It is exceptionally difficult to deny people what they want and enjoy unless force and threats are used to scare them into cooperation and compliance.
The President's chief advisor, Rahm Emanuel, has said, "It's a shame to waste a good crisis" -- certainly this is sound advice. People are willing to give up freedoms and self-determination in times of crisis. In the absence of a crisis, those who wish to force an ideology on a population must create one. Otherwise, it is exceedingly difficult in a free society to convince the population to do what otherwise makes little sense.
We have heard so much about the dangers of global warming over the last few years that the average person believes it threatens the survival of mankind.
It makes little difference that there is considerable disagreement over whether global warming even exists. If indeed global warming exists, it is even less certain whether it is a normal phenomena or caused by man, or whether it is good or bad thing.
Nevertheless, we have been told repeatedly that certain disaster looms unless we stop global warming. The claims range from global flooding in a few short years to food and resource shortages that will mandate the imposition of worldwide Marshall Law. Al Gore recently said that if we do not act in the next several years, it will be too late.
Despite the rhetoric that bombards us, the possibility of positive impacts of a warmer world is simply not discussed. Instead we are told we must take immediate steps -- even draconian ones -- or life as mankind has known it will come to an irreversible end.
Bureaucrats aggressively push the imposition of policies to curb "greenhouse gases" (GHG). These emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The feared "carbon footprint" is a measure of GHG emissions. All we hear is how we must reduce the carbon footprint. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that will impose "cap and trade" rules on emitters of carbon. The biggest emitters are power plants. This bill, if implemented, will result in an increase in the average household utility bill, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, of $1,761 per year -- equal to a 15-percent income-tax hike. If enacted, according to a Heritage Foundation study, it would eliminate over 3 million jobs between 2012 and 2035.
The crisis promoters point to an Oregon State University study (Oregon was the first political jurisdiction in the world to legalize assisted suicide). Professor Paul Murtaugh tells us, "Up to this point, little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice." Murtaugh says each child born in the U.S. contributes 9,411 metric tons of carbon dioxide. He claims this is about 5.7 times the amount an average person should contribute.
Where is all this going? Maybe we should look to the United Kingdom. In March, a study produced at the behest of Prime Minister Brown warned that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a "sustainable society." Sustainable is defined as, "Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The British study suggests it must reduce its population to 30 million if it wants to feed itself sustainably. The current population stands at 60 million. Jonathon Porritt, spokesmen for the study said, "Cutting our population is one way to reduce (environmental) impacts (on developing countries)."
If the world's bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates. In the dead of night, the U.S. House passed a bill that will, in effect, be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Could power rationing or mandatory population controls be far behind?
