The last few months has seen almost unprecedented changes to the once powerful CAGW market place. I say market because that precisely what it is. The “sales message” is that man made CO2 emissions causing global warming, that we are destroying the planet and our grandchildren’s future.

This is called the “incentive to buy” and many have “bought the product”. To fix the problem we are told that there will be some “price to pay” to limit emissions. This market was created by the UN FCCC, IPCC, Met Office and a number of “preferred supplier” scientists and researchers.

The EU and many other national governments responded by legislating favorably for the creation of the infrastructure. This included and agreement to impose caps on emissions, Kyoto, it created public funding mechanisms for capital investment in renewable energy, rebates and financial support for commercial/industrial opportunists to provide the technology. Government bureaucracies and departments emerged to regulate the market and impose higher tariffs (the price) on their customers. Finally, international CO2 trading markets were developed to finance market activities.

The “price” is being been paid solely by the public “customer” one way or another, all the other players are in the market for financial gain.

Much of the MSM, public broadcasters, academia and other commentariat have promoted the sales pitch with increasing enthusiasm, passion and exaggeration yet the infrastructure needed to deliver what was promised has collapsed.

So if the reason to “buy” and the “product” are not longer good enough for the market to maintain its infrastructure, where can this market go?

Spindoc>> The “price” is being been paid solely by the public “customer” one way or another, all the other players are in the market for financial gain<<

Sd, for some years I have bleated on about the green movement being owned by the polluters.

The modern environmental movement that had its rebirth in the western cultural revolution of the 1960’s targeted the polluters. I grew up with TV news images of this or that corporation’s headquarters or production facility being picketed, or vision of the union movements bans on social and environmental sites as we saw with the BLF Green bans of the 70’s.

Then the movement was hijacked, being green became “cool”.

When I was 17, I recall buying an Australian made Bonds fleecy lined Sloppy Joe with “Save Lake Pedder” emblazoned across it with a dam motif as a background. The emphasis was being manipulated to make the consumer take responsibility for their part in consuming manufactured goods produced at the cost of the environment.

The final stage, which we are now experiencing, is the complete shift of responsibility and cost to the consumer. As you said, the brokers, the banks, and despot second and third world nations are the only ones to benefit.

Stupidity reigns while we accept UN mandates that have an agenda of wealth centralization and distribution. We send it to aliens in Brussels or New York and the banks set up brokerage houses to fleece it on the way through. What a scam, and what a bunch of imbeciles we are. We have been media molded and conquered, only the feeble minded though, but that encompasses a generation of indoctrinated acolytes.

Spindoc you are aware we differ here.
I think most Liberal posters, maybe GY are not believers.
Consider this, like it or not Rudd, in the middle of one of our greatest droughts, got elected.
I feel as I did then global warming, at that time, was seen as secondary only to Work Choices.
Stay with me stay cool, events make your party odds on to win.
World events related to weather, even if you think them false, have what I think you will say, is the chook,s panicking again.
I prefer it this way, considered people are concerned, at growing evidence GW is taking place.
You may not find it true.
But by the election, if Abbott stays, and wins,
Consider the removal of carbon tax?
Abbott will be gone before the election, so too, will those of his policy's likely to impede a Turnbull landslide.
Politics is a harsh game,carbon tax scare campaign has bellyflopped.

Hi Belly,

Your a bit off topic I think, this is not and never was about local politics. If we are to talk global warming we need to look at the global picture.

The warmers can spruik all the science, facts, figures and alarmism they like however, it does not matter to me one way or the other but it does matter to those who have previously supported your global warming views.

You say that “considered people are concerned, at growing evidence GW is taking place”. That’s my whole point they aren’t.

Unless you can show me that there is a Kyoto replacement, that the UN FCCC, IPCC, the Met Office, the global renewables market, the carbon trading markets, government capital funding, green subsidies are all being maintained in support of global action and that nations are not returning to fossil fuel power generation. Then all these entities are not as convinced by the alarmism as you.

It is not people like me you need to convince.

Belly let me ask you this, how many skeptics have you converted and how many believers have I converted? None of course.

The entire CAGW infrastructure identified above is gone. Even if you are right, there is nothing left to deliver any global solution.

If you are not happy that global warming is being addressed you need to start convincing those who were once the core of the CAGW movement and have now walked away. It is your side that has abandoned the cause.

If your science and alarmism is not good enough for the warmers, it sure isn’t good enough for us.

Sonofgloin.
I can only speak about the demise of the Victorian environmentalist milieu since it's the only area in which I have any first hand knowledge.
The grass roots activism of the 1980's and early 90's, anti logging/anti woodchipping and so forth was corrupted and the groups eviscerated by provocateurs and, it seems professional counter activists rumoured to be on the payroll of the paper manufacturers.
I knew one of the provocateurs personally, he was an ex copper who'd worked drugs and gone under cover to infiltrate the old National Action groups in the '80's. I don't know who he was working for in the 1990's, he wasn't on the Police payroll but he suddenly appeared as a part of one of the "environmental" groups in about 1992 and since his work there seems to have been done he's again been nosing around grass roots politics albeit of the urban, "save our suburbs" variety.
What I'm saying is that environmentalists and conservationists are no longer part of the Green movement, they've seen it's sharp edge dulled by infighting and outside provocation and it's mainstream subordinated to serve state and corporate interests. The Greens are part of the growth lobby, no genuine Leftist or environmentalist still supports them and a good many regard them as fundamentally right wing and composed entirely of the bourgeoisie.

Jay of Melbourne>> What I'm saying is that environmentalists and conservationists are no longer part of the Green movement, they've seen it's sharp edge dulled by infighting and outside provocation and it's mainstream subordinated to serve state and corporate interests<<

Jay I understand and agree with all you have said.

If I had to make a considered guess as to who actually controls the global environmental movement, I would go with “The Club of Rome” and the “Bilderberg Group” simply because the individual members of these groups represent global manufacturing and global commerce. It is in their interests to mitigate their spend on environmental protection and take the heat off the manufacturer to clean up their act.

Decades ago The Club of Rome vaunted the concept of moving the blame and the cost of environmental protection onto the consumer. But first they had to make the consumer aware of the issues and take responsibility for their part...which has ended up being all of it.

Since the 1980’s the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Global wealth has moved at considerable pace, right now 1% owns 40% and 10% own 80% of the globes assets. That leaves 20% for the rest of us….plus the environmental cleanup bill.

As I said there is no green, but there is a lust for gold.

Jay of Melbourne and sonofgloin,

I share many of your sentiments and recollections of formative years as they relate to the gradual transition of genuine environmental concerns and their gradual high jacking by other persuasions.

I’m less interested in who, what and how because I think this is now perhaps less relevant. The objective of this thread was to discover if the reality of the decline of this current phenomenon was recognized by its own supporters and where it might possibly go without its former supporting infrastructure.

If we accept that the genuine environmental concerns of the 1960’s onwards may have been usurped by “other persuasions” in whatever form these might take, if it is in decline and thus weakened, might it be exposed to “other” opportunist forces that might take advantage of it’s demise?

This might sound a bit obtuse so let me paint a scenario for you. If movements like CAGW looses its infrastructure and becomes vulnerable but retains its disciples, isn’t this an attractive proposition for the next vulture to descend upon the road kill?

If I were a government facing austerity, had implemented (CO2) legislation and a means of taxing the population, would I allow the reason for the taxes to disappear entirely along with its supporting disciples or would I harness this for political and economic gain?

My proposition therefore is that rather than supporting a collective approach (Kyoto), I might harness the means of raising taxes and the supporting disciples, to continue to raise taxes but apply them to rebuilding fossil fuel based economic growth?

In other words usurp the remnants of the last political phenomenon to enable the next.

You are both deep thinkers and have already confirmed your talent for seeing beyond the current situation. I am keen to get your perception of the question posed, “Where can fixing CAGW go without its infrastructure”?

Will it go anywhere or will it be again usurped

Great! I have been trying toi make just that point.
It has been up stream all the way.
Just trying to tell SOME the truly lost in fact.
It is not about GILLARD.
Not about Abbott, well maybe it is.
His now proven to be a lie, that carbon tax would seed us bankrupt, gee.
In fact thanks yet again.
In agreeing it is not a local issue.
*I can, with your blessing I hope, dump increased world wide view man needs to act on the table*
We will stumble get it wrong make mistakes.
But Liberals have to confront, maybe you do too, they have the same carbon reduction targets,just a different path.
Taxing non polluters to pay the polluters and thieving from?
PENSIONERS.
Rest! do not fly away, calm, Turnbull before the election will dump Tony,s wet dreams.
And your landslide, using SOME of Labors policy's, will come.
Regards .

Spindoc>> So if the reason to “buy” and the “product” are not longer good enough for the market to maintain its infrastructure, where can this market go?<<

Remember Spindoc that the market is sustained by left wing governments. In the US only three states implemented a carbon tax, and they are democratic states. The top ideologues know that carbon abatement without new technology is bullsheiser. But there is a two bladed sword in the carbon tax, it also distributes wealth from the first world to the second and third. Some might say that is the primary objective and I would probably agree.

sonofgloin,

"...It also distributes wealth from the first world to the second and third...."

Well that might even things up a bit. Perhaps you should check out the profits made and the control exercised by corporations like Monsanto and Cargill - in India for example.

Egypt was the World Bank's "top reformer" last decade....lots of money made by the ruling elite and "first world corporations"....not much chop for Egypt's general population - hence revolution.

You tend to ignore the fact that the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank are there as doormen for Western corporations and their dealings with third world governments - usually tying loans to structural adjustments which cruel poor populations and enrich Westerners.

Poirot>> You tend to ignore the fact that the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank are there as doormen for Western corporations and their dealings with third world governments - usually tying loans to structural adjustments which cruel poor populations and enrich Westerners<<

Poirot, I agree with you,i posted this:
>>Global wealth has moved at considerable pace, right now 1% owns 40% and 10% own 80% of the globes assets. That leaves 20% for the rest of us<<

When we discuss the WTO,IMF,or the World Bank, we are talking about the European Banking cartel. They certainly take money from the second and third world...in fact the whole world.

Do you recall "BANKCARD"? In an era of prosperity in the mid 1970's when the banks only loaned you money if you could pay it back, less than 10% of Australians had a credit card. The European banking cartel via our banks pushed credit onto us.

I vividly recall that Bankcards were sent unsolicited to kids, dogs cats goats and budgies. The debt trap and fiscal slavery was a planned event. When you say the exploitation of the poor nations ends up in the pockets of the western nations is a sweeping statement. It ends up in the pockets of the 10% who own 80% of everything.

You may not realize it but western society plebs are also victims. They are taking our savings as fast as we can gather them. In 2007 we the people had a consumer debt that came with the era of credit cards, but as a nation our government owed nothing. Today we pay a BILLION in govt interest every month to the same banking cartel.

There are many interesting perspectives offered here and I’m in agreement with many of them, particularly in relation to the international control and distribution of public money.

The question I asked remains unanswered.

“Where can fixing CAGW go without its infrastructure”?

If we accept that CAGW was also a Eurocentric mechanism for the same financial control and redistribution of public money, where if anywhere can it go now?

If we are to draw comparisons with the WTO, IMF and World Bank and the EU Central Bank ECB, they have all retained their international infrastructure and influence. They would seem in fact to have increased their power.

The point is that if CAGW was indeed a similar mechanism and its infrastructure is corroding, what can it achieve now?

Are we to conclude that if it has lost its international governance through Kyoto, if the CO2 trading markets to fund it have failed, that individual governments of any flavor are reducing their funding due to austerity and that the renewable manufacturing industry is shot, then there is no governance or infrastructure to support it?

In the absence of any challenge to the assertion, have we concluded that it cannot go anywhere even if we wanted it to

Spindoc>> The question I asked remains unanswered.

“Where can fixing CAGW go without its infrastructure”?<<

Sd are you meaning the staff and agencies when you say infrastructure, or the political will?

Remember the CAGW agenda is being run ultimately by the polluters so it will morph into something else with a similar agenda of legislative control of our taxes. But acolytes such as U.N. bureaucrats and socially aware plebs will have lost a religion.

Their religion has already undergone a name change. Before the “manipulated” climate impact numbers were shown up to be totally skewed fabrications they called it GLOBAL WARMING. After the lies were discovered it became GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

Amazingly it has been a decade since the lies of the GW scientists were discovered. The globe continues to cool and property by the beach still costs a motza. Flannery did well to buy on the water.

Wow, sonofgloin...congrats -

"Amazingly it has been a decade since the lies of the GW scientists were discovered. The globe continues to cool..."

Your mantra is straight out of troglodyte denialism 101.

You get extra points for mentioning the words: "religion", "acolytes", "agenda", "taxes", "lies", "plebs", "manipulated" - and for the phrases: "The globe continues to cool..." and "U.N. bureaucrats".

Sorry to say that you lose points for lack of originality (in that we've heard it all before)...but nice try just the same.

Thanks, I've been practicing....

sonofgloin,

When I say infrastructure I mean the commerce and industries without which no action can be implemented as a response to CAGW. The UN and the commentariat can’t do it.

To respond to global warming a global regulator and global agreement is mandatory. This was Kyoto but it is gone.

To have the global funds to pay for the renewable technologies needs a market for investors to raise funding, these were the global carbon trading credits markets, these are gone.

To have renewable technologies needs an industry that will produce these technologies for a profit. Since these technologies are not market ready economically they have to be heavily subsidized by tax payers and investors. The investment mechanism has collapsed this only leaves sovereign taxpayer funding. Since developed nations are in austerity mode and increasingly reluctant to carry the full financial burden, the manufacturer businesses are collapsing.

There remains in some countries, the political will to take action however, since there is no longer any international agreement for capping or trading and the above three critical market components are gone, inertia has been reached. Without these the political will to do something may endure but no global action is possible.

RENIXX is the key stock market index for renewables and tracks the worlds top 30 largest renewable energy companies based in the USA, EU and China. This market is down 90 percent since 2007.

The wind industry in the USA, the largest in the world, is predicted to lose 70 to 90 percent of its orders. Investors predict its total demise. Spain’s solar market dropped 80 percent after subsidies were axed. Germany has cut roof top solar rebates three times and rebates end completely in 2017.

The main intergovernmental trading schemes the EU, UN, Copenhagen, Chicago Carbon Exchange and NZ are finished. They are all now trading at between 10 and 15 percent of both their volume and value as at 2007.

These are the infrastructure of any global action, they are gone. Unless someone like Poirot is willing to tell us otherwise

Soindoc>> The main intergovernmental trading schemes the EU, UN, Copenhagen, Chicago Carbon Exchange and NZ are finished. They are all now trading at between 10 and 15 percent of both their volume and value as at 2007.<<

Sd, I thought I canvassed possible outcomes when the Carbon lobby lose momentum. As you said the trading market is on its knees with the Europeans not wanting to pay double digits per ton in tax. Stupid Australia pays double figures with a price hike built in. It is not about Carbon, it is about a funnel of money from us to them.

Spindoc>>These are the infrastructure of any global action, they are gone. Unless someone like Poirot is willing to tell us otherwise<<

Sd, our Poirot has a religion and will stick to it. The amazing thing about acolytes of global destruction via Carbon is that they want to pay guilt money for breathing…..no problem with that, but I should not have to pay because Poirot wants to draw a breath and feel guilt free while doing it.

A Carbon tax does not reduce the emissions; it does not foster viable clean energy. A wind turbine just covers its own carbon footprint if it generates the maximum of 24/7 output for five years. Greens needs a cause to follow, they have an indoctrinated social conscience to placate, but are not willing to forego the manufactured goods that modernity brings…….no twitter…..no interest in the green movement.

Let the green acolytes lead by example….go medieval….give up machines that require any energy input rather than their own. Some poor bugger living at subsistence level in a first world nation has a greener lifestyle than the middle class activists that use all the technology available to them.

Poirot once described me as a troglodyte and that made me smile, because to meet P’s indoctrinated and skewed green expectations, P would have to have the carbon footprint of a troglodyte. Welcome to the tribe sport.

Well about the only intelligent place is to tip it down the drain.

Oh sorry the greenies wouldn't like that, now would they.

Come to think of it, there is about enough bull droppings to cover the universities who continue to ride the train, so lets bury the Bs.

Good points SOG.

It is interesting that this thread has not been bombed with “scientific links” (so far). I can’t find any other CAGW topic thread on OLO that has ever been science free. What are we to make of that?

Are we to conclude that by drawing attention to the fact that the former CAGW movement is no longer persuaded by their own science then there is no case just the residual alarmism?

If so this throws some very interesting light on the current hype from some of our MSM and in particular our public broadcasters. We have to wonder who they are trying to convince. Do they think they will gain converts by running heightened alarmist programs off the back of our bushfires?

If this thread tells us anything it is that all that remains is the “public alarm machine”, the alarmists know this and are cranking it up for all they are worth.

The salespeople (commentariat) are still spruiking the Datsun 120Y, the designer is in remorse, the car yard is empty, the manufacturer is broke and the banks have pulled their line of credit.

This thread tells us for certain that the warmists accept that the mantra they have been given and in which they still believe, has failed to persuade even those who sold it to them but they cannot escape from the mantra they have adopted.

As with all cults, they are difficult to escape from. There are many web sites dedicated to helping those involved with cults, one is interestingly called “The skeptic Tank”. They have this to say;

“People vulnerable to cults are typically those confused, fearful, guilt ridden or suffer self doubt, there seems little opportunity for them to find the “courage to walk away”.

They offer a package called “Walk Away”. This, it seems is the only escape from cults and it primarily requires courage. It seems that unless society is able to provide a “Walk Away Package” for warmers there is little hope for them as indicated by the research

SOG, you also mentioned wind turbines in your post; I thought you and OLOers might be interested in a very comprehensive study for the European Renewable Energy Foundation by Gordon Hughes, I think you can get it at:

www.ref.org.uk

The study covers UK and Denmark wind turbine performance over time and some of the conclusions are staggering.

“The normalized load factor for UK onshore wind farms declines from a peak of about 24% at age 1 to 15% at age 10 and 11% at age 15”.

The economics for wind farms are based upon a 25 years life cycle for 24% load factor but the real empirical data tells us that even at 15 years old we get only 11%. This will effectively double the cost of wind generated electricity. Add to that the cost of spinning backup from conventional power generation to support this lost efficiency and it we face the prospect crippling our future economies.

In addition to this there are 14,000 rusting and tethered turbines that we cannot afford to decommission, which currently litter some our planets’ most pristine landscapes and we leave a legacy of crippling national costs that will bring our grandchildren to tears of despair. Well done the warmers.

A bit off topic but good food for thought.