By David Wojick
The title of this 800-page tome is “Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Societal Dimensions” from the US National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM).
I seldom use the term “socialist”, but it is the perfect word here once the concept is updated. It originally referred to government ownership of the means of production. But in today’s Regulatory State, ownership is not required for control, so it means government control of production, or more broadly, government control of both production and use.
In this case, it is government control of the production and use of what they call “the energy system.” Since everybody uses energy, this includes control of everybody. Under the proposed system, the government does not serve people; it “manages” them, or at least their energy use, which is a lot of what we do.
They are, however, rather confused about this. The very first sentences state their basic assumption, which is wildly false. They say this:
“The world is coalescing around the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of anthropogenic climate change, with many nations setting goals of net-zero emissions by midcentury. As the largest cumulative emitter, the United States has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change. It has set an interim emissions target of 50–52 percent below 2005 levels by 2030 toward a net-zero goal.” (All quotes are from the Executive Summary.)
The United States has set no such targets. The US is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, so it does not set targets. Perhaps they mean the US Government, but Congress has set no such targets. In fact, these so-called targets are merely the wishful thinking of the Biden Administration and their radical net zero colleagues, which apparently include the National Academies. And if a Republican wins the next election, it will not even be a Presidential wish.
So, there is much less here than meets the eye. This tome is basically a radical socialist manifesto, and that is how it should be read.
The funding is surprising. NASEM studies used to be done at the request of Congress or Federal Agencies and funded by them since objectively advising them is supposed to be the job of the Academies. Instead, this work was funded by a collection of Foundations, presumably left-wingers. So, the National Academies are for hire by those with radical causes.
The socialist management thrust is exemplified by this topic, which is listed as a central theme: “Managing the Future of the Fossil Fuel Sector.” Only under socialism is this a government function.
That the called-for management process is also non-democratic is made clear by this segment of their lead-off discussion of risks: “In developing its findings and recommendations, the committee recognized the inherent risks and uncertainties associated with such an unprecedented, long-term, whole-of-society transition. These include … political, judicial, and societal polarization risk—that political and judicial actions or societal pressures will change the policy landscape….”
So elected officials, the Courts, or the people in general might get in the way. Their solution is not to get the support of the people; rather, it is more management. They say, “Mitigating these risks will require adaptive management and governance to coordinate and evaluate policy implementation and to communicate progress on outcomes.”
Sounds like the Plan is to manage the elections, the Courts, and the people. Sit down, shut up, and we will tell you what we have done as we go along.
For those interested in the details of the net zero wishlist, this is a grand source. Otherwise, it is just another radical manifesto to line the shelves with.
My concern is that the three National Academies have abandoned their mission and, therefore, lost their integrity. Tools of left-wing foundations are not worthy of the name National Academy.
Related
Discussion about this post