Where are the Bicycles?

You know there is this thing called the Internet, and videoconferencing works over it.

All costs of government action will be paid by those who labor to create value.

This is how a carbon tax will work as well.

I have felt suspicions that the climate change issue has been seized upon by politicians to cover up their fiscal crimes and the inevitable decline in living standards after the collapse of their paper boom.

Yet again, they blame industry and consumption.

Indeed, the health care issues covers similar ground.

Astute as always, Sam. I would only add that the poorest among them will be the ones to suffer the most.

Black cars are a carbon reducing strategy in colder climates.

Some Context here -

http://www.examiner.com/x-20909-Columbia-Indepe...

According to a report in the Telegraph UK, more than 1,200 limos have already been ordered for the UN climate summit, and the orders are still coming. Copenhagen airportofficials told the Telegraph that they expect more than 140 private jets during the peak period of the summit alone. They say that that is so far above their capacity that the planes will have to fly to regional airports, or even Sweden, to park. Then they will fly back to Copenhagen to pick up their passengers for their return flights.

"As well as 15,000 delegates and officials, 5,000 journalists and 98 world leaders, the Danish capital will be blessed by the presence of Leonardo DiCaprio, Daryl Hannah, Helena Christensen, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Prince Charles. A Republican US senator, Jim Inhofe, is jetting in at the head of an anti-climate-change "Truth Squad." The top hotels – all fully booked at £650 a night – are readying their Climate Convention menus of (no doubt sustainable) scallops, foie gras and sculpted caviar wedges," the Telegraph report says.

So, how much carbon dioxide will this grandiose event produce during the 11 day event? About 41,000 tons. That's roughly equivalent to the same amount produced by a city of about 500,000 people over the same time period.

We are all hard at work in Copenhagen to save the planet from the proles.

I once rode in a limousine (ok, it was really just an airport taxi) through the streets of Copenhagen and the one thing I noticed was all the very good looking women riding bicycles.

But they're small limos

Bow before our overlords.

I'm reminded of the symbolism-obsessed Congressmen who were outraged that auto executives would fly in company jets to deliver their testimony.

Come on - does this really concern anyone? Nobody is outlawing cars. Any costs imposed on driving cars are going to be imposed on these attendees' cars too. Is there anything to this gripe besides a let's-substitute-flashy-symbolism-as-real-news impulse? I wasn't moved last November by those evil auto execs flying in, and I'm not really moved now about those evil environmentalists driving in.

I think you're absolutely correct. I actually had dinner with a married couple that are both in fields related to Global Warming and with my girlfriend who is in the same field. The wife and my girlfriend are both in Copenhagen right now. During dinner the husband asked in jest, "So how are you two going to justify the hypocrisy of flying overseas and emitting all those carbon emissions?"

The wife replied, "It's amazing how many of my colleagues are using that as an excuse not to go."

Whether it's true or not, the wife believes that the carbon emissions she used to get their are infinitesimal compared to the carbon emissions she will save with the work that she plans to accomplish. It is, in fact, completely justifiable.

The only problem I have with it is that the supposed leaders of the cleaner energy movement could have used this event to set an example in carbon reduction practices. This does not expose their hypocrisy, but it does expose their complete lack of leadership skills. And that lack of skills is probably why they go begging governments to fix their problems instead of having a summit on coming up with free market and liberty based solutions.

Matt,

Putting aside using some unproven global warming as a pretext to control every aspect of our personal lives, I'm not offended by these people flying to attend the conference.

What this video is pointing out and what chaps my behind is the PRIVATE jets and chauffeured limos these supposed public servants are taking to get to a conference where they are going to discuss limiting those things for the rest of us.

If they're so concerned about all this carbon related global warming, why aren't they taking public transport (provided specifically for them and running pretty empty, it seems) and commercial jets?

BTW, global warming is just a convenient excuse for her colleagues not to go to Copenhagen during a time of the year when the weather is nasty. If it were held on the Riviera, the turnout would be 150%.

On your last paragraph - OK, fair enough. And I shouldn't be too hard on you since you came out saying I was correct (I don't hear that often on here). But that whole idea of "setting an example" just seems so superficial - not to mention patronizing. And I think your point is probably the point Don was initially making. "Setting an example" just brings back memories of that auto exec testimony - I care what people do, not what they show or say.

You know what else is patronizing? A pack of entitled monkeys forcing you to comply with their deeply held religion. Glad to see you still don't see the difference between an executive from a private company flying private and a global warming alarmist flying private.

Good for you, I feel the same way. But if you've been paying attention to the comments, you are in an elite group. Most people are begging to be lead. A whole lot of people out there are afraid that there isn't someone running things. If you really want to change something you accept that and lead them (WITHOUT THE USE OF FORCE), even if you think they are idiotic sheep.

I think they should set an example because there is enough people who blindly hang on to every word they say, not because they have an obligation to do so. Their purpose is to reduce emissions, not to treat people like adults. Most good leaders find a way to motivate the sheep in their group without patronizing the rest.

My original point was to say that there behavior resemebles more closely a group trying to control behavior (something I can't stand) rather than a group trying to influence behavior and lower carbon emissions (something I am completely agnostic about). I was trying to suggest if their number one priority was truly to reduce emissions their behavior would probably look different. Maybe you're right and they still wouldn't have set an example, even if there intentions were pure. Who knows?

BTW, I'm just trying to see the world from their view, and ask myself what I would do if I believed whole-heartedly in GW and all that carbon reduction crap. Many of the commentators on this blog are guilty of the same kind of hypocrisies that they would scream bloody murder about. You're all doing the same thing a liberal does when they hear a CEO talk about his company and his employees making sacrifices and then gives himself a raise. If you really think that a GW believer has to sacrifice all froms of carbon emission in order to be congruent with their beliefs then you probably don't know much about their paradigm.

People are allowed to use force as long as it's counterforce.

"...I don't hear that often on here..."

You'd here it a lot more if you weren't wrong so much of the time! :o)

"Any costs imposed on driving cars are going to be imposed on these attendees' cars too. "

It's the increased costs for producers that are going to screw workers when they get laid off because of your stupid and unnecessary carbon tax. But, hey, you're right, the attendees of the conference will be paying those taxes, too. So much so that Al Gore will only be a billionaire after he fills out his W-2. And by the way, the real issue of this post is the screaming hypocrisy of the attendees. Come on - does this really concern anyone?

You make me sick.

RE: "You make me sick."

I had no idea I made such an impression on you.

It's only hypocrisy if you think they hate or don't want cars... and I suppose some of you probably actually think they do, so perhaps your response shouldn't surprise me.

Actually, it is incredibly important symbolism. Why? Because this action is reflective of the poor policy (and proves these folks have no vision) choices that will be made to combat what these folks see as the problem - carbon emissions. I could cut my carbon emissions by 80%, if the government would simply pass a bill favoring telecommuting - current law favors my employer having me commute to work . All of my work can be done over the internet - the meeting in Copenhagen could be conducted over the internet. Do you see the important parallels?

Of course, such a bill would severely hurt the car industry, and airlines which are organizations with deep political ties.

Face it, these fools won't be able to construct policy to actually cut emissions their "symbolic" actions prove that.

Don't worry Peak Oil will solve these problems.

If governments would stop interfering in markets, we would never run out of petroleum, just as we have never run out of whale oil.

What? Because petroleum would be sooo expensive the automobile would be a rich man's vehicle? Or you just can't accept certain resources are finite?

As I said before, we will not run out of petroleum just as we have not run out of whale oil.

Certain forms of resources - such as petroleum - may be finite. But energy in our solar system is, for all practical purposes, infinite. Human ingenuity is also, for all practical purposes, boundless. If governments stop interfering with free markets, humans will figure out ways to power personal transport vehicles which do not depend on petroleum. But they won't do so as long as petroleum remains cheap. Petroleum resources are used much more efficiently than they were 30 and 50 years ago. Humans will continue to increase the efficiency in the use of those resources - as long as governments do not interfere with free markets. But doomsayers - including the peak oil ones - continue to fool seemingly bright individuals into thinking government can substitute for supply and demand.

On that point I agree, and it won't necessarily be peak oil. High demand, plus dollar devaluation will increase gas prices. I am well positioned for that event living in an urban area. Just got some slicks for my bike, which i will ride to the subway line.

Actually, its just a different manifestation of precisely the same thing.

The CEO's of the auto companies should have filed bankruptcy and let the debt-holders take over the company. Instead, they went for government handouts. The outraged left-wingers were outraged because the CEOs didn't appear subservient enough for their tastes. They wanted to see the executives crawling and begging before their elite masters.

Now we have the elite masters gathering together in Copenhagen and as we see, there's not an ounce of humility in the entire lot.

>> The CEO's of the auto companies should have filed bankruptcy and let the debt-holders take over the company.

Serious question:

If you're a board member of, say, GM, and Congress has just bailed out your competitor Chrysler, is it a breach of your fiduciary duty to NOT go to Congress hat in hand? A Congressional bailout keeps GM as a going concern at favorable rates. A bankruptcy filing without Congressional support may lead to a wind-up of the company.

Once Congress opens this Pandora's box, it's hard to fault the companies for trying to get their snout in the trough.

I agree, economiser. GM executives were doing their duty in trying to obtain a government bailout. The bad guys were first Bush, then Obama, and always the U.S. Congress.

Marcus probably meant to write:

"The CEO's of the auto companies should have been forced into bankruptcy so that the debt-holders could take over the company"

RE: "The CEO's of the auto companies should have filed bankruptcy and let the debt-holders take over the company."

Well at least we agree on that.

The Copenhagen thing strikes me as a massive non-sequitor. Elected representatives will drive cars (hell, voters will drive cars!). Corporate executives will fly private jets. Is anyone honestly concerned about this?

Is anyone honestly concerned about this?

Not the delegates, obviously. Yes, it is not a ban on car usage in general, it is just for the proles. We don't want proles getting on an airplane and visiting Exit Glacier - it should be the exclusive privilege of the carbon trading, environmental masters of the universe like Al Gore and David Blood.. You are just fantastic Danny. You make me swoon in admiration.

Simply calling people "elite overloards" or "masters of the universe" isn't an argument. Jesus - and you guys blame the other side for class warfare????

No, Danny, I'm on your side. I'm on the other side of the class warfare. Love you.

You are my hero, Sandre!!! I bet the other side thinks FOX is real news. *snort*

and Bill O'Reilly is a real libertarian :)

Rank Amateurs I tell you!

Now hold on - you're making the same point that Methinks is.

What law are you two imagining will apply to "peasants" or "proles" exclusively? It's a nice rhetorical device, but get specific. Exactly what sort of policy are you insinuating here? None that I've ever heard of.

I can assure you, those at the margins will suffer much more than those riding in limos if carbon legislation is set into motion.

I don't see it as the same at all. The monkeys in Copenhagen have power. The CEOs didn't have any power. Only congress had the power to intervene. Without an overly powerful government, the auto CEO's pilgrimage would have been fruitless.

I think you misunderstood my message. It doesn't contradict anything you just wrote.

OK.

Trying to think of how to put it another way.

In the one case we had our arrogant, elite masters demanding the subservience of auto-executives. Now we have our arrogant, elite masters gathering in Copenhagen without so much as an ounce of humility.

Both cases are manifestations of the same underlying cause: the arrogance of the liberal elite.

I like the way you put it the second time. The first time implied that the CEO's should have voluntarily drifted into bankruptcy without exercising their political option. You can't ask anyone to do that.

and, you're right. I agree with you.

You're not moved? Shocking!!!

In case you missed the key difference....the car executives came to beg. These guys are in Copenhagen to decide what we will have to sacrifice. Whatever tax is imposed on their private jets and limos will be paid by the peasantry. Just to spell it out.

Peasantry? If any plan passes, carbon users are going to pay for using carbon. Maybe a good idea, maybe a bad one. But what's with these "peasantry" comments?

Indeed the 'modern peasant' probably can't afford a car just as a Medieval peasant didn't own a horse & carriage. Maybe she meant 'modern artisan'.

Maybe peasants in your country can't afford cars. Peasants in this country drive souped up cars while rockin' out to their i-pods and thumbing texts on their blackberries. For now.

Your definition of 'peasant' seems to be quite generous.

Keep playing dumb, Danny. It's beginning to work.

literally limousine liberals.

Arriving in grand style to decide how much we peasants must sacrifice to gaia.

Exactly.

Farcical political theater, full of sound and fury and hubris, signifying nothing.

A lot of hot air being emitted there. What year did Comrade O say we're supposed to lower emissions by 83%? 2050? Very Leninesque!
And Don has the quote of the day on the Ex-Im scam in the WSJ, p. A 24:
"Boeing's been getting a sort of pre-emptive bailout for years, largely under the radar."
Don't buy stock in Boeing!