Saving The Climate Change Circus


Europe is the star performer in the climate change circus.

The Economist Magazine has historically been a supporter of climate-change interventions such as cap and trade and carbon-emission reductions. Yet, they reported on the UN climate change talks in Durban as being more about “saving the circus” than “saving the planet.” But, just what is the “circus;” who are the performers; and how did they get into the ring? And, was it ever about “saving the planet?”

My previous column postulated on China’s role in the climate change “circus.” I suggested that their apparent change of heart on the issue was really just a change of strategy.

Like The Economist, another leading European publication, The Financial Times (FT) has also been a believer in man-made climate change. FT carried extensive coverage of the 2011 UN climate change talks—even producing a twelve-page supplement: Climate Change Review, Durban 2011. Here in the US, the climate change talks in Durban were barely mentioned.

Within FT’s reporting they state that the European Union (EU) “is pushing hardest among developed countries for a new global deal” and is “the greenest voice among wealthy countries at the talks.” Is the EU uniquely insightful, or like China, is their role in the ring also more about economic strategy?

When it is widely known that any Kyoto-style deal will be costly to the countries’ involved and make energy more expensive for the countries’ citizens, why would the EU stand out as the staunchest supporter? Canada has dropped out of the Kyoto accord “in order to save billions of dollars in potential non-compliance fees.” The US never signed on. Developing industrial countries, such as China and India, have repeatedly refused to participate because “rapid development is lifting millions out of poverty.”

Perhaps, herein, lies “the circus”—with the EU as the star performer.

The countries that have resisted, or rejected, binding greenhouse gas reduction agreements are generally countries with abundant natural resources: the US, China, India, Russia, and Canada. Australia, another country rich in resources, is still performing in “the circus.” The EU, on the other hand, has limited resources—leaving them to depend on nuclear power, natural gas from Russia, and oil imported from the North Sea and Middle East. The quest for oil was one of the factors that prompted World War II—both Germany and Japan had it in their sights.

For the EU to be energy independent, they must develop “renewables”—specifically wind and solar power. Wind and solar resources do generate energy, but they are more expensive than the traditional fuels that other regions have in abundance. Renewable energy costs put the EU at a competitive disadvantage in the global marketplace, perhaps, making it advantageous for the EU to support a scheme that artificially raises the cost of traditional fuels in competing nations. Hence, support for emission reductions that hurt other economies more than the EU, could make the EU the primary driver for climate-change interventions.

Could the EU’s lack of abundant natural resources have contributed to its current economic crisis? Italy provides an illustration of this hypothesis.

Italy is one of the EU members in need of a financial bailout.

At the introduction of the euro, Italy had a €25 billion trade surplus. Today, they have a €35 billion trade deficit. However, if its oil consumption is removed from the mix, Italy actually has a trade surplus. Therefore, if Italy could, somehow, reduce its dependence on oil imports, the country’s account balance would improve due to lower import volumes.

Renewables offer Europe “domestic” energy, albeit more expensive energy, and therefore provide Europe with energy needed for manufacturing and industry. However, more expensive electricity puts Europe at a competitive disadvantage with other markets—especially the United States.

Enter the premise of man-made global warming and climate-change interventions. American environmentalists embraced the potential energy reductions.

It almost worked. Had the US signed on to the Kyoto protocol and/or passed cap and trade, for example, our energy costs would be considerably higher than current rates due to forced implementation of renewable energy—rather than allowing the free market to pick winners. Instead, the jig is up.

Even the environmentalists acknowledge that they need a new approach. Yet, Europe clings to a global plan for emission reductions through the UN and instituted a Ponzi-like cap-and-trade program that would have enriched Eurocrats. It has discouraged scientific rigor and fueled the man-made global warming scheme, by encouraging and recognizing those who assisted in garnering favorable publicity for the fear, uncertainty, and doubt of man-made climate change. Maybe it has never been about saving the planet.

This premise leaves Europe in an economic tailspin, without hope of easy recovery, and grieves global governance supporters who believe that the playing field needs to be leveled.

President Obama’s energy policies—such as his support of cap and trade, resistance to developing America’s oil-and-gas resources, and backing of more expensive renewables, while killing affordable coal resources—make us the clown. In November 2012, Americans will decide if we, as a country, will go the route of Europe, or if we will have economic growth fueled, like Canada, by an abundant and affordable supply of energy. Will we vote to save the circus, or save America?

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon is the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’ combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.


  1. Follow the money: See if the proponents of "Climate Change" have an interest in companies trading carbon credits. More than likely that conflict-of-interest will raise its ugly head and expose the hypocrisy of the adherents to anthropogenic climate change.

    • Absolutely a circus. It's been proven over & over again that this whole thing is a hoax! Follow the money, it leads to the usual suspects—including Barack HUSSEIN Nobama & Eric Holder, G.E. the whole corrupt bunch!

  2. Dempsey Gibbs says:

    You are right on about the situation being a "Circus." The world has tried to milk the US for aid for somany years we have lost count. A natural yearning to be liked has caused us to give the money to those countries and it is time to cease. We have our own economy to think about and our best option this time is to strengthen our economy, get our manufacturing base in order, and let other countries benefit from buying from the US cheaper than can produce it themselves. That is a worthwhile effort to assist the other coountries and keep our own country strong. Of course the EU and others will accuse us of being selfish and that may be true. But if we let the US fall apart, who will help them then? I want to see them improve their own economy, but not at the expense of the US. Any President that wants to put the other countries of the world ahead of the US i not the right person for the job.
    Dempsey Gibbs

  3. Though not directly pointed out in the article, it is truly about the money. After-all the only thing green is the color of the money. Everything touted to be green has an unreported dark side, so dark in fact that it renders the entire subject a fabricated lie.

    Wind a solar are among the worst. Neither can survive without subsidies. Neither can function efficiently without massive environmentally unfriendly battery banks, require reliable backup generation that is made inefficient and more polluting because of the fluctuating and unreliable wind and solar.

    Wind and solar cost were sorely under estimated, most likely on purpose. The life expectancy is less than half what the government told everyone. Already tens of thousands of wind machines all over the country have been abandoned, some even falling down. Expected to last 30-years they said but massive problems start in less than 10-years.

    Then there is the fire plagued Government Motors Chevy volt. Expensive, poor mileage, environmentally worse than gas or diesel with all those lithium batteries to dispose of 3 or 4 times during the estimated life of the car.

    Ethanol from corn, subsidized by the taxpayers at the estimated cost of 45-cents per gallon, the production of which is estimated to be between 3 and 4 times more polluting than gasoline without ethanol. Not to mention the resulting 30% increase in food cost.

    Green is only about money and socialism, not for the benefit of man or the earth. Higher cost forces more to become dependent on the socialist leaders, destroying the incentive to work, and always results in financial failure.

  4. hansie engel says:

    This is a very interesting new prespective.

  5. jettthemesh says:

    Originally they called this hoax "global warming", but it is hard to convince people with three feet of snow that the earth is warming and We caused it! So the Leftist, Socialist, Progressive Liars change the name to "Climate Change"! Everyone knows about climate change, it's called Seasons! We the People know exactly what this is all about! It's about a progressive world power grab brought to you by the U.N. and the Socialist Democrat Party! America is the Grand Prize! If these lying hoaxers are truly concerned about pollution, let them try to shove this dribble down the throats of the Chinese! Try this in China and you will be taken out back and head-shot!

  6. william spires says:

    Global warming is a hoax, the only real problem with hot air is coming from corrupt politicians the world over who have gone insane or maybe they were all along in addition to being 90 per cent pathological liars.

  7. Climate change is a fraud and has been from the beginning. It is a scheme to exert power over the masses and to extract huge amounts of money from them for a few power hungry idiots like Al Gore, who never was accused of being very smart on his own. People are waking up the the fact that this whole circus is a hoax, and some socialist/commie/nazi tyrannical governemnts aren't liking it much. That includes many in this Government.

  8. Patrioticnut says:

    This is a very logical article and makes perfect sense. The problem is there are so many "useful idiots" in the U.S. that will go along with this farce. Here's a novel idea, how about we all tell the truth, put our resources to use here in the U.S. and help to lower the cost of energy for everyone??? If the U.S. would pursue our natural resources to the fullest extent and remove the onerous regulations we could be a major supplier to the EU and others, besides lowering our own cost we would profit from other countries dependence upon us and take a large amount of funding away from the middle east. WOW, we all win!

  9. Politicians have been bribed by the tree hugging do goders, to destroy our economy.


  1. […] Read More and Comment: Saving The Climate Change Circus […]

Speak Your Mind

Connect with Facebook