In Spite Of ISIS’s Massacres, Democrats Double Down On Climate Change
November 18, 2015 3:24pm PST
For Democrats, Paris doesn’t mean massacres the UN’s Conference on Climate Change coming up next month in Paris. To the extent they acknowledge the massacre, they’re clear on what caused it too. As Socialist Bernie Sanders insisted, “climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism.”
Whenever Democrats insist on something, there’s only one thing to do: follow the money. And when it comes to climate change, there’s a lot of money to be had.
The global warming movement went from the fringes to the mainstream in 1988, when the UN created its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”). The IPCC’s sole responsibility was to investigate alleged “man-made” global warming. With the UN in charge, spending on climate change since 1988 has exploded. In August, 2015, the Climate Change Business Journal estimated that so-called climate mitigation efforts are now a $1.5 trillion a year industry – and still growing – which is 2% of the world’s annual economic output.
Since 2009, the Obama administration has spent approximately $120 billion taxpayer dollars on environmental issues, most related to climate change research and mitigation. That number is dwarfed many times over by the approximately $1.75 trillion in costs the government imposes on American businesses to comply with government imposed “green” mandates – costs inevitably passed on to consumers.
Those costs are set to rise exponentially if the EPA gets away with its recently issued Clean Power Plan, which limits carbon in those states that emit the most carbon (i.e., Red states) and rewards non-carbon emitting (i.e., Blue) states. In addition to costing the U.S. economy $2.5 trillion by 2030, the CPP promises to be a real job killer. According to Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at American Action Forum, “The final plan will shutter 66 power plants and eliminate 125,800 jobs in the coal industry. Perhaps more alarming, using the 2012 baseline for coal generation and projections for 2030 output, the industry could shrink by 48 percent.”
That will be nothing, though, if Obama succeeds at the UN conference in Paris, forcing First World countries to deposit money into a “green fund.” The UN will dole out money from this fund to various nations, ostensibly to mitigate the catastrophic climate damage the UN’s highly suspect computer models promise. The numbers involved are huge, starting at $100 billion annually, then increasing to $1.1 trillion annually in today’s dollars. These monies could include not just direct transfers of wealth, mostly from the U.S. but international taxes on money transfers.
And if you’re curious where all of this money will be going, a few examples explain what’s happening: China stands to get paid vast sums of money, as well as free access to western energy technology in exchange for a vague promise to decrease carbon production by 2030. Al Gore has increased his net worth from $1.7 million in 2001 to over $300 million today. And Professor Jagdish Shukla, of George Mason University, set up a foundation that has sucked in $63.5 million taxpayer dollars over twenty years, almost half of which he siphoned off to himself and his family.
If you’re wondering about all this worrisome carbon, this should comfort you: The so-called greenhouse gases are trace gasses making up only about 2% of our atmosphere. Of that 2%, only 3.62% is carbon. And of that minuscule amount of carbon, only 4% comes from human activity. So don’t worry. We won’t be cooking to death any time soon, although we may spent our declining years in abject, government-caused poverty.