TT's Lost in Tokyo — by TokyoTom

Readers might also want to take note of this December 4 recent WaPo op-ed by James Murdoch, chairman and chief executive (Europe and Asia) of News Corporation, which is targetted at getting Republicans involved in approving climate legislation.

Now is a good time, given the shift generated by the Climate Hack and ongoing economic difficulties. Perhaps a “conservative” or two might even consider clean energy policies that would actually produce GREATER economic freedom? I`m not holding my breath; such proposals have been roundly denounced even here among what passes for the thoughtful at LvMI.

What`s wrong with Murdoch? Doesn`t he know that emails have shown that climate change is the figment of the imagination of a vast left-wing conspiracy by idiots, evil capitalists and co-religionists like the Catholic Church, who want to destroy civilization, or at least to put us and foolish leaders in China, India and elsewhere under their boot? 

The piece will be surprising only to those who haven`t been paying attention to the Murdochs.

Much of the piece – justifications for Republicans to agree to climate/clean energy legislation – is nonsense, but the closing paragraphs are worth a gander (emphasis added):

— Competition trumps regulation. A sensible clean-energy
policy should free, rather than constrain, markets. Smart policy
corrects market failures and provides certainty, stimulating investment
in the technology and infrastructure necessary to build an economy
based on clean energy. Washington must ensure that such investment will
be rewarded. The government shouldn’t “pick winners” –– it should
unleash competition, ensuring that the cleanest businesses thrive and
the dirtiest are held accountable. A well-crafted federal law to limit
pollution is better than unfettered regulation by the EPA or
ever-changing regulation by the states.

The seeds of these opportunities have already been planted. And
companies that have taken the lead are prospering. At News Corporation,
we have saved millions by becoming more energy-efficient, overhauling a
range of systems from the production of such shows as “American Idol”
and “24” to energy usage in our buildings around the world. This has
yielded savings that help us invest more in talent and has inspired us
to look for further opportunities to improve.

You do not need to believe that all climate science is settled or
every prediction or model is perfect to understand the benefits of
limiting pollution and transforming our energy policies — as a
gradually declining cap on carbon pollution would do. This is the
moment to champion policies that yield new industries, healthy
competition, cleaner air and water, freedom from petroleum politics and
reduced costs for businesses.

Through market-based incentives we can achieve clean energy at the
lowest cost and with the strongest incentives for innovation —
ensuring that the energy solution will help, not harm, the economy.
Republicans such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.) get this and are working
across party lines to build support for new legislation. Previously
conservation-minded conservatives are missing in the heated
partisanship of today’s politics. It’s time they found their voice
again.

“The Climes, They Are A-Changin`”!

“No, your computer isn’t misfiring. Welcome to a new Wall Street Journal blog, Environmental Capital.”

So says the WSJ’s announcement of its new blog, which replaces its Energy Roundup blog and, in addition to continue to track daily energy news, will “go further, analyzing how the energy world, and all of business, is adapting to mounting concern about the planet.”  The blog description states that: “Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the business of the environment. It tracks how growing green concern, particularly over climate change, is roiling established industries and spurring new ones – and how that shift is affecting investors, consumers and the planet.”

What’s up with the WSJ?  Is it growing dotty and green, like its new owner, Rupert Murdoch*?  Or is it struggling for market share as industry changes to reflect a changing environment? 

Inquiring minds want to know!

The new blog is here:  http://blogs.wsj.com/environmentalcapital/

h/t to Andrew Revkin of the New York Times, who warmly welcomes the competition: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/new-journal-blog-a-sign-of-murdochs-green-bent/

* Murdoch, owner of Fox News, has made a personal commitment that his businesses will become climate neutral. In a recent speech, he stated his reason plainly. “I am no scientist. But I do know how to assess a risk — and this one is clear. Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can’t afford the risk of inaction.”

and for a legally binding UN framework to tackle climate change.  Just who are these vile collectivists, red enviros, misanthropes, and others caught up in the totally groundless AGW hysteria?

[Snark Alert!]

Let’s go to FOX News – which headlines “Top Corporations Demand Action on Global Warming”.   Fox says that “more than 150 global companies — worth nearly $4 trillion in market capitalization — have signed a petition urging “strong, early action on climate change””.  Amazingly, the news report ends with a disclainer:  “FOXNews.com is owned and operated by News Corporation, which is among the signatories of the Bali Communiqué.”  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314224,00.html

Just what the heck is going on?

On November 30, UK and EU Corporate Leaders Groups on Climate Change (spearheaded by the Prince of Wales) published the “Bali Communiqué”, by which leaders of 150 global companies encouraged world leaders to work for a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change.

The Bali Communiqué calls for:

• “a comprehensive, legally binding United Nations framework to tackle climate change”;
• “emission reduction targets to be guided primarily by science”;
• “those countries that have already industrialised to make the greatest effort”; and
• “world leaders to seize the window of opportunity and agree a work plan of negotiations to ensure an agreement can come into force post 2012 (when the existing Kyoto Protocol expires)”

The vile collectivists provided the following business case:

“The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global social, environmental and economic risks and it demands an urgent global response.

“As business leaders, it is our belief that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change outweigh the costs of not acting:

“The economic and geopolitical costs of unabated climate change could be very severe and globally disruptive. All countries and economies will be affected, but it will be the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and the most

• The costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change are manageable, especially if guided by a common international vision

• Each year we delay action to control global emissions increases the risk of unavoidable consequences that will likely necessitate even steeper reductions in the future, causing potentially greater economic, environmental and social disruption.

• The shift to a low-carbon economy will create significant business opportunities. New markets for low carbon technologies and products, worth billions of dollars, will be created if the world acts on the scale required

“In summary, we believe that tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy. Ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth.

“It is our view that a sufficiently ambitious, international and comprehensive legally-binding United Nations agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will provide business with the certainty it needs to scale up global investment in low-carbon technologies. We believe that an enhanced and extended carbon market needs to be part of this framework as it offers the necessary flexibility, allows for a cost-effective transition and provides financial support to developing countries.”

Companies supporting the communiqué included the following:

US-based: Coca-Cola, Dupont, Gap, GE, Johnson and Johnson, Nike, Pacific Gas and Electric, Sun Microsystems and United Technologies.

European-based:  Anglo-American, British Airways, F&C Asset Management, Ferrovial, Nestle, Nokia, Rolls Royce, Shell, Tesco, Virgin and Volkswagen.

Australian-based: Insurance Australia Group, Macquarie, National Australia Bank, News Corporation and Westpac.

Chinese: Shanghai Electric, Zhufeng Technology and Suntech.

More here: http://www.balicommunique.com/communique.html

Well, it’s clear that they are all deluded and don’t care about impoverishing the rest of the world.  They certainly know nothing about science, economics or the potential difficulties that their companies might confront in facing the challenges that they allege.  They’re just sycophants and fellow-travellers of the evil, misanthropic “watermelon” enviros.  http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/holiday-joy-quot-watermelons-quot-roasting-on-an-open-pyre.aspx.

 In other words, there’s nothing here folks; move along.