The Global Climate Summit is Green on the outside, but Red where it counts
By: R.J. Moeller
Let us suppose that you find yourself walking through Millennium Park in downtown Chicago and you happen upon a homeless woman asking for money. Because you are an American, and a member of the most generous, charitable society on the planet, you reach for your wallet to lend a helping monetary hand to the poor lady. But alas, you quickly remember that you only have $6.97 on your person, the precise amount for a Chipotle chicken burrito, which was to be your lunch shortly thereafter.
A walk to the ATM is out of the question, but you feel intense compassion for this destitute soul. What to do?
As luck would have it, a well-dressed, presumably wealthy, businessman just happens to be walking past at that very moment. You call his attention to the plight of the homeless woman, and ask for a 5-spot to give to her. The businessman, assuming you to be high or insane, shakes his head “no” and sets his sights on high-tailing it out of there as fast as his Prada-covered feet will allow.
But your good intentions to help this woman compel you to grab the businessman by the collar and threaten the ability of his brains to stay inside his cranium, and insist that he cough up $10 now for being a greedy Scrooge. He concedes, you give the money to the woman, and later that day, tell your friends how miserly all businessman are.
There is no moral defense for what you did. There is also no serious difference between what you did in my mock scenario and what liberals, Leftists, socialists, and Marxists all hold as the basic, core tenet of their collectivist ideology.
The coerced re-distribution of wealth by a governing body comprised of “experts”, “elites”, and “czars” is as central to the belief system and worldview of Barack Obama as it was to Karl Marx, H.G. Wells, FDR, and Lyndon Baines Johnson. The only reason my claims here might sound shocking to some of you is because we’ve been raised to put a higher premium on what we mean, what we intend, rather than what we actually do.
Nowhere is this more clearly on display than at the current United Nations’ climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. The world’s Left believes in its heart of hearts that man-made global warming will cause irrevocable destruction to the planet anywhere in the next 1-50 years, and they have gathered to concoct ways to “combat” the “evil” of climate change.
The only thing these people meeting in Denmark believe in more than global warming is that the only solution to such a problem is massive re-distribution of wealth from richer to poorer nations, overseen by global governing bodies with centralized power willingly ceded from all member nations. The jump from “Hey, temperatures are showing a different trend than we thought 30 years ago when we scientists of the world said the planet was in danger of a global cooling” to “The United States is to blame for global warming and the world’s economy should now be overseen by U.N. bureaucrats” is quite a leap (of faith).
Almost as if they had the solution in their minds (or hearts) before they knew the problem…
Of course free market conservatives and global warming skeptics from all corners of the planet are dismissed both for their lack of faith in the prophetic teachings of The Goreacle, and for their “ridiculous” accusations that the progressive liberals of the world are trumping up the threat of cataclysmic disaster from global warming because of their desire to run the global economy from the EU in Brussels and the U.N. building in Manhattan.
But is it really so far-fetched to:
A) Point to the fact the climate has been changing since before mankind walked the earth
B) Note that hundreds of reputable scientists have come out against the “evidence” of global warming, which bases its theories almost entirely on computer models that already presume global warming theories to be true
C) Ask questions about emails that have surfaced from the United Nations’ leading climate research facility indicating that scientists all over the world have been manipulating the data to support their claims that global warming is real
D) Conclude that since progressive liberals want power to be centralized in the hands of a fewer and fewer “experts” and “elites” in literally every issue that we face today, they might want the same when it comes to global warming
All of these, it seems to me, are not only fair points to be raised, but necessary points to address for any person serious about intellectual honesty. One side or the other is really wrong here.
Jumping quickly back to my “forced charity for the homeless woman’s sake” analogy, what if it were proven that the problem (i.e. the woman’s homeless state) you felt so strongly about was purposely fabricated to get your money and rile your emotions? If you were presented with documented evidence the next day after you took the businessman’s money that the homeless woman “kind of” lied and actually lives in a condo on The Gold Coast and funds her luxurious lifestyle by preying upon the good intentions and guilt of suburban suckers, would anyone in their right mind say, “But she might have been homeless, and my intentions matter more to me than my money and freedom, and certainly more than the money and freedom of others (like that stingy businessman)”?
We know for a fact that many of the leading scientists working on global warming studies have been fabricating data and silencing dissenting voices. We also know that the means by which climate change enthusiasts hope to “fix” the climate’s problems are thoroughly totalitarian.
Here’s what Professor Tim Flannery, an Australian and one of the leading global warming scientists and advocates in the world, recently said about the goals of U.N. climate summit:
“We all too often mistake the nature of those negotiations in Copenhagen. We think of them as being concerned with some sort of environmental treaty. That is far from the case. The negotiations now ongoing toward the Copenhagen agreement are in effect diplomacy at the most profound global level. They deal with every aspect of our life and they will inﬂuence every aspect of our life, our economy, our society.”
Okay, but that’s coming from some Aussie most of us have never heard of. Who cares, right? What do the more benign, sophisticated, Prius-driving American environmentalists have to say?
“Right now we say we want to move from suicidal gray capitalism to green eco-capitalism where at least we're not fast-tracking the destruction of the whole planet. Will that be enough? No, it won't be enough. We want to go beyond the systems of exploitation and oppression altogether. But, that's a process and I think that what's so great about the movement that is beginning to emerge is that the crisis is so severe in terms of joblessness, violence and now ecological threats that people are willing to be both pragmatic and visionary. So the green economy will start off as a small subset and we are going to push it and push it and push it until it becomes the engine for transforming the whole society."
Those are the Orwellian words of one Van Jones, the “Green Czar” tapped by President Barack Obama to oversee the development of a “Green” economy. Unfortunately for everyone involved, Mr. Jones was exposed as the Marxist he most certainly and proudly is, and was asked to resign in September. But his dream lives on in Copenhagen, as well as in the halls of congress, the White House, and, it seems, the EPA.
What’s that? Oh, you didn’t hear what the Environmental Protection Agency did just this past week?
As Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer explains:
“On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an "endangerment" to human health. Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.) Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.”
When it comes to running massive government programs, entitlements, and bureaucracies, the Left in the United States is always comfortable with a handful of individuals manning the reigns. President Obama and his wife proclaimed in the Democrat primaries and on the campaign trail in 2008 that Barack was the only one who could transform America for the better. The president, once elected, said that the Timothy Geitner was “the only man” who could fix the economy. Joe Biden had the foreign policy tact and experience no one else could touch. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, presuming to know more than most, and knowing less than nearly all, have repeatedly barred Republicans and dissenting Democrats and Independents from key meetings over the gargantuan health care “reform” being proposed despite the fact that we have no money to spend as a nation.
And yet when it comes to your own life, to your own finances, to your own families, to your own diet, to your own desire to leave a clean planet for your children, progressive liberals have no confidence whatsoever that the average American is capable of satisfactorily completing such duties.
The conference in Copenhagen is only the latest in an un-ending polluted stream of collectivist thought that began at the tower of Babel and will be with us until time itself ends. This ideology denies the Lord Acton maxim “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”, and trades the undeniably risky prospect of giving Creator-endowed freemen and women the ability to live their own lives for an empty, Utopian promise of a shared, assured, slow decline into mediocrity (and possibly even poverty). We told the Soviets for decades that centralized, bloated bureaucracies do not work. We were right, but not right enough to convince ourselves that avoiding the same fate might require avoiding their policies and systems of governance.
To veil its inherent totalitarian insinuations, the line of “progressive” thinking the modern liberal Democrat employs today is wrapped in a pretty bow (i.e. “saving the planet”, “saving the children”, “social justice”) in the hopes that enough American voters will be swayed by their heart instead of being guided by their head. The result is a nation comprised of people whose gut reaction to terms like “private property” and “free market capitalism” is “evil” or “fascist.” These same people, perhaps even you, yourself, hear terms such as “government-owned General Motors” or “teacher union” or “carbon tax” and the only words that come to mind are “compassion” and “fairness.”
The time for thoughtless “compassion” and “justice” and “change” is coming to an end. Or perhaps I ought to say that if it doesn’t come to an end, we soon will.
The “Watermelon Surprise” of modern environmentalist activism is that the same Red instincts of Marx, Lenin, Castro, and Che Guevara lie at the heart of a superficially Green exterior. The fact that so many well-intentioned people have been caught up in the ruse only makes it that much sadder.