Global Government: The Third Ring in the Climate Change Circus

by Marita Noon on December 27, 2011

in Blog

Post image for Global Government: The Third Ring in the Climate Change Circus

During his 2008 campaign, President Obama made his support of climate-change interventions clear, stating that his presidency would slow the rise of the oceans and begin to heal the planet. He promised that a cap-and-trade system would curb global warming.

He was elected, but the electorate hasn’t liked many of his policies. Cap and trade never passed Congress. To this day, President Obama has remained comparatively popular, but people believe he is taking the country in the wrong direction—toward a European system. Even his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, believes our gasoline prices should be higher, like Europe’s.

Two weeks ago, my column addressed China’s act (ring #1) in the climate-change circus. Last week, I looked at Europe’s staunch support for climate-change intervention when the majority of the industrialized countries have rejected or resisted a Kyoto-style deal (ring #2). Using Italy as an example, I suggested that the country’s lack of natural resources made expensive renewable energy a viable option for them—though an economic tightrope destined to failure.

While Italy is in the news for its brutal economic woes, it shares several components with the US.

Italy has a declining private sector with growth in government. Italians are still consuming, but now their euros are going to other countries, resulting in exploding trade deficits. (Sound familiar?)

Climate-change mitigation adds to the problem as it artificially inflates energy prices through the troubled Ponzi-like cap-and-trade scheme and creates more government jobs, regulation, fees, and hidden taxes. With the increasing production costs, industry declines and unemployment rises. Over time, some of those put out of work in industry may get absorbed by government—which keeps the unemployment numbers from looking as grim as they might without the government jobs. Government jobs do not create wealth, as mining and farming do, but like a funhouse mirror, they distort the true picture.

All of the above sounds eerily similar to the US—except we did not sign on to the Kyoto protocol, nor did we pass cap-and-trade legislation. However, President Obama has not given up on his plans to “curb global warming.” Instead of cap and trade, we have the EPA directed by President Obama’s appointee, Administrator Lisa Jackson—who, by her own admission, aims to level the playing field. The EPA is doing everything it can to raise the cost of energy, which, if left unabated, will continue the demise of American industry and the growth of the government sector—resulting in exploding trade deficits. (Sound familiar?)

While Italy’s situation and the US have several similarities that are worth noting, there are also some crowd-pleasing differences.

As noted, Italy lacks quantities of large natural resources—America has them in abundance. We often lack the access to our own resources.

Italy is a part of Europe’s cap-and-trade scheme intended to curb manmade global warming. We have Lisa Jackson’s EPA—but Congressional action (encouraged by America’s citizens) can thwart her, and the 2012 election can replace her.

Italy’s economy is collapsing, leaving the stronger countries—mainly England and Germany—to bail it out. The US isn’t quite there yet.

With the economic damage that climate-change interventions deliver, why is the administration still using them as an excuse to implement regulations that will make electricity more expensive for industry and consumers? Maybe, it is because they are, as Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper described Kyoto: “a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations.” More and more, it seems that it never was about saving the planet.

If, in fact, reaching a binding global emissions-reduction agreement is really about global government—with the Green Climate Fund sucking money from the “wealthy” countries and redistributing it to the poor countries, Europe gives us a prime example of why the US should follow Canada’s lead and shun the “at-any-cost” green agenda that stunts economic growth and job creation.

Back to Italy. In EU terms, Italy is one of the “poor” countries—along with the other Club Med countries: Greece, Spain and Portugal. In the mini-global government known as the EU, the “wealthy” countries no longer want to carry the “poor” ones.

Germany and Italy are both EU members and in good times, Italy’s growing government sector could mask the harsh economic realities. By comparison to Italy, Germany has abundant energy supplies from nuclear and coal-fueled power and a strong industrial sector. Germany “has”; Italy “has not.” In EU terms, Germany is expected to carry Italy—but they don’t want to.

The US “has” abundant energy supplies; the EU “has not.” The EU’s economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the “haves” are expected to carry the “have nots.” We have the resources; we still have industry; and we still have a good work ethic. Will we use them to save America and the free market system that has allowed us to grow to strength, or will we be drawn into the green big top?

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.

itfitzme December 27, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Ever since Madoff got busted, everything is now a “Ponzi scheme” or “Ponzi like”. It’s like fourth grader calling everyone they don’t like “gay”. This book is gay. My teacher is gay. The fourth grader has no clue what “gay” actually means, only that he heard his older sibling use it. The only meaning it has is “I don’t like it.”

So, let us clarify what a “Ponzi scheme” is. “A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors”

Let us clarify what “Cap and trade” is. The definition is in the name. A cap on total emissions is set. Certificates are them issued for the right to emit carbon based pollutants. The sum of emissions allowed by all of the certificates equals the total cap. These certificates are then traded on the open market, between companies, and the value of them is set by the market.

This is like the medallion program for taxi cabs in New York city. The city decides how many taxis that the city can handle. Once the certificates, in this case “medallions”, have been issued, they are traded on the open free market. The cap can be as high or low as works. There seems to be no shortage of taxi cabs in New York.

If you believe in the free market, then you understand how Cap and Trade is an effective free market solution to managing industrial externalities.

There is simply nothing about “Cap and Trade” that is ponzi like. Well, with one exception, that the author has a new word for “I don’t like it.” The author might just as well call it “gay”.

Roger December 30, 2011 at 12:36 am

Great piece – man-caused global warming is a scam to help install the United Nations as the new global government, which would funnel money from countries like the United States to poorer countries ostensibly harmed by our use of fossil fuels. Never mind that the warming stopped about 10 years ago, and that our present climate is within the range of natural variation. There is nothing to suggest that we are causing any harmful warming – to the contrary, increased carbon dioxide stimulates plants to grow faster, producing significantly more food for a growing population. Don’t fall for Al Gore’s leftist scam.

Laticia Hanlon December 30, 2011 at 1:08 am

Maybe we should A.) Take all of our funds out of banks and B.) Stop making payments on all debt obligation-s. If such a thing occurred I can only imagine the type of damage it would do to the major banks. Sure our personal credit would be devastated-, but like unemployme-nt at 9 percent being the new norm, perhaps a low credit score would be as well. Any thoughts?swtor credits

Ron January 3, 2012 at 11:45 am

“Itfitzme”‘s attempt at misdirection, followed by an ad hominem attack, is typical of Leftist debate tactics. National cap and trade is nothing like New York taxi medallions, which function within a strictly defined geographical area. You can’t apply that model to a national regulatory scheme, as the economists who invented cap and trade have explained, and Itfitzme should know that. But maybe he doesn’t want to know. Maybe he prefers his global warming zealotry uninformed.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: