Government climate change solutions – A very bad idea!
Gary Loftis
December 21, 2007
“Government solution” should qualify as an oxymoron. Governments by their very nature suffer from inertia, stubbornly applying yesterday’s remedies to tomorrow’s problems without regard for the consequences. The politicians who lead the governments stake out grand goals, like ending poverty and peace in our time — goals they know are impossible — to get their agendas passed. Yet, the resulting programs never have specific, measurable performance objectives to document that the dollars being spent and/or the restrictions on citizens’ freedoms are achieving the intended purpose.
Periodically, a cause that can be characterized as a “crisis” comes along and the politicians, ever eager to increase their influence, power, and control of taxpayers’ money, readily adopt the cause as their own. They use the urgency to raise new taxes and create new bureaucracies, knowing that taxes and bureaucracies never go away once they are created; they live on as resume fodder.
It is incumbent upon voters to ask three important questions before considering support for such government expansion: How credible and imminent is the “threat?” How likely is it that the proposed action will actually ameliorate the imminent danger? What are we giving up as the result of the proposed action?
While it is clear that our planet is experiencing a period of warming, the evidence that the warming is the direct result of the 20th Century’s industrial progress is problematical. The scientists and their political allies promoting the theory that global warming is being driven by fossil fuel emissions insist that the science supporting their assertions is settled and represents a consensus of the world’s scientists. Yet, a December 20, 2007 report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlights the views of over 400 eminent scientists who dispute man-made global warming “science.” (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb) Additionally, a report released the same week indicated that the earths temperature has remained statistically the same for nearly a decade. (http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004) Given the apparent scientific debate on the premise that global warming is the result of man’s activity and the lack of statistical data to support it, it seems at best premature to label the phenomenon an imminent threat.
While using resources judiciously is a tenet of good stewardship, is a sudden, major change in energy use patterns likely to yield global temperature dividends? If we are to severely disrupt our economy, as Al Gore and his climate change lobby advocate, the answer to this question is absolutely essential. The US dollar’s fragility on the world currency market and the already tenuous nature of our service — versus manufacturing — based economy magnify the danger of precipitous action that does not yield meaningful results. Given the lack of a true consensus on the science and the lack of statistical evidence that global warming is an imminent threat, it seems to me that the debate in the US should be more about developing new energy technologies and reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels than about wholesale, systemic changes.
The third issue is the most important: “What are we giving up as the result of the proposed action?” The UN treaty proposals include a tax on members’ carbon emissions. Since the US is the largest emitter, we would pay the majority of the tax, either through income tax or through use taxes. However, the issue goes beyond the tax. By allowing an external government to levy a tax on US citizens, we would be surrendering our national sovereignty. That sovereignty was won by the blood of Revolutionary War patriots, preserved through the courage of generations of Americans who have met and defeated threats to our nation, and stands today as the beacon of freedom that draws people from the world over to our shores. We have to ask ourselves what potential gain is worth sacrificing that which makes our nation unique.
Should we sign on to the theory of man-made global warming and take the proposed action, we will grant the US and UN governments unprecedented intrusion into our lives. The carbon tax, once established, will be permanent and will increase over time. The economic disruption will continue, even if global warming science proves to be wrong. Finally, we will have sacrificed our national sovereignty, which we will never be able to regain.
THAT is why allowing our government to enact the proposed programs to address climate change is a very bad idea.
© Copyright 2007, Gary Loftis. All Rights Reserved.
Periodically, a cause that can be characterized as a “crisis” comes along and the politicians, ever eager to increase their influence, power, and control of taxpayers’ money, readily adopt the cause as their own. They use the urgency to raise new taxes and create new bureaucracies, knowing that taxes and bureaucracies never go away once they are created; they live on as resume fodder.
It is incumbent upon voters to ask three important questions before considering support for such government expansion: How credible and imminent is the “threat?” How likely is it that the proposed action will actually ameliorate the imminent danger? What are we giving up as the result of the proposed action?
While it is clear that our planet is experiencing a period of warming, the evidence that the warming is the direct result of the 20th Century’s industrial progress is problematical. The scientists and their political allies promoting the theory that global warming is being driven by fossil fuel emissions insist that the science supporting their assertions is settled and represents a consensus of the world’s scientists. Yet, a December 20, 2007 report released by the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee highlights the views of over 400 eminent scientists who dispute man-made global warming “science.” (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb) Additionally, a report released the same week indicated that the earths temperature has remained statistically the same for nearly a decade. (http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004) Given the apparent scientific debate on the premise that global warming is the result of man’s activity and the lack of statistical data to support it, it seems at best premature to label the phenomenon an imminent threat.
While using resources judiciously is a tenet of good stewardship, is a sudden, major change in energy use patterns likely to yield global temperature dividends? If we are to severely disrupt our economy, as Al Gore and his climate change lobby advocate, the answer to this question is absolutely essential. The US dollar’s fragility on the world currency market and the already tenuous nature of our service — versus manufacturing — based economy magnify the danger of precipitous action that does not yield meaningful results. Given the lack of a true consensus on the science and the lack of statistical evidence that global warming is an imminent threat, it seems to me that the debate in the US should be more about developing new energy technologies and reducing our dependence on imported fossil fuels than about wholesale, systemic changes.
The third issue is the most important: “What are we giving up as the result of the proposed action?” The UN treaty proposals include a tax on members’ carbon emissions. Since the US is the largest emitter, we would pay the majority of the tax, either through income tax or through use taxes. However, the issue goes beyond the tax. By allowing an external government to levy a tax on US citizens, we would be surrendering our national sovereignty. That sovereignty was won by the blood of Revolutionary War patriots, preserved through the courage of generations of Americans who have met and defeated threats to our nation, and stands today as the beacon of freedom that draws people from the world over to our shores. We have to ask ourselves what potential gain is worth sacrificing that which makes our nation unique.
Should we sign on to the theory of man-made global warming and take the proposed action, we will grant the US and UN governments unprecedented intrusion into our lives. The carbon tax, once established, will be permanent and will increase over time. The economic disruption will continue, even if global warming science proves to be wrong. Finally, we will have sacrificed our national sovereignty, which we will never be able to regain.
THAT is why allowing our government to enact the proposed programs to address climate change is a very bad idea.
© Copyright 2007, Gary Loftis. All Rights Reserved.
Print
Email
