*******Communists Hide Behind Radical Environmentalism and the Greens
By Dr. Laurie Roth
March 5, 2010
The environmentalists (with their various pet names) pretend to have the last supply of empathy, caring and best intentions. The ever evolving Green and environmental ‘shape shifter’ rushes in to save the planet from ruin. We can’t forget the endless and desperate speeches by Al Gore about the horror of Global warming and its destruction of the planet. We even saw how he was honored with the Nobel peace prize…..right along with other notable brilliant ones, Yasser Arafat, the thief and anti Semitic terror in Chief of Palestine and Barack Obama, the messiah of hope and change.Global warming fraud
We have all seen this last year the unraveling of data and real science regarding global warming. The real scientific community and now media world has hailed it a complete failure and fraud. I would even ad ‘criminal’ since the self appointed and honored messiahs of global warming and environmentalism were most happy to ignore the truth, real science and reality, taxing us and the world (stealing) to solve this mythological problem. They were all most happy to control our money, what we eat, buy, grow, develop and herd just to solve the mythological crises. Gee, it kind of makes you wonder if just controlling our lives, money and choices was what they wanted all along.
Close relative, The Greens
The Green movement, a close relative of control and horror boldly asserts to save the planet they must have ‘sustainability’ (get used to less water, less food, less everything, defined as the Greens define it…) They hide behind the usual, invented enemies such as urbanization, industrialization and our development because, evil achievers that we are ruin our air, contaminate our water and food. We just hate people and have no regard for anyone.
I have interviewed a courageous expert in this area on my national radio show many times, Holly Swanson who wrote the leading book on this fraudulent and dangerous push, ‘Set up and Sold Out.’ In her in depth tracking of the Greens real agenda, she points out classic communism peppered through our schools, culture and politics. The Greens even try to rewrite our Religions and faith to reflect the real worship priorities…..that is, worshiping nature, not the living God.The Green movement and view of a green revolution is total control over people, what we eat, drink, where we go, what we grow, what we spend and what we speak and believe. People are in the way…..we are numbers and widgets to be discarded or worse if we don’t…..’submit’ and obey.
So far as we probe and dig through the global warming, environmental and Greens sewage we see nothing but a Saul Alinsky type vehicle on an international scale, to control every thing in people’s lives, all in the name of saving animals, the dying environment and poor people in developing countries. In truth, this well funded and controlled push is nothing but faced lifted communism and the same old Nazi party…wanting genocide.
It isn’t just Al Gore, Obama and other environmental gurus….It was used by Adolph Hitler with the Nazi party.
Hitler used to talk and write about the Jews and their alleged cruelty to animals. He also built a case that the Jews felt they were above the law and nature and were addicted to capitalism and trying to pacify and control nature. In Nazi thinking, the Jew was simply a threatening species totally messing up nature, their surroundings and animals. They were the enemy of Social Darwinian evolutionary laws, thus the developing, national emergency to stop the unnatural and dreaded Jews. Hitler was a poster child for ‘Rules for Radicals’ 101. We all know the rest of the story, except Amedinajad. You know, that silly guy who says the Holocaust never happened and that Obama thinks has the right to go nuclear.
The Nazi party was ‘green.’ They were green and preaching all its tentacles of control and blame before they murdered massive millions of men, women and children. Nazi leaders and many masses in Germany pretended they were doing the will of God even.Could such abuse, controls and even murder happen again under the guise of environmental control?
Let’s look at how tyrants take control. They develop a big crises to solve so they can reach into our lives and control from. Along with the crises, they develop and point out enemies to demonize and destroy. These classic vehicles of control include the environment, (trees, parks, animals, food and water). Castro in Cuba, Hitler in Germany and many more tyrants act like them want to only save the dying food and water supply while saving animals. Always, certain groups, people, events and property ownership are in the way.
If you recall, Castro ran on ‘change’ helping the desperate poor and fixing his battered country. Once in, he fixed it all right. He sent out his henchmen and collected all the guns from people, then started stealing property and businesses from the people. People so enjoy the change they rush to barely put together boats and drown in the ocean on the way to America.
If we are to survive the push of environmentalism and its evil this time, we must not allow any theft of ‘cap and trade’ and other environmental, property controlling and seizing bills to take control.
It is not too late to stop the genocide of the masses in our country by stopping the environmentalist and greens, dead in their tracks. Already, we have seen with the Obama administration, Nepolitano and his czars, that people are considered all but numbers. Cass Sunstein, Obama’s regulatory czar wants hunting outlawed and animals to be able to sue people. The enemy of our country is being renamed, from Islamic radicals and terrorists, to us domestic terrorists…..returning vets, pro lifers, pro sovereignty folks, gun owners and Christians. We are the new and growing danger to America as was revealed in the last, leaked Homeland security report.
Now, with Obama pushing a Cyber Security bill (to control the Internet if there is a mystery crises declared), Council on Governors bill (now he will talk directly with leaders of the states, thus controlling even deeper…..assuming there is a crises of course) Interpol has the right to zoom around our country and be above our laws…..why?
#I pray that the world will never again allow something as unbelievably evil as the Holocaust to ever happen again. In order to stop that danger, we must stop the organized and endless effort to turn people into ‘sustainable’ numbers that can be discarded at will and the worship of animals and nature.
Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?
07 July 2009
The President’s Bogus Green Economics
Transforming the Energy Sector and Addressing Climate Change
By Institute for Energy Research
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Obama Administration’s recently released “Economic Report of the President” devoted an entire chapter to “Transforming the Energy Sector and Addressing Climate Change. Whenever the government promises to transform an entire sector of the economy, we know to watch out. Upon a simple reading it is obvious that the president’s fancy economic rhetoric doesn’t justify the $60 billion in “stimulus” funds and the proposed new mandates on the private sector. Even the report’s own analysis shows that the likely damages from climate change are comparable to the economic damages of more government regulation.
The Official Economic Argument for Intervention
Frequently when governments want to increase their power, money, and influence they justify their schemes with a scientific appeal. Standard economic theory provides just such a justification in the form of “market failure,” where the Invisible Hand breaks down because of “externalities.” Most people are familiar with the alleged negative externality of greenhouse gas emissions—which then justify either carbon taxes or cap-and-trade—but the president’s report introduces us to a new market failure, this time from a positive externality:
A market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gases [i.e. cap-and-trade] will provide incentives for research and development (R&D) into new clean energy technologies as firms search for ever cheaper ways to address the negative externality associated with their emissions. However…there is a separate externality in the area of R&D. Because it is difficult for the person or firm doing research to capture all of the returns, the private market supplies too little R&D—particularly for more basic forms of R&D…In this case, government R&D policies can complement the use of a market-based approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and yield large benefits to society. A policy that broadly incentivizes energy R&D is more likely to maximize social returns than a narrow one targeted at a specific technology because it allows the market, rather than the government, to pick winners. Likewise, funding efforts in support of basic R&D are less likely to crowd out private investment because differences between private and social returns to innovation are largest for basic R&D. (Economic Report, p. 243, bold added)
Rhetoric versus Reality
Given the textbook justification for government spending, we would now expect the Obama Administration to tout its expenditures on, say, math and science Ph.D. students, or a superconducting supercollider. As the report itself stresses, the economic rationale for such investments is that the social returns spill out across many sectors, so that individual companies would not be expected to spend the optimal level when we consider the costs and benefits to society as a whole. Since the report says the stimulus package provided “$60 billion in direct spending and $30 billion in tax credits” to “jump-start” the transition to a “clean energy economy,” there is a whole lot of ‘splainin’ that the administration must do.
Yet look at the programs the president’s report touts as fulfilling the requirements of “basic R&D,” without the government “picking winners”:
In its 2011 proposed budget, the Administration has stated a commitment to fund R&D as part of its comprehensive approach to transform the way we use and produce energy while addressing climate change. The Recovery Act investments begun in 2009 are a first step in this clean energy transformation. They fall into eight categories that are briefly described here.
Energy Efficiency. The Recovery Act promotes energy efficiency through investments that reduce energy consumption in many sectors of the economy. For instance, the Act appropriates $5 billion to the Weatherization Assistance Program to pay up to $6,500 per dwelling unit for energy efficiency retrofits in low-income homes…
Renewable Generation. The Recovery Act investments in renewable energy generation also are leading to the installation of wind turbines, solar panels, and other renewable energy sources…
Traditional Transit and High-Speed Rail. Grants from the Recovery Act also will help upgrade the reliability and service of public transit and conventional intercity railroad systems. For example, $8 billion is going to improve existing, or build new, high-speed rail in 100- to 600-mile intercity corridors…
Clean Energy Equipment Manufacturing. The Recovery Act investments are increasing the Nation’s capacity to manufacture wind turbines, solar panels, electric vehicles, batteries, and other clean energy components domestically. As the United States transitions away from fossil fuels, demand for advanced energy products will grow, and these investments in clean energy will help American manufacturers participate in supplying the needed goods. (pp. 243-245)
In the quotation above, we have omitted some of the items—such as research on batteries—that could plausibly be classified as “basic R&D.” But as the list above shows, much of the spending programs are the furthest things from basic R&D, and are quite obviously examples of the government shoveling money to favored constituencies. Engineers already know how to weatherize homes and build traditional transit systems; there is no “market failure” here from spillover benefits from R&D spending.
The Costs of Inaction?
After sketching some of the major components of the $90 billion in total government assistance for “clean energy” in the stimulus package, the president’s report goes on to describe the administration’s plans to push for a government cap on greenhouse gas emissions, as well as new mandates on energy efficiency and renewable electricity generation.
In order to stifle voter skepticism over the costs of these proposed interventions into the energy sector, proponents will usually say, “Sure the costs are high, but the costs of inaction are much higher. We can’t afford to not act when it comes to global warming.”
In this context, the reader might be surprised to examine the report’s charts which show that the actual scientific literature—even the “consensus” as codified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest report—shows that the case for alarmism is dubious:
[T]he projected losses for the most likely range of temperature changes are relatively modest. For example, at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most likely temperature increase of 3C for a doubling of CO2 concentration (concentrations in 2100 are likely to be higher), the projected decline is 1.5 percent of GDP. (Box 9-2, page 242, emphasis added)
That is worth repeating: The Administration’s own report, in a chapter devoted to the need to “transform the energy sector,” admits that doing absolutely nothing would “most likely” lead to a “relatively modest” impact. This is consistent with the CBO’s modeling which showed that a “pessimistic” estimate of the damages from inaction are lower than the high-end estimate of the economic cost of the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill by the year 2050.
Of course, it’s always possible that unchecked greenhouse gas emissions will lead to disaster. After letting the cat out of the bag regarding the “most likely” impacts from letting the market and nature run their course, the president’s report tells us:
The projected relationship between temperature changes and consumption losses is nonlinear—that is, the projected losses grow more rapidly as temperature increases. For example, while the projected loss for the first 3˚C is 1.5 percent, the loss at 6˚C is five times higher. And the estimated loss associated with an increase of 9˚C is about 20 percent [of consumption’s share of GDP]...Overall, it is evident that policy based on the most likely outcomes may not adequately protect society because such estimates fail to reflect the harms at higher temperatures.
Those are scary numbers, it’s true. But how likely is it that human activities will cause the world to increase 9˚C, when the total warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution has been about 0.7˚C? As this graph from the IPCC’s latest report shows—across three different emission scenarios and five different modeling teams—the probability of such a rapid warming is virtually zero. Once the government gets permission to transform entire sectors of the economy because of the dangers posed by extremely unlikely outcomes, the sky’s the limit.
The proposals to transform the energy sector are so audacious that they can’t even be justified according to the government’s own rhetoric. A simple reading of the president’s own economic report reveals that the billions in handouts violate their own alleged rationale, and the government’s own numbers show that the likely threat of climate change is less damaging than the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade plan.
Institute for Energy Research Most recent columns
The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit organization that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. IER maintains that freely-functioning energy markets provide the most efficient and effective solutions to today’s global energy and environmental challenges and, as such, are critical to the well-being of individuals and society.*******
Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?
07 July 2009