Help Combat Climate ChangeSubmitted by Treubig on Wed, 03/12/2014 - 23:07
There is no doubt in my mind that when you pump chemicals in the air, water and soil that there will be negative consequences. However, it is necessary for some of these actions to take place to evolve the human race. If it were illegal to cut down trees in the name of "conserving wildlife", then we would not have many of the necessities humans require. Natural resources are used in every area of human activity whether it's a necessity or want.
The "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" discussion lost me long ago for the simple reason that no one knows exactly that it is happening. At first, the argument was global cooling, then global warming, and now extreme weather. To me, the name of the argument and the argument itself consistently changes to further the same solution which may not be the correct answer. The argument is an excess of carbon is being emitted into the earth and is causing extreme weather. If this is true, taxing the companies that emit carbon dioxide would be the last thing I would consider as a solution. Why would we want to give more money to a financially irresponsible government at our own expense? Prices of goods and services would soar if such a tax were implemented and many people who live paycheck to paycheck would not be able to afford basic living necessities. A better argument would be to combat excessive carbon dioxide, we will raise gasoline taxes to plant trees across America. Although this would be a better argument, it is still not a solution because it will most certainly create monopolies in that industry.
Government wastes the largest amount of resources. War is one example. The arguments against ending World War II further shows how government wastes resources. The argument was that the war needed to continue to keep people working. They said all the factories would stop producing and the troops would be unemployed. Of course they were wrong in their theory and the opposite happened. The problem with war being an economic booster is that we are producing things to destroy. We get no use out of our efforts except for death and destruction. If the World War II theory was true, then why don't we burn down Cleveland then rebuild it? It would create jobs but waste resources. "War is a racket", to quote United States Marine Corps major general Smedley Butler. He understood that he only fought wars for corporate interests and profits. War is big business still today. So, lets take war out of the equation and look at subsidies. The government often subsidizes failing industries such as the solar and wind technologies. These were massive wastes of resources as are other projects like Amtrak. I do not accept the argument that without the government throwing money into these failing projects, we would not have the research available to advance our standard of living. The reality is, the government is financing and giving special privileges to people to create a monopoly over an industry rather than letting the peoples demands be heard by inventors and investors and letting competition create the best solution.
The last thing I will mention is the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve creates the booms and busts of the business cycle. During a boom period, resources are wasted in failing investments which is exposed during the bust period. This is why the banks failed a few years back because they financed the failed investments. Houses were built that should have never been built and that are now rotting and not being occupied. That is just one example of what the Federal Reserve has done. We will soon see in greater detail the destruction that the Federal Reserve has caused.
The best free market solution to the waste of resources and the "climate change" theory is to get government out of the equation. We need to repeal regulation and stop taxation. Regulation is what creates monopolies because the regulators have an interest in regulating competition out of existence. Taxation is theft no matter what justification anyone has for taxation. The best solution would be to those who feel strongly about "climate change" is to start investing and inventing new technology that is lower in price and causes little to no pollution. Let the people decide their fate rather than a small group of people forcing their beliefs on others by men with guns.