When environmentalists are backed into a corner and asked for the projected cost of their proposals, they hem and haw and occasionally toss out a favorite line of Al Gore and John Kerry: “What is the cost of doing nothing?” Since answering this requires proving a negative, their question cannot be answered. The “climate change” hucksters have created an atmosphere in the academic, political, NGO, and media world in which “climate change” is unfalsifiable – the antithesis of actual science.
This is because the actual science supporting their position is extremely thin. In fact, numerous scientists have done their best patiently explaining that no, the climate cannot be accurately modeled, no, there’s nothing we can do to change it. And, ‘Have you considered the sun…?’
One such testimony has not received the attention it deserves, because it addresses the most basic question of any society and its form of government. This is the “Bali Open Letter,” penned in 2007, and signed by over a hundred climate scientists:
… the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it…
In order to increase our suffering, we must kill all the cows, eat all the bugs, murder all the eagles and whales and tortoises, move out of the suburbs, mine lithium and cobalt and pay China to turn them into car batteries, and deforest the planet. Again, what is the cost? As the Federalist notes, current carbon taxation proposals would destroy the global economy.
Current American Corporate Debt is about $40 trillion; and current U.S. febt is about $34 trillion. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 124 percent. Current global government debt is $307 trillion, 336 percent of global GDP. Current U.S. unfunded future liabilities are over $211 trillion. We spent almost $700 billion dollars last year not on goods or services, education, health care or even defense, but on servicing that debt. Which is to say, on nothing. Have you seen the projected debt costs over just the next decade? Interest will consume 35 percent.
We cannot afford this. Thinking people grasp that the purpose is exactly what former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer told us in 2010, fully thirteen years ago:
One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole… We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy.
When one side of their mouth says it’s not about climate, and the other side tells us how much we must spend to fix the climate, consider Sun Tzu in The Art of War: "The whole secret lies in confusing the enemy, so that he cannot fathom our real intent."
Or, if an enemy says he’s going to destroy you; believe him.