I’m an optimist by nature and have never bought into conspiracy theories, but it is difficult not to notice that most of the negative parts of Obamacare are not slated to go into effect until after Obama leaves office. This is not an insular event. Just this week, President Obama revealed a plan to reduce power plant emissions that will largely not go into effect until 2017. Let’s hope that all the presidential candidates are familiar with his policies, because whoever wins will be left to deal with the consequences.
Major coal companies saw their stocks plummet after the announcement, but the timeline of implementation makes it clear that this is all about power and elections. Both parties seemed to celebrate the timing, as Obama’s plan to reduce power plant emissions will become a major campaign issue that will appeal to both side’s key constituencies.
The environmental and climate change movements will be energized. Those camps have been disappointed that Obama has not done more on their behalf. While the Obama administration continues to delay the Keystone pipeline, it largely stood by as the U.S. economy enjoyed an oil and energy boom that was sorely needed as other major segments of the economy sputtered. The U.S. actually moved closer to energy independence during Obama’s tenure, and to the chagrin of the climate change and environmental movement, that success is the result of increased production and reserves of carbon fuels.
Obama has advanced several other initiatives that threatened to destroy the coal industry, but those plans have largely been stopped by Congress. That’s why looking at Obama’s current energy plan at face value is a mistake.
This is not a Democratic vs. Republican issue, although it will play out that way during the election cycle as Democrats scramble to confirm their commitment to battling climate change, and the Republicans portray it as more over-regulation that hurts the economy and consumers while accomplishing little. This issue goes well beyond U.S. partisan politics; this is about power at a global level and reflects the age-old struggle between free markets and socialism, democracy and elitist rule.
Meanwhile, it seems the hysteria and dire threats of climate change are losing their punch. Yet, in his speech, Obama said that, “no challenge poses a greater threat to our future” than climate change, indicating we might not be able to reverse the trends if we don’t act soon. But nearly two decades of data show no warming trend, and that the predictions by the scientific community of expected cooling due to reduced solar activity isn’t happening.
However, the climate-change proponents are not deterred by the science. Whether it be floods or droughts, fires or strong storms, they are all pointed to as evidence of climate change. In fact, I’ve even read those who have pointed to the growing ice pack as evidence of the dangers. Climate change, while always occurring and impossible to deny, doesn’t necessarily occur because of livestock production, the United States or carbon-based fuels, as the global warming proponents claim it does.
While it is true that those warning of the dire consequences of climate change continue to blame the standard villains, those arguments lack scientific validity. That is why it is important to realize that the hype around climate change was never about climate change. If it was, China would have been the great Satan and not the U.S.
This has always been about power and wealth redistribution; otherwise, the only definitive conclusion we can draw about climate change is that the scientists just got it wrong, based on the revelation that the models we adopted as correct have been proven to be dramatically false. Not only have they proven totally false in predicting the future, they can’t even be retroactively fitted to explain what we already known has occurred. Once the rends in temperature and greenhouse gasses stopped moving in the same direction, the key premise of the global warming movement became more difficult to justify and the proponents had to respond by changing the debate from global warming to climate change.
There will continue to be efforts to limit American influence and create more global sharing of political power by shifting U.S. power to global entities. And of course there will always be incentive to take the wealth created by America and other Western and developed countries and redistribute it.
The tone of those who advocate for this major shift in both power and wealth has become more shrill; the rhetoric has become more catastrophic and dire and they have had to rely more and more on the claim that anyone who looks at the failure of their models or their motives are radical and naïve. They are correct in one aspect though; timing is critical. They must act before they have been totally exposed.
You might also like: