Recently, John Kerry put forth his own version of Pascal’s Wager when arguing for more crippling directives for preventing a global climatic disaster. He said that even if the “deniers” were right about the science, it doesn’t matter. What’s the worst that could happen – that we end up with a cleaner Earth and cleaner air and water? Here’s what he said:
“If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge—and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong—supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? We put millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence—that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower.”
That’s actually not the worst thing that could happen. What he outlined would be the absolute best-case scenario if it weren’t a hypothetical and unattainable utopia. More than likely, the real best-case scenario is what the Chamber of Commerce reported recently in response to new EPA regulations. According to their study:
This Energy Institute report provides clear evidence that, even with implementation features designed to keep compliance costs low, regulating CO2 emissions at the thousands of existing fossil fuel-fired electricity generating plants in the United States under the CAA [Clean Air Act] leads to nearly a half trillion dollars in total compliance expense, peak GDP losses over $100 billion, hundreds of thousands of lost jobs, higher electricity costs for consumers and businesses, and more than $200 on average every year in lower disposable income for families already struggling with a weak economy.
Given the significant and sustained harm to the U.S economy coupled with the limited overall impact on worldwide greenhouse gas emissions that would result from implementing these regulations, serious questions must be raised and answered about the timing and scope of what EPA is pursuing.
That’s probably a lot closer to the best that could happen as more and more top-down government control rolls out. They’re not trying to make the Earth cleaner, and they’re not trying to make the air and water cleaner. They’re trying to exercise their power and control over people by rationing energy according to what they believe is “fair.” Of course, they’ll save the best and most efficient energy (and probably the “dirtiest”) for themselves, but as for the rest of us lowly serfs of the proletariat, the regulations will continue to cripple our economy and send energy prices soaring. It’s a sacrifice the government is willing to make to give themselves more power.