Subsidies for public transport

Public transport is really very bad for the #environment, as proven by the subsidies for #buses and #trains and #trams. If they wouldn’t waste so much energy, they would need less subsidy or even none at all. Compare that to cars: government tries to tax them into oblivion, and still they are a more attractive form of transportation than public transport. This indicates that the environment is not a reason for trying to get people into public transport (maybe it is: after all, it’s government we’re talking about, the make-work program for the maliciously incompetent). What else may be the reason then?

  • The desire to impose changes: aka the maleable society, or the designer society.
  • Sadism: they know how unpleasant PT is and they hope to force us into it. And, well, they also claim that traffic jams are bad for the environment, yet they refuse to do anything about them, hoping to harm our environment and that way, us. So sadism is a realistic option, not to be discounted out of hand.
  • Wishing economic harm upon the population; it has long been complained that traffic jams cause severe economic damage, those complaints have in 51 years not resulted in attempts to cure the traffic jams.

Now that the evil institution has added the climate-lie (it was government that did so, not any democratic institution like the people, or business), the reasons for continuing to allow the decadent luxury of public transport to exist, are dwindling.

Vergelijking Noord-Korea & Nederland

In Noord-Korea heeft de #overheid de voedselvoorziening in handen. In #Nederland heeft de #roverheid de wegenvoorziening in handen. Noord-Koreanen leiden verschrikkelijke honger, Nederlanders staan al meer dan 50 jaar in de #file (ruim een halve eeuw!). #Pyongyang weigert voedselhulp uit het buitenland toe te laten, omdat dat het falen van de overheid te zeer zou blootstellen. Den Haag weigert om de files op te lossen en is daardoor de grootste klimaat-terrorist van het land. De enige oplossing lijkt mij om de zeggenschap van de roverheid over het verkeer te ontnemen.
Nederland is allang ontegenzeggelijk een failed state: meer gezichtsverlies kan niet, dus waar wachten ze op? Totdat de catastrofale #klimaatverandering van #Gore
de Nederlandse #polder in Sahara 2.0 heeft veranderd?

Again, they don’t get it

Or they sincerely don’t care. The announced British & French bans on “fossil” fuels by 2040, will go at the expense of huge waste of energy and enormous social upheaval and empoverishment. The considerable number of people that will lose their jobs (car mechanics, oil rig/fuel station personell and so forth) will pale in comparison to the emormous costs everyone will be presented with, in order to buy a new electric car, which even with subsidy is very expensive. If every tax-victim willl be forced to buy such a car, then stealing money from everybody, in order to give it right back to them, is a preposterous #waste of #energy, manpower, and thus also money! The prerogative of owning a car will, once again, be left to the elite (is that the #equality the enviros are always bleating about?) Just like the good old #Soviet-era when big Zil-limos were reserved for the party leadership.
So, everybody will have to get rid of their existing car (/motorbike) and replace it with an EV, all of them in one fell swoop. Apart from the daunting logistics of that (not even a skilled #centralPlanner will be able to guide that process). So, this is probably a disguised #social #engineering, a tyrannical measure: abolish #private #ownership of means of #transport. And force people to ake public transport or ride sharing.
The amount of energy that will get wasted by dumping perfectly useable cars on the rustheap, is considerable.

Nog 1 keer: aanbod van nieuwe wegen veroorzaakt niet meer verkeer

Vandaag (27 juli 2017) onderstaande gestuurd aan

Nog één keer: aanbod van nieuwe wegen veroorzaakt NIET meet verkeer!
Dat is een glasharde leugen van anti-milieu-activisten (de SP, Groenlinks).
Ruim 50! jaar file (een halve eeuw!) heeft ervoor gezorgd dat de uitstoot fors hoger is geworden, maar bovenal heeft het voor onverdiende, tomeloze frustraties bij de burger gezorgd. Zodat, indien er na zo’n enorm lange tijd eindelijk een keer een nieuwe weg wordt geopend, dat velen die zijn gevlucht, het OV laten voor wat het is, en het dan toch weer proberen met de auto. Wat heel wat wil zeggen over de kwaliteit van het OV, dat ervaring ermee, de klanten wegjaagt.
Dus zelfs al zou de economische wet van Jean Baptiste Say (de wet van de markt) inhouden dat aanbod zijn eigen vraag genereert (dat is niet wat de wetmatigheid inhoud), dan,nog, gold die wet alleen,maar bij een gezonde markt, waar vragende en aanbiedende partijen met elkaar in,evenwicht proberen te komen. Wanneer de overheid de aanbiedende partij is, wordt de vrager (de machteloze burger) geschoffeerd en gefrustreerd. In zo’n situatie is geen enkele economische wet van toepassing, hooguit het intetnationaal recht – dat zullen we wel zien in Scheveningen (gelegitimeerd door het Haagse gezanik over het klimaat, wat zij zelf doelgericht schaden).
Wat zegt de wet van de markt nu eigenlijk echt? Dat burgers eerst hun eigen productie moeten verkopen (loon naar werken ontvangen), en van dat loon, kunnen zij andermans productie kopen.

How about this hypothesis (#oil, #wealth)

How about the hypothesis that oil is literally the earth’s mantel (or crust, I confuse those two), processed by bacteria?
The people that support that hypothesis – over the #fossil fuel-hypothesis, suport that by a.o. the claim, that if it where fossil, it would have run out yonks ago, given all the #oil that’s been burnt & processed into plastic?
I propose not putting artificial limits on oil now (out of faux-concern for #durability), because all it would do, is keep the oil in the ground for future generations who are not allowed to touch it, because it has to be preserved for even further future generations, and infinitum. So it’s best to use it to create wealth now, and use that wealth to be able to fund a transfer to different energy sources. Wealth generated today is not wealth stolen from the future (like inflationary fake-wealth from central banks), so the #wealth generated today can be built upon by future generations, adding today’s wealth to the future’s wealth. A wealthy future can better support luxuries like “#durable #energy” that must be rammed down our empoverishing throats today.

Remarkable insights from #climate-research.

What remarkable insights does Syun Ichi Akasofu’s article “On the present halting of global warming” contain?
Global warming began in 1800-1850, not after CO2 began rising rapidly in 1946. Ah: immediately after WW2, which means that rising CO2-emmissions are correlated to rising wealth levels, here meaning explicitly that war is destructive to economic well-being. Oddly enough, war didnot caude en extreme rise in CO2 (as one woud expect given the amount of bombers, tanks, ships, etc.)

Also, the’s the fact that several decades of climate policy resulted in a rise of #CO2 concentration.
And during that rise, there was no temperature increase. According to prof. Ross McKitrick, the warming pause has lasted 19 years at the surface, and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere. Since 1990, atmospheric #carbon levels rose from 354ppm to just under 400ppm, a 13% increase.

1990 is the baseline year for the #Kyoto protocol.

The University of East-Anglia (UK), projected an increase of atmospheric CO2 of 61% since Kyoto. Which was supposedly about reducing CO2, right? Or was it about reducing wealth? The EU was the 3rd largest emitter of CO2, after China and the US. Per capita emmissions reveal a different story: the US is the highest emitter, averaging about 10* that of poor India. So again, high emmissions correlate to wealth. Plant growth increases due to rises in carbon levels, permit more people to eat more, to feed their wealth-producing labour.

Climate-policy is unconstitutional

When the evidence against something is so overwhelmingly compelling as that against the government’s #Climate-hysteria, the choice to believe in it (without regard to the conclusions of science – Both Ross McKitrick and Syan Ichi Akasofu have concluded that CO2-concentration has risen sharply since Kyoto came into effect (1990), while Syan Ichi has added that the observation that the global temperature has remained the same), becomes a religious one (I don’t mean to offend anyone who believes in a creator-god, a sky-god or whatever). Of course I’m all for freedom of religion, but also for seperation of church and state (as the constitution ought to ensure).
So, this forcing of people to join them in prayer at the altar of Gore, is utterly illegal.

They all squeal that CO2 is such a threat, yet they can’t be bothered to make any effort to allow people to reduce emmissions, so that would justify sending them to Scheveningen, the international criminal court, in order for them to stand trial for this deliberate attempt at destroying the planet.

Then again: upon entering office, the US president’l-elect has to swear to defend the constitution, “just a piece of paper”, according to GWB, the same guy who gave the world the Patriot Act which eroded some of the protections in the Bill of Rights. So what use is an oath to protect a constitution if the guy who swore to protect it, personally violates it? They’re just sounds, right, Georgie?