09 May 2009

What’s in a Name – The GWCCCC Edition

The New York Times reports that a group called ecoAmerica has conducted “focus group sessions” in order to find terms which the public might find more palatable. The Times reports that the term global warming “turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes.” Of course, it might have something to do with the recent cooling temperatures over the past ten years, as reported by Fox News’ Special Report this past week.

So here’s a short list taken from both sources of the old and new terms that ecoAmerica would want us to use. Remember, it’s all for the planet – my comments in italics.

Instead of “global warming”, use “climate crisis” – I don’t think that this one will work. At the moment, everything is a crisis. Banks, autos, mortgages, swine flu, unemployment, and on. In fact, I think climate crisis is worse than the uber-ambiguous term climate change. If there really is a crisis, then we’d better do something big, some many things big, and quickly. Surely no one is going to buy that.

Instead of “carbon”, use “pollution” – Just because the SCOTUS says that carbon dioxide is a pollutant does not make it so. Anyone who honestly believes that it is should consider cessation of his own personal pollution factory – his lungs.

Instead of “cap and trade”, use “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund” – No matter how its phrased, it’s a horrible idea. The idea, though, is to sell the scam by claiming that the “less fortunate” will somehow not be affected by higher prices. Just the creation of the bureaucracy to administer any “cap and trade” program will suck money out of consumer pockets. The only “refund” that will be given will be well after the fact, and a fraction of the cost to the consumer at that. The lovely thing for the statist is that “cap and trade” will put the state in touch with every aspect of production and consumption in the nation.
Global warming / climate change / climate crisis (GWCCCC) advocates do not, I think, believe in conservation, really. If they did, they would do more to press for individual power reduction. But all of our technology, travel methods, and consumer goods require lots and lots of energy. Conservation means making individual choices to use less. The GWCCCC crowd’s desire to create more bureaucracy and government intervention in order to “save the planet” should be a dead giveaway to just how serious they are about doing that. No government agency in the world, or of the world, will “save” the world from its supposedly human-induced “climate crisis”. However, if the GWCCCC crowd has its way, we’ll all spend untold billions of dollars to find that out.

If and after “cap and trade” – I mean the “pollution reduction refund” – is put in place, it will be instructive to follow that money. At that point, ecoAmerica and groups like it will have to come up with another lexicon to euphemize us into submission.

No comments: