Yes, I'm talking about all that hysteria over global warming or global climate change. Those who believe in it, don't even bother trying to find a scientific proof to their claims. They don't care about the evidences which show that human contributions represent only a fraction of a percent of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, which in their turn represent 0.038% of the atmosphere itself. Instead, we have thousands of politicians, artists and even scientists presenting their believes as indisputable truth, and denouncing anyone who thinks otherwise as "denier".
What is the purpose of all that fear-mongering if not to create an environment in which the need for austerity would be self-evident? Call me paranoid if you must, but I do find too many similarities between all the frenzy over global warming, including all those apocalyptic prognoses which promise global doom in no time unless we do as we're told and Orwellian Oceania, where a permanent state of war created an illusion of national emergency and ensured that people accepted longer work days and lower rations without the need for the thought police to intervene.
Just look around. California is outlawing black cars - because they capture more sunlight than cars of any other color, thus requiring more energy to cool the passengers. Sure, those black cars just kill the environment. If we repaint them all white, we'll conserve so much energy that it will not only offset China's ever increasing emissions but also revert the global doom which is predicted to happen in 100 months. (God forbid we wait even a day longer!)
Meanwhile Ontario is planning to introduce mandatory energy audits for real estate. Want to sell your home? Get ready to pay some $300-400 for the audit and then - to spend thousands, fixing all the deficiencies the auditor may find. Fines for trying to avoid such an audit are hefty. Special inspectors will be authorized to visit any house they believe could be on sale to ensure that nobody here is trying to sell an energy-inefficient dwelling...
But then, if you look at it - Ontarians and Californians are getting off lightly. Here's a group of enviro-nuts that want Britain's population to be halved. They think that's the only way to ensure that Britain meets its long-term emission reduction goals. Oh, sure, those tiny fractions of a percent justify forced abortions and euthanasia without which there's simply no way to bring the population down from 61 million to 30.
But even if those are radicals - the moderates are no better. We have all those 'cap-and-trade' carbon emission control programs that would confine Canadian businesses to the US-mandated quotas; we've got all those carbon markets, carbon credits and in some provinces - carbon taxes, that burden the businesses and the consumers without reducing the number of smog days in our cities. And we're about to have Kyoto 2 - the Copenhagen accord which talks a lot more about wealth transfer than about actually making the air cleaner:
A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body.And shall I remind you that the mere existence of global climate change, let alone - the human causes of the latter have never been scientifically proven? That all those measures I listed above, are proposed not because there is a real threat to the planet, but for the sake of mere ideology, for the sake of green socialism which is nothing but a modernized version of the good old red socialism. Let us not forget that in North Korea - each hour is an "Earth hour". And that in Orwellian Oceania, they used to cut the electric current to residential buildings during nights and middays - because they needed the coal for the military industries.
Those and other results are blandly discussed in a discretely worded United Nations "information note" on potential consequences of the measures that industrialized countries will likely have to take to implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an "effective framework" for dealing with global warming.