There They Go Again

YOU reduce, reuse and recycle. You turn down plastic and paper. You avoid out-of-season grapes. You do all the right things……

… Good.” says the opinion-ator (the writer of an “Op-Ed”?; From Opinion Editor I would imagine.  Hmm, let that thought stew awhile.  We are having our Opinions Edited for us?  How convenient! All for only $1.25 a day, if one actually purchases the inky paper.  I read mine on-line, or for free at Starbucks.  “Good” aren’t we just such caring and superior people?
He or she (“Gernot” is a name whose gender does not come cleanly to mind, so I do not feel it is incumbent on me to find out) then goes all gloomy: “Just know that it won’t save the tuna, protect the rain forest or stop global warming. The changes necessary are so large and profound that they are beyond the reach of individual action.”   That final phrase, individual action, in an Opinion Edited piece in the New York Times is an immediate Red Flag.  It screams “Caution: sophistry ahead, statism warning!”

With the presumptive second person narrative, as if she is speaking with clones of herself writes: You refuse the plastic bag at the register, believing this one gesture somehow makes a difference, and then carry your takeout meal back to your car for a carbon-emitting trip home.”  (Why did I write “she” just now?  That requires some thought later.)  And in liberal Yuppie New York, “clones” would be a fitting political description. (At a Rosh Hashanah family event at a relative’s apartment in Manhattan a relation was excitedly telling me about this discussion club she attends.  There is a diverse range of opinions she said.  She knows I have political views, so she brought it up, and she also laughed good naturedly when I asked if it ranged from the left to the extreme radical left. She laughed, but agreed there were not any readers of John Hayak at these discussions!)
Well, actually I make a point of shrugging nonchalantly and saying, “Whatever” when asked about my “bagging preference”.  Once I said Tea, but that did not get a response.
I never carry take out meals back to my car.  I either eat out, or cook.  I never bring in.  But I promise you it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not my car has carbon or even nocturnal emissions.  Again I am a bit annoyed at her daring to speak for me.
Even if one was (or you were) saintly enough and committed enough to self-denial it would be a lost cause because there are so few of us, with the same degree of  virtue that you demonstrate.

“Try to become no-impact man. You would, in fact, have no impact on the planet. Americans would continue to emit an average of 20 tons of carbon dioxide a year; Europeans, about 10 tons.”  See, even if the few good ones like you  (and St. Gernot) self-police it would not be to any avail, because you have to face it we are just the few, the enlightened and the concerned people upon whose gym-fit or vegan skeletal shoulders the survival of Life On Earth Rests!  Yikes!

“What about going bigger? You are the pope with a billion followers, and let’s say all of them take your advice to heart. If all Catholics decreased their emissions to zero overnight, the planet would surely notice, but pollution would still be rising.”  I am not certain of her point here.  Nor her elaboration “Of course, a billion people, whether they’re Catholic or adherents of any other religion or creed, will do no such thing.”  Notice the absence of the implicit “voluntarily” at the end of this sentence.  We recall now how “outdoorsy” the Hitler Youth were and how rosy were their wholesome cheeks.  (The better to beat you with!) I recall, if not you.

“Two weeks of silence in a Buddhist yoga retreat in the Himalayas with your BlackBerry checked at the door? Sure. An entire life voluntarily lived off the grid? No thanks.”  She is flattering you, for to you two weeks of silence and meditation is as impossible as a lifetime commitment.  Because you are savvy, and hip, and have loads of FB friends and tweet like a canary, all day  and all of the night.  And your last transmission of the night is a “good night tweet” to all your cool savvy, hip and plugged in friends.  Throughout the entire Twitter and Facebook galaxies people are saying Good Night!  Like Good Night Moon!

OK, now that we are done congratulating ourselves on our deep commitment to environmental issues (the details of which we are sort of knowledgeable about, but in a vague way!  You do not really understand how the catastrophe that would be upon us in ten years if we did not change our evil ways, has not occurred over the past ten years that we have been doing our best to clean up our act!)  Since despite our best individual voluntary efforts were laughably small, as a hayseed in a gale, we must do more!  The emissions are continuing to rise!  Yikes!  (But you do not want to risk ridicule by asking why the catastrophic events that were ten years off, ten, even twenty years ago have not occurred despite the rising emissions!  Or maybe you have never even thought about it.  Which would show how cool and “in” you are.  Like I am interested in science?  Do I look like a nerd?)

And now we must actually get serious.  No more can we stand for rising emissions!  They must be causing harm, how could they not?  If not, then why would the smart leaders (and certainly not those cowboy racist Tea party types who live past Hoboken, and take up all the empty space that you fly over on your way to Napa), the truly bright men and women like Barack Obama, and Nancy Pelosi; why would they support cutting Carbon emissions if it were not important?  Senator Inhofe is a moron; we all know that!  And of course he is, he comes from Oklahoma!  You and I have never even met a single person from Oklahoma!  Like an episode of  “Curb Your Enthusiasm” imagine Larry meeting a man from Oklahoma, and bringing him home as an interesting person.  Ha ha ha!  That would be funny.  They should make that show.  First Larry would be impressed then he would say something slightly off-putting and Larry’s craziness would kick in!  (Like a western spoof, of a spoof; we get those levels upon levels of irony!)

“Leading scientific groups and most climate scientists say we need to decrease global annual greenhouse gas emissions by at least half of current levels by 2050 and much further by the end of the century. And that will still mean rising temperatures and sea levels for generations.”  Since this is only an Op Ed, I do not need to cite studies.  That would make me a nerd!  But what about the headline from two months ago about some lack of complete certainty about the model and the reality, you ask.  I know, you may have heard about it and got worried that the Tea Party People were not the loons that they must be.  Of course they make us nervous.  But see how no one even talks about it?  That means it must have been some error somewhere.  Some insignificant point of jargon taken out of context by the bloggers bought and paid for by Big Oil, certainly?

Off come the gloves now Gernot!  NO, not some insignificant factoid upon which an entire attack on good people who just want the air to be clean for our children is constructed by bad men after evil profits.  The inconvenient truth is displayed on a NASA study.  Some actual scientist practiced the rational methodology of science and detected that which was not supposed to be possible!  Indeed, the computer models on which The -Sky -Is -Falling is Climate “Crisis” is based, have seriously deviated from the actual recording of the temperature of the planet.  The link above leads out of the rabbit hole of incestuous career-building within the Climate Industry.  But the response is to ignore it.  If a stubborn fact is inconvenient, it is ignored out of proper conversation.  And amongst the right kind of concerned people it is just not polite conversation.  It would be Political, and … do we look lame?  No we do not discuss certain things in polite company.  We do not need to be told, we just are in tune and know.  We know not to even consider bithers as  being anything but racist inbred Oklahomans.  (Laugh Track)

We tried asking nicely, we tried leading by example, but no, they would not follow us.   “Self-interest, not self-sacrifice, is what induces noticeable change. Only the right economic policies will enable us as individuals to be guided by self-interest and still do the right thing for the planet.”  Economic pressure through taxes, licensing fees, Carbon Cap and Trade will increase the cost of electricity.  “It will necessarily skyrocket under my plan.” “You can build coal electricity plants but you will be bankrupted.” Candidate Obama was truthful.  You voted for him.  (GE Power Plants will be excused because of some good reason we are sure.)

MY TURN: Taxes that were to be used to fund the minimalist government outlined by the Constitution are now being used to change people’s behavior.  This is nothing but abuse of authority.  It is bullying.  But you do not judge actions impartially.  There is always a shade of gray.  “If you attended the right colleges and had the right classes you’d know better than to believe such Old fashioned nonsense of ‘unbiased truth’.  There must always be context.  So if the cause warrants it, it is no longer bullying!”
Who decides if a cause warrants breaking the Constitution?  If you or I did, we’d be arrested if we broke a law.  But of you are the President, it is not bullying!  Obama is Nixon with anti-American proclivities.  When Nixon said  “if the president orders it, its not illegal”  I believe he meant that as Commander-In-Chief, and a case can be made for that, and has been by Obama.  But this Regime is blatantly using the Regulatory Power of the Executive Branch to ride rampant over the will of the People.  The Constitution lists the Powers and Duties of Congress first.  The Framers did so because it was expected to be the source of all Federal Power.  The President was there to execute Congress’ Laws; nothing more, nothing less.  When the EPA decided to regulate CO2 as a “pollutant” it was in direct violation of the will of the People as expressed by our representatives in Congress.   But CO2 is not a health hazard at the concentrations that are relevant to the Global Warming debate.  The definition of a Pollutant, over which the Regulatory Agency can regulate emissions, is a material that his harmful to the health of humans.  American Heritage Dictionary defines pollutant as “Something that pollutes, especially a waste material that contaminates air, soil, or water.”  So what then is “to pollute” or “pollution”?

  1. to make unclean, impure, or corrupt; defile; dirty
  2. to contaminate (water, air, etc.) with harmful chemicals, waste material, etc.
    Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed

CO2, Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant by these definitions of common usage.  If Agencies can redefine words to expand accepted definitions in the drive to expand the scope of their powers, then we have no Constitution.  The redefinition of “Wetlands” essentially stole the right to the full usage and enjoyment of Private Property.  Even the “deadly Oxygen dihydride” in its vaporous form is a pollutant!  This is water.  Because it is a “greenhouse gas” it is now regulated.  Thus even perfectly clean Coal-burning Electricity Plants, the emissions of which are scrubbed of everything but CO2 and Water, are being forced to shut down!  Why this madness?

The snide NYT tone continues: “Alas, this approach has been declared dead in Washington, ironically by self-styled free-marketers. Another solution, a carbon tax, is also off the table because, well, it’s a tax.”  “This” approach was Cap and Trade.  That is a Carbon Tax.  Again, it is not to raise money, the only legitimate role for taxation in a Constitutional Republic; but to change people’s behavior.  In a representative democracy why is it necessary to use economic or any coercion to force change in behavior?   If a majority were in favor of that behavior, they would be doing it!  It is therefore possible only when elitists claim to know what is best for others that taxation will be used to change behavior.

This is too precious:  “Never mind that markets are truly free only when everyone pays the full price for his or her actions. Anything else is socialism.” This application of socially coercive taxation to change people’s behavior is Freedom, and its critics are Socialists?
What are her assumptions?  They are based upon the alleged “costs” of Global Warming due to the release of “Greenhouse gasses”.  But if the earth is not warming, or if it is but in a very minimal harmless and perhaps helpful way, these costs are paid to people like Mr. Gore, and Green Companies that take Federal Money to start-up because there is no hope of making profit or even breaking even when the net product of the company, lower CO2, is not of any, zero, zilch value in the real world.  Only in an imaginary world created by Marxists, in the name of Green solutions, is that product valuable.  Since there is no benefit of lowering the CO2 emissions, any capital that goes into it, is capital taken from reality-based economics.  It is of course The Watermelon: Green outside, Red inside, with hard black pits, and effete weakly white immature seeds.

Our Opinion Editor become less and less congenial:  “Every ton of carbon dioxide pollution causes around $20 of damage to economies, ecosystems and human health. That sum times 20 implies $400 worth of damage per American per year. That’s not damage you’re going to do in the distant future; that’s damage each of us is doing right now. Who pays for it?”  Stop and think for a moment, if true, how in the world would that exactitude of cost be determined?  When “we were causing an ice age” in the 70’s, and the price tag for that was thrown around, did they forget to subtract the benefits of a cooler climate?  Of course they did not, for they did not know it.  So, perhaps a little warming, which is possible within the margin of error would have beneficial effects?  In medieval Europe that warming spell was associated with the Renaissance!  What utterly false numbers are so boldly stated!.  They are an example of “scientism”.  Scientism is the belief that Science can explain all, and even more, it has come to imply the use of scientific jargon to impress those who have been inculcated in the fact that science is for nerds.

As perhaps the final jab-in-the-eye for the rational reader is this:  be-warned it may damage the brain to read: Our future will be largely determined by our ability to admit the need to end planetary socialism.
Did your eyes play a trick on you?  No, they did not!  What you read is what she (or he, or it) actually wrote in seriousness!  Green Eco-Justice is the antidote to Socialism.  The current system has everyone paying the cost for special interests.  Therefore that is Socialist!  It is freedom to limit or focus the costs on those who use up the CO2 vacancies produced by Green-Gore-Inc.  We must not let the costs of consuming CO2 space to fall on everyone equally, for that would be socialism!  No!  We must make those who consume the CO2 vacancies made available by the Exchange, pay the price, and not spread it around the society.  This writer is presumably both college educated and sane!  Yet, it must be obvious that 1984 is no longer studied in Literature, nor is George Orwell’s name recognized.  (At another “party” last weekend a physician of my generation had never heard of Ayn Rand.  Did not ring a bell.  “Atlas Shrugged”? not a clue.  This is a college- educated man supposedly bright enough to get in to and graduate Medical School.  WTF?  How ironic that George Orwell’s Memory Hole has apparently been sucked down one!  Like a black hole swallowing itself, it boggles.
LIBERTY IS SOCIALISM / SOCIALISM IS LIBERTY and this is said because “High school science tells us that global warming is real. And economics teaches us that humanity must have the right incentives if it is to stop this terrible trend.”   Yep, probably High School Science does tell our children this.   It is a lie of course.  The most foul, evil lie ever told, for the most evil and immoral purpose imagined; it is the “rationale” for eugenics and deliberate depopulation to 100 million.  The elite, and just enough people over whom they may feel superior , which is a necessary component to happiness for some, will be allowed to survive..  And of course the Elites will need cooks, masseuses, gardeners, and the technicians to keep their technocracy humming.  No real scientists though; for when they have succeeded they will strive to keep it the status quo eternal!  No more uppity Middleclass, with their Old Fashioned ideas about Moral Absolutes.   Oh yeah, yuppies, you are NOT invited either.  Have a nice day! 🙂

One thought on “THERE THEY GO AGAIN

  1. … you’d better listen to him too, he’s from the future as evidenced there “Wrote ‘But will the planet notice?’, published in October 2011 by Hill & Wang/Farrar Strauss & Giroux.” … at first i was hoping he was well intentioned but mis-lead and lost … after seeing this I tend to think differently:
    I also teach energy economics at Columbia. That class very much takes *my*book’s* premise as a starting point, *as*any*good*economics*class*should*. In the end, it’s about guiding market forces and, thus, the decisions of billions—not about individual volunteerism. —
    … sounds pretty egotistical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s