mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
EU Climate Commish: We're Right, Even If Science Is Wrong


Connie Hedegaard doesn’t need science to tell her that Europe’s green policy is on the right track. She’s the EU’s Climate Commissioner, and she has discarded science, the oft-donned mantle of green policymakers around the world. In an interview with the Telegraph, she said, “Let’s say that science, some decades from now, said ‘we were wrong, it was not about climate’, would it not in any case have been good to do many of things you have to do in order to combat climate change?”

Global warming has plateaued recently, a phenomenon that continues to baffle climate scientists. Perhaps Hedegaard is merely acknowledging our limited understanding of our climate here, but she seems to be discarding reason as well as science. How else can you explain her curious conviction that Europe’s skyrocketing electricity prices are nothing to worry about?

[Hedegaard] rejected public complaints over increases in electricity prices to subsidise renewable energies, such as wind farms, as unrealistic because, she said, increased competition over diminishing energy resources such as oil and gas will lead to higher bills….

“I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.”

We’ve long known that greens make stupid policy decisions, but we can’t recall seeing the twisted logic behind them being displayed so starkly. Hedegaard might not see price as a relevant factor in choosing energy sources, but you can bet that Europe’s households and industry do.

[Earth image courtesy of NASA]

Features Icon
show comments
  • crocodilechuck
    • vepxistqaosani

      The problem with climate science is that it has to work with incommensurate data; much work has gone into reconstructing all the data — recent temperature readings, tree rings, ice cores, etc. — into something that can be used to create a chart like the one you link to.

      Unfortunately, such machinations beg the question by assuming that which the climatologists wish to prove. This is why Michael Mann’s catchphrase “hide the decline” became so notorious.

    • ljgude

      Well I see the charts showing the recdent decrease in warming and charts like this that show an uber hockey stick…..well I’m skeptical of all of them. And for a simple reason – they reek of agenda driven science.

  • Leon0112

    Skyrocketing energy and electricity prices are bad for humanity. Cheap energy has led economic development throughout the world.

    • Corlyss

      Exactly! That’s why the greens hate it. It leads to more people and more prosperity, things that undermine their ability to grab control of government policy.

  • Ramone Love

    Dear WRM,
    Do you, a scholar I consider quite brilliant and insightful, fail to see what the Green movement is really about, what it has become over the last 20 years or so? The loudest voices of the Greens consider mankind itself the problem. They are against ALL progress if it benefits mankind. They are today’s eugenicists and Luddites rolled into one. Science only has value to them when it conforms to their views. Once it diverges then it is no longer valid in their eyes. They have all the fervor of religious acolytes and their God is Gaia. Everything they do is designed to stop growth, stop advancement of the human condition. I speak not of genuine environmentalists who care if some idiot is dumping chemicals into rivers. They are not the ones with the money and the political heft. It is the major players, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, even today’s EPA. The movement long ago accomplished its very worthy goals, for the most part, of clean air and water in the Western industrialized nations. That movement no longer exists. It has been co-opted and replaced by something very different and far more sinister. I feel as though you are unable or do not wish to see them for what they really are.

  • Boritz

    Throw science and reason out and follow your instincts. How Nietzschean. Can two play at this game?

  • bigfire

    It’s not science. It’s never been science. It’s a religious and political experience, for which science is just a fig leaf.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    “I think we have to realise that in the world of the 21st century for us to have the cheapest possible energy is not the answer.”

    Our civilization is built on energy, it is energy that has replaced muscle power, even brain power. So as energy prices increase, we literally get less civilization, and conversely as energy prices decrease our civilization thrives. To an environmentalist like Connie Hedegaard, that wants an end to our civilization, and for mankind to go back into the dark brutal existence of living in caves, so that their God Gaia can be pure and pristine, unmarred by unclean human foot prints, the quote above makes perfect sense. Environmentalists frequently talk about cuts in the human population of 90% or more, they want 7 billion innocent men, women, and children, DEAD. Many of us fear the religious zealot Muslim terrorists who want to murder thousands of innocents, but I think they are small potatoes to the Earth worshiping environmentalist zealots that are looking for a way to murder all or most of the Human Race.
    If the security apparatus doesn’t want to get blindsided again like they were on 9/11, they should be hunting for an environmentalist biolab, weaponizing the most lethal diseases to further their goal of exterminating the human race. (Did they ever discover where that weaponized anthrax came from? NO!)

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service