sounds like a wealth transfer scheme to me, nothing more
wealth goes from your pockets to lib wackos in green industries and thinktanks
either way, politicos benefit from donations gleaned from the green amongst us because they are seen as acting for the common good
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. - H. L. Mencken
Al Gore's latest: global warming will thaw out The Blob, which was dropped in the Arctic after being frozen by characters portrayed by Steve McQueen and others.
Also, I heard that Gore wants to build fifty-story refrigerators that will be operated with their doors open to cool the environment.
http://www.stentorian.com/kyoto/ for my page on the Kyoto Treaty. ("Cali-Fornicating our Nation's Economy" and other observations on Kyoto)
On a final note to Democrats: REAL DEMOCRATS DON'T DESTROY WORKING PEOPLE'S JOBS, which is exactly what greenhouse gas regulations will do if we are irresponsible enough to enact them. (On the other hand, economically-driven energy efficiency improvements will have the incidental effect of reducing the amount of greenhouse gases produced per kilowatt-hour generated. Make automotive fuel economy a selling point instead of a mandate, and let the free market do its thing.)
Here's my take on the whole issue of politics and crises; politics is above all else, an appeal to emotion and a call to action.
To persuade people to act it is necessary to establish a focus and a goal and a crisis serves this purpose in both respects.
Every year of my life since the end of the second world war I have become more aware of a growing tendency on the part of media and the politicians to operate in a synergistic fashion whereby both groups gain in notoriety through the promotion of one certain future catastrophe or another that may be prevented if only the people change their behavior to reduce the threat by their daily actions or through their representatives.
I now believe that that may be the unintended consequence of republicanism as opposed to the simpler but more direct result of pure democracy where transfers of wealth and power go through regular cycles of shift from the progressive to the conservative demands of the populace depending on which faction is in control at the time.
We had to be sold on going to war and it took outside influence to accomplish that up until WWII; after the atomic bomb revealed the immense power and potential for destruction that the media showered our senses with, it became easier to mobilize a resistance to scientific tinkering for fear of a doomsday effect.
Now, since the environmental movement began our greatest threats are those which can be made to look more universal, creating a doomsday where the scientists' role is changed to that of a kindly savior protecting us against our childish excesses and we dare not question their wisdom for, after all, it was we who reined in their dangerous ways.
In my opinion, no matter what we do about AGW it won't be enough and even if it goes away on its own or fades from attention a replacement will soon follow to fill the void.
|
Those of us older than 35, who were PAYING ATTENTION at the time, remember all the articles in the news mags, about how the World Socialist Movement would move to take over environmentalism after the Fall of the Soviet Union...
They would "Create" a crisis(Global Warming), and then use it as the excuse to push for first, Socialist governments, and then eventually one world-wide Socialist Soviet, under the control of the Communist Party...
I REALLY wish I could find one of those old articles, but I haven't got a Nexis account!
It's just a wealth redistribution scheme. Think of the logic of "carbon tax". Pay some 3rd world country not to build a coal power plant. So what does the 3rd world do with that money? Buy goods or services. Where do those goods have to be produced since that country doesn't have the means? Somewhere like the U.S. which has to produce more pollution. Then it has to be shipped back to that country. No net savings in carbon. In fact, because of shipping , it will increase the carbon put into the air. It's just a scheme to make liberals feel good.