|
So what is the price for feeling good about yourself? Is the destruction of jobs, lives, society and even human life worth the price, to affect the arrogance of moral superiority? Is irrational cult worship and filling the empty spiritual void within by submission to mother earth worth the destruction of man and civilisation? What price then for the immorality of the mother earth cult?
Little minds can easily dream up 'targets', 'emission credits' and 'quotas'. These meaningless regulations occupy those who don't live in reality. Co2 has nothing to do with climate. Climate is never stable. There is good evidence that the earth is cooling, not warming. There is very strong evidence of a coming cooling age in weather patterns. Such facts and science do not interest those who want to socially engineer the world.
The unbearable costs of 'doing something' to supposedly help out mother earth are staggering. Trillions of economic output would be lost; literally millions of jobs; and those in the poorer countries would be sentenced to death and eternal poverty, if the narrow eco-fascist minds are able to force through dramatic constraints on energy usage and industrial output. Destroying human life might not matter to the eco-cult; but it should weigh very heavily in the minds of the sane, moral and rational.
Stephen Hadley of the American Enterprise Institute [pre-emptive scream; fascist! capitalist!]wrote a great piece on the absurdity of Kyoto-style regulations. Reducing so-called 'greenhouse' emissions [note to the mentally challenged of the eco-cult, the earth's climate has nothing in common with the functioning of a greenhouse]; would wipe out US industry. How this would help mother earth, the poor, or the middle class is known only to the eco-technocrats and L. Ron Gore.
As Hadley outlines:
'Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion)...... household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.
You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs......The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all....
Most environmentalists remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.
....To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we'd still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.'
Kyoto and other regulatory frameworks are demanding a 50-80% reduction in emissions. This is obviously impossible. Economic growth and people's prosperity depends on energy usage. Oil is cheap, available and should be used. Nuclear power which is vital for electricity supply which itself constitutes 70% of our energy needs, is subject to obscene regulations and restrictions. If you want a cleaner planet, let us use reasonably clean oil [it is much cleaner than ethanol or pouring tomato juice into your car] and nuclear power. How can you possibly demand a huge, unrealistic reduction in energy usage and 'emissions' and not expect job loss, poverty and a complete retardation of economic forces as well? How does destroying your modern world comport with concern for the average person or the poor?
Politicians and their eco-fascist friends should be held accountable. They should be made to give detailed plans of their proposals and the costs of their ideas. Central to this transparency must be a reckoning of job loss; poverty escalation and lowered incomes and higher taxes. It is ridiculous to hear these busy little minds intone about 'targets', 'caps', and 'reductions' without a full airing of all the consequences. Are you ready to lower your energy usage by 80%; to freeze in the winter, to not have a fridge or any appliances, to probably lose your job, face higher taxes and to drive around [if you can afford it] in a scooter? Let's put that that option to a democratic vote and see how many people opt for that lifestyle.
The eco-fascists trade in fear and hysteria. There is no scientific basis to their claims. Nor is there any societal welfare to be gained by implementing their sick, twisted plans. What they covet is power, the ability to control energy sources, and the potential to engineer all behavior to their whims. The means they will use to enforce this Orwellian world include propaganda, force and governmental power. It is a program that must be rejected.
Unless you think the good old days existed pre-1750.
|
