By David Wojick
The title of this 800-page tome is “Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Societal Dimensions” from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM).
I seldom use the term “socialist”, but it is the perfect word here once the concept is updated. It originally referred to government ownership of the means of production. But in today’s Regulatory State, ownership is not required for control, so it means government control of production, or more broadly, government control of both production and use.
In this case, it is government control of the production and use of what they call “the energy system.” Since everybody uses energy, this includes control of everybody. Under the proposed system, the government does not serve people; it “manages” them, or at least their energy use, which is a lot of what we do.
They are, however, rather confused about this. The very first sentences state their basic assumption, which is wildly false. They say this:
“The world is coalescing around the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change, with many nations setting goals of net-zero emissions by midcentury. As the largest cumulative emitter, the United States has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change. It has set an interim emissions target of 50–52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 toward a net-zero goal.” (All quotes are from the Executive Summary.)
The United States has set no such targets. The US is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, so it does not set targets. Perhaps they mean the US Government, but Congress has set no such targets. In fact, these so-called targets are merely the wishful thinking of the Biden Administration and their radical net zero colleagues, which apparently include the National Academies. And if a Republican wins the next election, it will not even be a Presidential wish.
So, there is much less here than meets the eye. This tome is basically a radical socialist manifesto, and that is how it should be read.
The funding is surprising. NASEM studies used to be done at the request of Congress or Federal Agencies and funded by them since objectively advising them is supposed to be the job of the Academies. Instead, this work was funded by a collection of Foundations, presumably left-wingers. So, the National Academies are for hire by those with radical causes.
The socialist management thrust is exemplified by this topic, which is listed as a central theme: “Managing the Future of the Fossil Fuel Sector.” Only under socialism is this a government function.
That the called-for management process is also non-democratic is made clear by this segment of their lead-off discussion of risks: “In developing its findings and recommendations, the committee recognized the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with such an unprecedented, long-term, whole-of-society transition. These include … political, judicial, and societal polarization risk—that political and judicial actions or societal pressures will change the policy landscape….”
So elected officials, the Courts, or the people in general might get in the way. Their solution is not to get the support of the people; rather, it is more management. They say, “Mitigating these risks will require adaptive management and governance to coordinate and evaluate policy implementation and to communicate progress on outcomes.”
Sounds like the Plan is to manage the elections, the Courts, and the people. Sit down, shut up, and we will tell you what we have done as we go along.
For those interested in the details of the net zero wishlist, this is a grand source. Otherwise, it is just another radical manifesto to line the shelves with.
My concern is that the three National Academies have abandoned their mission and, therefore, lost their integrity. Tools of left-wing foundations are not worthy of the name National Academy.
At some point, people will realize that those who want to lower your standard of living are not your friends.
Not if it’s done by stealth
Yes, that’s a large part of the problem. Because higher energy costs affect affect everything else, it is not obvious to many people when living standards are declining as a result of higher energy costs.
Widely available cheaper energy was one significant factor why the US standards of living were propelled beyond that of Europeans. Despite recent efforts by states like California, it is still there to see when comparing prices at the petrol pump or electricity bills on different sides of the Atlantic.
Like food staples, energy costs form a smaller fraction of disposable income for the governing classes than for the rest of us. They don’t feel the pain of their planet-saving policies so much.
Especially since they surely don’t want to lower THEIR standard of living.
The millionaire and billionaire Capitalists hope to make $US trillions of dollars in profit off of the $US200 trillion Bloomberg’s Green Energy Research Team estimates it will cost to stop warming by 2050.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-07-05/-200-trillion-is-needed-to-stop-global-warming-that-s-a-bargain
They own the media and control the politicians with their campaign contributions.
Strange how many millionaires and billionaires (Sanders, Soros and family, Zuckerberg, etc.) are socialist.
(Maybe they just want to keep living in “The Farmhouse” and keep us others out?)
The very first words about the world coalescing around the needs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions undermines the argument from the outset. If the world’s nations were really on board to do this, why are fossil fuel consumption and carbon emissions staying at essentially the same levels or rising for years now despite all the handouts to promote alternative energies. And why do fossil fuels continue to provide at least 80% of the world’s primary energy generation? This same refrain is just tossed at the uninformed segment of the public to make them believe they should get on board to aid in the climate fight. Except when international polls on the issue consistently show that climate action is a low priority item, particularly when it’s guaranteed to cost consumers more in taxes and in everyday prices and restrictions, those opening words are just a variation of the wishful thinking refrain that the alarmists constantly reiterate.
And China and India explicitly reject any CO2 controls or coal burning limitations. It seems that part of the world is not “coalescing” (love the “coal” part of that word) to that goal. Oh, I know, they are on an alternate Earth…
This is indeed socialism, but of the fascist variety. No nominal “ownership” of the means of production, instead total control over “private” enterprises. With a pervasive layer of obvious BS covering the operation.
The rich Capitalists own the politicians with their campaign contributions and the politicians control the government.
To be a pedant, that is ordinary rent seeking and regulatory capture. Fascism is purportedly Syndicalism, rule by labor unions. Real world, it is more of a Party oligarchy.
Actually, The Deep State in The Swamp controls the Government.
This is getting ridiculous
It has been for quite a while.. yet you still support it.
It’s Fabian Socialism.
I have never felt comfortable with these foundations. I think the time has come for a lot more accountability. We need to take a very close look at what our government agencies are doing for these foundations. We may have found organizations that need some heavy heavy regulating.
At least in the US the rich own the foundations and control the politicians who need their campaign contribution to get elected. I doubt if they will let their foundations be more regulated.
I agree with your post but sadly I don’t think it will happen.
Maybe if the election campaigns were publically financed the politicians might work in the people’s behalf. But that has its own can of worms.
“Public campaign financing” is like a State Church. Who decides who is a “real candidate”? And it also includes a definite level of incumbent protection.
What needs to happen is get back to the principles of limited government.
“As the largest cumulative emitter, the United States has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change.”
There you have it. The United States is guilty of becoming the most prosperous nation on earth through a lot of hard work and innovation pursued diligently over the course of a century’s time — and therefore the entire nation and all its citizens must pay a steep price.for doing so well over the last hundred years in building our economy into the best in the world.
It is too cold in most of the US to live without heated buildings, heated transportation, and warm clothes most of the year.
Many countries have really cold winters, e.g., Canada, Russia, China, Scandinavia,
N. Europe, etc. It even gets pretty chilly in Australia.
Most people live on the coastal fringe, which only very rarely drops below zero C at night.
But once you get into the hills of the Great Dividing Range, it can get quite chilly. (eg Lithgow can get to minus 10C or so)
The outback can also get pretty cold at times.
And as the largest current emitter China
has the opportunitymust lead the fight against “Climate Change” (assuming it is a real problem)… otherwise there is no reason for any other nation to do so.“800-pages” of horse schist. As Pres. Ron Reagan might complain* “And not a pony to be found.”
[Some readers might need to search up President Reagan’s pony joke.]
{* His statement: There’s got to be a pony in there somewhere.}
More like a team of draught horses !!
Finally! I know the reason Vermin Supreme promises a free pony for every American!
Vermin Supreme – Wikipedia
Agreed.
But after reading the Exec Summary, and skimming a couple of chapters l found among
the “socialist [and woke] schist” a few buried nuggets of [inconvenient] truths [my paraphrasing]:
* the EIA predicts increased oil & nat gas usage, but less coal, through 2050 while the IEA predicts a decline in all FF
decreasing grid reliability
Of course all this couched in social justice double-speak [see Box 2-1, page 89 for definitions
that to me seemed circular] and vague assurances that their plan will work.
And finally, to no surprise, all the above will require more government regulation with management of societal needs & wants. They know what is best for us!
“My concern is that the three National Academies have abandoned their mission and, therefore, lost their integrity. Tools of left-wing foundations are not worthy of the name National Academy.”
Can I quintuple upvote that somehow ?
Leftwing activist money is destroying our society.
This sounds rather much as what is normally called Fascism. In what respects is it different?
“I seldom use the term “socialist”, but it is the perfect word here once the concept is updated”.:In other words, I’d like to change the definition of a word, so I can smear an institution. Sweet, why not call people who disagree with you communist? Or Fascist, or maybe members of a cult- Oh, I see, already done too often on this site.
Words can change in meaning over time. It was stated clearly what was meant. My own understanding, though, is that there hasn’t been a change: socialism is the general term, while communism and fascism are specific kinds of socialism – so the term ‘communism’ could have been used with no explanation needed.
Fascism is not socialism, or a specific form thereof. And you can use words however you like, Humpty Dumpty would be proud of you. You’d still get laughed out of the room by people with the slightest knowledge of history or political science.
Sure, because here it means everything I don’t like.
“Fascism is not socialism”- but there are common elements.
They have the same roots, deep in the heart of rabid totalitarian leftism.
“with the slightest knowledge of history or political science.”
You have far less than that !!
Soviet Socialist Republic
Natural Socialism
Socialism has to mean central control of people’s activities because few would go along with the program without coercion.
“Fascism is not socialism, or a specific form thereof.”
OH PULEASE!
The only difference is who lives in “The Farmhouse” and keeps the rest of us out.
I happen to know many people in cults- they all deny their cult is a cult- the way all alcoholics deny they’re alcoholics.
I’m not going to describe you as anything.
Your own words do that.
So what do your words say about you?
Yours show you are a total LUSER.
Or Fascist
Actually, yes, based on the original definition of the term.
“As the largest cumulative emitter, the United States has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change.”
Absurd. The leader, assuming one is needed, should be the current largest emitter. Of course it’s all a hoax anyway.
David,
Matters of science have been captured by unrepreesentative swill here in Australia as well.
Here is one view from the prestige journal “Quadrant”.
Geoff s
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2012/06/our-planet-saving-science-lobbyist-the-integrity-of-the-australian-academy-of-science/
“But in today’s Regulatory State, ownership is not required for control, so it means government control of production, or more broadly, government control of both production and use.”
This is an important point! It is the same as with the “health care crisis” from a few years ago, where it was the control of the health industry through regulation, not the direct ownership of it, that was enacted. “Health Insurance” was the vehicle, but the destination was government control.
So what and how much should a government regulate?
A little as possible.
“That which governs least governs best.”
That all depend on what is their actual right to regulate, which boils down to what rights have been delegated by the people to that particular level of incorporated governance (federal, state, county) and what rights have been reserved by the people for themselves.
How much regulation comes down to the question of what is and what is not legitimate government.
The primary purpose of government in a democracy or a republic is to protect the citizens from the government.
😎
Four way stop signs at an intersection? Fine.
A bridge to cross a river? Fine.
Decreeing only EVs are allowed to use the bridge?
A bridge too far.
PS Some promote public transport instead of personal cars.
This morning my wife asked to do a Google Maps to get directions for her.
This particular destination was 22 minutes by car. 2 days and 17 hours by bus!
(Wish I’d checked how long it would take to walk.)
“Some promote public transport instead of personal cars.”
I have no problem with public transport AS WELL AS personal cars.
It’s not socialism but fascism where the government controls the private economy.
Two versions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You_have_two_cows
https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/using-two-cows-to-explain-the-theory-of-government/
(In the version I first saw before before there was “the internet, it was the “free enterprise” system that sold one cow and bought a bull. I guess one has gone the way of “The Little Red Hen”.)
I took a quick look at every page of the tome. Hundreds if not thousands of Net Zero/DEI Good Idea Fairies (GIFs) had to have been mobilized to put their thoughts down on paper. These GIF-produced ‘good ideas’ were then assembled into this 800 page manifesto.
The tome is not a technical document nor even a true planning document as we engineers know them. It is, as David notes, a socialist manifesto which has the outward appearance of a high level policy planning document.
One major feature of the manifesto is to install a Net Zero/DEI commissar in every department and agency at every level of American federal, state, and local government, a commissar whose assignment is to use the Net Zero energy transition as a means of implementing a fully socialized American economy.
Another feature of the manifesto is to mobilize an array of NGO’s at government expense to support the work of the Net Zero/DEI commissars in performing their societal transformation work.
Because the Net Zero transition is technically and economically impossible to achieve without destroying America’s economy, the task of achieving Net Zero for America will never actually be finished. And so these people and their children will keep their jobs indefinitely into the future.
I haven’t read it all either, but check the caveats. One is outside funding and another four members resigned. Also–“The statements and opinions contained in rapid expert consultations are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee or the National Academies.”
Another step closer to the tipping point resulting in the collapse of human civilization.
How does one distinguish the “left wing” from enemies?
The left ARE the enemies of society.