Let's just start by saying I distrust people who use a first intial and men with hyphenated names. So I am bound to find some fault with these guys.
F. Noel Perry is the founder of Next 10, an environmental activist organization pushing for more CO2 regulation. They claim to be bipartisan even though F. Noel Perry gave $2300 to Obama (the limit) and David Roland-Holst, who is the lead author of the studies put out by Next 10, gave $500 to Obama. Roland-Holst is a professor of Ag Econ at UC Berkeley. Noel Perry is also the managing director of Baccharis Capital, a silicon valley venture capital firm. Applied Material is a silicon valley firm specializing in alternative energy products: solar, etc. Applied Materials is cited by and approved by and of Next 10. Applied Materials would stand to gain from new CO2 regulations. Is Baccharis Capital an investor in Applied Material? I haven't discovered that yet. Stay tuned on that.
With that said, Next 10 has come out with a new study claiming that global warming will cause untold trillions of dollars damage to California hence we need to regulate greenhouse gases. Disregarding the fact that action by California will have a negligible effect on the climate they are ignoring that all that damage will create more jobs! More jobs are always good according to these guys. Climate regulation will create more jobs ("green" jobs) according to Next 10. These jobs are categorized as a benefit of climate regs, mitigating any cost associated with the regs. So, if natural disasters destroy real estate then the jobs and investment needed to rebuild can only be a good thing, right? So they should be welcoming global warming and the destruction it brings! Why are the jobs and investment needed to implement climate regs considered a benefit but the jobs and investment to rebuild after a fire are not? Jobs are jobs, right?
The truth is that Next 10 is being dishonest about the costs associated with climate regs. The question is why? Do Noel Perry and Roland-Holst stand to profit from climate regs? If they are investors in Applied Materials the answer is yes. I intend to find out.
The LA Times continues to uncritically report Next 10's "studies" as news. They do not question who they are or what they might gain from new regulations. And they do not find fault with any of their analyses.
We are just gonna get railroaded into a state run economy based on BS economics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment