Al Gore, et al, are currently spending $300,000,000.00 to convince the public that the costs of climate change are going to be catastrophic--therefore we must do something about it now! Perhaps you've seen the ads on television. They are enough to give you nightmares and are surely not suitable for children.

I have been with CARE for a year and half now (three months as Program Director and 15 months as Executive Director). Since I turned my focus in this direction, I have yet to meet a person who wants to trash the earth. No one wants to kill polar bears. We all want to do what is right and preserve our resources. Until we find out what it is going to cost. Then we discover that the costs of climate change truly are catastrophic--but not in the way Al Gore purports.

California has just introduced a bill that is gaining support among environmentalists. The bill would increase taxes on motorists--in addition to the taxes Californians already pay at the pump which are one of the highest in the nation. This "climate change mitigation and adaptation fee" would enable Los Angeles County transit officials to increase taxes on motorists. The bill's author, Assemblyman Mike Feurer, a Los Angeles Democrat insists that doomsday still lies ahead unless people tax themselves to fix the problem. The belief is that this bill will raise $400 million in additional taxes. The Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority will have to place the issue on the ballot and it will have to receive a majority approval to be enacted. The concern is that if motorists do not reject the additional tax, it will be repeated throughout the state.

Based on a poll released by the National Center a couple of weeks ago, Californians have nothing to worry about on this front. While people do want to protect the earth, they want to do it through moderate measures like recycling, carrying a canvas bag to the grocery store, and putting on a sweater in the house rather than turning up the heat. But when all of this greenery begins to impinge on their pocketbooks, most are unwilling to pay up to save the earth. The survey showed that more that 80% of Americans are unwilling to pay 50 cents or more in additional taxes per gallon of gas to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Yet politicians continue to embrace global warming actions as, whether they are valid or not, they provide a great new way to increase taxes. US Representative John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, has called for a 50 cent per gallon increase in the gas tax.

There is money to be made from climate change and it is going to come from you and me--the average citizens.

I was recently at a meeting where one man shared that he is making money off of carbon trading--even though he thinks it is all hooey. Another told me about a colleague of his who is overseeing a carbon trading program at one of our national labs. The head of this newly created department thinks it is all nonsense but he is getting paid to get it up and running.

The government benefits from these watermelon practices (green on the outside and red [socialist] on the inside) and individuals in the right place will benefit. But for most of the world's population these so called green policies will perpetuate poverty, disease and death.

At last month's International Conference on Climate Change there was an entire track of sessions that addressed the impacts of climate change. While some of these "impacts" were cash costs, there are many other ways in which we will all have to pay up if we do not stand up and reign in government before it votes in plans that will rain on everything we hold dear.

The first way we will get soaked by climate change policies is a loss of freedom--and that, like the MasterCard ads say, is "priceless."  In his presentation at the ICCC, Paul Driessen said this about climate alarmism, "It's about power. Power to control--and curtail--the power we rely on: to build, heat and cool our homes; produce raw materials, food and consumer products; transport people and trade goods; ensure modern living standards; and enable less fortunate people to enjoy comparable living standards someday soon. It's about the selection, production, conservation, taxation--and prevention--of energy. It's about who gets to decide how much energy we will have, where that energy will come from, what it will cost, and whether there will be enough energy to lift minority Americans and Third World families out of poverty. Will the decision-makers be free people, in free societies? Or will they be activists, politicians, bureaucrats and their allies, who have their own reasons for promoting climate change alarmism?" This concept is the source of the red part of the "watermelon."

A part of the power to control and curtail will be a decrease in economic growth. Addressing climate change policies such as the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, Rob Gordon of Responsible Resources said, "Such unrealistic strategies are consistent with the thinking that people in an increasingly prosperous and technologically advanced society present an environmental threat." He adds, "Aside from the scientific issues, much of the political debate around climate is about how much economic growth is healthy or even morally right. The reality is that 'sustainable' is often a code word for reduced economic growth because it is not, for good reason, something that is easy to sell but it is a goal that can be achieved by restricting energy." It is well know that countries in the developing world generally have the lowest per capita emissions due to small industrial sectors and the squalor and misery in which they live has a low energy intensity.

Driessen pointed out. "Our economy is at a tipping point. Enacting any one of these cliamte bills would push it over the edge."