The climate change crisis racket
Do Democrats really believe in the climate crisis they have dubbed an "emergency," or is it really just a way to make a quick buck?
Beto O'Rourke has suggested spending $5 trillion over the next ten years investing in climate change initiatives primarily for "vulnerable communities." Not to be outdone, Kamala Harris was one of the co-sponsors for the "Green New Deal," which proposes $700 billion a year in spending on a utopian garden future. Bernie Sanders, also a loud supporter of the GND, proposes going even farther and banning any new developments that would require fossil fuels. Cory Booker uses climate change to drum up fear, claiming with an re-introduced bill that the environment is racist (yeah, seriously), and although he hasn't laid out any specific plans, he has insinuated possibly legislating veganism.
All in all, looking at just the remaining 2020 Democratic candidates' proposals, the total amounts to $180,000,000,000,000 over a period of ten years, with climate change and health care–for-all mandates taking up the majority of this desired spending. One hundred and eighty trillion dollars. Just for perspective, that number is:
- More than half the combined wealth of all current wealth in the entire world ($241 trillion by this estimate).
- All of the stars in our galaxy multiplied by a giga, or ten to the ninth power.
- Astrophysicist Greg Laughlin came up with a formula that the Earth itself is worth around 4.25 quadrillion USD, and Democrats want to spend almost 5% of that just on a handful of their policies.
Climate change must really be ready to kill off everyone in 12 years, as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez keeps saying, or how else could Democrats justify spending this much? While Democrats are eager to spend more money than Monopoly money–printers could ever print, if they really believe it to be such a crisis, why are they focused on America and not backing something as effective as military occupation of the world's largest polluters: China and India?
Further, if we are to believe the hype around the climate crisis, why aren't Democrats being the loudest about discouraging illegal immigration from countries with very low carbon emissions like Guatemala and El Salvador? Democrats could easily argue that illegal immigration is bad for the environment when they know that migrants from undeveloped nations will increase their "carbon footprints" once in America. If the climate is really the number-one threat to humanity, that should outweigh whatever Central Americans have going on that makes them want to escape their environmental paradises in the first place.
Alas, perhaps there's another answer to Democrats' incessant crying about climate change. It all comes down to the green — green cash money that is.
Carbon credits are tradable certificates. Each one allows the holder to emit one ton of carbon emissions. This has created an extremely valuable market out of the polluted thin air for buying and selling these carbon credit permits. The CCX (Chicago Climate Exchange) allows businesses, mutual funds, and other investment groups to trade these carbon credits and offsets like any other stock. Interestingly, the public company that runs the CCX also runs the European Climate Exchange.
More importantly, it's not having any effect on actual total carbon emissions. Undeveloped nations and businesses that are going green are selling their extra carbon credits to industry-rich nations and other heavily polluting businesses that have already burned through their own supply.
Following a hunch after taking in this must-read Forbes article, "Blood And Gore: Making A Killing On Anti-Carbon Investment Hype," which outlines Al Gore's immense wealth created from investing in climate credits, I looked to see if any other well known Democrats might have investments in this racket. Very quickly, I learned that the Clinton Foundation has so many initiatives put forth by carbon credit investment groups (a count on the Clinton Foundation's own webpage lists 39 pages of results) that the rabbit and ozone holes never really end. A few of these investment groups have even been uncovered to be scams, like this one out of London that committed to the Clinton Foundation at least twice and then used that partnership to validate itself to the people it was scamming.
The Democrats' end-of-the-world prophecies regarding the climate crisis are a way to influence these carbon markets. The more people value a carbon credit, the more it's worth, like any other supply/demand model. The more the credit is worth, the more the holders and hoarders of them make, my guess is, a lot of them are voting for the party that increases their value.