The solution to global warming (or "climate change," if you prefer) has always been to give more power to those who lust after it and let them do what they do best -- impose regulations, restrictions, quotas, and laws. They will generally exempt themselves from these laws and enforce them selectively so as not to inconvenience their friends or the elites with whom they prefer to associate. Al Gore, for instance, was found to be using more energy in a month to run his Tennessee mansion than most families consume in a year. The celebrities who like to lecture the rest of us on the imperative to cut back and make do with less, generally fly to the gig in private jets. The hypocrisy no longer has the power to outrage ... it is just too commonplace.
If you wonder what the great crusade against carbon will look like, consider one Englishman's proposal. One feels sure that MPs and Paul McCartney will be exempt. Or find clever ways around the rules. Former British Prime Minister -- and globe trotter of the first water -- Tony Blair would not likely be inconvenienced by such rationing. Not surprisingly, he is on record urging Americans to get with the anti-carbon program.
If the legislation Mr. Blair endorses should pass, it would mean
... trillions in assets and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and the bureaucracy ...
Which would be just fine with all those people in the imperial city. The log rolling and favor trading would result in legislation that would make the recent farm bill look clean in comparison.The new carbon regime must have the power to ration -- otherwise, what is the point? And ...
There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
Older totalitarianisms claimed a superior understanding of God. Or History. This one wants us to believe it has the inside gnosis on the weather.
When you see Al Gore, Tony Blair, and this charming eco-warrior sitting next to each other, three-wide in coach, then it will be time to sign on.
How will we ever end this maddingly spiraling hysteria?
Posted by: Lazarus Long | May 30, 2008 at 09:27 AM
What hypocrites. This whole moon-bat crowd is going to put us back in the dark ages. HUMANS emit CO2! Next step is to tax their emissions, so start practicing holding your breath. Welcome to communism, where the elites tell you what is best for you.
Posted by: T. Shea | May 30, 2008 at 11:22 AM
How ironic, Geoffrey. Did you happen to examine the carbon output of President Bush and Dick Cheney? Your selection of the ruling and entertainment elite indeed demonstrates the usual hypocrisy Americans have always had to swallow from "those people in the imperial city" no matter what imposed standard against which they choose to claim exemption.
What you say is true now and has always been true, no matter who speaks from the sanctum sanctorum of power:
"The hypocrisy no longer has the power to outrage ... it is just too commonplace."
No news here. On the other hand, are you suggesting that it's more admirable to public figures to suppress good science or negate facts regarding important issues? As I recall, the climate change issue, which is beyond an obvious point of fact, faced such ridiculous counter-debate that it now seems just as ridiculous for you to poo-poo those, particularly Al Gore, who played key roles in winning the public debate.
Interestingly, now that the debate is over, the newest manifestation of counter-debate is just as ridiculous and can best be described as a church-driven, dark-ages argument:
God is mad at us.
It makes me think of the hypocrisy in fundamentalist christianity. Rules apply to the faithful, not the Leer jet-set glam-preachers.
Posted by: Nate Freeman | May 30, 2008 at 02:59 PM
Nate, since when is 'science' dependent upon public debate and consensus?
Posted by: Greg Decker | May 31, 2008 at 10:31 AM