Obama-Style Climate and Energy Programs Have Failed Everywhere They've Been Tried
Following the Earth Summit, Strong, by then adviser to presidents, prime ministers and powerful corporations, continued to take a leading role in efforts to implement the outcomes of agreements reached at UNCED through:
- the establishment of the Earth Council
- the establishment of the Earth Charter movement
- his chairmanship of the World Resources Institute
- his honorary board membership with the David Suzuki Foundation
- membership on the board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Stockholm Environment Institute, the Africa-America Institute, the Institute of Ecology in Indonesia, the Beijer Institute of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and others
- membership with the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Wildlife Fund, and the China Carbon Corporation
We got a glimpse of what may be Strong’s underlying objectives when he told a reporter, supposedly concerning the plot of a book he would like to write:
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is "no." The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
Strong worked towards achieving this goal by creating the IPCC and other organizations that supposedly demonstrated that CO2 from human industrial activity is causing runaway global warming. Strong admitted that he couldn’t implement his plan as a politician, so, according to author Elaine Dewar (Cloak of Green):
Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.
Ontario’s energy policy failures intensified to the point that, by November 2010, even the left-leaning Toronto Star newspaper admitted:
The McGuinty [Ontario] government has a major electrical power problem, one created by its decision to use the power system as a political policy tool. This policy has resulted in the doubling of rates in Ontario to a level higher than in most U.S. states. Ontario’s former industrial advantage has disappeared, while the government has been pretending that nothing is wrong.
Ontario’s economy continues to decline today largely due to the government’s decision to turn off the province’s cheapest form of electricity—coal. In 2003, coal provided 25% of Ontario’s power. By mid-April 2014, coal was completely phased out. Replacing hydrocarbon fuel energies with alternate energies drove Ontario’s costs through the roof and created a multitude of other problems. This is precisely where the U.S. is now headed, only it will be worse since Ontario still benefits from Canada’s policy of financial equalization between provinces, while there is no one who will bail out the U.S.
Many commentators knew America was in trouble when Obama, then the frontrunner in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, told the San Francisco Chronicle:
If somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted… .Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.
Contrary to popular belief, the IPCC evidence doesn’t actually support the claim that CO2 produced by human activities is causing dangerous climate change. There is no scientific need to replace fossil fuels.
Indian Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh summed up the situation well:
“Science is politics in climate change; climate science is politics” and we are being “led by our noses by Western (climate) scientists who have less of a scientific agenda and more of a political agenda.”
Western politicians like Obama are promoting energy policies based on falsified, politicized science and alternative energies that don’t work. Maurice Strong, creator of the myth of CO2-caused dangerous climate change, applied his claims in Ontario and the result was disastrous. The U.S. president's energy policies are the same but more inexcusable since everyone can see what has already happened in Europe and Ontario. Why repeat this tragedy in America?