Colin Hines wants to make everyone poorer

Sure, we know this already, but it’s nice to see him point it out explicitly:

Equally, it must be seen as compensating poorer sections of society for the transitions to dearer, more sustainable food and energy supplies while retraining those whose jobs are threatened.

More expensive food and energy – people are poorer.

19 thoughts on “Colin Hines wants to make everyone poorer”

  1. All eco-freaks do.

    The issue is stopping them. Pointing out the evil stupidity of the evilly stupid only makes them double down.

  2. Always they want to do stuff, unpleasant stuff which costs money, without saying what the end state is, what the success criteria are and how much it is going to cost people who will themselves see no benefit ever.

  3. That video doesn’t really present an argument against wind power though. Someone in charge of moving an abnormal load was incompetent. Before taking it onto a railway crossing they needed to confirm that they had enough time to cross before the next train came.

  4. That video doesn’t really present an argument against wind power though.

    Correct, Stonyground; it doesn’t.

  5. Various poisonous fucktards have been complaining for ages in the Grauniad that people spend too little money on food.

    The environ-mentalists want the lower orders back in their place: travelling by bus, holidaying in Blackpool and competing with 3rd world imports for the shit and dirty jobs. Jobs which will barely feed their families.

  6. “Compensate” means take money from richer people to give to poorer people. This means richer people will be MUCH poorer as they’ll have to pay for their higher energy costs and the higher energy costs of others.

    Argued this at family gathering yesterday. Those in favour of ‘setting an example to China’ conceded that it was probably pointless but ‘we need to do it anyway’ even if the result is 0.01C of warming avoided. They always expect someone else to pay.

  7. The “sustainable” food line always pisses me off. They way we do it now is 100% sustainable in the real meaning of the word — that is we can keep it up forever.

    What would be unsustainable is trying to feed us using Green methods.

  8. When asked “is it sustainable”, I usually start by asking “over what period?” Earth’s habitable environment is sustainable over an absolute maximum of a few billion years, when the Sun will become a red giant star. OK, by then we might have the technological capability to move our planet to a more distant orbit, but it would be easier (and presumably cheaper) to build our own habitats – mini ringworlds would do for a start. And the universe will undergo heat death in well under a googol years.

    There’s nothing we’re doing (or, probably could be doing) that isn’t sustainable for at least a few centuries, which is enough to satisfy my needs and those of any descendants I’m likely to be aware of. And anyone who thinks they can forecast our technological development more than a decade or two out is dreaming.

  9. Andrew Again: ’ Those in favour of ‘setting an example to China’..’

    …are idiots, because China doesn’t care a hot for such things.

  10. There is an assumption being made that the move to renewable energy will increase costs in the long term. This is very unlikely. It is already cheaper to build and operate a solar or wind farm than to keep an existing coal plant operating. Electric cars cost less to drive than petrol ones. So in the medium term these inputs will cost everyone less.

  11. Remove the tax on petrol and do those sums again. Add in the costs of secure power dispatch and do the sums again.

  12. Remove the tax on petrol and do those sums again.

    Tim’s point usefully illustrated today:

    – Electric car owners currently pay 98% less in tax than petrol or diesel car owners

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9941675/Switch-electric-cars-cause-30BILLION-tax-black-hole-Tony-Blairs-institute-says.html
    .

    It is already cheaper to build and operate a solar or wind farm than to keep an existing coal plant operating.

    Even if that were true the coal plant would be worth it since it provides power day and night whatever the weather.
    Cheap things that don’t work turn out to be very expensive.

  13. Heavy hand needs to come down on Marxist eco-freaks. On all leftist scum but the greenfreaks are the most life ruining. Blojob Johnson wants social credit tyranny as that is only way greenfreak ruin/poverty can be forced on UK.

    Hope that train smashing the windmill blade was carrying lots of breeding Lions. The Lion equivalent of an ant farm.

  14. @JB “Electric cars cost less to drive than petrol ones”

    Factor in the cost of abandoning your heart, your soul, your very manhood when you swap your throbbing, roaring, gas guzzling fanny magnet for a limp whiny virtue signalling eco-box and I think you’ll find they don’t

  15. Looking out the window at my gas guzzling Skoda, I realise there is a flaw in Andrew C’s argument and/or my life plan.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *