Environmentalism is the new socialism
WASHINGTON — In the 1970s and early ’80s, having seized control of the U.N. apparatus (by power of numbers), Third World countries decided to cash in. OPEC was pulling off the greatest wealth transfer from rich to poor in history. Why not them? So in grand U.N. declarations and conferences, they began calling for a “New International Economic Order.” The NIEO’s essential demand was simple: to transfer fantastic chunks of wealth from the industrialized West to the Third World.
On what grounds? In the name of equality—wealth redistribution via global socialism—with a dose of post-colonial reparations thrown in.
The idea of essentially taxing hardworking citizens of the democracies in order to fill the treasuries of Third World kleptocracies went nowhere, thanks mainly to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (and the debt crisis of the early ’80s). They put a stake through the enterprise.
But such dreams never die. The raid on the Western treasuries is on again, but today with a new rationale to fit current ideological fashion. With socialism dead, the gigantic heist is now proposed as a sacred service of the newest religion: environmentalism.
One of the major goals of the Copenhagen climate summit is another NIEO shakedown: the transfer of hundreds of billions from the industrial West to the Third World to save the planet by, for example, planting green industries in the tristes tropiques.
Politically it’s an idea of genius, engaging at once every left-wing erogenous zone: rich man’s guilt, post-colonial guilt, environmental guilt. But the idea of shaking down the industrial democracies in the name of the environment thrives not just in the refined internationalist precincts of Copenhagen. It thrives on the national scale, too.
On the day Copenhagen opened, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claimed jurisdiction over the regulation of carbon emissions by declaring them an “endangerment” to human health.
Since we operate an overwhelmingly carbon-based economy, the EPA will be regulating practically everything. No institution that emits more than 250 tons of CO2 a year will fall outside EPA control. This means over a million building complexes, hospitals, plants, schools, businesses and similar enterprises. (The EPA proposes regulating emissions only above 25,000 tons, but it has no such authority.)
Not since the creation of the Internal Revenue Service has a federal agency been given more intrusive power over every aspect of economic life.
This naked assertion of vast executive power in the name of the environment is the perfect fulfillment of the prediction of Czech President (and economist) Vaclav Klaus that environmentalism is becoming the new socialism, i.e., the totemic ideal in the name of which government seizes the commanding heights of the economy and society.
Socialism having failed so spectacularly, the left was adrift until it struck upon a brilliant gambit: metamorphosis from red to green. The cultural elites went straight from the memorial service for socialism to the altar of the environment. The objective is the same: highly centralized power given to the best and the brightest, the new class of experts, managers and technocrats. This time, however, the alleged justification is not abolishing oppression and inequality but saving the planet.
Not everyone is pleased with the coming New Carbon-Free International Order. When the Obama administration signaled (in a gesture to Copenhagen) a U.S. commitment to major cuts in carbon emissions, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb wrote the president protesting that he lacks the authority to do so unilaterally. That requires congressional concurrence by legislation or treaty.
With the Senate blocking President Obama’s cap-and-trade carbon legislation, the EPA coup d’etat served as the administration’s loud response to Webb: The hell we can’t. With this EPA “endangerment” finding, we can do as we wish with carbon. Either the Senate passes cap-and-trade, or the EPA will impose even more draconian measures: all cap, no trade.
Forget for a moment the economic effects of severe carbon chastity. There’s the matter of constitutional decency. If you want to revolutionize society—as will drastic carbon regulation and taxation in an energy economy that is 85 percent carbon-based—you do it through Congress reflecting popular will. Not by administrative fiat of EPA bureaucrats.
Congress should not just resist this executive overreaching but trump it: Amend existing clean air laws and restore their original intent by excluding CO2 from EPA control and reserving that power for Congress and future legislation.
Do it now. Do it soon. Because Big Brother isn’t lurking in CIA cloak. He’s knocking on your door, smiling under an EPA cap.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Dec 16, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Gore is no idiot........Neither was PT Barnum!
.
Copenhagen will be a bust, as will its main mission: by 2040 we'll have given up on regulating carbon emissions. That is what myself, and most "game theory" predictioneer students believe.
Dec 16, 2009 at 11:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
If all those people who attended this stupid "climate conference" really cared about the earth they would have made it a conference withthe computer. Instead they each all flew a huge airplane there and sat around talking (imagine all that hot air in one room!!) None of them live like they care anything about this planet especially Al Gore. He has a huge mansion with only he and his wife living in it! He has his own plane and probably 20 cars that are not electric!!! What a bunch of hooey!!!
Dec 15, 2009 at 1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Al Gore was pontificating about the disappearance of north polar ice in 5 years at the holy order of save the planet through socialism meeting in Copenhagen when he committed an apparent faux pas by citing the research of a climatologist who, when later asked about Gore's reference said, in effect, huh? So when the holy seer of climate gloom and doom was asked about said climatologists contradicting him, the great Gore was forced to admit that he wasn't relying on the data that the climatologist had collected after all. Opps!
It's an interesting news item. You can read it here, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/en...
Dec 15, 2009 at 1:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
I also heard Tiger Woods is changing his name to Cheetah Woods.
Dec 15, 2009 at 1 p.m.
Suggest removal
I heard that Obamas picture will be on the new trillion dollar bill.
Dec 15, 2009 at 12:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
The worst part of glacial melt is the fact that fresh drinking water is disappearing into the ocean - what a waste.
Dec 15, 2009 at 12:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
I heard Al Gore read his 'ode to the environment' or whatever he is calling it...
man, the Cybermen from Doctor Who could do a better job of projecting emotion (or at least the Daleks). The Co2 argument is a sham, temp leads Co2 not the other way arround. It is just like the lottery - a tax on stupid people.
Dec 14, 2009 at 10:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
Humans cause a very small (and insignificant) amount of global warming. Yet DiGriz thinks we cause none. What's wrong with him? drugs? booze?
Dec 14, 2009 at 10:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
DiGriz - you are wrong about Gore - he is no idiot. He latched onto a cause that has little merit, but, believe me, he is no idiot.
Dec 14, 2009 at 9:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
ALL socialism is bad, socialized police protection, socialize fire protection... better disband the army too.. it terrible that the goverment protects our health and welfare.. WAIT, thats in the Constitution! "promote the general welfare"
Dec 13, 2009 at 12:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
I really believe that the notion that "Co2 is polluting the atmosphere" was thrown out there to find out how large a portion of the population could be led to believe anything .......The results are in, and not good for the rest of us.
Dec 13, 2009 at 11:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
whythink - but weren't those "intrusions" demanded by the people? i.e. unions -
It's nice to see a few intelligent posts finally; climate change is normal - there was more CO2 in the carboniferous period - pre-humans, as well as the middle ages (or did they have factories that we don't know about?)
Dec 13, 2009 at 10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
When the government THREATENS the people...its time for a complete change of representatives on all levels. We will Cap and Trade them starting in 2010. Sign away our Freedom and Liberties for the sake of profit,prestige and power..that is political suicide. Since the 1900's we have lost control of our destinies, allowed elite parties to dictate and herd us along like obedient sheep...NO MORE! If somebody wants to live the Socialist life style they are free to move to a Socialist Nation but they are not free to take my property,wealth, religious Freedoms or the right to protect myself. In short "DON'T TREAD ON ME" Im voting with the TEA party candidates. They Support the Constitution and will protect my Freedoms. Everything else is just canned SCAM..been there done that.
Dec 12, 2009 at 11:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
call1 - I hope you don't think we actually read such long-winded posts.
Dec 12, 2009 at 11:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
DiGriz: It's coming, and anyone who disagrees is simply stupid. If it happens every 10K, why would it stop this time? Dummies... Right here people is how you know when your debating with someone with today's mentality of, attack them with names as to avoid any real dialog, thus scaring anyone who doesn't see your point of view will just relent, & give in. Personally DiGriz..I started out believing the Al Gores of the World such as yourself, but then the elite scientist professing these doom-comings started manipulating scientific articles, "NOT" agreeing with their views of Global Warming, they kept said articles from being published in scientific journals. I was just reading the leaked emails from these Al Gore Groupies last night at media.abovetopsecret.com, & for the defenders of the Gore Doom Club to say the "those emails are being taken out of context" is laughable! These so called scientist clowns used 1960's temperature numbers in place of today's real numbers to get their conclusions, & then tried hiding that fact. When one Journal editor wanted to see their proof before he'd run their articles, they hatched a plan to get him fired. I believe this is about creating another industry PEROID. Next years projections for the industry it's already created is $3,000,000,000,000,000,000 (Trillion). A short time before JFK was murdered in Texas he, & Johnson gave speeches where they tried to warn American's of this exact battle happening within America. So this Global Warming scheme (I believe) was hatched. You can also find those speeches at media.abovetopsecret.com. I use to have a closed mind when it came to believing everything that came out of Washington. They'd say it, & I'd buy it because it was easier then thinking they'd do things to harm us to accomplish they're own agendas. Not anymore.. Not after learning about the term, "False Flag Operations."
Dec 12, 2009 at 10:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
That's right DiGriz - it's a lot of hype over natural events.
Dec 12, 2009 at 8:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
lol....NSA could only
Dec 12, 2009 at 6:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Beneath the mountains of attention given to climate change lies the small mole hill that started it all of this. Much to-do about nothing.
Dec 12, 2009 at 6:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
whythink - I hope you don't think we actually read such long-winded posts.
Dec 12, 2009 at 5:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty
Dec 12, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER FOR PRESIDENT!
anyone who believes man made climate change exists, is a fool. there is no proof. funny how the lefties say God doesn't exist because there's no proof, yet they believe in Al Gore's religion like it's fact. lmao.
.
Well if that isn't the biggest bunch of BS generalization EVER!
.
Lefties don't say "God doesn't exist" atheists do.
.
I happen to believe in God and Climate Change. I believe it isn't worth the risk to keep doing the same old same old regarding the environment.
.
I remember Rush crying about how there was no evidence that second hand smoke caused cancer and he could site Dr's who agreed with him. It was just a conspiracy to get the government in our lives. SOUND FAMILAR.
.
Same argument only being wrong about that only affected the "fools" who believed Rush being wrong about this could be devistating.
.
Conservatives like Kraut want it easy for big business...no minimum wage, no waste/pollution standards, no need to negotiate with a union. Yeah, ridding those things might mean more jobs but for whom and at what cost?
.
There is a common sense solution that involves being more environmentally friendly while not crippling the economy. I am not saying I have the answer but just dismissing climate change...well that is foolish.
Dec 12, 2009 at 4:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
NSA could only wiretap domestic conversations after obtaining a warrant,until Bush told them it was OK after 9-11 to do so without one.
Dec 12, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
crafty, what's your explanation for the disappearing glaciers and arctic ice?
Dec 12, 2009 at 4:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF--I think the issue is more how the last admin. responded to the the allegation, and the flat out lie that it was all legal, and no warrants were necessary, and the phone companies that volunteered to help should not be punished for helping (implicit admission that maybe there were legal/constitutional violations. In short, they probably were snooping on all of us--but that doesn't alieve any responsibility for it.*****Truth--show me your SUBSTANTIVE facts to support your claim--maybe you'll convince me.
Dec 12, 2009 at 12:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER FOR PRESIDENT!
anyone who believes man made climate change exists, is a fool. there is no proof. funny how the lefties say God doesn't exist because there's no proof, yet they believe in Al Gore's religion like it's fact. lmao.
Dec 12, 2009 at 11:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
"people who don't mind the government reading their e-mail or listening to their phone"
-
Yeah, there is a tiny little agency called NSA; larger than the combined size of CIA, FBI, and all defense department agencies. They have been doing just that for decades, and partisan posters want to think this was only going on during part of the last administration. What was that comment of the ostrich?
Dec 12, 2009 at 9:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
I agree that a local air environment can be affected, such as Los Angeles, with their "bowl" effect, but on a global scale???......Well, thats just ridiculous.
Dec 11, 2009 at 11:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don't get sand in your ears down there, truth1. I mean, ostrich1.
Dec 11, 2009 at 9:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
professor- Ok, I agree with that, but no amount of Co2 that human civilization is capable of producing anywhere near approaches general atmospheric "pollution"....Present civilization is nowhere near capable of offsetting the oxygen/Co2 balance or really affecting anything atmospherically at all.
Dec 11, 2009 at 9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
truth1--too much of almost anything can be a pollutant (depending on the definition used)--even too much sun, makes a desert. J.villian--I kinda think that the righties were convinced
Grandpa was gonna win over either Hillary or O. Then when O got the dem nod, and Palin made her splash, I'm sure they were confident of a win (no matter how misplaced that confidence was). Regardless, by then it was too late, as the dems had the House. I'm MORE amazed that the electorate tolerated the power grab. And, I'm even MORE amazed that DICK still thinks they were all always right....
Dec 11, 2009 at 8:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
CO2 is *NOT* a "pollutant".....I used to be an avid environmentalist until I discovered the presence of all the nut-jobs with absolutely NO common sense in there....I didn't want to be associated with all that nuttery.
Dec 11, 2009 at 4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Professor, I never could understand why the Bushies were so keen on expanding executive power. Back then I thought it was conventional wisdom that eventually Hillary would be President, so why would they want that power in her hands? Of course, it really doesn't matter, they just prefer centralized daddy-state authoritarian structures (even in the "grass roots" tea party movement, it's all about the schedules and protest schwag created by Dick Armey's group, and they turn on a dime when instructed). Still, you simply must wonder about the priorities of people who don't mind the government reading their e-mail or listening to their phone, but think a minimum MPG requirement is the last straw.
Dec 11, 2009 at 3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
I think my favorite part of this article is: "This naked assertion of vast executive power...." Yeah, because W. and Cheney (Kraut's heroes) are such great examples of restraint with executive authority.
Dec 11, 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am just thinking of all the intrusive government economic programs/laws that I love and am thankful for...
.
Minimum wage
Work Safety Regulations
Minimum work age
Overtime Laws
.
I wonder if in 50 years we will still see this as an "intrusion" or if most of us will be content with it.
Dec 11, 2009 at 11:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Cap and trade does not consider the increase in cost for the average Joe. It is difficult for people to pay their electric bills now. Cap will cause this country to lose the standard of living we are now living. I believe that is what Mr. Krauthammer is saying in his opinion article.
When we pay more for power we have less to spend.
Less money to spend less shopping and fewer people have jobs. Can we afford this?
We better be sure this is a real problem and not just the elite leveling the world.
Dec 11, 2009 at 10:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
vatoloco-Rachel Carson was her name, and DDT is a carcinogen-regardless of the effects of mosquito-transmitted viruses.
I don't want congress deciding what the EPA can or can't do.
What Obama signed is not a treaty, and doesn't require permission from Congress. Why shouldn't we try to reduce our carbon footprint? I'm for all cap no trade. We shouldn't be preventing people, businesses, countries from trying to protect the planet. Sure CO2 emissions happen naturally, but human accelerated impacts on CO2 levels are real. It's not junk science, folks.
Dec 11, 2009 at 10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
D-Wasn't there enviro-mongering going with DDT? DDT helped eliminate many illnesses like malaria but some science chick, can't remeber her name, started spreading lies about DDT being so cancerous???
Dec 11, 2009 at 10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Chuckles, you're late to the game. Rush was trying this fearmongering approach in 1993. Is there no rhetorical device that is beneath you?
Dec 11, 2009 at 8:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's all Obama's fault!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.