The deceptive Green Dirty Deal

Because Democratic Socialist Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez concocted the notion of a "Green New Deal," Climate Director Sam Ricketts of the floundering presidential campaign of Washington Governor Jay Inslee sought guidance from her Chief of Staff Saikat Chakrabarti.

"The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is that it wasn't originally a climate thing at all," Chakrabarti told a dumbstruck Ricketts, whose candidate had made the coming climate apocalypse the center of his pitch to voters.

"Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?" said Chakrabarti to his surprised fellow leftist. "Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing."

Surely, the Washington governor knew that "green" is merely a political scam, Chakrabarti seemed to be saying. Surely, leftist Democrats understand that "green" is merely the collectivist color of ideology we wear to keep from being seen as entirely Marxist red.

Only fools, Chakrabarti's rare burst of honesty revealed, actually believe that the leftist fraud over climate change is real, not just a boogey man puppet shaken to frighten and stampede children into supporting the massive expansion of government and the liquidation of private property and free enterprise.

Without exception, everything publically advocated by Democrats and other leftists pretends to be for some noble cause – but is really designed to advance their sinister agenda. Your job, as a thinking person, is to learn enough that you can see, and help others see and reject, their evil objectives.

To see the left's real motive in using the climate issue, as Craig R. Smith and I did in our book "Money, Morality & The Machine," you need only look at leftist climate bureaucrats of the United Nations.

"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Dr. Ottmar Endenhofer, one of the heads of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that operates under U.N. auspices. The wealth of the richest nations, especially the United States, is to be redistributed to poorer nations, with the U.N. middleman getting a fat cut of this $100 trillion transfer of wealth.

You will notice that many scientists agree that, even if our planet were warming, such climate change can almost certainly be cooled by inexpensive geoengineering such as sprinkling the upper atmosphere with finely powdered sulfur, which would fall safely to Earth within two years.

During those two years, this sulfur would reduce the size of water droplets at the top of oceanic clouds, increasing their albedo (reflectivity) and bouncing a tiny fraction of the sun's warming rays back into space. This could cheaply be used as a thermostat to regulate Earth's temperature.

But any mention of this and other low-cost cures for a feverish planet elicits angry screams from climate alarmists who plan to massively enrich and empower themselves by selling and imposing the most extreme political remedies.

Note that in these cases the alarmists who accuse non-government scientists of "bias" never mention that government is also a vested interest scheming to acquire vast wealth and power by pushing global climate change; government scientists have major incentives to do the bidding of those who pay and promote them.

While promoting a U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Dr. Endenhofer told reporters that this was "not a climate conference" but "one of the largest economic conferences since World War II."

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy," said Dr. Endenhofer. "This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore."

The real agenda is a "transformation" of the global economy, said head of climate change policy at the United Nations, Costa Rican diplomat Christiana Figueres.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind," she said, "that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution."

And what economic system is she using the climate issue to change? Capitalism, especially American-guided capitalism.

"We ought to 'ride' the global warming issue," leftist U.S. Senator Tim Wirth (D.-Colo.) years ago told a group of scientists, most of whom craved government grants he could provide, "because even if the theory proves wrong, it will cause us to make changes we ought to be making anyway." What Wirth meant were changes in the direction of socialism.

The socialist "Green New Deal," experts calculate, will cost American taxpayers at least $93 trillion in the first 10 years of its imposition.

Lowell Ponte is a former Reader's Digest Roving Editor. His articles have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other major publications. His latest paper co-authored with Craig R. Smith, "Protecting Your Wealth in Today's America: How You Invest Your Savings Requires New Thinking," shows how to rethink several areas of investment to protect and grow your savings in our new schizophrenic politics. For a free, postpaid copy, call toll-free 800-630-1492.