The Morality of Green Lies to 'Save the Planet'?

A Sunday morning contemplation: Is is now okay to lie to your neighbors to get them to do something you want, if you know that they would never go along with you if they knew the truth?

How would you answer that?

Well, you might say, it would depend upon the circumstance.

You might tell your terrified neighbor that the tornado had already passed by and it was okay to come out of the storm cellar, when in truth the tornado was on its way, but it was because you knew a rising river of water was coming that would surely drown him. He would be better off taking his chances running with you.

But, you protest, this is a rare situation you might never see in your lifetime.

Exactly. In most situations I have a moral duty to warn others of danger, but I also have a moral duty to tell the truth. My neighbor's assumption should be that I am telling the truth and, if so, he has a moral duty of conscience to heed my warning out of self-preservation. However, what if I am a frequent liar, and he knows it? What if I have bent the truth so many times that he cannot take at face value anything that I tell him?

Then I have become an unreliable neighbor, unworthy to be called a friend. He has no moral duty of conscience of listen to me. My usefulness to do good is seriously impaired because my moral sense is flawed.

This is the situation Americans find themselves in with those environmentalists and politicians who want to impose unprecedented new taxes and regulatory rules on our use of energy. They claim to perceive a danger in global warming, but since they have not convinced most of us -- polls show that only about 30 percent of Americans care about the issue -- they are now more than willing to lie to us.

For our own good, of course.

Today's New York Times features an article with the fascinating title, "Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus." This is a technique not unfamiliar to the Times as mendacity for the public good is a longstanding editorial policy, but they are refreshingly candid in this report about it.

WASHINGTON — The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.”

The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Don't you just love the euphemisms? "New ways to frame environmental issues and build public support" is a fancy way of saying "twist the truth about the environment and con the idiot voters."

"Moving away from the dirty fuels of the past" really means "pray for a solar power miracle while you huddle in the dark with no heat and no money left to pay for it if it were available."

But wait, there's more:

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study.

This would be hilarious if it weren't so dangerous. Shared American ideals like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency are 180 degrees away from the future that ecoAmerica and its congressional allies want to lead us.

Under their draconian proposals, you will lose your freedom to heat and cool your home as you wish. Instead they are proposing a "smart grid" that will monitor our individual and collective power usage and will dial us back when "the greater public good" requires it.

Their proposals for taxing energy use would add between $3,000 and $4,000 per household in immediate energy costs, and this is according to their own friends at MIT. Is this prosperity? They promise "green jobs" but the experience in Europe, which has cap and trade, is that for every green job created, two to three old jobs disappear? Again, is this prosperity?

Independence? Self-sufficiency? Only if you act now and get yourself off the grid! If you can afford it, that is. Get yourself geothermal heating and cooling, install wind generators and solar panels, and have backup generators standing by with a large underground tank of fuel to power them. Know, however, that you will be considered an energy outlaw for attempting to be independent because you are not cooperating in the effort to save the planet. Your backup generator will be a CO2 emitter, but without it, you will experience periods of no power. Your only choice will be to sacrifice your independence for the expensive security of the People's Grid.

I would love to be totally independent, but I realize that this is a myth as long as I desire modern conveniences like electricity, cable TV and the internet. What I will accept is to get these things in voluntary association with others, purchasing them from private companies that must compete to earn our business, and our trust. What I definitely do not want is for the almighty federal government to take over these businesses, in effect or in fact, for my alleged benefit.

Even if I believed that the planet needs saving -- a ludicrous idea -- from CO2, a natural component of our atmosphere, I would balk at the cost. Why should I, because I am an American, be forced to sacrifice my freedom and lifestyle when there is no freakin' way that my counterpart in India, China or Egypt, or Russia, is going to be making a similar sacrifice?

If we speak truth, instead of ecoAmerica's mendacious tripe, we must say that there is no proof, merely conjecture, that the planet is in peril. There is no scientific consensus that this is so, merely a cabal of people, many who have flimsy claims to the title scientist, who have a self-interest in promoting an ideology of change that will enslave and impoverish a once proud, free people. And we know that they will say anything to trick us into believing their lies.

Confronted with the evidence that there is serious truth twisting taking place, the New York Times resorts to the old "but they're doing it too!" defense.

Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said EcoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

Well, what did you expect? When moral standards fall for one group, they tend to fall for others.

But some of the opposing rhetoric is true. Cap and trade will kill jobs. It will not only kill jobs, it will kill people. It will affect agriculture; there is talk of limiting the size of cattle herds, and the type of livestock farms permitted under CO2 emissions rules. There are proposals to limit the use of artificial fertilizers which are produced by burning natural gas. This will reduce crop yields, increasing food costs and decreasing food supplies. Grazing in the grass is a gas, baby, can you dig it?

The Global Warming-Climate Change movement wants you to believe that humanity is responsible for every environmental change, and that Government is the Only Solution to save the planet. This movement, so closely allied with the Progressive/Liberal/Marxist axis that it is indistinguishable, has no faith in Nature's God, upon whom our Founding Fathers put great trust, but only upon Collective Action of The People.

I trust that God, who warned our forefathers in faith that "Thou shalt not bear false witness." It was a good rule for thousands of years and it's a good rule now. If God is God, it always will be.

Even if ecoAmerica and the New York Times do not approve.