Green unicorns

In every command economy (read socialist), the state runs every industry, usually badly, as the citizens are soaked for every tax dollar the taxman can wring out of them. The Democrats, (all their presidential candidates to date) have endorsed this economic sledgehammer that will be used to destroy the economy, the Constitution, and personal liberty. As usual, they hoist the bogeyman flag about the wealthy paying their fair share (the very top tiers of taxpayers pay half of the current taxes collected) and call for revisiting WWII tax rates of 70 to 90 percent.

There aren’t enough millionaires, let alone billionaires, to pay for their agenda, so the middle class will also see much higher tax bills as will the working class in higher payroll taxes and skyrocketing prices for everything, particularly the essentials of life, like food, electricity, and anything requiring transport. They never seem to learn that high tax rates result in lower tax revenues collected as money turned over to the government doesn’t produce wealth, only a sluggish economy. It takes the energy and innovation of free enterprise to create wealth on a large scale, which President Kennedy proved when he first proposed reducing tax rates from 90 percent to 70 percent, which in turn were halved by succeeding administrations. The result for Kennedy/Johnson in the 1960s was an economic boom, followed by Reagan, Clinton, and Trump’s tax cuts, all producing similar economic results. The more money remaining in taxpayer pockets, the more economic wealth is created, along with jobs and a better economic future. The millionaires and billionaires currently pay the overwhelming proportion of taxes; the bottom half pays nothing at all.

The Green New Deal is a sham that would cost trillions of dollars on the premise that we face a climate crisis posing as an existential threat to humanity. The crisis isn’t severe enough to warrant a crash program to use up-to-date nuclear power systems to eliminate the “threat” of greenhouse gas emissions, nor large hydroelectric projects, both of which emit no CO2. Objections to nuclear power assume current reactor designs haven’t advanced beyond that of Diablo Canyon using 1960s design technology. That’s like assuming a 747 hasn’t advanced beyond the design parameters of a WWI biplane. Nuclear reactor designs are light years beyond current reactors in operation. What stops them is political will, not technology. Meanwhile, California is insisting that Oregon dismantle two large hydroelectric dams providing clean power to Californians, for the benefit of local fish.

The underlying assumptions of the climate crisis are based not upon real-world observations but hundreds of (government sponsored) computer-generated climate models, none of which have yet reproduced actually observed (historically documented) climate when programmed to do so. They exaggerate the rate and speed of temperature rise. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN organization promoting climate fear, 100 percent elimination of America’s CO2 emissions would reduce global warming by only 0.137 degrees by the year 2100. A global effort, eliminating all of industrialized Europe’s emissions increases this reduction to only 0.278 degrees by 2100. The economies of both America and Europe, however, would be devastated.

I know that these assertions will be met with “97 percent of all scientists agree that climate change is occurring and humans are responsible for most of it,” except that isn’t true either. This assertion is based upon a social scientist’s study of 928 papers and drawing the conclusion that 97 percent of scientists concur with the assertion of humans causing most of the observed warming that has occurred. Most of the papers don’t even address anthropocentric global warming, according to Alex Epstein’s “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuel,” and less than 2 percent of the papers agreed with human-caused warming being a significant factor in climate change. According to “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism,” more than 10,000 papers have been written on the subject and fewer than 2 percent agree with humans being the primary cause of climate change.

Unfortunately, the politicization of climate science is such that any scientist raising public objections risks peer-isolation and very negative ramifications for their career, including loss of tenure or firing. The Green New Deal poses a definite threat to liberty and the national economy. Fossil fuels have elevated millions of people out of poverty, and the widespread use of natural gas has proven to be a clean, reliable, and cost-effective source of energy in America.

The ramifications of eliminating fossil fuel use by 2030 would cripple our national defense, boost Russian oil revenues used to expand their military, and cripple ground and air transportation for Americans. Politicians promoting this agenda should be sent back to kindergarten and not allowed anywhere near places where serious people work.