Progressives have long wanted tax unrealized capital gains stocks, bonds, landed properties, houses, works of art, cars, yachts and other assets of billionaires. As appealing as it sounds, the scheme would be extremely complicated and impractical. In the absence of sales, who would assess current values – and how?
But the frustrations we ‘commoners’ have with the ultra-rich are understandable – especially when they tell us about eating less ‘weather-altering’ beef, avoiding $5 gas while buying vehicles electric at $60,000 and fund ‘experts’ who say we should live in 650 square foot apartments.
So it’s funny when some of these billionaires start arguing over who’s more holy (and judgmental) when it comes to preventing the so-called climate crisis.
Elon Musk and Bill Gates have quibbled on which of them cares the most about climate change. Musk recently refused a “philanthropic opportunity” with Gates because the Microsoft co-founder still has a “half a billion dollar short position against Tesla”, which Musk says is “the company doing the most to solve the climate change”. Gates says he gives more to climate causes than anyone, including Musk.
However, as too often happens with elites who promote climate activist agendas, when it comes to ensuring human and planetary health, they both ignore the evidence, the big picture – and their own lifestyles, including private jets and multiple mansions. They are not alone.
After spending eight years tackling fossil fuels, former President Obama installed a 2,500 gallon propane system in his 6,900 square foot Martha’s Vineyard home, which is apparently sheltered from rising seas that put other coastal properties at risk (resulting from propane emissions, oil and natural gas).
Founder of Amazon Jeff Bezos led an entourage of 400 “green” luminaries, dignitaries and CEOs flying private jets to the 2021 COP-26 climate conference in Glasgow. Two years earlier, currency manipulator George Soros and 1,500 other “world leaders” hopped on their private jets for the World Economic Forum in Davos, once again to draw attention to “sustainability” and “dangerous global warming”. As climate czar John Kerry explained, private jets are “the only choice” for someone as important as him.
Not to be outdone, Leonardo DiCaprio flew a private jet to New York in 2016 to accept an environmental award, then flew it back to France a day later. “Climate change is real!” he intoned.
Of course, it’s real. It has been “real” throughout Earth’s history, and there is no Real world proof to support claims that man-made greenhouse gases have replaced the powerful natural forces that drove past climate fluctuations, or that fossil fuel emissions are now causing dangerous warming and weather.
Computer models are not evidence and their predictions are usually at odds with actual world events. Why should we disrupt our energy, our economy and our standard of living because the models claim there is a crisis? Yet models are still the last refuge of false prophets of climate Armageddon.
In reality, many more people die in cold weather than in hot weather, and a slightly warmer planet would be quite beneficial both for humanity and for the plant and animal kingdoms.
There is simply no credible evidence that today’s climate fluctuations and weather events are due to fossil fuels, instead of the same natural forces that have operated throughout Earth’s history. Tornado records show fewer violent tornadoes from 1950 to 1985 than during the 36 years that followed. Not one Category 3-5 hurricane made landfall in the United States for a record 12 years (2005-2012).
Three particularly “sudden” droughts during a 200-year drought period caused the mayan civilization collapse in 930 AD. Several droughts hit the Chaco Canyon (Four Corners) region 1130-1450, helping to end the Anasazi Civilization. Extremely dry conditions contributed to the decline of the ancient South Arabian kingdom of himyar, causing political unrest and war, and promoting the spread of Islam. The Pleistocene Ice Ages and the Little Ice Age brought “frozen droughts” to Europe, Asia and North America.
Even worse than the fake science and endless fear, the remedies they offer for the climate crisis would be far more harmful to people and the planet than the warming and weather they worry about.
Replacing electricity generation from fossil (and nuclear) fuels would mean blanketing the planet in million wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of backup battery modules, thousands of mines to produce the raw materials for these technologies (mainly operated by Chinese) and hundreds of landfills for worn-out wind turbine blades 300 feet in length. long and other dilapidated “green energy” equipment. (Fortunately, the United States has a huge, hitherto unused landfill: the Grand Canyon in Arizona.)
The ease with which billionaire members of the climate club do business with China is also at odds with generally accepted standards of environmental ethics and human rights.
Musk is quite comfortable with the Chinese communist regime. To take billions in scheme funded loansat talk to their embassyat build a factory in Xinjiang in the midst of the Uyghur genocide, he is surprisingly comfortable working with a state based on ideologies of totalitarian hatred and abuse.
Gates pushed the boundaries of US security laws to help China build nuclear reactors suitable for propelling warships, even as China continues to take long-term strategic steps to control ever-larger swaths of the Pacific and outmatch US naval power in this critical region.
Incredibly, but understandably, these billionaires almost never criticize Xi Jinping’s regime. In fact, Musk has met with communist officials several times and frequently says China is “tearing” – even though it is by far the world’s largest emitter of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide (CO2) and toxic pollutants.
In fact, in 2019, China’s greenhouse gas emissions were almost 2.5 times those of the United States – and more than all the developed nations of the world combined. In CO2 equivalent, China emitted 14.1 billion metric tons that year, more than a quarter of global emissions.
even musk ceased to serve President Trump’s Advisory Committees, protesting Mr Trump’s decision to withdraw from the meaningless Paris climate accord which is in fact a treaty.
So why are Musk and Gates so quick to criticize America – without ever chiding the People’s Republic? They clearly don’t live by the environmental principles they preach and won’t even criticize the world’s worst greenhouse gas emitter, polluter of toxic chemicals and practicing child and slave labor.
Worse still, the policies they promote would harm global public health. As Congressman John Curtis (R-Utah), founder of the Conservative Climate Caucus, recently noted, “killing America’s fossil fuels only makes them replaced by dirtier foreign sources, especially Chinese and Russian. Perhaps, Curtis suggested, we should instead start “attacking carbon emissions, not energy sources, through carbon capture, American innovation, natural solutions and other avenues.” that boost the U.S. economy while reducing global emissions.”
Over the past decade, the United States has reduction of CO2 emissions more than any other country in the world. Yet Musk, Gates and other jet-setters continue to support policies like the Paris Agreement, which would impose major restrictions on the United States while allowing China to continue to increase emissions. until 2030.
Instead, maybe we should just stop trying to reduce CO2 emissions, since this monumental and costly global effort is driven by demands to prevent a “man-made climate crisis” that won’t does not really exist.
If these climate activists wish to make a difference in human and environmental health around the world, they must change their perspective and their relationship with communist China. They need to start looking at real-world climate and weather evidence and practice what they preach.
Unfortunately, they don’t want to. They would rather make noise (and more billions) than protect the economy and the standard of living of commoners, or support real productive change in America and abroad.