Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

We are in the camp that argues climate is always changing, and that attempts to change the environment by government edict will fail, and that those bad policies will have major negative consequences elsewhere.

The science is not settled and it is not clear that C02 emissions are causing climate change.  Many independent variables, including the changing strength of the sun, solar storms, water vapor, the tilt of the earth, and volcanic activity both above the surface and below the ocean’s surface, change the environment.  There likely are other factors we don’t understand.

However, this had not stopped progressives from ginning up a crisis and proposing (you could predict this), that government control of the economy is the answer.  Back in the 1970s it was recognized that environmentalists were mostly watermelons: green on the outside but red on the inside.

Just in the past few days a few news stories that on the surface appear somewhat independent of each other have broken, which should cause some serious rethinking about the progressive trend in environmental policy.

The first is Germany.  Germany has bought into the green agenda to such an extent, that they are wrecking the German economy, the powerhouse of Europe.  Some 40% of the German industry is considering relocating to another country, largely due to the soaring cost of electricity and heavy-handed environmental regulations.

Germany entered into a recession last year with GDP contracting at .2%.  There was an ever-so-slight recovery in early 2024, but the latest data estimate 2024 will see a contraction of 1.2%.  

Germany is considered the third-largest economy in the world and its problems are almost entirely self-inflicted.

As a byproduct of the slump, rather quietly the German Government said it would cut aid to Ukraine next year by about half.

They also have indicated a break with both Poland and Ukraine over the deliberate destruction of the key Nord Stream pipeline.  Recently, Germany issued arrest warrants for those responsible for the sabotage.  If Ukraine was behind the sabotage of a vital pipeline going to an ally, it would cause stress within the Western alliance.

This story indicates that German economic woes can easily spill into the area of foreign policy.  Will the US taxpayer now have to pick up the slack for the reduction in German aid to Ukraine? What will happen to their commitment to beef up military spending for NATO?  If Donald Trump wins, will not the US be more insistent that Europeans pay for their own defense?

A nation’s military strength is largely supported by economic strength, and Germany is destroying its own economy.  This is a sober lesson for America to heed.

Another important story came from the magazine Science which published a major article on the failure of extremely expensive environmental policies to do anything to change the environment.  The study found that for all the trillions spent over the past 20 years, some 1500 programs from 41 countries, only about 4% of the programs showed any benefit.

Over all trends in emissions were not changed by this massive intervention.  Of some 1500 initiatives, only 63 had any effect at all.

Take a moment to take this in.  If this study is correct, words do not describe the level of failure. All the hysteria and the trillions of dollars spent, the disruption to our way of life, and the constant state of panic in our population about “the climate” led to policy decisions that have led to no discernable improvement in the very metrics the environmental whacko holds dear. 

These major environmental policy decisions now rival the COVID lockdown in their insanity and ineffectiveness.

In short, environmental policy has been a complete failure, even from those who support C02/global warming theory.

Considering Science has supported much of this nonsense over the years, publishing this article may mark a milestone in the policy argument.

While environmental policy has proven to be a complete bust, it has politically been quite successful.

Citizens throughout the West, are inculcated with anti-capitalistic propaganda that has become a state-sponsored religion.  The result has been the miseducation of several generations of school children to major corporations that constantly grovel before the alter of the sustainability god.

While a complete scientific failure, it has proven to be a great source of revenue for political causes.

Environmental policy can be viewed simply as a money laundering scheme on a grand scale.  State subsidies go to green companies, that kick back huge sums to green agenda politicians through campaign donations and tax-free foundations.  While failing to change the climate at all, it has reshaped politics all over the globe in favor of anti-free enterprise, interventionist, regulatory jihad political leaders.

This money laundering scheme also takes the form of massive grants from the government, given to rent-seeking scientists, who reliably create bogus research justifying more government intervention.  Tax dollars get recycled back not only to politicians but to the scientists giving the politicians political cover.

Such environmental propaganda even has had a significant impact on the birth rate. A 2021 study published in the journal Lancet Planet Health found that 36% of teens and young adults were hesitant to have children due to climate change. 

Much as it has with the medical establishment, the perversion of science for political causes has done grave damage to the reputation of scientists.  People still believe in science, but they don’t believe anymore in scientists and the establishment many seem to represent.

That is what is so significant about the recent piece in Science.  We are finally seeing a crack in the “science” of the green agenda.

In terms of having the taxpayer fund his destruction, however, nothing has been as successful as the “green movement.”

This new study perhaps will help stop the funding for these failing policies and indirectly, end or reduce this campaign finance fraud.

If the programs being pushed don’t even accomplish the goals of those who buy into the green agenda, what justification is there to continue them?

There has also been a flurry of stories of late about how billions have been spent to create about a half dozen charging stations, and how Ford and other auto companies are cutting back on EV production.  Despite the subsidies for EVs, these companies are losing billions of dollars, and shareholders and customers are squawking.  When Ford loses $130,000 per EV vehicle, common sense finally makes a breakthrough.

Washington keeps pushing EVs, but the public just is not buying them.

Finally, as pointed out in the Wall Street Journal recently by Holman Jenkins, Jr.:

“Mr. Biden’s green-energy strategy was wrongheaded by every bit of economic advice with nothing to show except billions added to the deficit and a budding disaster from forcing Detroit to build EVs the public doesn’t want.”

Mr. Trump and Vance would be well served to read this latest Science article and see if they can even get a confused response from Kamala Harris.

Meanwhile, the economic travails of Germany are also worth avoiding.  We do not want to emulate them.

Maybe between the collapse of EVs, the cratering of the German economy, and the Science article indicating 96% policy failure, the tide will turn against the green agenda.