Notice how every 'green' scheme to 'save' us from global warming will end up costing you more?
Have you noticed that when politicians, United Nations diplomats, environmental activists, radical scientists, journalists and even, lately, multinational corporations, talk about "going green" to save the planet, the only "green" they're talking about is the colour of our money?
And about how to separate us from it?
Think about all the "solutions" we've heard, ostensibly to fight "man-made climate change".
Carbon taxes? We pay more. Cap-and-trade? We pay more. Carbon offsets & credits? We pay more. Renewable energy? We pay more. Mandatory energy audits? We pay more. Waste collection? We pay more. Plastic !@@#$%#$ bags at the supermarket? We pay more.
While a brutal recession costs hundreds of thousands their jobs, the high priests of global warming fly in and out of the world's exotic locales (generating megatonnes of greenhouse gases), plotting new ways to separate us from our money.
These efforts will culminate in Copenhagen in December, at a UN-led conference to negotiate a successor agreement to the Kyoto Accord, which expires in 2012.
Anyone living in the developed world should understand the real purpose of this meeting will be to compel Western governments to spend billions more of our money "helping" (bribing) the developing world, led by China, to reduce their emissions, since they weren't required to under Kyoto.
Obviously, this is not going to be popular during a deep recession among many of those being asked to cough up ever more "green" booty.
Enter the global warming doomsters -- the Al Gores, the greenwashed politicians, the environmental radicals, the high-flying diplomats and, sadly, too many politically-motivated scientists, who long ago traded in scientific objectivity for shilling for Armageddon.
The purpose of all this doom-saying, this "climate porn" as it's known, is two-fold:
First, to make a complicated issue, man's influence on climate, sound simple.
Second, to make people in the developed world feel sufficiently guilty and intimidated, that we'll shut up about having our pockets picked to finance the green schemes noted previously.
Oh, and one more thing. None of them work.
The reason they don't is we have no way at present to stop greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere when we burn fossil fuels (oil, coal, natural gas) for energy.
Solving that problem is the real job one.
As things stand, even if the handful of nations required to reduce emissions under Kyoto were doing it -- and many aren't, including us, because it's impossible without devastating our economies and resorting to shell games like "carbon credits" -- Kyoto is only about one-thirteenth of what the high priests of global warming insist must be done.
So-called "green" schemes, aren't green. Their real purpose is to make it so expensive to use fossil-fuel energy that we're forced to use less, not because we don't need it but because we can't afford it.
Environmental journalist George Monbiot, author of Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning, is admirably honest about this. The fight against global warming, he writes, is a campaign for austerity. Precisely.
The high priests of global warming justify this by claiming it poses an existential threat to the planet. At this point climate hysterics -- trust me, I hear from them all the time --unload what they think is their ace card: "Do you or do you not believe in the science of global warming?" they demand, much as Joe McCarthy once infamously thundered: "Are you or are you not a member of the Communist Party?"
The absurdity of this question is that it isn't about "belief." It's about whether one acknowledges the scientific evidence that mankind's burning of fossil fuels affects climate.
What's rational to say is that there is good reason to believe it does and we can't afford to do nothing. But what is equally true is the cheerleaders for Armageddon are claiming we know far more about climate change than we actually do.
About nature's impact on climate. About what the long-term impacts of climate change will be -- not in terms of generalized "Doomsday" rants -- but about where, when and what will happen, and most important, what we should do about it, which is a political decision, not a scientific one.
Most people are rational. Most care about the planet and the legacy they will leave their children.
Given rational, practical, meaningful ways to improve the environment, they'll respond.
But simultaneously yelling at people we're facing Armageddon, while shilling for trivial nonsense like "Earth Hour" and picking our pockets to pay for pretend "green" initiatives, isn't rational.
It's surrendering to the fortune tellers and witch doctors.