Tuesday, May 03, 2016 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

New EU carbon permits: €250,000 per emitted migrant

Many European Union apparatchiks belong among the most unhinged climate alarmists in the world.

So the European Union has run the world's largest Ponzi scheme of carbon indulgences, officially "carbon permits", that you have to pay if you emit a ton of CO2 above certain arbitrary bureaucratic quota. To be allowed to emit another ton of this gas that has been essential for life in recent billions of years, you need to buy these indulgences from the "market" which is a completely bogus market because the price is primarily dictated by the bureaucrats' decisions to keep or change the quotas.

Now, the pro-Islamization European Union apparatchiks (which are usually the very same people) had a wonderful idea:

EU Refugee Crisis: Brussels To Propose Charging Over $289,000 From Countries Refusing Asylum
The idea is to use the carbon permits for the migrants as well. There will be quota and whenever a country wants to emit (i.e. reject) a migrant that belongs to the country according to the quota, it must pay for the carbon permits to emit him (or, much less likely, her). We will be forced to pay – just like we're no longer allowed to freely exhale or emit CO2, we're no longer allowed to freely reject asylum seekers.

The European Union fascists don't have a problem with the termination of the sovereignty of the member states; and with the treatment of the people as pork or another commodity – or, even more precisely, as carbon emissions. So one emitted migrant is worth €250,000. It's great to finally learn what these people cost according to the EU leaders.

On one hand, I am disgusted by these would-be fascist "representatives" of Europe who look at people in the same way as they look at a colorless gas above a chimney. On the other hand, it's probably right to quantify all these problems. Such numbers may allow us to think more rationally about these issues.

The Central European countries will hopefully be among those who will try to block any decisions about the migrant quotas, especially the permanent quotas that have already been proposed by quite some powerful politicians. But if we fail, we must learn with the fact that the European Union offices are a powerful political force we must take into account.

If these quotas+permits are approved, we will be led to answer two basic questions:
  • Do we want to keep these migrants or is it better to pay the fine?
  • Do we want to stay in the European Union?
Now, the numbers make it much easier to think rationally. I think that you don't doubt that I am thinking in terms of some cost-and-benefit analysis.

To emit or not to emit?

First, we will have to pay €250,000 for a migrant. That's slightly smaller than the total earnings of an average Czech citizen per lifetime. So the European Union indeed indicates that it agrees that a Muslim World migrant is basically equivalent to a parasite who has to be fed and doesn't do anything useful. Is that accurate? What are the actual losses caused by the duty to take care of a migrant?

I am sure that Czechia would be able to guarantee a decent enough life to a migrant for less than €250,000. Some of them (a small minority, I guess) would do useful work. But all of them would need to increase the spending for translators, policemen, and other occupations. I think that the sum €250,000 per migrant is ultimately a very sensible estimate of net losses from a single migrant.

However, with a migrant, one also admits the whole tree of his descendants, and at least several generations will be "mostly a liability" for the country. We know very well that the sons of the migrants – the first generation that was already born in Western Europe – seem to be very bad when it comes to work and integration etc., much worse than their parents who came to Western Europe.

So it may be reasonable to estimate that with one accepted migrant, a country may have to pay for 5 people. (And I am generously neglecting the risk that the whole country will be Islamized in the future, a damage we could count as an infinite, ultimate sacrifice.) This coefficient reduces the fine to €50,000 per migrant (because 4 descendants will be caused by him).

At that moment, I think it's better to pay the €250,000 reverse ransom to the apparatchiks in Brussels. (The normal ransom is paid to a criminal to release your beloved one; the reverse ransom is paid to a criminal not to release an unloved one.) I tend to guess that this would be the preferred choice of most Czech citizens, too. (But that's only if we were "really forced to choose". According to a poll at a left-wing server, 95% of the readers don't agree with our paying of the fine and the commenters are heavily upset. I am obviously approaching it vastly more calmly than almost everyone else.) The expenses and hidden expenses and risks are too high and potentially insanely high while €250,000 is at least finite.

Needless to say, even if we decided to accept the migrants under the pressure, we should remember that they represent an extra expense of approximately €250,000 per person.


Should we stay in the EU under these circumstances? The quotas that have been "basically approved" by someone in Brussels – I don't follow every detailed event but I follow the major developments – include some 2,700 Muslims who have been "assigned" to Czechia. It's not hard to multiply €250,000 times 2,700 and obtain €0.675 billion.

OK, we may be forced to pay the fine of €0.675 billion for the refusal to admit the migrants. Is it a sufficient extra expense to get angry and leave the EU? (The approval of the EU is around 25 percent in Czechia right now. And the Czech Parliament just agreed to meet over a proposed referendum on Czechzit.) Well, I don't think so. The latest numbers from 2015 indicate that Czechia was a net recipient with the annual net inflows from the EU budgets higher than ever before, €6 billion per year 2015.

So I think that the quotas have to increase by another order of magnitude and only then our net inflows (the gifts that the other EU nations are sending us through Brussels, not necessarily willingly) match the planned "fine for refusing the migrants". So only when it becomes clear that the EU wants to send 25,000 migrants to Czechia, it becomes clear that – neglecting some additional relationships with the EU that are probably neutral in average – we should leave the EU.

If that never happens, I think it's sensible to pay €0.675 of the migrant carbon fine, smile, and behave as if everything were just alright. However, if something insane were approved such as the permanent or automatic quota, it must be seen that such a policy would lead to basically infinite expenses (€250,000 times infinity) and we should better leave the EU as soon as possible.

The Euro-Soviet bureaucrats are cynical monsters but we just mustn't lose our humanity as well as rationality.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit

snail feedback (0) :