The Tip Of The Climate Spending Iceberg

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

CFACTLock­heed Mar­tin, a recent Wash­ing­ton Post arti­cle notes, is get­ting into renew­able ener­gy, nuclear fusion, “sus­tain­abil­i­ty” and even fish farm­ing projects, to aug­ment its reduced defense prof­its. The com­pa­ny plans to forge new ties with Defense Depart­ment and oth­er Oba­ma ini­tia­tives, based on a shared belief in man­made cli­mate change as a crit­i­cal secu­ri­ty and plan­e­tary threat. It is charg­ing ahead where oth­er defense con­trac­tors have failed, con­fi­dent that its exper­tise, lob­by­ing skills and “social­ly respon­si­ble” com­mit­ment to pre­vent­ing cli­mate chaos will land it plen­ti­ful con­tracts and subsidies.

As with its polar coun­ter­parts, 90% of the titan­ic cli­mate fund­ing ice­berg is invis­i­ble to most cit­i­zens, busi­ness­men and politi­cians. The Lock­heed action is the mere tip of the icy mountaintop.

The mul­ti-bil­lion-dol­lar agen­da reflects the Oba­ma Administration’s com­mit­ment to using cli­mate change to rad­i­cal­ly trans­form Amer­i­ca. It reflects a deter­mi­na­tion to make the cli­mate cri­sis indus­try so enor­mous that no one will be able to tear it down, even as com­put­er mod­els and dis­as­ter claims become less and less cred­i­ble – and even if Repub­li­cans con­trol Con­gress and the White House after 2016. Lock­heed is mere­ly the lat­est in a long list of reg­u­la­tors, researchers, uni­ver­si­ties, busi­ness­es, man­u­fac­tur­ers, pres­sure groups, jour­nal­ists and politi­cians with such strong mon­e­tary, rep­u­ta­tion­al and author­i­ty inter­ests in alarmism that they will defend its tenets and largesse tooth and nail.

Above all, it reflects a con­vic­tion that alarmists have a right to  con­trol our ener­gy use, lives, liveli­hoods and liv­ing stan­dards, with no trans­paren­cy and no account­abil­i­ty for mis­takes they make or dam­age they inflict on dis­fa­vored indus­tries and fam­i­lies. And they are pur­su­ing this agen­da despite glob­al warm­ing again being dead last in the lat­est Gallup poll of 15 issues of great­est con­cern to Amer­i­cans: only 25% say they wor­ry about it “a great deal,” despite steady hys­te­ria; 24% are “not at all” wor­ried about the cli­mate. By com­par­i­son, 46% per­cent wor­ry a great deal about the size and pow­er of the fed­er­al government.

But Cli­mate Cri­sis, Inc. is using our tax and con­sumer dol­lars to advance six simul­ta­ne­ous strategies.

1) Cli­mate research. The US gov­ern­ment spends $2.5 bil­lion per year on research that focus­es on car­bon diox­ide, ignores pow­er­ful nat­ur­al forces that have always dri­ven cli­mate change, and gen­er­ates numer­ous reports and press releas­es warn­ing of record high tem­per­a­tures, melt­ing ice­caps, ris­ing seas, stronger storms, more droughts and oth­er “unprece­dent­ed” crises. The claims are erro­neous and deceitful.

They are con­sis­tent­ly con­tra­dict­ed by actu­al cli­mate and weath­er records, and so alarmists increas­ing­ly empha­size com­put­er mod­els that rein­vent and sub­sti­tute for real­i­ty. Penn State mod­el­er Michael Mann has col­lect­ed mil­lions for head­line-grab­bing work like his lat­est asser­tion that the Gulf Stream is slow­ing – con­trary to 20 years of actu­al mea­sure­ments that show no change. For­mer NASA astronomer James Hansen received a ques­tion­able $250,000 Heinz Award from Sec­re­tary of State John Kerry’s wife, for his cli­mate cri­sis and anti-coal advo­ca­cy. Al Gore and also rake in mil­lions. Alarmist sci­en­tists and insti­tu­tions seek bil­lions more, while vir­tu­al­ly no gov­ern­ment mon­ey goes to research into nat­ur­al forces.

2) Renew­able ener­gy research and imple­men­ta­tion grants, loans, sub­si­dies and man­dates dri­ve projects to replace hydro­car­bons that are still abun­dant and still 82% of all US ener­gy con­sumed. Many recip­i­ents went bank­rupt despite huge tax­pay­er grants and loan guar­an­tees. Wind tur­bine instal­la­tions butch­er mil­lions of birds and bats annu­al­ly, but are exempt from Endan­gered Species Act fines and penalties.

Tes­la Motors received $256 mil­lion to pro­duce elec­tric cars for wealthy elites who receive $2,500 to $7,500 in tax cred­its, plus free charg­ing and express lane access. From 2007 to 2013, corn ethanol inter­ests spent $158 mil­lion lob­by­ing for more “green” man­dates and sub­si­dies – and $6 mil­lion in cam­paign con­tri­bu­tions – for a fuel that reduces mileage, dam­ages engines, requires enor­mous amounts of land, water and fer­til­iz­er, and from stalk to tailpipe emits more car­bon diox­ide than gaso­line. Gen­er­al Elec­tric spends tens of mil­lions lob­by­ing for more tax­pay­er renew­able ener­gy dol­lars; so do many oth­er com­pa­nies. The pay­offs add up to tens of bil­lions of dol­lars, from tax­pay­ers and consumers.

3) Reg­u­la­to­ry fiats increas­ing­ly sub­sti­tute for laws and car­bon tax­es that Con­gress refus­es to enact, due to con­cerns about eco­nom­ic and employ­ment impacts, and because Chi­na, India and oth­er coun­tries’ CO2 emis­sions dwarf America’s. EPA’s war on coal has already claimed thou­sands of jobs, raised elec­tric­i­ty costs for mil­lions of busi­ness­es and fam­i­lies, and adverse­ly affect­ed liv­ing stan­dards, health and wel­fare for mil­lions of fam­i­lies. The White House and EPA are also tar­get­ing oil and gas drilling and fracking.

Now the Oba­ma Admin­is­tra­tion is unleash­ing a host of new man­dates and stan­dards, based on arbi­trary “social cost of car­bon” cal­cu­la­tions that assume fos­sil fuel use impos­es numer­ous cli­mate and oth­er costs, but brings min­i­mal or no eco­nom­ic or soci­etal ben­e­fits. The rules will require oner­ous new ener­gy effi­cien­cy and CO2 emis­sion reduc­tion stan­dards that will send con­sumer costs sky­rock­et­ing, while chan­nel­ing bil­lions of dol­lars to retail­ers, installers, banks and most­ly over­seas manufacturers.

As ana­lyst Roger Bezdek explains, water heaters that now cost $675–1,500 will soon cost $1,200–2,450 – with new­fan­gled exhaust fans, vent pipes and con­den­sate removal sys­tems. Pick­up trucks with more fuel effi­cien­cy and less pow­er will near­ly dou­ble in price. Microwaves, cell phones, vac­u­um clean­ers, hair dry­ers, toast­ers, cof­fee pots, lawn mow­ers, pho­to­copiers, tele­vi­sions and almost every­thing else will cost far more. Poor and mid­dle class fam­i­lies will get clob­bered, to pre­vent per­haps 5% of the USA’s 15% of all human CO2 emis­sions toward 0.04% of atmos­pher­ic CO2, and maybe 0.00001 degrees of warming.

4) A new UN cli­mate treaty would lim­it fos­sil fuel use by devel­oped coun­tries, place no bind­ing lim­its or timeta­bles on devel­op­ing nations, and redis­trib­ute hun­dreds of bil­lions of dol­lars to poor coun­tries that claim they have been harmed by emis­sions and warm­ing due to rich coun­try hydro­car­bon use. Even IPCC offi­cials now open­ly brag that cli­mate pol­i­cy has “almost noth­ing” to do with pro­tect­ing the envi­ron­ment – and every­thing to do with inten­tion­al­ly trans­form­ing the glob­al econ­o­my and redis­trib­ut­ing its wealth.

5) Vicious per­son­al attacks con­tin­ue on sci­en­tists, busi­ness­men, politi­cians and oth­ers who dis­agree pub­licly with the cat­e­chism of cli­mate cat­a­clysm. Alarmist pres­sure groups and Demo­c­rat mem­bers of Con­gress are out to destroy the stud­ies, fund­ing, rep­u­ta­tions and careers of all who dare chal­lenge cli­mate dis­as­ter tau­tolo­gies. At Pres­i­dent Obama’s behest, even dis­as­ter aid agen­cies are pil­ing on.

New FEMA rules require that any state seek­ing dis­as­ter pre­pared­ness funds from the Fed­er­al Emer­gency Man­age­ment Agency must first assess how cli­mate change threat­ens their com­mu­ni­ties. This will mean rely­ing on dis­cred­it­ed, worth­less alarmist mod­els that rou­tine­ly spew out pre­dic­tions unre­lat­ed to real­i­ty. It like­ly means no fed­er­al funds will go to states that include or focus on nat­ur­al caus­es, his­tor­i­cal records or mod­els that have bet­ter track records than those employed by the IPCC, EPA and President.

6) Thought con­trol. In addi­tion to vil­i­fy­ing cli­mate chaos skep­tics, alarmists are deter­mined to con­trol all think­ing on the sub­ject. They are ter­ri­fied that peo­ple will find real­ist analy­ses and expla­na­tions far more per­sua­sive. They refuse to debate skep­tics, respond to NIPCC and oth­er stud­ies exam­in­ing nat­ur­al cli­mate change and car­bon diox­ide ben­e­fits to wildlife and agri­cul­ture, or even admit there is no consensus.

They want the news media to ignore us but can­not put the inter­net genie back in the bot­tle. The White House is try­ing, though. It even sent pick­eters to FCC Chair­man Tom Wheeler’s home, to demand that he knuck­le under and apply 1930s’ tele­phone laws to the inter­net, as a first step in con­tent control

States must refuse to play the cli­mate cri­sis game. Through law­suits, hear­ings, inves­ti­ga­tions and oth­er actions, gov­er­nors, leg­is­la­tors, AGs and oth­er offi­cials can delay EPA dik­tats, edu­cate cit­i­zens about solar and oth­er nat­ur­al forces, and explain the huge costs and tri­fling ben­e­fits of these dra­con­ian regulations.

Con­gress should hold hear­ings, demand an account­ing of agency expen­di­tures, require sol­id evi­dence for every cli­mate claim and reg­u­la­tion, and cross-exam­ine Admin­is­tra­tion offi­cials on details. It should slash EPA and oth­er agency bud­gets, so they can­not keep giv­ing bil­lions to pres­sure groups, pro­pa­gan­dists and attack dogs. Hon­esty, trans­paren­cy, account­abil­i­ty and a much short­er leash are long overdue.