With respect to the effects of Climate Change policy, "
cui bono"? The general public is led to believe that humankind is the beneficiary, but that depends upon the theory being correct. For the sake of argument, what if that answer cannot be determined with precision? Once you strip away that alleged benefit, who then benefits? Clearly, actions such as the XL pipeline decision do not benefit the average motorist in the US. Any action, such as this one, restricts supply, which in turn, causes prices to rise. But who benefits from that? The obvious answer is the oil companies, but is there anyone else? The proponents of this policy won't tell you the answer to that, they'll focus on the obvious instead, and count on your doing the same.
The left likes to claim that most people are fooled into voting against their own interests. But if you pay more than you should based upon restricted supplies that their own policies bring about, how is voting for so called green policies in the public's best interest?
In the US, it appears that the entire apparatus of government exists in order to import more oil. Which is exactly what happens. If any attempt is made to shorten the supply line, such as a pipeline from Canada, a shriek emanates from the environmentalists, which is enough to persuade this courageous and far sighted president to block the project. The result is higher prices and more imported oil. But it doesn't stop there. After all, long supply lines have to be defended, which require larger military budgets than what otherwise would be the case. The argument over the military can be morphed into other benefit and social programs, which makes a big military more acceptable to the left. However, if there is an actual need for military action, it won't be allowed. On the other hand, if there's a "need" for a meals on wheels program somewhere in the world, well, that's ok. You get the big military alright, but just don't use it for anything military. When you do need a military operation, well, just break open the piggy bank and raise taxes.
The same seems to happen in other agencies of the government. In a high profile type activity, such as space for example, the tendency towards larger and larger budgets can also be seen. This kind of thing is the way towards these trillion dollar deficits. Yet these ever increasing budgets don't necessarily lead to more and better results. Quite the contrary. The government is now spending as much as ever on the space program, yet it can't get a crew into space. They have to hire other countries to do that. Yet, we are told that the country needs a jobs program, while certain left wing politicians like to wail about corporate outsourcing of jobs. How about looking in the mirror? Outsourcing launches from foreign countries? The knee jerk response is to say that they need more funds to solve the problem, but if NASA is any indication, that potential jobs will just get outsourced as well. If only jobs can get outsourced in DC next Novermber.
Climate change is just a ruse to increase the size of government. The result is higher prices, which give the government even more opportunities to interfere. When the increasing interference causes problems to cascade even further, a call will come for an entire industry to be nationalized. Sounds a bit familiar? It should. Obamacare, anyone? Decades of interference in the medical industry gave the government the excuse to take over that industry. A possible solution would be to get the government out of everything, yet we are told that if that happens the world will come to an end. Whose world? But if things did come to that extraordinary state of affairs, the government would probably find a program to manage it. If we are "lucky", they'll manage the results of their own cumulative screw ups so badly that they'll destroy everything and then we can start over.
