Whether the planet is warming or not, reality is starting to demonstrate that the issue of climate change cuts both ways. Whatever travesties are predicted to befall human beings or whatever the costs of a warming climate, actions taken to ostensibly save the planet and reduce carbon emissions have just as many increased costs and adverse impacts as are predicted by warmer temperatures. And, that cost includes a loss of individual political freedom.
Watching France the last couple of weeks, we realize, that while we are commonly being told that the US policies about climate change are out of cinq with the rest of the world, that isn’t necessarily true. People in France are pouring into the streets and stridently protesting the cost of their government’s effort to do something they believe will counter climate change – a tax on fuel to discourage its use.
People in France are learning that government’s approach to dealing with climate change has primarily to do with using force against citizens to exact changes in behavior, and in a convenient win-win for government, to exact more tax revenues. Using less gas to run vehicles, contends the French President, means less carbon dioxide emissions — but it also means less money in the pockets of citizens and that means less of all other things in their lives – less food, less clothing, less medicine, less housing, less education, less enjoyment of life. And from there, it is a downward spiral, because higher fuel costs means higher costs in producing all those things, which means higher prices and even less spending power for the average citizen. This is called a “lower standard of living.”
This is exactly the suffering that global warmingists predict will be the lot of human beings because of global warming…. so one has to ask how is the government solution any better?
There is a difference – the warming of the planet is only a hypothesis predicted by computer models, predictions which despite resounding claims to the contrary are far from a certainty – but the imposition of taxes and government regulations are a profound certainty, and a suspicious mind might even think that that is all that the issue of global warming is really all about – capturing more political power. If one thinks that is not true, just casually suggest that the real solution to any possible climate change is more individual freedom to unleash creative minds – and see how well that idea is received.
It is for sure that no matter what the predicted doom might be, citizens of any country will always be strongly resistant to giving up things that make life possible and pleasant. That has certainly proven true so far, and not just in France. The Australian government encountered resistance just as strong, and so has British Columbia in Canada.
In Australia, the carbon tax was quickly removed after the public recoiled against electricity price hikes and a faltering economy. In British Columbia, Canada — the BC carbon tax has not yielded significant reductions in gasoline purchases, but has reduced its economy’s performance relative to the rest of Canada.
Even if people are convinced something should be done about climate change – they don’t want it to be at their expense – it should be at someone else’s expense – maybe those people over in the US.
But, indeed, assuming the absolute certainty of the predictions, what is the benefit of suffering negative consequences now rather than later? Yes, there seems to be a benefit to governments grabbing more power, but how is this benefiting the average everyday family? Especially since the dire predictions are anything but certain, and even more significantly – what if warming weather brings more benefits than negatives, which is a very likely outcome. There is in the alarmists hand-wringing an assumption that the planet’s current weather trends are the best that can be – how true is that?
There is much to say that there would be improvements for human life if the planet were to warm. In fact there is evidence (strangely, it hasn’t been broadly discussed) that the past few years of higher temperatures has resulted in greater crop production around the globe. And, why not? Warmer weather, more moisture, and more carbon dioxide – exactly what plant life loves (and is how nature deals with an imbalance of carbon dioxide).
Common sense dictates there would be as much benefit from a warmer climate as negatives, if not more so. But the most negative of threats with which we are currently faced because of global warming predictions is the loss of individual freedom, as governments around the world use it as an excuse to extinguish the advancement of human freedom.
Not even catastrophic climate change could cause more grief, suffering and death for average citizens than that which has been rendered by tyrannical forms of government throughout history. Human beings stand far more at threat of losing life and happiness at the hands of more powerful government, than they do at any act of nature.
And, as history has also demonstrated, whatever challenge is faced by human beings, we deal better with it if we have the freedom to make choices, decisions and to be creative, rather than being nailed into place by the might of government, which has no creativity, imagination or capacity to produce, and which is never held accountable for its mistakes in judgement. One of those mistakes in judgement might very well be that global warming is a profound threat to human beings.