The Green Energy Plan: How Will It Affect Average Americans?

Everyone is in favor of green energy—the idea of replacing energy created by burning fossil fuels with renewable energy. Some people believe we must move aggressively, and that the planet will become uninhabitable in the next few decades unless we do so. That sounds ominous. There are, however, two problems with that scenario: 1) Which doomsday estimate should we accept? Some say the transition out of fossil fuels has to be done by the end of the century, others as soon as twelve years. 2) What will it cost our society to implement? I can’t shed any light on the timetable, other to say that past predictions have all been wrong, but I can shed some light on cost.

In order to get off energy created by consumption of oil, coal and natural gas, we would need a two-pronged approach: heavy investment in renewable technology and radically increasing the price of continued use of fossil fuels with heavy taxes to help pay for the conversion. The cost of heavy investment in renewables cannot be borne by energy companies alone given that we will be suppressing use of existing fuels, which would reduce their income and profits, leaving little for capital investment. Therefore, new personal income taxes as well as increasing the taxes on gasoline and heating fuel, would be necessary to finance massive public investment in renewables. Nothing less would accomplish the timetable of getting this done by as early as 2050. While the rich would be expected to pay heavily, the middle class and even poor people would feel the financial pain.

Let’s use a middle class family of four as an example of how the cost of green energy might be reflected. Say both parents work earning $50,000 a year each. They have two cars and currently spend $1,000 each in gasoline. Under a green energy plan, those costs would double as a result of an increase in the gasoline tax and the rising cost of traditional fuels. Their annual heating bill of $2,000 would also double as utilities would have to pay more for traditional fuels as well as bear the cost of switching over to renewables. That’s an extra $4,000 a year in living expenses. Not fun, but bearable. The real problem comes when we calculate the likely impact on food and healthcare under a green energy system.

Food prices would most likely also double in short order as the rising cost of energy would impact those producing and processing our food, transporting it to the markets and offering it in stores that consume large amounts of electricity to keep products at temperatures necessary to avoid spoilage. So, if our average family spends $200 a week on food now, their new annual food cost would remove $10,000 from their disposable income, threatening their vacations, savings and even mortgage payments.

Dramatically higher energy prices would also result in massive unemployment. The restaurant industry, for example, would crumble, as the higher cost of food would result in dining prices that would force middle class families to stop eating out entirely. Supermarkets also survive on very thin profit margins. The higher cost of electricity and food would force them to close markets in poorer communities, resulting in layoffs and malnutrition, if not starvation.

Higher energy prices would also adversely affect the healthcare industry. Hospitals consume huge amounts of electricity. Any increase in their costs would have to be passed on to customers, but the same people who are advocating implementing a green energy policy immediately also want to offer free health care. Free healthcare would have to be paid for out of taxes and with skyrocketing energy and healthcare costs, taxes would also have to skyrocket.

What if one of the parents in our example worked as a nurse at a hospital. Since she or he would be experiencing huge increases in the cost of living, they would demand raises necessary to cover those costs. Hospitals would have to pay higher wages or close their doors.

What if the other spouse managed a restaurant? Restaurant managers would be among the newly unemployed. This family which once felt secure earning $100,000 a year, would be reduced to poverty as their income is cut in half and their daily living costs—electricity, gasoline and food––double.

You might say that my cost estimates are an exaggeration and I’m only suggesting those costs to scare people, but that ignores the simple fact that green energy proponents tell us failure to implement their policies invites the end of human life. They will tell you it’s time to stop eating out, to stop owning cars, and to stop buying all those electronic gadgets. They will also tell you it’s time to grow your own food, and to sew your own clothes. Live local will be the new password.

Oh, there’s one more necessary ingredient in the green energy plan: compulsion. Since all human life is at stake we can’t afford malingerers. People will have to watch their neighbors and report anyone using excess energy, such as taking long showers, running an electric dish washer or watching more than two hours TV a day. The good part of turning in your neighbor for such violations is that we can re-establish work farms and put energy violators to work growing food for the rest of us.

If you’re not ready to find out what subsistence living is like, you have only one choice. Study the claims being made by green energy advocates to determine whether their doomsday predictions are sound. If you find they are not, then you must tell candidates who support green energy policies you won’t get their votes. If you do believe their dire predictions, then why not be the first in your community to move back to the countryside and learn shoot game and grow beans and corn to live on!

 

Masculinity Under Attack

Gillette, the makers of shaving products, is trying to win over millennial and younger males by attacking masculinity. A recent video advertisement disparages the notion that boys should be boys, and Gillette is not alone. Much of the entertainment and news industry follow the same formula: white men, business owners (capitalists), and the United States are the source of the world’s problems. All women, all non-whites, and all people whose sexual preferences are not heterosexual are victims.

Beyond the stupidity of alienating millions of existing customers, Gillette’s throwing in with the victimized political movement should serve as a warning sign. The price of overthrowing nature with regard to gender can only lead to the decay of the overall society, to the undermining of natural human attributes––the desire to compete, the desire to achieve, the desire for comfort, and the desire for shared progress.

There is a necessary biological difference between males and females, and I’m not referring solely to the reproductive function.

The vast majority of male children approach life differently. They interact with the physical world differently. They learn differently. That is not to say there are not males who, for biological reasons, have feminine tendencies, which society should accept and not ridicule, but they are the exception.

One danger of a feminized culture is that normal males will believe themselves the source of pain to women and minorities and try to become what they are not. That is what Gillette is preaching and it must be challenged.

Victimology is being taught at all levels of our educational system. Why is it so prevalent even in elementary school? One reason is the power that is gained by women and racial minorities. Today minorities and women receive favored treatment in admissions and hiring throughout American society. Today to be a woman means you are automatically favored to win an election if your opponent is a male. Yet women and minorities continue to claim they are disadvantaged, treated unfairly and damaged by their status.

Sadly, those practicing victimology are hypocrites for affiliating themselves with real victims. Real victims, such as women and gays in Muslim countries, are ignored while phony victims use their victim status to gain unfair advantage in our society. Black Africans are also ignored victims of Islam––in the Sudan and Nigeria for example, but Muslims in the U.S. and Europe see the benefit of claiming victim status and attempt to join the pity party under the label of “intersectionality” the notion that all victims have in common the same oppressors.

Parents must challenge teachers who make boys feel their natural boyish behavior is bad. They must not allow their children to attend colleges where victimology is the underlying educational philosophy. The Ivies are among the major offenders in that regard. We must stop making donations to such institutions.

Companies like Gillette and its parent Proctor and Gamble must be boycotted to show the majority of Americans oppose the victim ideology that makes natural maleness an evil, and candidates who run on victim platforms must be defeated at the polls.

There are bad men in the world, but there are also bad women. There are bad whites, but there are also bad Blacks, bad Hispanics, bad Asians, and bad Christians, bad Jews, etc. Bad actors are not confined to one group and membership in any group should not automatically consign someone to possessing certain characteristics. That is the kind of thinking we fought against 50 years ago when we attacked segregation and opened the doors to women and blacks as equals.

The United States is still the land of opportunity––a beacon and a model to the rest of the world. That status, however, is under attack by practitioners of victimology, by those who would repress masculinity, and by those who would replace free speech and free enterprise with constrained speech and socialism. The war is escalating. Who will win will be determined by each of us.

Peace should not be the Goal. It can only be the Result.

We all pray for peace, but beyond our prayers, there is the practical truth that when peace is the goal, the result is often war, suffering, and death. The most obvious example is Neville Chamberlain’s giving away part of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, proclaiming he had achieved “peace in our time.” Chamberlain’s trading lives for peace emboldened Hitler, and before it was all over sixty million were dead. The Oslo Agreement between Israel and the PLO is another example of a disastrous deal made for peace.

The Oslo Agreement is Israel’s nakba––the name the Palestinian militants give to the formation of the state of Israel. It means day of catastrophe.

In return for “peace,” Israel gave Yasser Arafat control over millions of Muslim Arabs, converting them overnight into Palestinians. Israel’s leaders naively thought Arafat would settle for the ability to rule over the so-called West Bank, but he did not. He accepted Israel’s giving him an arm and a leg, but getting those parts only motivated him continue his quest for the entire body, a goal that continues to drive his successors.

Why Peace Deals Fail

The reason seeking peace often results in the opposite is that people naively believe peace is the means to an end. As a result, they give up too much to achieve the appearance of peace, often sacrificing the substance. To claim one has achieved peace without providing for the security and well-being of your people is an invitation to nakba.

The goal of any negotiation between opposing parties must be security, not peace. Giving the PLO the ability to rule Territory A was a security disaster. It has led to the death and injury of hundreds of Arabs and Jews because it made it easy for the PLO to promote lone-wolf acts of terrorism while taking in millions of dollars of aid from the West. Giving financial aid to terrorists is just plain stupid. It has allowed the PLO to establish absolute control over its own population denying them freedom of thought in part by disseminating school books that teach hateful untruths about Jews and lies about the history of the region.

What the world needs now . . . is Identity and Freedom

No less person than the refusnik, Natan Sharansky, the only non-American to be honored with both the Congressional Gold Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom, opposed the Oslo Agreement. Why? Sharansky was shocked to learn after being released from a Soviet prison that the West was abandoning “identity and freedom”––the values that brought down the Soviet Regime. “The liberal world . . . decided that the highest liberal value is peace,” Sharansky said at a recent event, “but that’s exactly what the communists were saying.”

Speaking of the downfall of the Soviet Union, Sharansky said “ . . . our victory showed the world how freedom and identity go together.” He believes people can only wage a successful fight against dictatorships when there is something more important to them than their physical survival. “It’s people’s identity, national identity, religious identity” that motivates them to rebel.

No matter what terms President Trump’s team proposes when they finally get around to presenting them, Israel must focus on long-term security, not peace. Its leaders must assume the Palestinian Authority will take any concession as permission to violate the terms of the agreement and to pursue its ultimate goal the destruction of a Jewish state.

Israel’s Unique Role

Natan Sharansky believes “Israel has an absolutely unique role [to play] in today’s world . . . to connect two basic desires of people and to keep them together. National identity and freedom.” To abandon that role would be a disaster not just for Israel and the Jewish people, but for the world.