Absurd and MORE Absurd

DECEMBER 18, 2009.  As a reporter, whenever I run into something that sounds, looks, feels like, and adds up to, a non-sequitur, a chunk of absurd illogic, my eyes light up and rays of eager anticipation shoot out of my head.

I’ve got one of those absurdities, as far as I can tell, and I’m chewing on it.  It has to do THE THIRD WORLD and GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS.

I know I’m supposed to assume those two items go hand in hand and are intimately connected.  I’m supposed to assume the tie-ins are obvious.  But I restrain myself from believing as I keep chewing.

So let us begin.

I keep reading about efforts to help developing, poor, Third-World nations vis-à-vis climate change.

Forgetting, for the moment, fraudulent climate science, I want to understand what this “help” means.

On the one hand, there seems to be an implication that developing countries are inordinately spewing CO2 into the air.  Really?  Nations with a tiny fraction of the industry of First World countries are major bad actors?

Oh, you mean China and India.  Oh.  Well, in that case, just say China and India.  Are there any other “developing” countries that are major CO2 producers on a level with, say, the US and the EU?  I don’t see them.  Am I missing something here?  I thought part of the definition of “developing” was “very little heavy industry.”

On the other hand, there is a big push to help developing countries avoid the effects of global warming: massive floods, contaminated water, and deforestation.

Hmm.  Lots of developing countries already feature contaminated water, which is a prime cause of illness.  The problem has existed for a very long time—and there are many companies that could go into those areas and, for very little money, clean up the water.  Apparently, the men who run those nations don’t want their citizens to be healthy.

As for the devastating flooding and deforestation—if I’m not mistaken, the doomsday scenarios being painted by the climate PR gods would imminently affect EVERYONE on the planet, right?  Seacoasts washed away, drowning of cities and towns and villages and empty land.  I mean, according to these dire predictions, who would survive?  Fish?  So why focus on Third World countries? 

Then there is the “climate-change” goal of installing green energy technology in Third World nations, where, presently, relatively little energy technology and infra-structure exist at all.  Well, use all the windmills and solar collectors you want to, and the impact would be very small.  The cost would be huge.  With present green technology, you can’t make a dent in overall energy needs.  It doesn’t work.

However, you can doom those people to energy solutions that don’t pan out, and therefore you can provoke decades of continued primitive conditions. In other words, more of the same.  Grinding poverty, starvation, illness, death.

Since these issues aren’t hard to understand, I have to conclude that the real motives for (absurdly) linking climate-change and Third World “help” are different from the announced goals. 

In other words, behind these climate-change-Third-World non-sequiturs, certain people will make “green” fortunes; ultimately, depopulation in the Third World will quicken; “help for the poor” will function as a feel-good distracting cover story for the parallel weakening and destruction of carbon-based industry in the First World; the billions and trillions in money transfers from the First World to the Third World would aid in further bankrupting industrial nations, and certain perspicacious men would find ways of diverting and stealing those extraordinary sums of money in transit.

In this nightmare scenario, the agenda for a global management system (de facto world government) would advance, based on “the environmental threat.”  Save the planet by wrecking societies and economies.

Severely limit the legal ability and personal freedom to create new companies and businesses that aren’t overtly green.  Issue every citizen a ceiling-limit carbon card, from which deductions are made every time he buys energy or travels.  Base political/economic planetary control on set numbers for “total available Earth resources,” and from those numbers begin to allocate—from a central control point—how those resources will be accessed and deployed from one end of the planet to the other.

In this effort, it would be made clear that capitalism and the free market are passé, and the new wave would be “compassion for all” emanating from share-and-care world leaders who are governing and managing Earth.  You know, the people we can really trust.  The people who have no conflicts of interest.  The people who have nothing personal to gain.  The people who are kind and loving and gentle.  The people who can issue edicts and make them stick, with force if necessary.

Those people.