Internet Doodlings - Of COURSE, the environmentalists over at TreeHugger have only one answer - more spending? - Granite Grok

Internet Doodlings – Of COURSE, the environmentalists over at TreeHugger have only one answer – more spending?

Like I said here:   I guess that’s why the words Democrat and Consistency should never be used in the same sentence (unless one is a stand-up comic)

OK, I’ll conserve some words – just swap out Democrat with environmentalist.  A two-fer!  Real conservatism and recyling!  The UN’s RIO+20 conference is going on in Rio all deciding how best to take money from the developed nations to give to the less developed one.  Oh, in their minds, there are plenty reasons, in their minds, but at least one real fiscal truth has hit – “scarce public funds”.  Problem is, they just keep plowing past that discovery:

So where should our scarce public money be going? Let’s start with achieving universal energy access by delivering clean energy to the world’s poor. If we want to deliver on energy access goals in Rio, though, we cannot wait for the grid, and we cannot rely on fossil fuels. That’s the conclusion the International Energy Agency came to in a recent report stating an over reliance on coal and grid extension will leave one billion of the world’s poor without energy access by 2030 (PDF). That leaves us with one billion reasons to push public institutions like the World Bank to invest in the alternative – distributed clean energy access. The Sierra Club, along with Carbon War Room, Eight19, Greenlight Planet, and Greenpeace India are joining forces to ensure world leaders get the message.

Like I said – recognition and then “ignoration”.  And to decode the words “get the message”? Spend more.  Period.  Yours – for their purpose.  And more spending.  And more.  Why is it that Enviros are all about limiting natural commodity usage of oil but have no thought to conservation of the fiscal resources of others (clue: watermelon environmentalists).  If they haven’t realized it, it is the rich nations that have the best ability to conserve – and the governments that stay out of the way that empowers individuals to create the new and needed technologies.  So instead of crassly going after money of other individuals, perhaps they’d be better off in achieving their aims by aiming for better forms of good, open, and transparent government in all the right places.  After all, despots are all about money, not so much real results.

My comment to “So where should our scarce public money be going?”:

Scarce? Running a Trillion-plus dollars per year deficit for the last four years (including this one), you being a ‘business’ writer should understand that our financial path is unsustainable. When the Obama Admin has to borrow 40 cents of every $1 spent, let me clue you in – there IS no “scarce” – there is NONE. You should know that the only reason why our $16 Trillion debt is “affordable” is that the Feds have kept the rate of borrowing artificially low (via QE1 and QE2).

Debt payment is already #4 after money spent for SS, Medicare, and Defense. What will be unsustainable is if that borrowing rate jumps up by 2% (and beyond). THEN you’ll start seeing what scarce really means.

Funny how much tunnel visions these folks get….when there’s no money, priorities matter.  But then again, they haven’t been watching as European country after country have been showing that when money is tight, other and more important priorities are more important.

>