Sunday, December 20, 2009

Where We Lead

The climate change summit in Copenhagen didn’t seem to accomplish much, but there are several lessons we can take from it. One, most global change activists and environmentalists are communists, radicals, or other leftists. That is not exactly a newsflash to most of us, but for those who might question that, a good rule of thumb is that when you are a visitor to a foreign country, you should respect that nation’s national sovereignty, and the property of it’s citizens. When you don’t, you should not be surprised when the police of said host country knock you up the side of the head and throw your silly ass in jail.

A few other observations-all of a sudden, all of the major nations involved at the summit are big fans of the concept of national sovereignty, except of course when it comes to the US. We are, of course, expected to “lead”, which brings me to yet another observation-

When another country calls on the US to “lead” by example, what they are really saying is “kindly do what the fuck we tell you to do”.

I grudgingly give Obama some degree of credit for having the balls to walk into a conference with the Chinese, Indians, and Brazilians uninvited with the intention of forging an “agreement” between those nations on carbon emissions reductions and ways to verify them. I just don’t expect much to come of it, and neither should you.

Of course, I take away with the other hand for Obama’s stubborn refusal to recognize that he doesn’t really have the authority to use the EPA as a tools for exercising the terms of the agreement, which is what he seems to be promising to do. On the face of it, it is unconstitutional, and there is currently a petition making the rounds, intended for the delegates of the summit, reminding them that the president cannot arbitrarily sign a treaty or enforce it without the consent of Congress.

I disagree with this petition in one regard. I actually don’t think Congress has the right to make any such international multi-lateral treaty (including trade agreements), but they are certainly right that Obama doesn’t have any such constitutional authority.

Finally, I should point out that the one solid agreement reached is actually the only one necessary to reduce and possibly even reverse global climate change. The answer-


Oh yeah, and restoring land contours in heavily mined areas. You go all out to do those things and you solve the problem, to whatever extent man is capable of solving it, regardless of whether or not global climate change is caused by man, to whatever degree. Without a large influx of new trees and other vegetation, and restoring land contours, anything else you might do is useless at best.

That is not to say you can’t work to reduce carbon emissions, just do it for the right reasons. Do it to clean up your immediate environment. Who wants to live in Beijing? I don’t, nor anyplace remotely that nasty. Clean it up for that reason, just don’t expect it to solve anything having anything to do with global climate change. The ocean levels are rising and threatening to engulf entire populated islands? Tell the Indians and Indonesians to stop pissing in their rivers and you’ll come as close to reversing the rising ocean levels as you will by reducing carbon emissions.

Here in the US, the federal government doesn’t even have to be that involved, other than as maybe an arbitrator in any dispute between two bordering states, or in the case of a citizen lawsuit if state lawmakers refuse to clean it up regardless of the wishes of state citizens.

You want alternative energy sources? Fine, do that too, it will help keep the price of oil and gas lower by increasing supplies. The more alternative energy you have, the more gas and oil you will have to work with as a consequence. Work especially on hydroelectric, hydrogen fuel cells for cars, and geothermal energy. Most especially, work to develop safe nuclear energy, if you are really serious about developing clean, cheap, and efficient alternative energy. Don’t go on about solar and wind and expect to be taken seriously, and leave my fucking corn alone. I want to eat it for less than five fucking dollars an ear, thank you.

If you want that kind of fuel, there is always switch grass, and for that matter, all those extra new trees you’ll probably never plant might provide a large source of some kind of future fuel, to say nothing of tons of fresh lumber for housing. You might also create in the meantime new and expanded eco-systems for the wildlife many of you are so allegedly concerned about.

Of course, none of this really matters, because none of this is really about reversing global climate change or about alternative energy sources, it’s mainly about a handful of elitist schmucks transferring wealth and power from the pockets of business and private citizens to their own, and US wealth to the hands of a handful of mainly European, but also some other, power structures and alliances. Otherwise, this problem would be easily solved, and would have been long ago.