"This agenda will cost millions of jobs, plunging more people into poverty"

Bob Ellis at The Dakota Voice:

The schemes being dreamed up by these apostles of doom are intended to take one person’s hard-earned money away from them and give it to someone else…while the middle-men line their pockets with most of it.

These schemes will make it much more difficult in the U.S. and worldwide to produce affordable energy. Our refineries and power plants will take it on the chin, and those costs will be passed along to the consumer-you and me.

This agenda will cost millions of jobs, plunging more people into poverty because they lost their jobs on the altar of a hoax.

It will push modern development backward, creating more poverty, disease and hardship-things we as a human race have been fighting our way out of for centuries.

The skyrocketing cost of energy (electricity, gasoline, etc) will cause food prices to soar, since food cannot be produced, transported or preserved without electricity and gasoline.

All of these consequences will have a devastating effect on the poorest of the people in the United States in the world. This is one of the things that makes this despicable purpose the most hypocritical: it is being pushed by people who claim to be advocates of the poor, yet they are hurting the poor more than could the indifferent wealthy.

Is it evil to perpetrate a hoax? Oh yes.

Is it evil to take something from a person that they have earned but you haven’t? Oh yes.

Is it evil to push those of us who have escaped poverty and disease back down several rungs of the ladder? Oh yeah.

Is it evil to push those who are barely ahead of poverty back down into the squalor of poverty? Oh yeah.

Is it evil to smack down those who were fighting to make it out of poverty and disease, imprisoning them in it with no hope of escape? Oh yeah!

Is it evil to do this based on the unproved fantasies of a problem that does not exist in the first place?

You’d better believe it is!

The notion that the Church of Chicken Little is hurting the poor isn’t a new one. Back in ’07, Mark Tooley at FrontPage expounded on the theme:

It’s wonderfully convenient for the Religious Left that Global Warming will be one more urgent reason for adding additional layers to the welfare state. Keeping the poor dependent on government transfer payments is politically useful. Reducing economic growth through climate change regulation will further reduce the poor’s ability to escape poverty. Newly empowered people who have escaped their poverty through economic entrepreneurship are always a political threat to the statism of the Religious Left.

Very few poor will have their economic situation “enhanced” by the draconian taxation and regulation that Global Warming activists demand. An increased welfare state in the wealthy West may spare Western poor from too much additional suffering.

But no amount of increased Western aid will spare the Global South’s paying a steep price for Global Warming activism’s deep hostility to economic growth. Upper middle class environmentalists in the U.S. and Europe believe that their Global Warming policies will simply result in slightly larger fuel bills, which they of course can well afford. And isn’t saving the whole planet worth the price of a few Lattes at Starbucks?

Unappreciated by Western environmentalists is that hundreds of millions in Africa and Asia will have to sacrifice more than their favorite espresso. Capping international economic growth means preventing industrialization in the Global South. It means Indians and Congolese and Chinese and Nigerians and Indonesians and Brazilians and countless others will not have refrigeration, or air conditioning, or easily potable water, or cleans ways to heat their homes. For the Global South, freezing the global economy in a ephemeral attempt at affecting the climate means permanent poverty, with reduced life spans, continued plagues, unsanitary living and working conditions, and diminished opportunities for education, for Western-levels of medical care, and for convenient and safe transportation.

It is one of the most maddening, most frustrating, of notions that those who deem to care so much for the poor are pushing an agenda that does more to harm them than to help them.

In my mind, Bob Ellis is correct.

It is indeed evil.

Crossposted(*).

LowBama
Yglesias: the United States is "Ungovernable"
  • Flu-Bird

    The whole sinister plot of the CFR and UN to reduce america to a miserble third world exitence why else did they come up with NAFTA and are planning the NAU and deporting our jobs over seas

  • 914

    Evil with a Supersized large E..Brought to us by the same Hypocrites that tell us to do as I say, not as I do.

  • CZ

    “This agenda will cost millions of jobs, plunging more people into poverty”

    Not surprising. Socialists depend on the poor to gain power. Create more poor, gain more power. Bastards!

  • JLawson

    Evil? Maybe.

    Delusional? Most certainly.

    They’re certainly, and seriously, seeing themselves as infallible arbiters of what’s ‘best’ for the country in both the long and short run – and THEY see the other side (IE us) as being evil, mean, vicious people who’d rather see people die than give in to what THEY want to do – which is take all the money they can and give it to agencies to do unspecified ‘ecologically good works’ worldwide.

    And you’re talking about trillions in taxes that’ll supposedly cut CO2 usage here in the US. Well, sure it will! You won’t be able to afford jack shit, and all your excess money will be going to pay for heating your house above freezing – but think how much good your tax money is doing worldwide! Those bureaucrats don’t travel to expensive conferences for free, ya know!

    Yet for all the screaming about how we have to tax our economies into oblivion to give money to … whoever … to save the climate, save the polar bear, save the endangered ice moles and snow snakes – there’s remarkably little actual ACTION on how we can actually REDUCE CO2 using techology that’s available NOW.

    Don’t like coal? Go nuclear. Set a standard design for the reactor (maybe crib one from France – they seem to have had a clue on how to do it…) build a few thousand of them (which could probably be done for less than a trillion dollars) and replace coal plants on a 4 for 1 basis. (There’s approximately 615 of them, according to info here.)

    Mass production will drive down the costs, standardization will make operations easier. The extra plants will allow the implementation of electric vehicle technology with a surplus of available electricity. Hell, you’d have power to replace a lot of the natural gas infrastructure – which would FURTHER cut CO2 emissions.

    And as a side effect, you can watch econazi heads explode.

    The thing is – if it’s a danger, if it’s a problem, if it’s something which must be done RIGHT DAMN NOW OR THE EARTH IS GOING TO MELT!!!! – why are all actual, physical, implemntable solutions blocked in favor of hamstringing the economy with CO2 taxes?

    Could it be the last attempt by scammers to come up with something, anything, that’ll justify grabbing more money?

  • GarandFan

    Follow the money. And it sure as hell ain’t “going to the poor”. Just ask Al.

  • 914

    Yes, Barry and Al are competing for top billing on raping the poor while simultaneously being down with the struggle.

    Im not sure which crook is going to win? But whichever one does, America will be all the poorer for it.

  • Mac Lorry

    What liberal don’t seem to understand is that they are killing the golden goose and without abundant wealth to spread around liberals are virtually powerless to fulfill their agenda. The proof is seen in the unprecedented and unsustainable spending that’s been going on since Democrats took control of congress, and at the same time, Democrats are chomping at the bit to spend even more billions. It’s what they do.

    Yes, Obama and Democrats can pass Cap and trade, and if not that, Obama’s EPA can regulate carbon once they get past a number of lawsuits, but it takes 67 votes in the Senate to ratify a treaty and make carbon regulation irreversible law. That’s unlikely to happen anytime soon and that means these laws and regulations can be swept away after the 2012 elections if the public doesn’t like the results.

    Power companies can help rid the nation of carbon cap and trade simply by not buying carbon credits. That means reducing electrical production and that means rolling blackouts. Elections have consequences and it’s time for the electorate to experience some of those consequences.

    The choice is between reality based environmental laws and religious based environmental laws. When people start spending 2 or 3 hours a day without electrical power there will be an irresistible political mandate for real change. The pendulum will swing way back the other way, so much so that the endangered species act will itself be endangered. That will clear the way for massive energy infrastructure development all because environmentalists didn’t realize cap and trade was a bridge too far.

  • Les Nessman

    How any traditional or blue-collar or moderate Democrat can support this is beyond me.

    Absolutely horrendous for ‘the little guy’, yet the Democrat party is hell-bent on bringing this about.

    Where are the regular Democrats?

  • Flu-Bird

    Its all about controling our lives reducing america to a miserble third world extence and make EARTH WORSHIP THE NEW PAGAN STATE RELIGION