Like a lot of folks, my wife and I like to travel. For one thing, our family is all in the lower 48, meaning air travel is involved to see any of them; also, we like going to see new places and trying new things. We love Japan, for instance, and still have a list of places in the Land of the Rising Sun we want to visit. There are a few other places we'd like to see as well while we're still able to travel easily. We enjoy going places, even after I spent most of my 30-odd-year career as a consultant literally globe-hopping.
We know plenty of other people who enjoy travel as well. Lots of people like seeing new places and lots of people have to travel to see family and friends.
This is why the very idea, put forth by climate alarmists, of forcing people to ration their travel doesn't sit well.
The summer of 2023 was very significant for the travel industry. By the end of July, international tourist arrivals globally reached 84% of pre-pandemic levels. In some European countries, such as France, Denmark and Ireland, tourism demand even surpassed its pre-pandemic level.
This may be great news economically, but there’s concern that a return to the status quo is already showing dire environmental and social consequences.
The summer saw record-breaking heatwaves across many parts of the world. People were forced to flee wildfires in Greece and Hawaii, and extreme weather warnings were issued in many popular holiday destinations like Portugal, Spain and Turkey. Experts attributed these extreme conditions to climate change.
Some experts, maybe; others, not so much.
But here's where the hand-wringing takes a totalitarian turn:
The idea of a carbon passport centers on each traveler being assigned a yearly carbon allowance that they cannot exceed. These allowances can then “ration” travel.
This concept may seem extreme. But the idea of personal carbon allowances is not new. A similar concept (called “personal carbon trading”) was discussed by UK Parliament in 2008, before being shut down because of to its perceived complexity and the possibility of public resistance.
Hell yes, it's extreme! It's extreme beyond the bounds of sanity. There is a proper response to this sort of proposal, and it ends with the phrase "...and the horse you rode in on," but I won't repeat the entire thing here. Suffice it to say that this is not only a "Not only no, but hell no" proposition.
Now, the UK Parliament is mentioned, but while the UK is welcome to mind its own climate business, we have some advantages here in the U.S., primarily the United States Constitution, which, among other things, safeguards our right to interstate travel. The 14th Amendment, in Section 1, states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This was established as including the right to travel between the several states, and in 1870, the Supreme Court decided in Ward v. Maryland that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment applied to interstate travel:
...it will be sufficient to say that the clause plainly and unmistakably secures and protects the right of a citizen of one State to pass into any other State of the Union for the purpose of engaging in lawful commerce, trade, or business without molestation.
America, then, can be spared any such nonsense.
That's not to say that international travel couldn't be affected by such a stupid and authoritarian idea. And what about business travelers, as I was for many years, whose livelihood depends on frequent travel, often on short notice? I remember one such instance when an industry buddy of mine who needed my help called me on a Thursday with a proposal; I made a bid, the client accepted, and on Monday we embarked on an epic journey from Denver to Chicago to Frankfurt to Johannesburg, South Africa. Would a carbon passport scheme disallow this sort of thing? It seems likely that a trip like that would blow one's allotment in one go.
Of course, these regulations, even were they to be put in place, won't apply to the political elites and their hangers-on; these things never do. And isn't it amazing how leftists bemoan the right as "authoritarian" when real authoritarian notions like this always seem to arise from the left?
The moral of the story is simple: Whenever some leftist with an agenda says something that begins with "It's time to limit how much we," then hang on to your wallet and your liberty, because they are coming after one, the other, or both.
FLASHBACK! Read more from RedState on climate panic and related issues at these links:
- Climate Reporter Attempts to Defend Dubai Enviro-Summit and Instead Exposes the Problems
- Climate Summit Prez: 'No Science' in Rush to Phase Out Fossil Fuels, Could Be Forced 'Back Into Caves'
- House Votes to Kneecap Biden's EV Mandate, Biden Threatens Veto
- Even Churches Are Now Being Targeted: Climate Crazies Deface St. Mark's Basilica in Venice
- Al Gore Goes Off the Rails About Mental Illness and Climate Change, Then It Gets Worse
