|
If you’re not too concerned about global
warming, you’re probably a regular American. If you think, however, that
it’s on par with World War II as a threat to the nation, you’re the
managing editor of Time magazine.
Al Gore’s “We” ad campaign drew a parallel between fighting global
warming and
storming the beaches of Normandy. Then Time took the iconic
photo of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima and
replaced the Stars and Stripes with a tree.
“[W]e say there needs to be an effort along the lines of preparing
for World War II to combat global warming and climate change,” Time
Managing Editor Richard Stengel said on MSNBC April 17. “It seems to me
that this is an issue that is very popular with the voters, makes a lot
of sense to them …”
The election year has the media scrambling to put every issue in the
context of “voters.” Newsweek’s April 14 issue devoted 18 pages to
“Environment and Leadership,” pondering the presidential candidates:
“Who’s the Greenest of Them All?” Yet these magazines are out of touch
with what real voters are thinking.
Gallup reported April 21 that “While 61% of Americans say the
effects of global warming have already begun, just a little more than a
third say they worry about it a great deal, a percentage that is roughly
the same as the one Gallup measured 19 years ago.”
Two decades of global warming alarmism and activism, and no more than
a third “say they worry about it a great deal”? No wonder Gore’s rustled
up $300 million to shout at people. The Washington Post reported April
18 that “the
economy and the Iraq war are the top two issues on voters'
minds, according to the new Post-ABC poll.”
Yet Newsweek’s Jerry Adler proclaimed: “At this vital juncture in the
Earth’s history, it’s clear that the American people are looking for a
presidential candidate who will take climate change ‘very seriously.’”
His justification: “last year more than three voters in 10 said they
would take a candidate’s green credentials into account.”
That’s about 30 percent of voters saying they would even take it
“into account.”
Somehow, all the media hype hasn’t fazed us much. It looks as though
global warming is more the concern of the media elite than the majority
of working, voting Americans.
That shouldn’t be the case.
Voters must start caring, because all three candidates have said they
would use government power to try to regulate the climate. And
government power always translates to taking our money and controlling
our lives.
According to
Newsweek, all three favor a cap-and-trade system for carbon
dioxide emissions. This is where voters should sit up and pay attention.
The economy is our No. 1 concern, and a cap-and-trade system would cause
chaos in the economy.
Everyone concerned about a possible recession in 2008 – after GDP
grew less than 1 percent in the last quarter of 2007 – should consider
the effects of a 4- to 5-percent reduction in economic growth. That’s
what
prominent economist Arthur Laffer projected under
cap-and-trade programs, which he equated to “a potential income loss of
about $10,800 for a family of four,” according to his study with Wayne
Winegarden.
And that estimate was just for the example of reducing “greenhouse
gases” 7 percent below 1990 levels (the original Kyoto Protocol target).
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama vow to cut those emissions 80 percent
below 1990 levels by the year 2050.
The media don’t like to talk about how much that would cost us. In
the latest study of global warming coverage, the Business & Media
Institute found
90 percent of the stories didn’t mention cost at all, even
though the networks urged immediate action to stop the “climate crisis.”
If
journalists think today’s economy is bad, just wait until
it’s gutted by the unlimited costs of climate “action.”
This is what the media aren’t telling you: Global warming policy and
the economy are one and the same.
Voters must care, but not for Al Gore’s reasons. Plenty of scientists
say we don’t have to fear a global warming apocalypse. The global food
riots stemming from forced biofuel policy serve as a chilling clue of
what we do have to fear. Instead of global warming causing food
shortages, U.S. government policy has done that. Instead of rising sea
levels, we must fear rising tax levels. Instead of ice caps melting
away, we must fear our jobs evaporating.
Elevating the earth’s temperature to the prominence of our enemies in
World War II is abominable. Ignoring what the next president could do to
us is dangerous.
|