I was under the weather this weekend, and since I was sick anyway I figured I might as well fill out my tax forms. Which always leads me to thinking, “Where are my tax dollars spent, anyway?” According to the Heritage Foundation and the Science and Public Policy Institute, there have been 33 “green energy” companies offered federal subsidies totaling more than $7.4 billion that are now faltering or bankrupt. Granted, this only represents about one-half of one percent of all Federal discretionary spending budgeted in 2012, or about $100 of my Federal income tax bill; but I would have preferred to spend that $100 on something else.
And it doesn’t end there. As noted by Watts Up With That, Larry Bell with Forbes offers the following summary:
The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) reports that federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010 (a total $106.7 billion over that period). This doesn’t include $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, tax breaks for “green energy”, foreign aid to help other countries address “climate problems”; another $16.1 billion since 1993 in federal revenue losses due to green energy subsidies; or still another $26 billion earmarked for climate change programs and related activities in the 2009 “Stimulus Bill”. . . . It is way past time to realize that none of this is really about protecting the planet from man-made climate change. It never was.(Bell, 2013)
Companies in the “green energy” industry certainly benefit from a popular misbelief in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and perpetuate that myth while receiving staggering sums of government aid. Mainstream media bias their reporting because catastrophes, disasters, and the imminent collapse of civilization draw viewers and readers, and hence advertising dollars. After all, who’s going to tune in just to hear that everything is normal? And if scientists are told that their government funding will dry up unless they work on research that supports AGW, then that might bias their research.
But don’t just take my word for it.
In a 2011 interview, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore said:
“We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years . . . The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It’s not good for people and it’s not good for the environment.”
When Moore was asked who is responsible for promoting unwarranted climate fear and what their motives are, he said: “A powerful convergence of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue.”(Bell, 2013)
Instead of wasting money on politically-motivated projects with no benefit except to those receiving the funds, our policymakers should be working to solve real environmental health problems, such as providing clean drinking water for the estimated 780 million people worldwide who don’t have it, or helping prevent 250,000-500,000 children from going blind each year from vitamin A deficiency.
Happy (belated) St. Patrick’s Day.
Bell, L. (2013, February 05). In their own words: Climate alarmists debunk their ‘science’. Forbes, Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/print/