Chapter 4:
The New Green Ethos: The War on Fossil Fuels, the Quest for Alternative Energy, and Cap and Trade: The Lives of Real People are Less Important than the Global Warming Bogeyman
Without an example to which it may be applied, though, all that ethos and priority stuff remains nothing more than cold, abstract theory. So, let everyone suppose that I am a Green environmental activist. As such, it would not be unusual if I were to assume the number one priority of all good people to be the health and well being of the planet upon which they live. It only makes sense to assume that, if I were to allow the Earth to become polluted and despoiled of all its resources and other riches, I would have participated in the destruction of the only place that I have to live. Without a place to live, all the other things in life about which I might care become meaningless and pointless. Sounds reasonable enough; does it not? Yet, when safeguarding the environment becomes a person’s number one priority, every other priority in life must become subordinate to it. That means that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are—at best—number two, three, and four. This choice of priorities is not going to produce the results that most people want.
Once the environment becomes the number one priority in my New Ethos, I am forced to make choices that make no sense to the people of the Old Ethos, nor do they make any sense to any persons who have chosen some other, non-environmental priority for themselves and their New Ethos, such as fair distribution of wealth, diversity and inclusion, a woman’s right to choose abortion, etc. The first question that must be answered every time I make a choice must be “Is this what is best for the environment?”
Gas prices have soared as high as $4.00 per gallon and may well soar higher than that in the future. When gas prices are that high, some people literally can not afford to drive to work anymore; the amount of money produced by their jobs does not justify the expense of driving the necessary distance to get to work. Burning fossil fuels in order to produce energy creates toxic chemicals and other byproducts that are harmful to the environment. Burning less is good. Burning more is bad. So, high gas prices are good; they force people to burn less fuel. Increasing supply would mean burning more fuel, so drilling in this country is wrong, and asking other countries to produce more is wrong. It must not be done. Supply must stay low, and, after a long and painful transition process, demand will go down because we will have to burn less fossil fuel. People will be forced to develop new options that are better for the environment because they will have no choice. They will be forced to help me advance my political agenda. They will have to walk more. They will have to ride bicycles, buses, and trains. Those are the changes that are best for the environment.
“Wait a minute!” everyone shouts to the people of the new, Green ethos. Everyone else asks, “What about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” “What about economic prosperity?” As an advocate of the new Green ethos, I remind everybody that the number one priority must be the environment and that life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and economic prosperity must come second. Freedom to transport myself where I want, when I want, that is less important than the environment. The happiness and joy that results from the freedom of movement, that is less important than the environment. If people die because making a living is harder than ever, because the food they need to eat has been transformed into very expensive forms of energy, because the food they need to eat is more expensive to transport, because the people who provide their emergency services can no longer afford to do so, then they will just have to die [1]. Their lives are less important than the environment. If China, India, and all of America’s other economic competitors take advantage of our environmentally motivated economic choices, and they continue burning that fossil fuel as fast as it can be pumped out of the ground, while the US sits idle, waiting for pointy-headed intellectuals to invent a car that runs on good intentions, then everyone in the US will just have to accept that as a given, unavoidable reality. It is just a fact. We will have to accept economic defeat, becoming poorer and less content with our standard of living while the people of other countries work as hard as possible to ensure economic prosperity for themselves. That will have to be alright because economic prosperity and quality of life are less important than the environment.
Of course, that argument makes perfect sense to people whose priorities have been fundamentally reordered by their Green transformation. But, for everyone else, it seems absurd and ridiculous to suggest that human lives and the quality of those lives are less important than making the environment safe from the ravages of Mankind. For people who place the sanctity of human life as priority number one, this Green ethos is truly perverse and dangerous. The fact is that, if the entire country continues down this Green path, a significant number of people will die needlessly, in our country and around the world.
Unfortunately, the fossil fuel crisis is merely one small example of the perverse implications of the Green ethos. The other examples are endless in number, but two of them must be considered carefully: nuclear power and global warming. If electricity is going to play a vital role in transforming Mankind’s relationship with the environment, then providers are not going to be able to generate that electricity by burning fossil fuels like oil and coal. And, if man-made global warming (aka Climate Change) is going to be eliminated by Mankind, then the good people of the world will have to find a way to force everyone else to reduce their Greenhouse Gas emissions.
Currently, most electricity in the US is generated by burning fossil fuels, but the burning of fossil fuel hurts the environment because it is a major source of green house gas emissions, including carbon dioxide. So, the Green activist demands that the US turn to other methods of generating electricity in order to meet the needs of the people. But, solar, wind, hydroelectric, and all the other alternative methods combined will not produce enough electricity to meet those needs. What method will resolve this problem? There is only one possibility, Nuclear Energy. Given our current state of technology, that is the only method capable of filling the vast gap that will be left when the nation stops using fossil fuels for the generation of electricity.
According to the official government statistics kept by the US Department of Energy, in 2006, over 70% of all electricity in the US was generated by burning Coal, Oil, or Natural Gas. Conventional Hydroelectric, Solar, Wind, and all other renewable sources added together accounted for less than 10% of all electricity generated. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency based in Paris, as of 29 May 2007, France generated over 78% of all its electricity by means of nuclear power. In the US in 2006, nuclear power generation already accounted for over 19% of all electricity generated.
With numbers like that, it would be hard to suggest that any method other than nuclear power could possibly satisfy the nation’s electrical power needs. So, the Green activist who wants the US to stop using so much oil, to rely less and less on fossil fuels to power cars and homes, to use electrical energy for transportation, that person has no where else to turn but to nuclear power.
What about the #1 Green priority, though: “Is this choice what is best for the environment?” Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. Nuclear power generation has a very small carbon footprint. It produces virtually no Greenhouse Gases and, therefore, makes virtually no contribution to Global Warming. Even so, nuclear power plants produce toxic, radioactive waste products that are lethal to most forms of life on this planet. Yet, it is possible to contain, store, and warehouse that waste without doing any harm to the environment. But, does the Green activist trust the government and private industry to manage these waste products safely? And, if they cannot accept Nuclear Power, what option do they have? None.
The people of the old ethos might expect the Green activists to compromise or to wait for technology and the public will to evolve enough to be compatible with their own objectives—no such luck. Like angry, irrational children, they will have their way now, right now, even if it is clearly impossible. Everyone must drastically reduce fossil fuel use and must change their transportation habits. They must rely more on solar, wind, and other renewable resources and must use electricity generated by means of those resources. And, we may have to do all that without any help from nuclear power generation.
But, if nearly 90% of the nation’s electricity is currently generated by fossil fuels or nuclear power, then how can people possibly do that? There is only one other option: use less energy, a great deal less. People must stay at home unless they can walk or ride a bicycle. They must turn off the air conditioner and open the windows in the summer time. They must use those new, corkscrew, mercury-laced light bulbs. During the winter, they must get used to being colder, wearing more clothes, and praying that they do not freeze to death. They must consider quitting their jobs or working from home. They must raise their own food and be more self-sufficient. And, while settling comfortably into their new post-modern Stone-Age lifestyle, the people of the United States must do all that as the rest of the world seizes control of the international economic system that this nation has guided to where it is today.
As terrible and ridiculous as the Green obsession with Fossil Fuels and Alternative Energy seems, when all is said and done, the ultimate Green issue is undoubtedly Global Warming. Within the Green Ethos, the only acceptable solution for Global Warming is the regulation, control, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. In order for the government to accomplish such a thing, it must craft and build a whole new bureaucratic establishment to oversee and regulate the emission of CO2, and the Green lobby has christened their new creation “Cap and Trade.” This system establishes a quantitative cap on the level of carbon emissions and a new market allowing for the trade in carbon emission allowances, allowances being sold by those who do not need them and bought by those unable to live within the allowances allocated to them.
To really understand this idea a person has to have a vivid imagination. So, imagine this! We will create a very complex, elaborate market place in which we force people and institutions, especially businesses, at sword point to pretend to have a demand for a very expensive product that, itself, is purely imaginary and, being imaginary, has the virtue of indefinite supply measured by and restricted by neo-Marxist, environmentalist bureaucrats whose one and only priority is to do only that which is best for the health and well being of the whole planet, regardless of what happens to human beings in the process. People who can imagine that have a very good idea of the meaning and the mechanism of the various proposed Cap and Trade systems, including the one President Obama and the Democrat dominated Congress are—as I write this—trying to sneak past the American people without anyone even noticing that it is embedded and hidden within other very complex legislation.
The key to unraveling this very complex and controversial problem is understanding that the hysteria over Global Warming, the hysteria that has led the initiates of the new Green Ethos to lobby for these cap and trade systems has absolutely nothing to do with science, objectivity, or logic. Global Warming, like all irrational belief systems requires only faith, and, unlike many other beliefs systems, this one does not stand up well to careful scrutiny. As Al Gore says the science on this issue is in, and more than 31,000 of the best scientific minds in the world agree, there is no such thing as manmade Global Warming [2]. There is no evidence nor any rational reason for believing that carbon dioxide emissions have any significant effect on the world’s climate or weather patterns [3]. In fact, some scientists are saying that—while mankind has very little to do with the rise and fall of the Earth’s temperature—the world is currently at the end of a very long-term warming period [4]. Some even suggest that the Earth is actually entering a new, long-term cooling period and that the next Ice Age has already begun [5]. The truth is that the world-wide political movements motivated by fear of Global Warming have no foundation in science or reason. More than anything, fear of Global Warming has been manufactured by neo-Marxist propagandists as a secular, yet quasi-religious faith replacement for real faith, real religious experience, and real religious practice. On an instinctive level, all humans need something in which to believe, so Global Warming and Being Green give many neo-Marxists something in which to have faith without threatening their passionate avoidance of God and religion.
As with all the other subjects in this book, this is a matter of priorities and a matter of ethos. For the true and faithful Global Warming believer, science is of no consequence. The only science that enters into the analysis and discourse of the self-righteous, faithful Green is the mere assertion that all real scientists support their position. They do not need to read the published work of any real scientists or interview any researchers or engineers who actually know what they talking about. The Green, Global-Warming crusaders are already absolutely certain that their assertion is true and that any person who does not believe this assertion has closed his mind to the scientific reality already proven by all the honest, rational scientists in the world. They blindly accept whatever their ideological leaders have to say, and, following on the heals of those leaders, they enthusiastically march right off the nearest cliff.
Once the neo-Marxist, Global Warming crusader has been able to dispense with God, truth, reason, and science, while at the same time convincing himself that he can, somehow, still be intelligent, well-read, and well-educated, it becomes easy to define one’s entire ethos by making the Earth and the environment priority number one, the priority of priorities. Imagine it. It would not be unlike having one’s brain removed and, then, declaring oneself the greatest genius in the world. Given such circumstances, it should surprise no one when the Green Crusader fully embraces the Global Warming Doctrine and the Cap and Trade System intended to control everyone’s carbon emissions. All that really matters is the environment.
Who cares if the new Cap and Trade System drains hundreds of billions of dollars per year from our economy while the budget of the USA contains in excess of one trillion dollars in deficit spending, while the Big Three US auto makers sink slowly into oblivion, while the US Federal Government takes 17% of our GDP and turns it into a government-run, universal healthcare system, while the real unemployment rate in the US is at least 10%, and while the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve Bank seem to be determined to create double digit inflation lasting for many years to come and reducing the value of the US Dollar to nothing? Who cares if—by the Environmental Protection Agency’s own estimates[6]—all this effort will make little or no difference in the average temperature of the Earth? Who cares that many scientists actually believe that the Earth is cooling? The Earth is our number one priority. The environment is all that matters. Cap and Trade might actually make a difference, perhaps, maybe. If it bankrupts every civilized country in the world and destroys Western Civilization, then everyone will just have to accept that. Mankind and the happiness and comfort of Mankind is of little consequence. The health of the environment is more important than the Human Race. Perhaps, the environment would actually be better off if Mankind disappeared from the face of the Earth. Perhaps, the universal destruction of the Human Race would be for the best. For some people, the Green Ethos does not even allow for the continued existence of Mankind [7].
In reality, there are not very many people in the world with the mindset necessary for advocating the annihilation of the human race, but the mere fact that there are such persons in the world emphasizes once again the fundamentally important role of ethical priorities in this overall discussion. If the environment is truly priority number one and if it truly is more important than the life of any one human being, then, logically, it is not many steps from there to the obvious assertion that Humanity as a whole is less important than the environment and less important than the Earth. For the good of the Earth, for Gaia Herself, all Mankind might need to die. Even though the advocate of the New Green Ethos probably does not believe in any kind of real, higher power, it is certainly acceptable to personify the Earth in the form of a Greek goddess. For people who think like this, the human race has only three real choices: (1) It can completely give up the benefits of modern science and technology and revert back to a non-technological, Stone-Age lifestyle; (2) It can develop technologies that require very little energy and/or that have virtually no impact upon the environment; or (3) It can willingly embrace death and extinction for the good of Gaia, sacrificing themselves for Mother Earth.
Right or wrong, most US citizens do not seem to be ready to give up their current technologically-oriented lifestyles. Technologies that use little or no energy and that have little effect on the environment are, at best, many years away. At worst, they are impossible. And, most US citizens are not going to willingly choose death and the extinction of the human species.
The truth is that many of the grandest future technologies promised by today’s scientists require huge amounts of energy, and all current technological wonders, including current medical miracles, require energy. Many of the most sophisticated pieces of medical equipment and much of the equipment used by experimental physicists require large quantities of energy, some of them vast quantities of energy. Scientific and technological progress actually require that we continue to use energy, that we continue find more and more efficient ways to use that energy, and that we continue to find new, vast sources of energy. If the population of the Earth is going to continue to grow, and if those billions of people are to live an advanced, technologically-oriented lifestyle, then it is absolutely necessary that everyone embrace this quest for new and better ways of obtaining and using energy. The only other possible alternative is to go backward in the direction of a non-scientific, non-technological society, in the direction of the Stone Age. Fire is energy. Steel is produced by fire. The wheel is produced by exploiting energy, and using the wheel requires the continued use of energy. Particle accelerators use vast quantities of energy. Manipulating and transforming matter, opening doorways to other dimensions, and folding two points in space together into one will use amounts of energy for which humanity currently has no sources. Energy is advancement. Energy is freedom. Energy is the future. Those who struggle against this absolute certainty are either consciously Luddites, or they are intellectual incompetents and mental defectives who believe that they can advance the cause of science without energy and without having an impact upon the environment around them. Such people will fail utterly because they do not understand the most fundamental laws of nature.
The relationship between matter and energy is the basis of creation. It is the power of God manifest in our universe. When people attempt to understand and manipulate this relationship, they attempt to understand the mind of God Himself. Attempting to understand and manipulate this relationship is an attempt at communion with God by means of understanding the mind of God. Done reverently, it is an act of worship and prayer. Done irreverently, it is blasphemy
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Monckton, Christopher, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Letter to Representatives Ed Markey and Joe Barton, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. SPPI Reprint Series. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute, 30 March 2009. Page 59. <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/markey_barton_letter.html>. Much more evidence for this position can be found in the Monckton Collection at the same web site: <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ monckton/>.
(2) “Purpose of Petition.” Global Warming Petition Project. 5 April 2009. < http://www.petitionproject.org/ purpose_of_petition.php >; Robinson, Arthur B., Noah E. Robinson, and Willie Soon. Of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. “Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide.” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (2007) 12, 79-90. 5 April 2009. <http://www.petitionproject.org/review _article.php>; “U.S. Senate Minority Report: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: Scientists Continue to Debunk ‘Consensus’ in 2008 & 2009.” 5 April 2009. <http://epw.senate.gov/public/ index.cfmFuseAction=Files.View& FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9>.
(3) Monckton, Christopher, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Letter to Representatives Ed Markey and Joe Barton, Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce. SPPI Reprint Series. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute, 30 March 2009. Page 9. <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ monckton/markey_barton_letter.html>. Much more evidence for this position can be found in the Monckton Collection at the same web site: <http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/ monckton/>.
(4) Easterbrook, Don J. “Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium.” Abstracts of American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, San Francisco, December 2008. 5 April 2009. <http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008 /12/29/don-easterbrooks-agu-paper-on-potential-global-cooling/>. See note #1 above; Monckton also provides ample evidence for this phenomena in his substantial research into these matters.
(5) Fegel, Gregory F. “Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age.” Pravda. 11 January 2009. <http://english.pravda .ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0 >. See note #1 above; Monckton also provides ample evidence for this phenomena in his substantial research into these matters.
(6) “EPA Analysis of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008,” March 14, 2008, 193. <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/s2191_EPA_Analysis.pdf.>; Monckton, Christopher, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Why Waxman/Markey won’t work: A cost-effectiveness metric for CO2 mitigation policies. SPPI Original Paper. Haymarket, VA: Science and Public Policy Institute, 18 May 2009. Page 6. <http://science andpublicpolicy.org/monckton/markey_barton_letter.html>.
(7) With the inclusion of organizations like The Church of Euthanasia, <http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/ index.html>, and The Gaia Liberation Front, <http://www.gaialiberationfront.org/>, some who advocate for human extinction are obviously doing so in a satirical and polemic fashion in order to make people laugh and to draw attention to more serious matters. However, there are some individuals and organizations who truly believe that the ultimate solution to Earth’s environmental woes is the total elimination of the human race. vhem.org and Alan Weisman, <http://www.worldwithoutus.com/index2.html>, are merely two examples among many.