“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Over the last 40 years, we have been bombarded with news about a variety of environmental disasters that await us. The first to be promulgated by the press was over population. This perceived threat to mankind was so grave that some governments started legislating and implementing polices to stem the impending doom.
The over population bomb, promoted by Paul Ehrlrich, proposed solutions to make the planet’s resources last longer lest we end up with global famine. His ideas were not only not dismissed outright, they actually found a home in think tanks and even within some governmental agencies. Some of Ehrlich’s ideas included taxes on diapers and children, covert sterilization of the public through their drinking water, and spiking foreign food aid with anti-fertility drugs.
Ehrlich’s theories were taken seriously by many. China went so far as to implement a one child policy in the late 1970’s which resulted, by some estimates, in China aborting millions of infants. One of the main consequences of the policy was that it left China with a subsequent preponderance of men. Social scientists in China say the upcoming census results could reveal a gender ratio of 122 boys born for every 100 girls. Under natural conditions, there are typically 105-106 boys for every 100 girls.”
To better understand that number in 2010, the Economist ran a cover story highlighting the fact that over 100 million baby girls are “missing” – dead through sex-selective abortion, infanticide and general neglect. Ehrlrich’s forecast, as well as China’s implementation of such fears in the form of law, caused massive devastation in China. The reality is that there are financial, not to mention spiritual, consequences for killing millions of babies. What does it say about a nation that would commit such violence against its most helpless members of society?
Or, take the latest scare issued from the environmental movement. We have been warned incessantly about the threats of Global Cooling, followed by Global Warming and, now finally, the main stream media has settled on “Climate Change” (I guess that covers their bases on both heating an cooling!) as the greatest threat to mankind. It seems that the environmental movement is continually looking for a new bogey man to scare the public; hence the ever changing threats to mankind.
I think what has disturbed me most about the latest environmental debate are the arguments made by the Climate Change proponents:
- All the scientists now agree we have a problem with “Climate Change”
- All the data is in on “Climate Change” and we have to act now!
These types of statements lead me to ask: “Why is there such a rush to cut off the debate?”
History is replete with theories that we once believed true that were not so. For eons, humans believed the world was flat until the 1500’s, and it was accepted fact that the earth was the center of the universe… prior to Copernicus dispelling that myth.
Having the benefit of hindsight and, of course, history, it seems ridiculous that anyone could have believed the world to be flat or the earth the center of the universe, but we did. If it hadn’t been the work of scientists who continued to question and test our assumptions where would humanity be? Just imagine if the leading political powers back then had only funded scientists who believed in the flat earth doctrine! It seems ridiculous right? But isn’t that what’s happening today? Only proponents of Climate Change are deemed credible and legitimate recipients of funding. But, what if in 20 or 30 years we look back and it turns out Climate Change was an expertly marketed false belief…not a fact? Where are we then having closed off legitimate debate?
I would argue the essence of science itself is a series of questioning and testing of hypotheses that are meant to continue to explore and unlock the mysteries of our world. It seems the whole notion of cutting off the debate and settling “Climate Change” is political in nature not based in science.
Every human being benefits from a healthier and more robust planet. Our food, medicine and roles of stewardship of the earth is a responsibility upon each of us. No one I’ve ever met likes smog or pollution. So with statements like “All the science is in and its settled” there must be a hidden agenda because humanity can only benefit from continued intelligent dialogue, some of which raises legitimate questions as yet unanswered.
One of the main beneficiaries of the global change movement, if implemented in full, would be Wall Street and the United Nations. The U.N would be the governing body and arbitrators of carbon emissions, while Wall Street would be the marketplace in which these credits would trade. Climate change advocates believe that carbon emissions are one of the biggest contributors to global warming. The U.N. would set quotas on the amount of carbon emission that companies could produce. In addition, the U.N. would also determine which companies, and their projects, were eligible for carbon credits.
To understand how this works in practice look at the following transaction: Costco produces 10 million in carbon emissions that have to be offset. They would have to buy 10 million in carbon credits from a carbon credit producer.( for example, a tree farm would be a carbon credit producer). Enter Wall Street. Financial Institutions and traders would set up the exchanges where sellers of carbon credits would interface with carbon credit producers. Wall Street would be extremely happy because they would make money on both sides of such trades.
Given the declining revenues on Wall Street, now more than ever, they need a new product through which to fleece the unsuspecting public. The United Nations (and governing bodies all over the world) would be happy as they would have more power. The U.N would be able to dole out carbon credit projects to their friends and family, thereby enriching themselves. Finally, the violators of excess carbon production could be shaken down and fleeced by the political class and other regulatory bodies. Everyone prospers…well, not everyone.
Everyone but the general population.
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, what we learned is that the wealthiest and most powerful institutions were saved by the government at the expense of the taxpayer and the middle class. The Climate Change Movement has the same formula in place; fleece the middle class in order for money to flow to a select few and into the most powerful institutions in the world.
Prior to the real estate crisis of 2008, the government sold home ownership as the ultimate form of wealth and we know where that got us. In 2016, they and the financial markets are selling a new product: Climate Change.
We all need to help save the planet from carbon emissions and…oh yes… the middle class can pick up the tab one more time.