Enviro-Elites: The Real Freedom-Robbers
A full scale war has been waged upon the American way of life. The perpetrators are a class of citizens who believe that it is the end of the world, as we know it. Unless, of course, we abdicate our liberties and subject ourselves to their will. Who are these people? Why, the environmentalist crowd, naturally. Conservatives and moderates understand the obligation we have, as humans, to be responsible stewards of the planet. This obligation includes basic things like picking up after yourself, taking care of your personal property, and respecting public parks and lands. However, we do not advocate increasing regulations and costs of energy use as an effective or appropriate means of combating “global warming,” “global cooling,” or “climate change.” (Whichever trend happens to be fashionable at the moment).
The enviro-elites strongly disagree with our somewhat laissez-faire approach to environmentalism. In fact, it enrages them so much that they are perfectly willing to bypass the traditional, democratic decision-making process in order to enact their desired legislation. In the words of Thomas Friedman, supporter of all things eco-friendly, and columnist for the New York Times:
“There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today. One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power.”
Apparently in order to get up to par, we must emulate China. Yes, China. Although vastly improved from what it once was, this one-party autocracy is responsible for a reported 45 MILLION Chinese citizens who starved to death on its watch; a one-party autocracy that thought it should have ultimate power over citizens to do what it surely deemed to be “critically important” in order to move their country forward. In fact, leader Mao Zedong called his initiative, “The Great Leap Forward.” An important question to ask ourselves is: Who exactly gets to decide what qualifies as a “reasonably enlightened group of people?
The 111th Congress, with a current approval rating of 13% (an all time low), cannot be such an “enlightened group of people,” could it? They did pass the much desired cap-and-trade bill for the environmental lobbyists on June 26, 2009 in the US House of Representatives (by a slim margin of 219-212), though it is still up for debate in the Senate. This bill, officially named “The American Clean Energy and Security Act,” or “The Waxman-Markey Bill,” aims to reduce carbon emissions that allegedly cause global warming. Heavy regulations and taxes will be imposed upon any company that produces or uses energy. Such a broad scope encompasses all of business since everybody uses energy and electricity. In a properly functioning market, these costs are not absorbed by the producer alone. In order for the producer to remain financially viable he is forced to pass on most, if not all, of these costs to you, the consumer. The new, preferred source of energy would come from clean (yet incredibly unreliable and inefficient) sources such as wind or solar power. President Obama is on record saying things about how he would “bankrupt” the coal industry or that, “Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
Skyrocketing electricity prices and bankrupted industries are not the only items we would have to worry about. Let’s take a look at how the economy overall may be affected if a cap and trade bill were to become federal law. Many of the facts below were found in the book Power Grab by Christopher Horner, unless otherwise noted. I highly recommend a thorough reading of Power Grab, if you have the time.
- Based on a study by Dr. Robert Peltier, editor-in-chief of Power magazine, he deduced that an extremely optimistic estimate for replacing current energy demands with off-shore wind power would require 334,462 wind turbines or, “In other words, the entire east coast would have wind turbines…located every half mile and 93 turbines deep (over 30 miles) out to sea.”
- In a study by scientist Arthur Robinson, in Environment & Climate News, he noted that: To produce the equivalent of our energy needs using solar power it would cost at least $30 TRILLION. Solar panels would necessarily have to cover 70,000 square miles covering land the size of Maryland, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Washington D.C…..combined.
- The estimated cost per family for “cap and trade” related expenses is $1,700-$3,100 per year.
- Based upon findings in the UK, there has been a dramatic spike in wintertime deaths of the elderly, who can no longer afford to heat their homes due to a 700% increase in electrical prices there.
- In Spain (one of the enviro-elite’s idols), for every “green” job that was created, 2.2 jobs were lost in the private sector.
- Millions of people would lose their jobs under the proposed “Waxman-Markey,” cap and trade bill. See chart below for estimates.
Requiring companies to obtain permits in order to emit greenhouse gases will lead to the rise of “carbon oligarchs,” as described in the Editorial section of The Washington Times: “The bill is reminiscent of the voucher systems used by former communist states to “privatize” industries formerly owned by the state. The vouchers quickly accumulated in the hands of a few connected power brokers who became instant billionaires. Under cap-and-trade, we will soon see the rise of the carbon oligarchs. These people will make vast fortunes on this legislation by trading influence and rule-making that benefits them at the expense of the rest of us. These energy brokers and carbon-offset middlemen will produce nothing and make no contributions to society but will become rich based on political preference and other insider influence.” Just how much money could there be at stake in this scheme? Take a look below at the staggering numbers. (The Red State format does not show the entire chart- just click on it to see the full image and numbers)
Current percentages of US energy sources are: 49% coal, 19.4% nuclear, 21.5% natural gas, 6% dams, 0.5% wind/solar and 3.6% from other sources. The obvious problems with wind and solar energy are that they are entirely uncontrollable by humans. Relying on sun and wind for your energy needs is not economically feasible, so all of these turbines would also need “back-up” power supplies- aka the trusty, tried and true coal or nuclear sources. This, naturally, induces a dual investment upon both types of energy. Basically, relying on wind and solar for energy is both financially reckless and logically defunct. Fred Barnes, editor of The Weekly Standard, elaborates on this view by writing: “To think that wind and solar or other alternative fuels can fill the energy gap requires a belief in what Adriel Bettelheim of Congressional Quarterly has called the “Tinkerbell effect,” as in Peter Pan. It consists of believing something will happen just because you wish it would.”
Basically, relying on wind and solar for energy is both financially reckless and logically defunct.
Global warming has caused a worldwide hysteria the past decade. It also, coincidentally, has become a multi-billion dollar industry. It is remarkable to hear the lengths to which people will go these days, thinking that their actions can save the planet. Women in Europe and elsewhere have sterilized themselves because babies are not “eco-friendly.” In just one example, Toni Vernelli proudly proclaims, “Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35. “Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
One fact that never seems to surface among environmentalists is that the largest contributor of greenhouse gases is actually…water vapor. As in, natural moisture in the air, or clouds? Yep. In fact, water vapor accounts for a full 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. But, I suppose it is harder to demonize (or monetize) the clouds. Cars, and other such advancements of Western civilization, make easier, more profitable targets. For a closer look at some of the numbers and factors of greenhouse gases, check out this link.
But, I suppose it is harder to demonize (or monetize) the clouds. Cars, and other such advancements of Western civilization, make easier, more profitable targets.
Thanks to revelations brought about in the “Climategate” documents, we now have proof that a substantial amount of the evidence for global warming has been fabricated or doctored, with inconvenient information being blatantly omitted. A succinct, but telling, overview was discussed in the UK’s Telegraph. After a hacker got into the computer system of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center, over 1,000 emails and 72 documents were spread across the internet. In these emails, “scientists” talk openly about how their data was not turning out how they wanted it to. So, they altered it to fit their, and the enviro-elite’s, agenda. For example, one scientist wrote, “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” Hmmm, hide the decline? How can there be bonafide global warming if your evidence actually found a decline in temperature?
The American people are starting to wake up to the largest scientific scam known to date. They demand real answers, not fabricated evidence from so-called scientists or phony-baloney talking points from politicians. The new Congress must act swiftly to terminate any legislation attempting to regulate and tax carbon emissions. Also, the EPA must be kept in check and accountable- not permitted to fine and regulate without true oversight. Access to abundant, reasonably priced energy is one of the greatest sources of freedom and independence there is. Limiting access to energy by mandating scarcity, and increasing costs, will harm America immensely- and it must be stopped.