‘mind boggling’ amount of taxpayers’ money yet achieving very little in return. 

In the past forty years, have we ever heard a politician announce that we had spent X billion dollars and successfully reduced global temperatures by 0.2^OC, stopped sea level rises of 30cms and reduced the number and intensity of catastrophic storms by 30%?

On this page of the website we look at just some of our irrational behaviour dealing with ‘light bulb’ ideas.

Where Does the Government Buck Come From?

In a free country, anyone can pay to receive any good or service they desire.  When this happens, the person knows what he will receive and, more importantly, knows the cost and has already ranked his priorities to fund this purchase.  If the cost is ‘too high’, he will not purchase the good.  This healthy cost benefit loop is absent when the governments funds the purchase.

Too many Western citizens, use the term “government money” when they should be saying “taxpayers’ money”.  Every expenditure made by governments, including loan repayments and interest paid on those loans, is paid by the taxpayer.  If we believe this money comes from a bottomless pit below a money tree in the sky, we incorrectly assume that the good or service is free, and we will not pay for it.

Once that illusion is in place we begin to behave like selfish children.  Once the cost benefit loop is removed, we demand a “Rolls Royce” good or service.  Why because it is free!  If the government does not agree, we throw a tantrum and vote them out at the next election.  This leads to our politicians becoming “Father Christmas” where they are encouraged to ‘out-gift’ their opponents to gain, or remain in power.

What is more immoral, when it comes to Green ideas, is the government charging everyone for the Green good or service – to ‘buy’ the Green vote – even though most don’t receive it or want it.  All this results in a cheaper price for the Green followers as their purchase is cross subsidised by everyone else.

INVISIBLE TAXATION

Alternate Power Costs

In Page 2 of this section of the website we saw that alternate power was costing four times that of conventional power.  Because the government now forces us to buy a mix of conventional power and alternate power, this increased cost is in effect an invisible tax.  We need to calculate what we are collectively paying for alternate energy each year to add to the total costs of combating global warming.

Total electricity consumption in Australia in 2012 was 225.4 billion kWh¹.  Using Canberra’s cost of electricity² of 12.5 cents per kWh, the total cost of this electricity was $28.175 billion dollars.

If the renewable energy target (RET), of 20% renewable energy by 2020, required by law is met, then the cost of this electricity will rise by 60% or $16.905 billion dollars each and every year³ to $45.08 billion.  

To put this extra $16.905 billion per year in perspective, a comparison with Federal Government annual spending in 2012 ⁴ is illuminating.

• $121.907 billion – Social Security and Welfare
• $96.797 billion – General Government Services
• $59.58 billion – Health
• $29.870 billion – Education
• $21.277 billion – Defence
• $14.843 billion – Industry and Workforce
• $13.221 billion – Infrastructure, Transport and Energy
• $8.044 billion – Community Services and Culture

Notes:

1. http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=as&v=81 at 1142hrs 29th January 2013
2. Every location around the world has a different cost for electricity.  Costs in Canberra Australia, is given in Reading 4.4.1, The Invisible Taxes 1.  This figure will rise every year
3. See Handout 11-3 The Invisible Taxes 1
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Australian_federal_budget at 1148hrs 29th January 2013

The ACT Government wants to have 100% renewable power. If the rest of Australia followed this example, it will cost the taxpayers an extra $67.62 billion per year (Approx. $6762 per household). The electricity is the same, so we have to ask “What are we getting for this and is it worth it“. This question is rarely asked because we irrationally believe all this ‘climate stuff’ is free.

Don’t we have higher priority needs that this money could be spent on?

Green Light Bulbs

Initially, in Australia, if you wanted to have a Green light bulb you paid the full price which was ten times that of the incandescent bulb it replaced.  The Green bulb did last 3-4 times longer than the incandescent bulb but did have reduced lighting for the first five minutes of operation.

This was healthy in two ways.  First, the Green follower buying the bulb knew the real cost of a Green bulb and bought it because she wanted it.  Second, those that did not want a Green bulb were not forced to buy them.

At the same time in Australia, Green followers were offered a chance to buy electricity from alternate power sources.  This initiative was poorly implemented.  Instead of paying four times more than conventional electricity, they only had to pay a ten percent price premium.

Because the power company was paying four times more to buy the alternate energy, all those who only used conventional power were subsidising the alternate power used Green followers.  This was unfair and had another bad side effect.

Green followers came to believe that alternate power was only 10% more expensive than conventional power instead of four times more expensive.  With this incorrect view they applied their cost benefit review and embraced alternate energy based on this false premise.

Later, our freedom to make our own choice, was removed by an authoritarian government – trying to justify the move as providing a public good – which it wasn’t!  Now, all of us were forced to buy Green light bulbs and pay for expensive alternate power.

Page 2 of this section of the website identifies how much money we are wasting to receive the same electricity by embracing alternate energy.  However, most would think that being forced to buy Green light bulbs would not cost us much.

Reading 4.4.1, shows that when implemented the cost would eventually be $2.1 billion dollars.  The size of this indirect tax was not published nor recognised by most taxpayers.

We now have less money to buy goods we want, because the government is forcing most of us to buy goods that we don’t want.

Councils And Sea Level Rises

After twenty years of indoctrination by the Greens’ public relations people, most in Australia believed that sea levels would rise by metres. Why because “the scientists said so” (Note the language deceit in using the word “the“, rather than saying some scientists or this scientist. Using the word “the” implies all scientists. This simple language deceit helps reinforce the factoid that all scientists agree – they never have agreed!)

When all three levels of governments in Australia believed that the east coast of Australia wold be inundated with a six metre sea level rise by 2010, with 247,600 properties at risk. The local councils decided to act, by placing a warning on each property’s planning certificate that the property could be inundate by catastrophic sea level rises.

This action was all based on a “Henny Penny” tale believed by most who could no longer think critically. By 2020, sea levels had not risen by metres, nor centimetres, and if there was a rise, the debate raged about a low single digit millimetre sea level rise.

So the sea level rise did not occur and, in all likelihood, would take several hundred years before any significant rise might occur. However, the damage was done. The property value of all the identified properties fell by 10-30%. Using a very conservative initial valuation of $500,000 and a conservative 10% fall in value, collectively these taxpayers lost $1.238 billion in another invisible tax – all based on a Green myth that was not happening.

Reading 4.4.2 provides more information about this and another avoidable cost brought about because of our growing irrationality.

Insurance

Thomas Carlyle was meant to have said that “All revolutions are conceived by idealists, implemented by fanatics, and its fruits are stolen by scoundrels.” We are now going to look at one of the “scoundrels” in the global warming revolution – the insurance companies.

With governments believing in catastrophic sea level rises – even when there was no sea level rises – the insurance industry decided to leap on the ‘panicking bandwagon” and make a few bucks.

Property insurance premiums were lifted on all 247,600 properties, some by $5,000 per year. If we take a conservative average premium rise of $1,000, the collective invisible tax caused by the irrational behaviour of our politicians would be $247.6 million dollars a year.

If we conservatively assume it will take 100 years (See Reading 4.4.2) before all these properties are inundated, then the present owners and the next owners would have paid the insurance companies $24.76 billion dollars before the insurance companies would have to make any payments for properties being inundated. A “nice earner” if you can get it!

EU “Light Bulb” Moments

Before the industrial revolution, a woman who washed her hair did her best to dry it with a towel, like women do today. However, that still left her with damp hair which took several hours to dry. In winter, when there was not much ambient heat in the air, this could take six hours. In summer when there was more heat available it might take two hours.

To “dry” hair, heat is used to evaporate the remaining water in the hair. The same amount of heat is needed to “dry” a certain amount of water irrespective of the time it takes to apply this heat. Application of low heat will take a long time, high heat will take a shorter time.

With the invention of the electrical hair dryer, the time it took to complete this mundane task was reduced to 15-20 minutes. As technology improved, more powerful hair dryers reduced this time to 5-7 minutes. To save time, most women use “high powered” hair dryers.

Not any more in the European Union – high powered hair dryers can no longer be sold in the EU. Their reason? To save the Planet.

Thinking that lower powered hair dryers and vacuum cleaners (to be discussed next) will mean lower electricity use (that will save the planet) lacks no understanding of secondary school physics. Exactly the same energy will be used to dry the hair. Forcing people to use ‘low powered’ hair dryers means the hair dryer will be used longer to achieve the same aim.

We don’t think these authoritarian bureaucrats are really expecting European women to halve the electricity usage and walk around for hours with half damp hair. If they are they should tell these ladies – most would not want to be put in that position.

Another banned product in the EU, is “high powered” vacuum cleaners for exactly the same Green reasons. The sole reason for designing these vacuum cleaners was they would do a better job in less time. To ban them is to go backwards down the development path of vacuum cleaners.

We all need to be aware, some authoritarian bureaucrat is now deciding, not only how much time we are to spend vacuuming, but also lowering our ‘cleanliness’ standards. In the same way that ladies are expected to have half damp hair, we are to have half dirty carpets as lower powered vacuum cleaners won’t be able to pick up all the dirt.

Either that, or we will use our vacuum cleaners longer in the hope of meeting our cleanliness standards while using more electricity.

This page on the website is only scratching the surface of the light bulb initiatives we are implementing. There are just as many light bulb initiatives as there are swamp issues – they are unending.

CONCLUSION

If we were rational, on ‘day one’ of the global warming campaign, we would have identified it as just another Green ‘Henny Penny’ tale that would fail as all the previous Greens tales had failed. We would not have believed, nor acted on it.

If we were semi rational, we might have believed the global warming campaign for twenty years “just to make sure”. After twenty years, we would have been shown that there was no scientific or logical basis to the campaign. Then we would have stopped believing and acting on it.

Forty years later, we must be fully irrational to continue to believe and act on it at great expense to our society. Today, we have lost sight of our primary aim in this irrational game. We no longer look at average global temperatures which have stopped rising for at least a quarter of a century.

Meanwhile, we no longer look at the secondary surrogate goal of stopping rising CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere – they are continuing to rise completely unaffected by the trillions of dollars we have spent to slow or stop the rise. We now focus on a tertiary surrogate goal of sporadically reducing “Emissions” (note the language deceit) in different parts of our society.

We have lost the plot. We must keep reminding ourselves that every dollar we spend on these future imagined problems is a dollar that we cannot spend on real problems today. Our wonderful leaders won’t, or cannot tell us how much we have spent on this Henny Penny tale and, just as importantly, what we have achieved in spending this money.

The cost of the major initiatives are measured in trillions of dollars (e.g. Europe spending a trillion dollars each year in the Kyoto 15 year period). As we have seen here, the cost of multiple minor initiatives invariably cost more than a billion dollars. Few are looking to see that all such expenditure, is effective (i.e. achieving a goal) or efficient (i.e. time and money is not being wasted).

Are we mad or are we mad?

A Moment For Reflection