June 14, 2024

Can the US Single-Handedly Save the Planet?

That’s what the Democrats would have you believe. If we’d just scale back on fossil fuels, turn our air conditioners up, and not fly so much, we might be able to stop a global catastrophe, they say.

True believers are having themselves sterilized so they don’t have more children and increase their carbon footprint. They’re buying vehicles with rare earth metals that cannot be disposed of and using an infrastructure that cannot support everyone pulling electricity to support their cars.

And worse of all, they’re crushing the world’s economies, causing inflation and recessions– not to mention food shortages and starvation. If you’re a skeptic, you begin to wonder whether the last one is linked to convincing people not to have children.

But nothing beats the insane idea that, if only the US would try harder and pass legislation to cut greenhouse gasses, this will all stop.

First, The US is not the only country in the world. Just a comparison of major cities around the world reveals that there are multiple cities putting out much more smog and pollution than the US cities. The US doesn’t rule the world, and some of the biggest polluters are not in accord with the “Build Back Better” green agenda. This is part of the reason that former President Trump left the Paris Accords. How far is America willing to go to stop this problem they claim exists?

I want to pause here because I just finished reading Folks, this ain’t normal (aff) by Joe Salatin, and it’s true that we could do better, spend less energy and be cleaner altogether if we behaved in a more normal pattern– if we were to all start growing some of our food, ate food locally produced, cut government regulation to let farmers sell directly to people easier, and ate things in season or correctly stored. If we used more animals and fewer chemicals we would have better land, and if we didn’t grow animals in smaller spaces, our food and land would be healthier. Save the technology and energy for other things than transporting food from one location to another.

But that’s not what is being proposed. The US government is telling us we can have it all, as long as we transition to wind and solar and use batteries instead of evil fossil fuels. And that somehow if we stop using this stuff, the globe will cool?

Second, whether President Biden sold some of our Strategic Petroleum Reserves to China directly or indirectly, the point is that the nations that are polluting stand to benefit from what’s going on in the world today and will use the surplus, cheap energy to get ahead. Be it Russia which is energy-rich and sees really cheap gas prices, or China which is still dealing with them… It feels like we’re in a fight with another big tough guy, but we decide we’re going to tie our legs to a chair because we’re afraid our legs might cause us to trip.

I mean, does it make any sense to say that China and Russia believe that they are going to rule the US, or rival it, and so, let’s handicap ourselves to make it so that– they can do it faster?! I mean, I understand the logic of what they are saying. If gasoline is finite or would run out, then transitioning first to something else might make you stronger; however, it should be a transition that’s mapped out, not intentionally hobbling oneself right now. That’s part of what makes what they’re doing unbelievable.

Lastly, don’t worry too much about the Manchin/Schumer bill yet. Kirsten Sinema has yet to get on board. She still might, but at this point, I think it would lead to a larger backlash against what’s happening now. I mean, “let’s save inflation by spending more money”? Does anyone think that will work?

(Visited 2 times, 1 visits today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge