. . . in for a pounding.

Previously, I commented on how the global-warming industry hasn’t yet gotten its line straight about whether to (1) acknowledge that it might not be the most propitious moment to saddle the economy with their plans; or (2) panic at the prospect of “losing momentum” by waiting, while making the dubious argument that we’ll restore the economy by adopting the agenda of mandates, taxes on economical energy sources, and subsidies of uneconomical ones (energy sources that greens once defended as not being quite so wretchedly expensive and harmful as they might seem).

Here we see a slightly different twist on the implications for Big Carbon and Big Green of the recent financial meltdown: the staggering sums thrown out by government don’t make the notion of throwing further staggering sums at a different issue less likely, but instead condition the public to accept policy decisions with so many zeros as just something governments need to do right now.

Some climate campaigners see a bright side to the financial crisis. Somehow, the amount needed to fight climate change doesn’t seem as unrealistic as it once did after the astronomical amounts governments committed almost overnight to support banks.“A month ago people would still be shocked at that figure,” said Donald Pols, of the World Wildlife Fund for Nature, who calculated an annual $380 billion bill for climate change by 2030. “You have now proven that it’s possible” to raise huge resources in the face of a crisis.
Pols said the economic restructuring called for under the bailout agreements opened opportunities for more investment in renewable energy and “green” businesses.
The money injected into the banking system was meant to be invested, he said. Governments have broken the taboo against intervention in the markets and should have a voice in directing those investments.

Utterly fantastic. I think this takes the “hair of the dog” philosophy to its most perverse extreme yet.