LJWorld.com

I am accused of picking on the left. In retroflection that is probably true. The right is not making many waves. The left is. I am responding to their proposed changes. In our immediate future three significant initiatives emanating from the left will likely drive really significant change. What will our country look like in 2050 given those changes? Below I have generated a thought piece that I think represents the fears of the right at this time. I admit it is extreme but the lack of definition of where these changes are going certainly allows for such a flight of fancy. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 while lifting up the smaller countries it will certainly stress our economy. Could it lead to what I present?

The need to rapidly implement remedial actions to drastically cut CO2 as required by the climate accords of 2010 through 2020 led to a number of fundamental changes

To address the generation of CO2 from personal domiciles, groups were formed to review the stock of housing and to assign individuals to a home appropriate for their family size. At group direction and without remuneration many older homes were raised and new multi-family, more ecologically appropriate homes were built. Newer larger homes were modified to be multi family. By 2025 only certain families were allowed to remain in single family homes – most lived in small government subsidized structures.

To address the generation of CO2 from transportation sources the American transportation system has been changed. Railroads were significantly expended. Over the road long haul trucks were eliminated. Public transportation was expanded significantly. Groups were established to review application for personal autos. Only government officials and certain individuals were allowed to own one. By 2020 the stock of automobiles in the United States had been reduced to slightly more than a million.

Groups were established to identify what food products could be used. For the most part food is generated locally. High CO2 generating products had been minimized. Only certain people as determined by the various governments are allowed to consume delicacies such as meat, sea food, crops out of local season and so on. The farm population has expanded significantly with most farm land in the hands of the government as a result of the Commercial Farming Act of 2015 that confiscated all but a small number of individually owned farms.

The second major theme involves changes to health care. The health care reforms of 2010 and 2011 extended health care to everyone. Costs naturally escalated. Efforts to reduce costs significantly impacted the availability of doctors. Government was forced to recruit doctors and assign them to appropriate locations. To address the continued escalation of costs and to reduce the human footprint health care was more rigorously controlled. Health panels were established to review individual needs for care in consideration of costs and individual contributions. Seniors were routinely denied costly services. Live births were restricted to one per family. Costly routine care required permission from the local health panel. However, certain individuals as determined by governments, were provided better care so as to insure that the civilization functioned properly.

The third major theme is economics. The costs to implement climate change remediation proved truly immense. The cost of health care continued to stress the system. The diversion of resources to government directed activity all but eliminated the ability of the country to compete in the international arena. The financial expectations of 2010 were inconsistent with available resources. The population was too large for the available domestic jobs. Large corporations had fled the United States and established their headquarter in countries that were non-responsive to the Climate Accords of 2010 through 2020. Small business were unable to turn a profit given the tax rate necessary to adjust to the Climate Accords of 2010 through 2020 and as a result the Jobs Creation Acts of 2015-2020 saw most business become government owned. In order to hold down costs and to distribute population, committees were established to assign individual based on testing to specific careers and locations. By 2020 over 95% of the American populace was living at the same level as that of the1920s.

Now just maybe saner heads will prevail and change will be more gradual with due consideration for the maintenance of jobs and appropriate recognition to individuals who contribute more to the society then others. If the necessary technologies were then to mature as needed we might just thrive. However, making international agreements betting on the timely development of certain high risk technologies and significant and rapid changes to human activity just may not be a good approach!

A few weeks ago a number of e-mail interchanges between key scientists supporting the climate change theory were made public. They can be interpreted to suggest a conspiracy to defraud or they can be accepted as normal interchange between colleagues. Appropriate review processes have been established and the meaning of those interchanges will be professionally established in good time.

What has been fascinating is the response from some of the proponents. Lets us remember that the theory suggests almost catastrophic impact on human existence as we understand it whether from the postulated responses required or from our neglect to address the challenge. You would think that the revelation that maybe the challenge is not as great as previously indicated would be greeted positively-even if the uncertainty suggests that we not yet celebrate. Instead there is a broad defense of the theory from a large number of non-scientific proponents

One has to wonder why. Who among us wants a climatic disaster? Should we not be hoping that the situation has been overstated? Could there be people who want a disaster. Could their motives be control of their fellow citizens using governmental responses to climate change as a mechanism to achieve it?

I for one hope that newer data may revealed that the situation is not as dire as previously indicated so that we can avoid dramatic changes to our standards of living or the potential for great loss of human life. Is there anyone with me?

I have come to a conclusion that climate change proponent think the rest of us are very very stupid. Yes, there is data that suggests that there is climate change. That is science. Then there are models that project all kinds of futures. Since these models deal with much uncertainty, assumptions must be made. At each such assumption the models builders select the worst possible outcomes. This may not be surprising when one realizes that money from the proponents is at stake. The resulting models produce variants on what amounts to a worst possible climate change scenario. The proponents seize on the worst case and demand never ending major sacrifice from all of us.

Nobody seems to know just how much we have to change to reverse the perceived problem. Some statement of an endpoint might just be useful. Demands for never ending carbon reductions without any end target associated with a useful outcome are unrealistic. The whole thing might be more compelling if the shrillness declined and a rational defendable incremental remedy with consequential reflection of improvements became available. Of course there is the chance that what is needed can not be achieved. There just might be factors beyond human contribution involved? Living in a world of endless sacrifice toward an unstated endpoint is needlessly demeaning toward the human race.

Maybe we simply can not get where the advocates seem to be demanding that we go. Maybe we just can not put this genie back in the box. Maybe we are going to have to accept change as we have accepted change since we got here. Are the proponents of the overwhelming crash response not believers in evolution? Looks to me like we may have to evolve a bit - but probably not as much as the advocates are threatening.

Most of the world seems to wants us to give up everything until we live like their poor. That is a real hard sell in a democratic society. It is a particular hard sell when the elites proclaiming it live so much better than those from whom they demand sacrifice. We are already making significant efforts to address the challenge. Our elites started us on that path long ago. Is it really an accident that the average American is financially marking time – for more than a decade? That is a non-trivial sacrifice. The elites have made no comparable sacrifice. If this is a real global emergency maybe the necessary sacrifice should start with the world’s leaders.

Where is the leadership – leaders lead the way not drive the flock. Everything I have seen the leaders do appears cosmetic. Our Congress proposes a carbon cap and trade solution. But then they exempt many of their own local elites. Where is all the urgency when it comes to actual pain? I might take this all more seriously if the elites reduced themselves to where they want the rest of us to go. Maybe they should renounce their fortunes as contribution to the rest of us to invest in responsible and accountable initiatives? There is just way too much “do as I say” and way too little of “follow me”! I know “all the animals are equal – only some of the animals are more equal”.

The answer to my question above is yes, the advocates are causing the problem by demeaning the rest of us. We are all to be drafted for a cause that demands great sacrifice that is not universally applied and that has no identified endpoint. Until that is corrected, I remain a committed draft dodger.

Recently there were some exchanges on “smart” growth. The idea of trying to reduce impact on our environment is unassailable. The approach to doing it is not! Retrospectively trying to “punish” people living in single family home is at best vindictive. Single-family homes were the American dream. The “smart” growth solution is to force people vertically into large apartment complexes. Shades of the Soviet Union with those massive centrally controlled housing units. Is this the best the “smart growth” community can envision?

How about “climate change”? Of course we need to address it! The solution, however, appears to be to raise the costs of almost every product produced in this country. Are our international competitors buying into this? Not on your life! We have 10% unemployment with a significant number of those on government “hand-outs” because the job they held is now gone – likely forever. So let us have more low paying service jobs so we can deny Americans the better paying “blue collar” jobs we used to have. Is there no better way to try to address climate change?

I could go on all day with initiatives by one group or another to make things “better”. All of them cost money. All of them will take that money from the American consumer. Yes, many of them are worthy to consider. Could it be possible that we might prioritize all these “initiatives" and address them over a longer period of time so we do not dramatically reduce our own standard of living at the same time as we drive much of our better paying jobs off-shore?

Why are we doing this? Are the people pushing these efforts too stupid to understand the consequences? Do too many of the people pushing these initiatives expect a direct benefit –are they simply greedy? Are these people into “control”? They seem to thrive on making their fellow citizens conform to their way of life. Are they in essence power hungry.

If we do not do something to stop this incessant demand for government intervention to change things at ever increasing cost to many if not most of us, will we find our children’s future what we would have it be? Are we headed for all the success demonstrated by the former Soviet Union with all the associated controls and inequities?

What do you think?