CONTROL & LOSS OF FREEDOM: ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE GLOBAL WARMING LOBBY
William Hunt, M.S.
June 1, 2009
Every proposal of the Global Warming/Climate Change lobby involves control. The control of energy production, use by individuals, corporations and governments, and the control of the design, type and the use of devices that use energy.
Naturally, this is to control the use of energy by the ordinary citizen. President B. Hussein Obama used 9,000 gallons of aviation kerosene to visit Iowa on Earth Day. The hypocrisy of that can be felt in the very air. Do as I say, not as I do.
Other politicians and celebrities are similar and if they truly believed what they say, they would be the first to conserve, but despite their rhetoric, they use resources at rates hundreds to millions of times that of the ordinary citizen, but I digress.
The restrictive control of how you or others use energy now is being aimed to extend to all petroleum products and use.
This translates to restrictions on the use of gasoline, diesel, kerosene, heating oil, bunker oils, lubricating oils, coal, natural gas, propane, butane and hundreds of other primary energy products. Electrical energy— mostly generated from aforementioned coal and petroleum products, as well as hydroelectric generation will also be controlled plus the consumer’s ability to use the electricity will be controlled. The net result of such controls will be increased prices on everything that requires energy to manufacture, build, produce or use. In other words, every sort of economic and home activity will be more expensive.
The proposed “Cap and Trade” is emblematic of this “let’s control energy” mindset and has a long history, with similar proposals being the darling of environmental groups for more than a decade. In 2007, Congress unsuccessfully introduced legislation to cap greenhouse emissions and trade “carbon credits”.
In 2008, the UK’s House of Commons in the United Kingdom and the U.S. Congress decided to eliminate the incandescent light bulb to cut “carbon emissions” and reduce energy use. (However, the House of Commons didn’t take the increased amount of energy required to mine the rare earth metals, build the electronics and other components required by compact fluorescents.)
California’s failed attempt in 2008 to modify their law (Title 24, Subchapter 2, Section 112) to make it mandatory that all thermostats respond to RF signals from the state to control minimum and maximum settings. Reason prevailed in that it would have required a monstrous amount of infrastructure that would far, far exceed any possible cost or energy savings of such a system.
In 2008, the State of Oregon floated the idea of adding a GPS to every car and gas pump to determine taxes because so many energy-efficient cars were supposedly cutting into the taxes collected. (This was a lie, of course, as 2008 saw the addition of 10% ethanol, which reduced vehicle mileage by an average of 30%).
The problems with these speak for themselves: incandescent bulbs do not cause epileptic seizures or eye strain as many alternative lighting sources do. PCTs, or programmable thermostats connected to a state network would be vulnerable to ecoterrorists wanting to “send a message”, such as turning off the heat in those parts of the state that have cold weather or shutting down the air conditioning when it’s 120°.
It would cost billions in infrastructure to fit gas stations and other places with GPS receiver/computing equipment to download GPS information. The GPS system would make it less attractive to drive fuel-efficient cars as these would pay more taxes per gallon than other vehicles. The real reason for the GPS system would be to see where people drive and while this could have beneficial uses, ultimately, it would be used for nonlegitimate purposes, such as tracking political opponents or even modifying the data in their systems to make it seem as if they had done illegal or scandalous things, given the fundamental nature of many of those currently in power in Oregon.
The Federal government and many states, including Oregon, California and Washington are poised to adopt “cap and trade” and “carbon taxes”. Ostensibly to “save the world” by reducing carbon dioxide.
Cap and Trade
Cap and trade has been used to “control” pollutants like sulfur dioxide and now the left wants to use it to control petroleum use. It should be noted however, that what the EPA is calling success in “controlling” sulfur dioxide emissions is largely the result of the decline in much of the Northeast’s industrial base, which reduced the use of coal for fuel and in steel production. In addition, the closing of older steel plants in the late 1970s and early 1980s which were built during the 1880s, and replacing some of them with new plants with modern emission controls reduced SO2 emissions, as well.
The basic mechanism of cap and trade is to provide incentives for coal-electric power plants and other sulfur dioxide producers to modernize, but only to a certain point. A total amount of pollution was selected as a “cap” for emissions and then the sulfur dioxide emitters were a preselected amount of pollutants that they could emit or they could they could “trade” this amount of pollution, i.e., sell it to another emitter in the form of pollution “credits”, in the event that they didn’t need it and some other emitter couldn’t afford to reduce its emissions.
One problem was that the emitting plant or manufacturer had incentive to modernize only so far, unless the cap was periodically reduced, which it was not. Some emitters voluntarily reduced their emissions quickly when their situations made sense to do it and could sell their pollution allowance to someone else. In a way, it moved pollution from one area to another.
Because every mechanism for efficiently-producing energy except for hydroelectric and nuclear power requires the combustion of hydrocarbons, the United States is locked into coal for 50% of its power and natural gas had been 22%, but the most recent EIA figures are suspect— The January 2009 report’s numbers literally don’t add up when you calculate the ones listed— Coal is claimed to have gone from 50% to 30% in one year by these “figures,” for example.)
What the left wants to do is to cap the total amount of carbon dioxide and thus all fuels— the amount of energy that you, the consumer use, and the total amounts that industry and commerce use— in the same way that was done with sulfur dioxide. Credits for carbon dioxide emissions would be traded the same way.
The whole point of Cap and Trade is to reduce you and to punish you, the user for using energy. It would be a complete disaster for the economy as every alternative thus suggested by the left either doesn’t exist yet, can’t exist because of basic physics or is hopelessly inefficient.
Carbon Taxes will Control Energy Use Like Never Before
Another, direct method for controlling our energy use, carbon taxes will tax carbon dioxide emissions. Initially, they might take the form of a straightforward tax, probably on tons of carbon dioxide emitted. However, in order to buy votes, every special interest group, every business type, every industry will have their own rates, exemptions and other special tax statuses and quickly it will be a mess like the rest of the tax code. Or, it would be initially enacted in such a fashion as to “punish” large emitters of carbon dioxide, like coal electric plants. (Obviously this would be a disaster as half of our electrical power comes from coal.)
Like Cap and Trade, the idea of Carbon Taxes is to punish the use of fossil fuels— control of energy.
What’s next in control of energy use? Congress requiring you to take a vital capacity test and then tax you for carbon emissions based on how much you breathe? It’s getting that ridiculous when groups want to control your thermostat by remote control.
These and indeed, all other measures suggested by politicians, regulators and NGOs to deal with global warming are about controlling what you do with your life by controlling energy. They avoid the issues of energy supply, the consumer’s need for energy and the economy’s need for energy. Cap and trade and carbon taxes do nothing to actually “stop” the emissions of carbon dioxide, so they cannot rationally claim that is why they are putting such devices into place. All such things do is to raise the price consumers have to pay for basic needs. They harm the poor most of all by hitting them by raising the costs for basic costs like heat, light, water, sewer, food, gasoline for commuting to work, and every consumer good— clothes, soap, cars, everything.
California’s Example- The Great Sponge
So, what happens when a state becomes a “green” dream like the people advocating for all of this energy control?
It ceases to be industrial, businesses suffer, manufacturing and production of goods and services crash. Production of natural resources crash. Protection of natural resources crash. Welfare roles swell. Government agencies increase their oversight of pretty much everything. California is the archetype.
California has become a parasite in many ways. It has become dependent upon other states for its water, oil, natural gas, electricity, wood and tax money.
Roughly half of the resources that it consumes come from other states. California once led the nation in technology and innovation of all sorts— electronic, medical, chemical, engineering, computers— you name it, it happened in California first.
Once an economic dynamo that drew people from every state for jobs and a better life, California is a textbook case for why socialism coupled with false environmentalism cannot work. Because of its environmental lobby wanting everything to be “green”, California merely imports what it needs from other states, producing less and less in return. Let someone else produce what we need… This year, reality finally started shining through the clouds of marijuana smoke with 11.2% unemployment and the Assembly’s budget problems.
To use one of the environmentalist’s buzzwords— this is “sustainable”?? For California to go from providing most of its own needs to importing what they need— this is what “being green” is all about?
Isn’t this exactly the opposite of what the environmental movement claims they want?
Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts!
Oregon is following hard in California’s footsteps. Businesses are failing and fleeing the state. Washington is not far behind.
So, what happens when Congress shuts down the states that provide the resources for the state that no longer will produce their own?
© 2009 William Hunt - All Rights Reserved