Assuming global climate change to be a legitimate problem (and I hope the previous three articles has shown the opposite), perhaps by looking at the proposed solutions from the pro-climate change crowd we can see the real agenda behind their efforts. In the end, it will inevitably be revealed that the environmental movement has closely aligned itself with the anti-capitalist movement since this is really the only way to achieve their goals. In the end, they would have to also forego the very amenities that everyone takes for granted although they are justified since they are fighting for the common good and only they have interest in the common good. It is us dirty, conservative, pollution-loving capitalists responsible for these dire circumstances.
To illustrate their hypocrisy, there are two words: nuclear energy. How come the very same people at the forefront of the global climate change hoopla also happen to be against nuclear energy? After all, nuclear energy emits exactly zero greenhouse gases. Instead, they remind us of the inherent dangers of nuclear energy based on three well-publicized nuclear plant accidents since the dawn of nuclear power not so long ago. Each accident, in turn, has an equally valid explanation and lesson. For example, one should not build a nuclear plant in an area subject to earthquakes and/or tidal waves. One should not use inferior designs and if you do, make sure your manpower is adequately trained (Chernobyl). As the United States has illustrated, with superior design and qualified manpower, any nuclear accident can be mitigated to the point of a great news story, but no horrors or three-eyed babies (Three Mile Island). Unfortunately, this country has such an aversion to nuclear power that today the only forge to produce a nuclear reactor is located in Japan.
We would inevitably hear about nuclear waste and its dangerous transportation ignorant of the fact that vast amounts of nuclear waste are transported daily around the world with a perfect accident record. France recycles nuclear waste into reusable rods. Meanwhile, America has abrogated our spot atop the nuclear power pyramid. If France can do it, there is no reason we can’t other than misinformation and politically obstinate drum beaters.
Instead, we are subjected to ridiculous ideas like cap-and-trade schemes which cloak socialist goals in the language of free market capitalism, an action that would have George Orwell’s head spinning. This was a huge failure in Europe when they attempted it. Not only was it rife with fraud (see: George Soros), but European carbon emissions actually increased. Even the most socialist of European countries came to reject this nonsense.
The Left advises us to forego fossil fuels. And go with what exactly? Solar powered vehicles? Electric vehicles? Excuse me if I have this chain of events wrong, but don’t electric cars have to be charged first? If so, don’t they have to plug into some electrical source? If so, doesn’t that electricity come from somewhere…like a generating plant? Or are they to be recharged from the solar panels on one’s home? Also, there is political opposition to wind and solar power. Want to build a wind farm off Nantucket? Can’t do that because some member of the Kennedy clan would have their ocean view obstructed. Want to build a solar plant in the Mojave Desert (seems like a great place for one)? Can’t do that either because of a desert tortoise. But I can almost guarantee that if there was some financial gain for any politician, we would see these things built, ocean views and desert tortoises be damned (see: [mc_name name=’Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)’ chamber=’senate’ mcid=’R000146′ ]).
The Left advises us to upgrade our infrastructure. I have no problem with this provided they actually use money to upgrade infrastructure at the lowest possible cost. That means no onerous environmental impact studies. That means no affirmative action in the awarding of contracts. That means no prevailing union wages on government contracts. That means using dedicated trusts for their intended needs.
The Left advises us to move closer to work. Sounds great in theory, but unrealistic in practice. Most jobs exist in cities and urban areas- the very places people are moving away from. Instead, the Left would like us to cluster in cities which we all know tend to be more liberal and vote more Democratic than the suburbs and rural areas. They also advise us that telecommuting can seriously cut down on travel and greenhouse gases, but don’t computers run on electricity also?
The Left advises us that we should consume less. This means less driving, foregoing an automobile altogether, or even buying a reusable grocery sack (which tends to hold more bacteria than a disposable plastic or paper bag). But if you must consume, they argue, consume something “green” like a hybrid car. As many states are finding out, increased hybrid car use means less gas purchased which means lower gas tax revenues which means lack of funding for infrastructures upgrades. Surprisingly, some states are considering surcharges on hybrid vehicles to make up for lost revenue. This satisfies a basic Leftist reality: For every policy proposal, there is an equal and opposite and worse unintended consequence.
The Left advises us to be more efficient. That is, do more with less because everyone knows that the Western world is a profligate waster of energy, according to Scientific American. Yep- turning the lights off after yourself will certainly solve the world’s problems. If we can find a way to keep cattle from passing gas, we can decrease carbon dioxide emissions immensely also.
The Left advises us to go vegetarian. They state that meat-eating Americans produce 1.5 tons more greenhouse gases than non-meat eaters. This figure comes from the amount of carbon dioxide created making fertilizers and transporting vegetables and meat to market. In other words, if we are to forego meat, make sure it is not only a vegetarian diet, but an organic vegetarian diet. They leave out the fact that a great proportion of our domestic corn crop is diverted to another of their pet projects- ethanol.
The Left advises us to stop cutting down trees. I have no problem with wooded areas; in fact, I find them desirable places. But, the world needs wood. Recycling solves only part of that problem. Most harvesting companies replant trees out of economic necessity; something they discovered long before the government mandated it.
The Left advises us to have only one child. Unless you are China, I am unsure how the Left hopes to accomplish this. But, wouldn’t this be eliminating choice on whether to have children or not? Regardless, they are against the very technologies that would allow us to feed and house an increased population. Petrochemical fertilizers have increased farm yields incredibly since their introduction yet the Left is against them.
In essence, the Left encourages us to return to a primitive lifestyle more like pre-Colombian days rather than the future. And for what? A failed or flawed climate model? The real solution lies not in this direction, but in technology. Yet the environmental Left is opposed to technology. If we truly wanted to embark on a “green energy” binge, we would (1) build more nuclear plants, (2) invest in nuclear recycling, and (3) export clean energy technology to foreign polluters. In this way, we could decrease greenhouse gas production, create high-paying long-term jobs, and decrease our foreign trade deficit. Sound too good to be true? It is both true and good which brings me to another reality of the Left: they would never accept truth or good.