"We Need More Climate Catastrophes"
From the desk of Luc Van Braekel on Tue, 2007-09-25 14:51
How do you persuade Europeans that America is concerned about climate change and is reducing its carbon emissions? Well, one way would be to put a fundamentalist environmental regulator from the state of California together with a pragmatic European bureaucrat from Brussels in a debate. After listening to both, the green girls and boys in the audience will be convinced that while Europe is talking and persuading, the US is acting, regulating, enforcing and punishing. Perhaps this was the reasoning at the US mission to the EU when they sponsored a debate on climate change last Wednesday in Brussels, organized by CafeBabel.com.
The star of this debate was Catherine Witherspoon, who was the executive officer of the California Air Resources Board until she resigned after a row with the staff of governor Schwarzenegger about climate change policy. The European Commission was represented by Jos Delbeke, director for Climate Change and Air at the Directorate General for Environment.
I have condensed a ninety minutes video of the debate (full transcript here) into a nine-minute compilations of highlights. You can see it in this video:
Here are some of the most noteworthy statements of Ms. Witherspoon:
We need some more accidents and catastrophes to hit Americans upside the head, so that they also feel threatened. (...) The problem is the media: they believe in point and counterpoint. So while there are a million people who will tell you it is climate-related, they will find the one guy, the kooky guy with the white hair, who says that it is not, that it is a farce, that the climate changed since the dinosaurs and this is just another example. So Americans are misled. Americans are inherently sceptical of intellectuals, of scientists, of elitists, of governments. If there is someone to cast doubt, they will believe the person casting doubt. That's just the way Americans are, that's their personality. (...)
There are a lot of things that we understand to be true about climate change that we don't talk about. Because it's too early in the process and it would alienate the people. We need to support the big building blocks: the building of windmills, the changing of fuel quality and cars... If you want the US citizens to take climate change seriously and you say in the same breath: and would you please stop eating meat (...) you would turn people off. (...) It sounds too much like a nanny state, a police state coming from us. But NGOs, novelists, editorial writers can talk about it and change people without stopping momentum toward big governmental actions. ...)
I think we could regulate people more, I honestly do. (...) Americans understand SUVs are a bad thing, but they are right there, so they will buy them. If they went away, they would not buy them. (...) If bottled water disappeared, you would fill up a tap, you would find something else to drink. (...) There is a lot of things you can do with regulation by just taking things away: they're gone, and everybody gets on with their lives.
Yes, global warming is a regulator's dream.
Suffering is good for you!
Submitted by Cogito on Wed, 2007-09-26 12:06.
Does she realise she sounds like if the Pope would say the world needs more suffering so that his churches would be filled again?
A big forgery ?
Submitted by Schaveiger on Wed, 2007-09-26 11:47.
20 years ago the use of CFC gas was forbidden in sprays and refrigerators because CFC was responsible for the diminishing of the ozone layer. Since then the ozone layer is still at the same shape.
The Kyoto protocol ordered the reducing of greenhouse gas emissions because they are responsible for the climate change. However, these who are unable to cope with the quota may buy from others who do not exceed it.
Apart from the fact that Scientifics are unable to reach agreement on whether the climate change is due to human activity or not, we can appreciate that some opportunists are making big money out of it.
We also appreciate that the "global warming" is now replaced by "climate change", a less embarrassing term for our prophets in the future.
let's forbid meat
Submitted by Paganini on Wed, 2007-09-26 09:59.
"There is a lot of things you can do with regulation by just taking things away: they're gone, and everybody gets on with their lives."
Freaky bitch :) typical for the eussr to take her seriously
Momism
Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2007-09-26 06:27.
My Dad used to say that there was a problem in the western world called "Momism". The government becomes your mother and starts to regulate the hell out of your life. And it's all for your own good.
This woman is a caricature of Momism. So is Hillary Clinton.
Blech.
Her and meat?
Submitted by loikll on Wed, 2007-09-26 05:53.
By the way, she doesn't much look like she has stopped eating meat herself.
The Problem is...
Submitted by loikll on Wed, 2007-09-26 05:50.
The problem is the media: they believe in point and counterpoint.
Oh hell yes, that whole concept of freedom of speech and "debating things" is appalling. Perhaps the government should only allow the media to say the correct things.
So I wonder if the European audiences listening to this crap nodded their heads in sympathy about that awful American habit of contrasting opinions.
Oh and one more thing I forgot to mention.....
Submitted by oiznop on Wed, 2007-09-26 01:40.
With regard to this comment:
There is a lot of things you can do with regulation by just taking
things away: they're gone, and everybody gets on with their lives.
Yeah, everyone gets on with their lives...Except for those people who invented those thing...They are now out of work thanks to you....After you took those things away....You elitest intellectual envrio-NAZI!!!!......
SAVE THE PLANET FROM HOT AIR. MUZZLE A LIBERAL!!!!!!!!
*
Submitted by oiznop on Wed, 2007-09-26 01:37.
*
But it's for the Children!
Submitted by Charles Bogle on Wed, 2007-09-26 01:11.
Eat as I say, not as I eat.
Travel as I say, not as I travel.
Think Globally,Preach Locally
Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2007-09-25 23:35.
On this occasion we are informed that Ms Witherspoon jetted in from California to Brussels to preach her sermon.Next time,if there really must be a next time,wouldn't people be inclined to take her more seriously if she stayed in California and video conferenced instead?
Huh?
Submitted by Mike H. on Tue, 2007-09-25 22:25.
Are you telling me that she didn't scare the hell out of the audience? She sure scared the hell out of me! I imagine she would scare these folks!
Whatever you say Mrs. Witherspoon
Submitted by Arty on Tue, 2007-09-25 21:30.
Europeans are misled. Europeans are inherently trusting of intellectuals, of scientists, of elitists, of governments. If there is someone to cast doubt, they will not believe the person casting doubt. That's just the way Europeans are, that's their personality.
This woman is nothing more than an....
Submitted by oiznop on Tue, 2007-09-25 19:03.
....enviro-nazi..And has basically admitted it to the world..No Ms. Wither-away, we Americans are skeptical of regulation loving elitests (like yourself), and "scientists" and snobby intellectuals who have a leftist political agenda to run our lives and control our economy, the strongest in the world, which is something you "elitests" can't seem to stomach......
And correct me if I am wrong, but are there not a significant amount of "kooky guys with the white hair out to here" on your side of the fence????....Working for the IPCC???..
Oh, and one more thing that I just noticed...From the looks of things, you, Ms. SoupSpoon, look like you have eaten your fair share of meat (among other things) in your day!.....Looks like you're leaving a pretty BIG carbon footprint yourself, there sister......These people just don't quit, do they????