Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Personally I was surprised it could be so low and checked the report which says
The Climate Audit did not consider renewable energy (or a few other things - Appendix 1 p15)So this £11 billion £1.4 bn annually) is in addition to the +£1 bn a year poured into windmill subsidies or the several billion caused by the fact that electricity costs could be only 7% of what they are, or the fact that we are only in recession because of this Luddite thievery.
Since this isn't about the basic production of energy we are simply dealing with Lagging housing and producing more expensive building standards - £4.5-4.8 billion
Transport policies - £3.8 billion - including getting buses and taxis to reduce their emissions at £1.1 bn - putting £1.1 bn into "cycling and walking infrastructure" (all p 11 # 40) - there is also £6 million going to train van drivers to drive using less fuel! (p12 #46)
Obviously this is complete nonsense which will not achieve anything significant, compared to the cost. If people wanted houses which cost several hundred thousand extra to build but cut power bills by 20% the market would produce them without subsidy. If van drivers wanted to drive slowly and cautiously they would not need a government parasite to tell them it could be done.
On the other hand it will give ever more money for thieving parasitic traitors like Salmond to hand out /split with his cronies.
I previously suggested that instead of subsidising windmills that £1 billion could be put into cutting income tax by 3p. Well that goes in spades for this nonsense. Does anybody believe that we would be out of recession if we cut income tax by 3p, cut corporatio9n tax by 50% (or offered rebates for 50% which gets round the fact that CT is officially still a Westminster matter) and cut business rates by half - each one costing £1 billion. Those 3 together would cost £3 billion - possibly marginally above the subsidies discussed but certainly lower than the subsidies plus even a tiny increase in the revenues from a tax base growing because of it (as described in the Laffer Curve).
Let us not, under any circumstances whatsoever, accept any claims from the SNP that there is any real problem with such cuts when they are wasting and stealing from us like this. Let us not under any circumstances accept that any politician who supports this and claims to be against "cuts in essential services to the poor" is ever in the remotest degree honest or cares is the tiniest degree about the poor as they steal billions form us.
a thieving fascist traitor gives us a sign
While we are at it here is Hondurus going for an idea I suggested for Islay years ago and more generally here, which could also get us a spare £6 billion annually, should that be desired.
Actually that wouldn't disprove it anyway. Hitler and Mussolini got elected (more or less) and that does not prevent them being fascists. You need free media to have a free democracy & we have the BBC.
And your assertion that global warming is a fraud and they are liars for not saying so themselves - am I to assume that if the SNP (or anyone else) hold opinions you disagree with then they are automatically 'lying fascists' in your eyes?
Face it, the Scottish public voted overwhelmingly in May for parties (not just the SNP) who believe that global warming is real and must be tackled - your opinion (which you strangely assert as a proven fact) is not supported by the vast majority of the public.
There are many honestly held OPINIONS with which I disagree. False claims of measured FACT are clearly lies. In the particular case of catastrophic warming it can easily be shown that most politicians claiming to believe in a CO2 catastrophe are virulently opposed to the one practical peoduction method not producing CO2. Therefore they know there is no catastrophe and they are wholly corrupt ecofascists in pretending there is. QED
I assert as fact that we are not currently experiencing catastrophic warming. If you have evidence that we are, or even that a substantial part of the Scottish people have said they personally are, then produce it.
Really, the point I was originally trying to make is that such extreme language gets no-one anywhere. It is polarising and non-productive and discourages ordinary (i.e. non-political) members of the public from becoming engaged in any debate. While your self-exclusion from rational debate suits people like myself who are on the opposite end of the political spectrum, the debate should be had and in a calm and rational manner. That can't happen when you go out of your way to prove that Godwin's law is correct!
The 100% of electricity demand is like that other deceit "homes powered" in that it compares total demand over a year with total production over a year. On that basis a house would be run on a 600watt supply, which would not be enough to run a kettle. Not surprisingly this is a form of misrepresentation that well suits the wind energy industry as it makes them appear more useful than they are. - Sandy
To ignore facts and claim as the only authority that the various factions of the government political machine and state controlled media say it is, by the original definition of the term, fascism, so by tour words you have proven the accuracy of my criticism. I suggest you check the history of the movement and you will find I am correct.
One cannot self exclude from rational debate" by sticking to facts nor engage in rational debate by refusing to discuss facts. When you say I am excluded from "debating" with the "SNP" because I refuse to first accept everything they say then you are saying that the SNP are a wholly corrupt fascist & eco-Nazi organisation.
Warming and cooling have happened for billions of years. Mr Salmond certainly knows this and that current trends are in no way out of the ordinary.