How much of the Green Movement is about Green$$
May 21st, 2009 by David Anderson
In today’s Evil Murdoch inspired Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lomborg exposed the The Climate-Industrial Complex. Many of us have noted for years that the green movement seems to be governed by those out either for power or money. They have paid off scientists, left wing ideologues, global power brokers, an educational establishment wanting a new social organizing force, and corporate manipulators joined to empower and enrich one another under the cover of environmentalism. This article puts a lot of the documentation in one place.
Since you can read the link, I won’t quote it. I will add something that he missed. NBC has been overriding its own experts, including purging the Weather Channel of its founder who is a skeptic of the man made climate change movement. It put down a mandate that all networks must present a green message. Could it be because the parent company GE would benefit more than any other single company from government mandates and contracts related to the Obama initiatives? Some have wondered why NBC seems in the tank, maybe billions upon billions of dollars would warm anyone’s heart.
I believe it is this movement has hijacked the green movement from legitimate environmental issues such as better water management, pollution control, and waste management. The resources redirected to combat so called global climate change will actually comprise other objectives. If we avoid converting trash to energy for fear of CO2 then we end up land filling it which may compromise our watersupply. If we impoverish people around the world then they will deforest more of the planet which will compromise our air quality and may actually contribute to climate shifting. These green barons don’t care because it is all about their money and power. Instead of getting it through the marketplace by serving people’s needs they are scaring people into surrendering their liberty to an expansive global regime.
Frank Cross of the University of Texas at Austin notes that over-regulation can kill just by misdirecting resources and destroying wealth. Regulatory schemes that divert attention, ingenuity, and money from major threats to minor risks make us less safe. For example, the millions of dollars local governments waste on gold-plated Superfund cleanups cannot be used to improve police and fire protection. Similarly, the billions of dollars and untold thousands of hours U.S. policymakers and government contractors spend worrying about climate change divert attention, ingenuity, and money from other perils – such as America’s complete and utter vulnerability to missile attack.
Equally important is the fact that, for individuals as well as nations, wealthier is healthier and richer is safer. Precautionists ignore the obvious connection between livelihoods, living standards, and lives. Wealth is the single most important factor affecting health and longevity. A study published in JAMA in July 1998 found that the death rate of America’s poor is three times that of the general population. Only 13 percent of the difference could be explained by risky lifestyle choices such as overeating, excessive drinking, or smoking. The chief cause of the higher death rates was poverty itself. Poverty is stressful and correlated with several well-known disadvantages – unsafe neighborhoods, unhygienic living conditions, and inadequate medical care.
David, I know you don’t want to admit this, but the truth is there is anthropogenic global warming taking place at a rate such the yours and my grandchildren will be confronted with a global challenge the likings of which have never before been seen.
This is not alarmist, it represents the opinions of a large number of scientists of many scientific disciplines that have reached essentially the same conclusion.
Yet you want to treat this as a conspiracy, without evidence.
I suggest you read what tommywonk has written recently, then debate him if you will.
http://www.tommywonk.com/2009/05/is-reducing-co2-emissions-bad-for.html