Via an old Steynpost, I find out the following from James Dellingpole:
It was once conservatively estimated (by blogger Richard North) that the cost of propping up the global warming industry since 1989 was equivalent in real terms to five Manhattan Projects. But that was back in 2010, since when spending on green boondoggles (eg the Obama ‘stimulus’) has risen exponentially, so we’re likely looking at ten Manhattan Projects now.
A good chunk of that spending has, of course, gone towards “educating” the public.
If you hear a distant howl, of prolonged suffering and frustration, that was me.
I’ve been calling for a Manhatten project to find alternatives for oil for a long time. Now I find out that the Green movement has had that coin, but has thrown it away ‘educating’.
Just imagine if that cash had been spent somewhere where it would have done some good. We might already be producing all our energy from nuclear power, and be off oil – and this would allow us to, metaphorically, moon the Saudi monarchy into the sands.
This is why I do not believe in big government solutions to global warming. The argument seems to be generally divided between those who think that global warming is a serious problem and those who think that the green agenda is trying to impose a strangling, centralized tyranny.
I’m with both of the above. I take my disaster visions supersized. I think it would be perfectly possible for the green movement to impose a strangling, centralized tyranny and for us to be still stuck with catastrophic levels of global warming.
