(En gästpost av Charles Battig, flitig läsare av The Climate Scam.)
Recently, much has been written by those searching for economic lessons learned or not learned from the 1930s Depression years. I look at those years and see a political and historical template for the crafting of energy policies as proposed by the Obama administration, its supporters and business beneficiaries.
Those Depression years saw the collaboration of industry and government. The place was Europe. The color was not green, but black. The tide of totalitarianism in Italy spilled over from the 1920s until halted by World War II. In his 1936 book “Fascism and Big Business,” Daniel Guerin details the mechanisms used by government and big business to profit by mutually beneficial schemes imposed upon the populace by government edict.
Another form of a government/business/military alliance concerned President Eisenhower in 1961 when he warned of the “military-industrial complex.”
A big enough business entity (especially if it is “too big to fail”) can influence (lobby) the government to pass legislation favorable to it and unfavorable to its competitors. In turn, the government receives financial support from the favored businesses and is enabled to advance its own social agendas. Too late does business realize that it has become an instrument of government policy. The current Troubled Assets Relief Program and automobile manufacturers’ bailout programs bear the heavy hand of governmental dictates.
The Obama administration is proposing the rationing of energy by making it more expensive to the taxpayer.
Whether in the form of a direct carbon tax, a tax-and-charade (cap-and-trade) scheme or energy deprivation, the net effect is to increase the costs of production and consumption.
The administration is already treating climate change legislation as creating a new revenue stream. Any hypothetical influence on the climate is treated as a moot point.
Business is being offered taxpayer money as a source of subsidized rewards to become “green.” The government, guided by business and other lobbyists, sets the definition of “green,” and then enacts laws or imposes regulations forcing consumers to purchase these sanctioned products, bringing profits to the chosen businesses. This creates a profitable positive feedback mechanism for all involved, except the hapless consumer.
Enron was early to realize the profit potential from alternate energy. Now manufacturers of all sizes, and institutions of all sorts, are eager to color themselves green to capture a bit of government subsidy.
Green is the new black.
Charles G. Battig
Charlottesville, VA 22906 USA