If you have an extra minute, take a look around you. How many people do you know react to facts with a psychodynamic response — an automatic, partly unconscious act of tuning out at the first hint of anything counter to their predisposed ideas? Or if they do choose to engage, it is through the filters of their prejudice, often formulating comments while not hearing a thing.
Sound familiar? Yet we have all been guilty of this to some degree; it is natural, for the more we learn about politics or environmental issues like global warming and how they interface, the more focused we become, the more we think we know … and the more tunnel-eyed we find ourselves. Listening is the other rubric in communication, then judgment.
So, here are the facts. EPA’s new carbon emission standards will absolutely raise everyone’s electric bill … and cost many more jobs. It’s a lucrative money-making assault by liberal government on fossil fuels, our main source of energy and electricity. And who has any idea what new rolling blackouts will look like? But rest assured, all fingers will point at industry. This significant tax, like the Affordable Care Act and other recent new taxes, will be spread out over the next few years to make it more palatable to voters. There’s barely an argument from any quarter on that, but will these costly new regulations (taxes) actually reduce worldwide CO2 emissions? The NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) say’s emphatically: No.
In fact, at the November 2013 “UN Conference of the Parties 19” (COP19) in Warsaw, Poland, the entire G-7 of developed nations, with one holdout, all declined further CO2 restrictions impacting their recovering economies. They even vowed to scrap the ones they agreed to in 2011. Tony Abbot, Australia’s new prime minister, just nixed their new carbon tax and scrubbed its Climate Commission. And Great Britain’s PM David Cameron said they will roll back green taxes that are driving people into the poor house over fuel prices. Even in Japan, the patriarch of the Kyoto Accords announced it would ax its promised 25 percent carbon reduction target.
And Canada, Russia and New Zealand? They already declared they would not adhere to any carbon reduction goals at the “Disaster in Doha,” another UN Assembly meeting in Qatar in October 2013, where the crumbling of climate change consensus began. Well, why would all these developed nations bail out on UN climate change goals when it’s now “crawling on top of us?” Do they know something the UN won’t admit to? Who exactly are these UN Agenda 21 characters that keep pushing the embellished science?
Meet “Mr. Climate Change,” the new spokesperson for the United Nations Agenda 21 crowd, the successor to ”Mr. Global Warming,” who was fired for not showing up. You see, Mr. Change can never fail us; he can’t ever be fired because he is always with us. Nothing is static in nature and therefore change is inevitable. And Mr. Change is more than a mere flag bearer; he’s the main support column for the entire UN Agenda 21 “Palace of Earth’s Salvation.”
Ah, but here the fairytale ends because without climate change, the rain-dancing UN warming phobes don’t have a leg to stand on. And without Agenda 21, these rabid one-worlders have no mantra, no mechanism to march forward on. So climate change is not buffoonery after all; it’s another calculated construct, another tentacle driving the insidious creep of socialism.
Yet all the developing nations love it. Even China, with six of the worst polluted cities in the world and the largest carbon polluter by far, because the “rich nations,” through substantial UN fees and taxes, are required to pay monies to these “poor” countries — including China. Hello?
Brazil even wants retroactive restitution for all their disasters caused by climate change. But it’s really more than just wealth re-distribution because we also agreed to forfeit information technology, agricultural and industrial technology, even proprietary assets, all for the United Nations’ Agenda 21. The one G-7 holdout at the COP19 Climate Change defection was … well, it was us.
Actually it was Mr. Obama who salvaged the meeting after all the developed countries walked out filling the exits. When the NIPCC finally dissected, analyzed and exposed the fraud of UN climate change, all the developed nations recognized the bamboozle, all but one that is. Even our own 111th Congress in July 2011 eventually voted no on capping GHG emissions, effectively killing the Cap and Trade Bill because it would devastate a struggling recovery.
Congress spoke, but Obama answered again with, “I have a phone and a pen.” So why does Obama and Gina McCarthy, EPA secretary, continue to march in lockstep with Agenda 21 and not with our Congress and other developed countries? Is it because this lucrative EPA carbon tax scheme has no foundation in fact without UN propaganda?
When Hans Christian Anderson coined the phrase, “the king has no clothes,” I’m certain he couldn’t possibly have known to what depths it would be taken. If it is something else, can someone please explain it with a ration of thought? But please, read the NIPCC report first; spare us the UN/EPA garbage. I’m listening, thanks.
Rod Kerr is retired with 30 years of service at the California Department of Food Agriculture and with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.