Skip to content

Climate change – the newest weapon of choice?

December 2, 2015

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world.”  Attributed to: Henry Kissinger

Whatever your position on climate change, if you do not evaluate the argument in the context of this quote, you are seeing only the elephant’s trunk.

When President Obama says the “most elegant” way to reduce carbon emissions is with a tax, it would behoove us to delve into what that actually means, and whose interests his last possible “legacy issue” will really benefit.

Countries with a high standard of living, largely obtained through the use of fossil fuels can presumably afford a carbon tax, up to a point.

They have the means to build wind farms, solar panel arrays and nuclear power plants, presuming of course that those things would adequately fuel their national interests.

America has historically had comparatively cheap and abundant food resources because it has had access to cheap and abundant fuels.  Even as the total farmland under cultivation has been shrinking, American farmers have been able to keep pace with our normal population growth.

At what point do climate-based regulations increasing the cost of food production change that equation?

At what point do rapid, massive influxes of immigrants upset the natural population cycle of countries?

What about developing countries?  If your Central American, Asian or African manufacturing or agriculturally-based economy relies on fossil fuels what happens when you can’t afford or can’t access that energy source?

In the interest of promoting global equality, the energy-rich nations could always sell them “green” solutions, or simply absorb the poorer nations into the richer ones.

Why fight a war to acquire territory, when you can use energy to bend other nations to your will?

If Ukraine were to suddenly capitulate to becoming just another Russian province, it’s highly likely that their energy problems would miraculously be solved.

If your choices are freezing and starving or living under a different flag, can you afford independence?

In the end, all of this babble comes down to power and the money it generates for a select few.

If there was no money in advocating for outlawing the use of fossil fuels, would the movement continue to exist? How many climate control summits would there be, if the participants had to walk or swim to the meeting?

The greatest innovations generally come about due to genuine need. The worst arise from  politics.

Think about that when you are deciding how to vote in 2016.

From → op-ed, Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: