40 1 min 14 yrs

As Mike Cunningham has already posted, three cheers for Northern Ireland’s Environment Minister Sammy Wilson for banning government propapanda on so-called global warming. This is most welcome since, as  a tax-payer, I object to having my money used in such brain-washing exercises. In fact it would be even better if ALL government advertising could be banned and the savings left in our salaries. Government spending on advertising has spiralled massively upwards under Labour as it uses TV to manipulate public opinion, which is none of its business. Three cheers for Sammy for axing this green alarmism, but we need to see much more of this insidious nonsense banned from our screens.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

40 thoughts on “BANNING PROPAGANDA..

  1. David:

    I do wish you and Mike would be less hysterical. As I said on his thread it’s not The Manchurian Candidate. The spot, to be seen on Slugger, features a father coaxing his kids to be less wasteful with electricity. Something wrong with that? Oh and the point is made that it’ll help the environment too. Something wrong with helping the environment?

  2. Yesterday I heard an example given of an oxymoron:

    "Sammy Wilson – Minister of the Environment"

  3. Irish Barry –

    Yes, we’ve all seen the advert – yet more millions of ours sucked up under threat of violence and chucked away.

    Exhorting the millions to switch off the bathroom light on the way out is not a legitimate function of government.

  4. –Exhorting the millions to switch off the bathroom light on the way out is not a legitimate function of government.–

    I disagree. I see astonishing waste of electricity where I work and at other places. It’s a common thing for lights to be left on all night or all weekend.

    I don’t know how much electricity usage ( and pollution ) could be saved in homes and places of business, but it is an awful lot.

    Propaganda helped cut the rate of cigarette smoking. It may be able to help with this too.

  5. Energy efficiency, environmental imporvement, preserving scare resources, reducing depencence on dodgy corners of the world, saving household costs are all legitimate aims and issues the government should be involved in.

    Unfortunately the Global Warming cultists do not give a damn about such things, they just want people to obey. Good for Sammy for calling their bluff.

  6. Irish Barry –

    While exhorting the millions to check their fire alarm every week is?

    Why do you ask as if I’ve suggested such a thing? Of course it isn’t a legitimate function of government.

    I can only assume that anyone who regards it so doesn’t get out of bed in the morning until a state functionary calls to authorise it.

  7. ‘Energy efficiency, environmental imporvement, preserving scare resources, reducing depencence on dodgy corners of the world, saving household costs are all legitimate aims and issues the government should be involved in.’

    ‘Unfortunately the Global Warming cultists do not give a damn about such things’

    Um … I assume you read?

  8. Phantom –

    But however much electricity or other energy is wasted, clearly it’s not costing so much that we are persuaded to do something about it on the whole.

    When it does cost too much, we’ll change our ways. This excludes government, which is more wasteful of any entity and which is unaffected by cost.

    If energy can be wasted by us in casual and unthinking ways, energy is cheap.

  9. Government is wasteful beyond words, including in the energy area.

    But all that is important is not measured in money cost. If the US, say were to cut electricity use by 10% – which I think would not be hard at all, with all the waste here – there would be a really significant drop in pollution from coal powered plants

    Not that there aren’t other issues to this, including coal mining jobs – but lower fuel use / lower pollution / less strain on the grid would by itself would be a huge plus. And it’s not really accounted for now.

  10. Pete:

    "Why do you ask as if I’ve suggested such a thing? Of course it isn’t a legitimate function of government."

    I didn’t suggest you suggested it, merely gave an example of previous govt spending on public-interest projects. And saving the earth’s resources IS in the public interest.

  11. ‘When it does cost too much, we’ll change our ways.’

    Ya, but that only works when something has been valued correctly. Waste has and is being dumped into the environment and we are not paying for it. Yet it still comes at a price, a longterm environmental price. If the free market will not place a value on the environment, then the Government must.

  12. US and other " conservatives " took a big wrong turn when they turned away from the environmental movement. Not speaking of the Great Global Warming hype – I speak of using less fuel, causing less pollution, and encouraging the policies and practices that can help make that happen.

    There’s just an astonishing array of benefits that can come from conserving and being cleaner ( you can use the term "green" if you like, I’ll pass. It’s been contaminated by the Gore cult. )

    Conservation has been trumped by libertarianism. But no one should have the liberty to cause significant and unnecessary pollution of the air and water, or to pluck the last codfish out of the sea.

  13. Can someone explain to me the argument against cutting energy consumption and waste? I would have thought that those were good things in themselves, regardless of whether or not you accept climate change.
    And even if you don’t accept anthropomorphic climate change, I have never really got my head around the argument that opponents make. Surely, just on the cautionary principle alone, reducing C02 emissions is a good thing.
    Do you not have to be 100% certain – absolutely no doubt whatsoever – that there is not a link between climate change and CO2 to argue that it is ok to continue as we are? If there is even a small a risk that, for among many, many other leading scientific groups say, The Royal Society, or the Met Office, are correct, then the cautionary principle would suggest that action is necessary.

    Or am I missing something?

  14. ‘Can someone explain to me the argument against cutting energy consumption and waste?’

    Jaz, your wait will be a long one, if you are asking for a rational explanation.

    Sammy Banning Propoganda??? It would be a very funny DUPer/Unionist way to handle things- if it wasn’t so bloomin tragic.

    So much for ATWs respect for free speech!

  15. Guba –

    Yes, externalities, let’s price them all and apportion the costs. In case you haven’t noticed, I’m the one around here who defends private property rights and personal responsibility, both requirements for costing externalities.

    But let’s have a reckoning of all externalities, including the opportunity cost of every one of the 750,000,000,000 Pounds that the state will confiscate from Britons this year alone, and that exludes borrowing.

    Let’s have that reckoning every year starting now. First up, we can tally up the opportunity cost – in jobs, savings, investment and production – of the state confiscating millions to produce adverts telling people to switch the light off when they leave a room.

  16. Phantom –

    You’ll find no conservative or libertarian defending the pollution of another’s property. Conservatives are the natural environmentalists.

    Look again, it the Leftists and statists and collectivists who dream the dream and launch plan after plan. There is no conservative tearing the arse out of East London for the Olympics, or threatening to destroy villages in the way of development at Heathrow and Stansted. Conservatives do not exhort the government to build over the South East of England with hundreds of thousands of new homes.

    No, we are the natural conservators.

  17. Jaz –

    Can someone explain to me the argument against cutting energy consumption and waste?

    Did someone make that argument?

    I’m waiting for the idiot to reveal himself who is so useless the government spends our millions on adverts reminding him to turn the light off when he leaves a room.

    He must be here, everyone thinks it’s a splendid idea.

  18. Pete

    How about the pollution from coal plants or even the air pollution from trash burning in buildings or elsewhere? All these things pollute others’ property too.

    Since we all agree that reducing energy consumption is a good idea, how do we propose to get there? Regulation, public campaigns, or something else? I don’t believe for a second that " the wisdom of the population " is going to do the job.

  19. Phantom –

    Why should we set out to achieve a good idea, even if we agree it’s a good idea?

    What use is a low carbon society (assuming that’s a good idea) if it’s achieved by the force, law, diktat and intimidation of the state?

    No, if we cannot live free in our own civil society I don’t give much of a damn about carbon this and carbon that.

    Look, you’ve just travelled through an airport owned by a corporate which is spending a fortune – supported wholly by the state – to evict hundreds of people from their private property, their own piece of English soil and destroy a village in order to build a runway and expand that airport.

    That same government is using every legal trick to undermine and defeat those private property owners and bring about victory for the corporate.

    And, when that same government confiscates my money to spend on adverts telling me to switch off a light when I leave a room, I’m supposed to take it seriously?

  20. And, when that same government confiscates my money to spend on adverts telling me to switch off a light when I leave a room, I’m supposed to take it seriously?

    Pete, your argument does not lack merit but it is completely, like you, ideological. So much so that your dismay trumps my individual right to watch the advert on local television.

    When it does cost too much, we’ll change our ways. This excludes government, which is more wasteful of any entity and which is unaffected by cost.

    Market ideology at its finest. Apparently its good to wait and to hell with the consequences and bad to be pro-active and and probably limit future costs. Pete is too ideological to see that he has merely replaced the state aparatchik wakeup call with the market. Just like the devout believer on the roof of his house, surrounded by flood waters, waiting for a sign from God.

  21. All societies are going to compel some things in the name of the greater good.

    If the greater good involves cleaning or prevention of the worsening of air or water or fisheries or whatever, then I’m for it. It’s a question of degree, and everyone should have their say. But I would vote for a -much- cleaner environment than we have now, and would be willing to pay for it.

    But often the only way to succeed in any of this is for their to be compulsion- otherwise, one incinerator or coal burning plant or sewage pipe will undo the good deeds of a million.

    I am very troubled by eminent domain – which certainly has been abused – as in the case of the NJ town that expelled a bunch of low-middle income long term residents in order to make room for luxury condos. Who would pay more in taxes.

    But when you speak of airports and railways, and pipelines and highways that come through or near inhabited areas — the government either has the ability to use eminent domain or those things simply won’t get built. And these are often necessary things that must be built.

    Eminent domain should be used very rarely, but a government must have that tool.

  22. DT –

    Watch whatever you like on your TV, I have no wish to fund your state propaganda.

    Phantom –

    That wasn’t quite my point. British state policy is in favour of expanding hugely Heathrow and Stansted airports, including new runways, resulting in tens of millions more passengers using these airports annually.

    I oppose these moves chiefly because free born Britons will be forced under threat of violence from their homes, which is what eminent domain/compulsory purchase powers amount to. Since I don’t place any environmental significance on the extra carbon from the infrastructure development and flights, I’m not concerned with that particular aspect.

    However, while state policy exists as it is regarding London’s airports, it cannot expect to be taken seriously when it forces me to pay for propaganda campaigns that tell me to switch off the light when I leave the room.

    And your government is in no position to do likewise with you while your President swans about in that absurdly overblown jumbo jet.

  23. Well, I don’t think it’s entirely inconsistent to want the economic and other good that comes from more air travel ( hopefully on very clean planes ) while doing other things to use less and pollute less.

    We’re going to pollute- the question is how much.

    And yes I too never saw the need for the supermassive 747 as a presidential transport. A bit much.

  24. Sam Wilson hasn’t suddenly seen the light of reason – he’s felt the heat of the recession.

  25. Since I don’t place any environmental significance on the extra carbon from the infrastructure development and flights, I’m not concerned with that particular aspect.
    So what makes you so absolutely certain, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but absolutely, 100% certain, that you are right and The Royal Society is wrong?
    As I said earlier, does not the cautionary principle suggest that on balance it would be a good idea to err on the side of caution?
    And I still don’t get the argument against this? Why not be cautious rather then simply ignoring the science – or even the possibility that the science might be right.
    Some one on an earlier post gave a rather fine quote from Cromwell, which I made a note of (although, alas, not who gave the quote): "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken".

  26. Jaz –

    I’m not ‘absolutely certain’, but have been on the sceptical side since I formed an opinion.

    There’s no point invocating the precautionary principle (or Cromwell), since they can be used just as honestly and effectively back at those who will abolish our remaining liberties and destroy our economies (yes, they are the effective outcomes) in the cause of a theory which is not at all supported in the numbers claimed, is unproven and weakening while the climate stubbornly refuses to comply with computer models.

  27. Pete:

    "a theory which is not at all supported in the numbers claimed, is unproven and weakening while the climate stubbornly refuses to comply with computer models."

    Didn’t Frank O’Dwyer demolish this argument on countless occasions?

  28. No.

    Cnut O’Dwyer puts up a decent fight, but so do alot of drowning people. There’s no point in fighting him in here since the flow is against the AGW theory.

  29. Pete:

    I think you’ll find the flow in scientific circles is for not against. Frank is tired telling you this but you seem to want him to repeat himself over and over. Perhaps he believes you’ll see the light in the end. I don’t.

  30. Mr Moore
    So lets look at both sides. If anthropomorphic climate change theory is wrong and the steps to reduce CO2 emissions are in error what is the downside to slashing emissions?
    You say it would abolish our remaining liberties and destroy our economies. I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. What do you mean? On what do you base this claim?
    Balance that against what if anthropomorphic change theory is right, what is the downside against failing to slash emissions?
    I would have thought that the relative downsides of both positions would put it firmly on the side of slashing emissions.
    I am not a scientist – but I have a huge amount of respect for The Royal Society. I can think of no more august a scientific body than that. So I listen to what they say.

  31. Watch whatever you like on your TV, I have no wish to fund your state propaganda.

    Do you hold War Recruitment propaganda to the same standard?

    And yes I too never saw the need for the supermassive 747 as a presidential transport. A bit much.

    Maybe it reduces the need for other support planes.

  32. DT

    There was a TV show about Air Force one recently that I have to check out- I’m sure that it will be rebroadcast.

    The one thing that I like about it is that it is a 747. I love that aircraft and wish that there were more of them used by the US airlines. No plane commands the sky like a 747.

  33. Jaz,

    "You say it would abolish our remaining liberties and destroy our economies. I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. What do you mean? On what do you base this claim?"

    No doubt the same voices in his head that tell him the ‘flow’ is against ‘AGW theory’.

    Back in the real world, stabilising at 450 ppm CO2 would cost about 3 trillion, according to the IEA. That is a global cost spread over 20 years.

    Stabilising at 550 ppm would save about 3 trillion dollars. Admittedly regarded by most as too high a level, but denialists would oppose even this.

    A good presentation about that is here. See slide 23 for the cost issue, but it’s worth looking at the whole thing. Also some other good presentations there from the same guy.

  34. Hey Frank, stop stealing my thunder!!! Stick to you own turf. 😛

    Only kidding. Watching this now. Very good indeed, Troll should watch the first 15 slides.

Comments are closed.