An article in today’s New York Times is just one more, “Don’t let a crisis go to waste,” move from this administration.  The article, titled “As Oil Industry Fights a Tax, It Reaps Billions From Subsidies,” uses the same tired talking points to justify another tax increase that will ultimately be passed along to consumers.

The article talks about how the oil companies take advantage of tax credits and breaks and then it also talks about how many oil based companies re-incorporate in countries like Panama, the Marshall Islands, the Cayman Islands, and Switzerland because it will lower their taxes.  When with the Statists get it?  If you raise taxes both corporations and people will change their behavior to lower their taxes.  Impose a millionaire’s tax in Maryland and Maryland discovers they have one-third fewer millionaires a year later and hundreds of thousands of dollars in less revenue.  Impose among the highest tax rates in the developed world on businesses and businesses will move to where the taxes are lower.  Create tax breaks and then somehow the Progressives are surprised that companies took advantage of them.

The initial thrust of the article was that the tax on oil companies was necessary to pay for the cleanup of the oil spill in the Gulf.  Pardon my confusion, but didn’t the government just get BP to pony up $20 billion into an escrow fund for this purpose?  Hasn’t BP said from day one that they will pay the cost for the clean up?  So why are the Progressives in Congress rushing to put a new tax in place other than to take advantage of a crisis to reach into your wallet?

Another unintended consequence of our onerous tax policy is that when companies incorporate in other countries, those countries often have lower engineering and environmental standards.

I am no fan of corporate welfare so why don’t we take the IRS code and run it through a shredder?  Get rid of the tax breaks across the board.  Lower the tax rate to a fixed number that is on par with other developed countries.  According to the Heritage Foundation, the freest economy in the world is Hong Kong, which oddly enough is located in Communist China.  The Chicoms were smart enough to leave well enough alone when Hong Kong reverted to their control from Britain in 1997.  Their individual tax rate is progressive ranging from 2% to 17% or an option for a 15% flat rate depending on which liability is lower.  The top corporate tax rate is 16.5%.  Their five-year compound annual GDP growth rate is 5.7%; unemployment is 3.5%; and their inflation is 4.3%.  By comparison, our top corporate tax rate is 35%, more than double that of Hong Kong; our five year compound annual GDP growth rate is 2.2%; unemployment is 9.4% (at the time of this study); and inflation is 3.8%.

If we could implement real tax reform it would not only simplify our lives, save several hundred billion dollars in compliance costs, reduce uncertainty for business, create jobs, and grow the economy.  With a larger pie, overall tax revenues will also increase. 

In that Heritage study the United States has the eighth freest economy in the world, down one place from the year before; not the direction we should be going.  Imagine if we set a goal to become the freest economy in the world.  Americans like a challenge so let’s set our sights on becoming number one.  The first three to concentrate on passing are those directly in front of us: Canada, Switzerland and Ireland.  On this Fourth of July, let’s plant our flag and get to work.

Well the cat’s finally out of the bag and it’s been loosed by none other than President Obama himself.  Once again out on the stump where he is most comfortable and away from the Oval Office where decision making is required, the president is now taking a new tack, or it is an old one?  He is now saying how much worse things could have been if not for his stimulus program.  This is the standard progressive/statist line that we didn’t do enough… if only we spent more money our program would have worked.

But here’s the problem.  To get the $787 billion stimulus package passed the president said that if we did nothing, unemployment would rise to 9%, but if we passed his stimulus package it would go no higher than 8%.  Where is the unemployment rate?  It is at 9.7%.  So if things could have been worse if they did nothing, his economic team is totally clueless because they were the ones who put forth the 8% vs. 9% argument.  Now Obama is trying to tell us that if we did nothing, the unemployment rate could have been in the double digits.  Who says so?  Is this his own projection or is his economic team back at the Ouija board?  Is anyone from the economic team being fired?

Here is an alternate theory.  If the stimulus plan was not implemented and the president cut taxes by $787 billion instead and promised not to introduce any new government programs for two years, that the unemployment rate would be much lower.  How can I make such an outrageous claim?  Let’s look to history.  In 1920-1921 there was a steep recession where the unemployment rate hit 11.7%.  Back then, government didn’t saddle businesses with regulations and businesses were free to cut wages and make other adjustments without government meddling.  Within one year the unemployment rate fell to 6.7% and the following year it was down to 2.4%  Contrast that to the Great Depression where we had massive government intervention and massive government spending and the unemployment rate never fell below 14.7%.

Bringing Jobs Back to America

Another brilliant example of your government killing the economy comes from the company Bucyrus Erie.  They were bidding on a job in India to provide heavy equipment to help them mine coal for a power plant the Indians were building.  Bucyrus Erie went to the Export/Import bank, a government agency, to try to get a loan guarantee to finance the deal.  Because a coal plant would increase the carbon footprint of India, the Ex/Im bank turned down the request.  This didn’t stop the plant being built, it just meant that the heavy equipment was going to be provided by China or Russia instead of the USA.  There would be no effect on the carbon footprint, a big effect on jobs in the US.  At the same time, President Obama is on the stump talking about how hard he is working to bring jobs back to the US.  Really?  They must have read his speech over at the Ex/Im bank, because they are reconsidering Bucyrus Erie’s request.

More government is killing our economy.  Our economy is very tough and it is extremely hard to bring down, but the current administration is trying its best to do so.

If you have been following the Obama administration closely it’s hard to be surprised by some of the things that they do but… never say never.  Yesterday, Michael Posner whose title is, are you ready for this, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor brought up in discussions with China, the recent law passed in Arizona to control the number of illegals flooding into that state. This is a law that was passed to address this and the previous administration’s miserable failure to control the border.

The Chinese had counterpunched in response to a report on Human Rights issued by the State Department, as required by U.S. law, that was particularly critical of China, North Korea, and Iran and their restrictions on the Internet, other communications means and their treatment of minorities in their respective countries.  This is what the Chinese said:

“The United States not only has a terrible domestic human rights record, it is also the main source of many human rights disasters worldwide,” the Chinese report said, according to the official Xinhua news agency.

“Especially a time when the world is suffering serious human rights disasters caused by the global financial crisis sparked by the U.S. sub-prime crisis, the U.S. government has ignored its own grave human rights problems and reveled in accusing other countries.”

So, after being required by law since 1976 to issue an annual report on Human Rights and not wanting to be excoriated by Congress if they made it a puff piece, our socialist leaning administration felt it necessary to walk it back in meetings with the Chinese by bringing up the new law in Arizona, “early and often”.

The Chinese must have been stunned with their good fortune.  Here was the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, going out of his way to point to a new immigration law passed in Arizona to say America might be encouraging discrimination.  Here is the question from a reporter and Secretary Posner’s response:

QUESTION:  Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up?  And, if so, did they bring it up or did you bring it up?

ASSISTANT SECRETARY POSNER:  We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session, and as a troubling trend in our society and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination, and that these are issues very much being debated in our own society.

The Chinese, who under Mao killed millions of their own citizens, force families to have abortions after their first and only child is born, forcefully relocated peasants to Beijing to build the Olympic facilities and them sent them back to their farms, refuse to let information flow to their citizens over the Internet, completely dominate and subjugate Tibet, and we are criticizing our own behavior to them for passing a law in Arizona?

In testimony before Congress after publicly making remarks that the new Arizona law is discriminatory and may trigger a lawsuit from the federal government Attorney General Eric Holder admitted that he had not read the Arizona law.  The Arizona law takes up all of ten pages and the Attorney General has not found the time to read it, but somehow knows the law is discriminatory.

In testimony before Congress Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano also admitted that she had not read the bill.  The speedy Secretary, who was quick to point out that things were running swell at the Department of Homeland Security after a Muslim extremist in an Army uniform killed thirteen at Fort Hood and that the Times Square bomber was a “lone wolf” before investigators found numerous international ties, wasn’t quick enough to read the ten page law before testifying to Congress.

This is an administration and Congress that can crank out thousands of pages of laws that will change the landscape of liberty in America and then rams them through without reading them and cannot read a ten page law before declaring it discriminatory.  It makes you wonder if anyone in this administration knows how to read, which would explain a lot about their ignorance of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The Obama Administration probably wishes they didn’t spend $18 million to build a website that is making a mockery of their vaunted stimulus package that if not passed might result in an economic calamity from which we might never recover.  Well, here is a random sampling of six beneficiaries of stimulus money:

• Maine — Fish River Rural Health: $491,222. Jobs created — zero
• New Jersey — Southern Regional High School Board of Education: $119,622. Jobs created — zero
• Michigan — West Branch Rose City Area School District: $879,258. Jobs created — zero
• Georgia — Georgia Crisis Family Center: $16,425.  Jobs created — zero
• Minnesota — Regents of the University of Minnesota: $294,200.  Jobs created — zero
• Texas — Port Aransas Independent School District: $143,241. Jobs created — zero

Enough already, I think you get the picture.  Lest you think my sampling was biased you  can play along.  Go to the website, pick a dot at random and see for yourself.  The media seem to be starting to wake up and do their job.  ABC News reported on data from non-existent Congressional Districts.  The New York Times reported on a $1,000 grant that created 50 jobs and upon further investigation found out the $1,000 went to purchase a lawn mower.  But don’t worry, President Obama put that pit bull Joe Biden in charge of making sure the money was spent carefully.  President Obama: \”Nobody Messes with Joe\”  Joe Biden, call your office.

We are on an express train to financial ruin.  This is not just a financial problem but a national security problem as well.  We won the Cold War, not with weapons, but with our economy.  President Reagan ramped up our military and the teetering Soviet economy could not keep up and communism collapsed.  China is becoming more capitalist every day as we chase the ghost of Karl Marx.  I ask a simple question, “Do you trust this administration to spend your tax dollars wisely?”  Do you believe any administration, Republican, Democrat, Independent, can effectively manage the federal government as it exists today? 

A phrase we often heard in the midst of the financial crisis as justification for bailouts was “too big to fail.”  One response to that was “make them smaller.”  If the federal government is too big to manage and is growing without bound, then we, who are the government of the people, must make the government smaller.  It is a fundamental truth of government that programs once started do not end, they just find other things to do.  Here is a case in point.

When I worked for one of the phone company spin offs after the break up of AT&T, I came across a regulatory agency called the Rural Electrification Administration.  Strange I thought, most of America has electricity, and I am not working for the electric company.  It turns out, that agency was created to help bring electricity to rural America.  Okay, that sounds like a good idea.  However, once its mission was completed, instead of going out of business, it found a new mission: bringing phone service to rural America, and it will go on and on.  One of the key problems is how the mission is defined.  In this example, as long as one farm doesn’t have electricity, the agency will still have a reason to exist.  As long as a log cabin in the woods doesn’t have a phone land line, the agency must soldier on.  As any economist will tell you, the cost of serving each additional rural property, will eventually skyrocket.

If we were to take these functions and drive them down to the state and local level, eventually someone will stand up and say, “We’re done,  it’s not worth the increase in taxes to prolong the life of this agency.”  But ensconced in Washington, it costs more to fight it than let it go on.  But we have reached a tipping point where if we don’t cut the beast down to size, the beast will have us for dinner.  Chinese anyone?

A Rasmussen poll 68% Say 2nd Stimulus is Likely, makes stark just how committed the statist majority of Congress is to reshaping America in their image and derisively dismissing the will of the people.  68% of those polled say a second stimulus is likely while at the same time 60% of the American people are opposed to a second stimulus while only 27% are in favor.  Let that sink in for a moment before I play it again, 68% of the American people believe that Congress will ram down their throats what only 27% are in favor of.  Is this a government for the people?  By the people?  It sounds more like Iran and their recent presidential “elections”.

In Iran, hundreds of thousands took to the street while their government responded by beating and shooting them.  In America, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in Tea Parties, and thankfully the government hasn’t responded by beating and shooting us, but ignoring the will of the people just the same.

Promises, Promises

President Obama promised open- ness and transparency in his administration.  During the campaign his website had the following statement:

“Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them,” the campaign website states. “As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.”

Well, true to Obama’s form, there is always an escape clause, in this case, “non-emergency.”  So just declare every bill an emergency and the promise remains unbroken.  But what is an emergency?

The stimulus was pitched as an emergency and it was rushed through Congress getting passed on a Friday.  However despite all the urgency, President Obama did not sign it on Friday night, nor Saturday, nor Sunday, nor Monday as it was a holiday, but on Tuesday when a true media event surrounding the signing ceremony could be orchestrated.  So despite the conflict surrounding “hurry up and wait” why couldn’t the American people get a look at the bill during those five days?

So what’s the track record?  The Sunlight Foundation had this to say back in April:

“Of the eleven bills, only one (The DTV Delay Act) could be somewhat considered to have fulfilled the five day pledge. This could only be somewhat considered because it was posted just prior to being presented to the President, which is a slightly minor point.”

Did You Read It?

These massive spending bills (Stimulus, Cap and Trade, Health Care, TARP) are getting passed by Congress and if you ask Democrats or members of the administration if they actually read the bill they either laugh or bristle with indignation.  Carol Browner Thinks It’s Unfair to Say She Hasn’t Read the Energy Bill

So it seems like this Congress and this Administration is resolute in urgently slamming through every government enlarging and power consolidating program that they can in the least amount of time before the next election cycle.  What the American people want is immaterial if the political class can strengthen their grip on the government such that future Congresses and administrations will find it hard to undue.

Furthermore if they can get enough illegals, dead people, homeless, criminals who have lost the right to vote, registered or counted in the census so that they can enlarge their favorite Congressional districts, or fix elections then they can stay in office.  When they lose a close election they know how to immediately dispatch teams of lawyers to invalidate ballots of their opponents and count more of their own that were “missed”.  They perfected this technique in Washington state, and repeated it in Minnesota, where Republicans won both closely contested elections, but Democrats repeatedly demanded recounts until their candidate was ahead and then, with a straight face said, “enough recounts the people deserve to have this resolved.”

Pay Attention People

If more people don’t start paying attention, the greatest country in the history of the world, the United States of America, will become a nostalgic footnote.  Already Communist China is building a more capitalistic economy than we have, while we try to move toward the old, failed socialist model.  If we are not more careful, we will wake up some day and wonder how we became more like Venezuela, and feel a little bit………foolish?

Did you ever watch a historical movie about how some fringe group ominously takes over the government and leaves everyone scratching their head wondering how it happened?  At the end of the movie you say, “Whew, I’m so glad that could never happen in the good ol’ USA.”  Then you watch the news and see things that are eerily familiar to the movie and you say, “Nah, that’s just my imagination running away with me.”  Until the next piece of news drips on your head.

A news story this morning gave me that uneasy, pit of the stomach feeling again.  It probably shouldn’t have since it was about Venezuela.  Hugo Chavez got the term limit restriction lifted in his country that will allow him to be president for life.  That measure had previously failed but now it passed by a wide margin.  So why am I feeling uneasy about our liberties and what is going on in this country?  Here are some of my concerns.

Bipartisanship

After all the talk of bipartisanship by candidate Obama and the need to change the tone in Washington, the reality was something completely different.  In a so called “stimulus package” that will triple the budget deficit and was rammed through the Congress with no one, and I repeat no one, reading it, one party was virtually shut out of the legislative process.  At the same time 44% of the American people, in a Rasmussen poll, said names picked at random out of the phone book could do a better job on the economy than this Congress.  This package is chock full of 40 years of liberal programs that could not pass muster on their own, but as Rahm Emmanuel says, “You never want a serious crisis go to waste.”  When  Republicans protested about being shut out of the process, the response from the other side was, “We won.”

Fairness Doctrine

In the movie there will come a scene when the incoming powers break into the newspaper offices and smash the printing press, overturn the typesetting table, dump papers on the floor and set them ablaze.  The message is clear, there will be no opposition press.  There is only one message and that is of the new dictator and the new news will be his indoctrination.

Today, there is more and more talk about reviving the Fairness Doctrine.  Here is what former President Bill Clinton said:

“Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side,” Clinton said, “because essentially there’s always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous….”

Liberals tried to bring balance to the discussion with Air America and it failed dismally.  Why?  People didn’t want to listen to left wing rants all day.  But face it, the main stream media overwhelmingly votes liberal.  So although no one will be smashing printing presses and torching newsrooms, the objective is to stifle the conservative point of view.  Once you do that the only voice that is heard is reinforcing the new ruler.

What the First Amendment says is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.”

Congress shall make no law…so what are they doing? The line between news and opinion has long been crossed.  It used to be you couldn’t tell what Walter Cronkite’s politics were, because he kept his opinions, for the most part, out of the news.  But today there is little difference.  For a great example see this piece by Russ Roberts. (They Report. I Edit. You Decide). They will defend the Fairness Doctrine by saying it is not censorship, but here’s the dirty little secret.

Let’s say you are a radio program manager and you put on three hours of Rush Limbaugh.  Great show. Great ratings. You make lots of money.  Now along comes the Fairness Doctrine.  You don’t have to touch Rush’s show because that would be censorship.  What you have to do, however, is give three hours over to Air America to be “fair”.  Three hours of Air America hate <fill in the blank: Bush, religion, gun owners, pro life> rants.  Ratings for those three hours go in the tank.  No revenue. You’re making no money.  Listener’s start complaining.  So what is a station manager to do?  It’s what they used to do when the Fairness Doctrine was here before, tell Rush he has to close up shop, dump the Air America crowd and play Top 40s songs all day long.  The fact that it wasn’t censorship doesn’t matter, the effect is the same.

The Census

The census, conducted every ten years, is important in two regards.  One, it helps allocate how money from government programs is distributed, and it determines how the number of Congressional seats will be apportioned among the states.  Based on current estimates states like New York (Blue) will lose one or two seats and states like Texas (Red) will gain seats.  That could mean a shift in power from the Democrats to the Republicans.  Uh oh.

The scene in the movie shifts to a darkened office with a light over the conference table.  “We cannot allow the opposition to gain any strength back, we have to consolidate our power.  What do we do?”

“Comrade, we can take control of the census.  Under our control we can count homeless people and illegal immigrants in Blue states and ignore them in Red states.”

“Brilliant!  You see that the census is directed out of your office rather than in some Department.”

You chuckle only for a minute, when you realize that Rahm Emmanuel will be overseeing the census, operating out of the White House, rather than handling it in the Commerce Department as it has been done for years.  Suddenly, the scene seems very real.

The Stimulus and ACORN

In the so called “stimulus bill” there appears to be about $4.1 billion for “neighborhood stabilization activities.”  The money was initially limited to state and local governments but later changed to include non-profits, such as ACORN.  ACORN is surrounded by allegations of vote fraud.  It doesn’t take much of an imagination to understand how close races can be tipped by an organization that perpetuates voter fraud.  Now think about how your tax dollars are being funneled to them to do it.

We Need More Votes in The House.  So Let’s Add a Representative

In consolidating power, what better way than adding votes where you need them.  One way is to add a representative in the House for the District of Columbia.  It is a heavily Democratic district, so why not?  The Constitution? Ignore it.  Just go ahead pass a law.  If the Republicans object, just crank up the racist machine.

Handouts

Of all the tried and tested methods for turning around an economy in trouble, the Democrats seem to be picking all the ones proved not to work.  If you want to stimulate the economy through tax cuts, you cut marginal tax rates.  Instead the Democrats want to give rebates to people who pay no income taxes.  That’s welfare not tax cuts.  But the goal is not to turn around the economy.  The goal is to consolidate power.  What better way than to make sure more than 50% get something from the government and less than 50% are stuck with the bill.  Majority rules.  We won.  Once that threshold is crossed, the majority can start jacking up taxes on those evil rich, so that the “working and middle class” get checks from the government.  Comrade, it from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.

Calling Dr. Mengele

In the movie a sinister doctor approaches the “patient” and plans how he is going to improve life for all of us.  For the “patient”, not so much.

Another provision in the stimulus bill is to establish a new bureaucracy that will “compare drugs, medical devices, surgery and other ways of treating specific conditions.”  This organization will take a role in your medical treatment that was formerly between you and your doctor. “Supporters of the research hope it will eventually save money by discouraging the use of costly, ineffective treatments.”  Isn’t that what medical journals are for?  Isn’t that why the AMA has conferences, to share such information?

“I’m sorry Mrs. Jones, we think you child has Down’s Syndrome, therefore you really must have the abortion, or your medical bills for your childbearing treatment won’t be covered by our national health care.  And you know the costs run into the hundreds of thousands.  What would you like to do?”

Do you really want some bureaucrat in Washington playing with a statistics program  telling your doctor what treatment he can and cannot perform to treat you?

Is This Real?

As you leave the theatre you laugh nervously that this couldn’t happen here.  But every time you pick up a newspaper, the similarity about how a dictator seizes control and then consolidates his power is just too eerie.  But as we have seen in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and now in Venezuela, it can happen and once it does it may be decades before it can be undone, if at all.  The Founding Fathers were very wary of a strong central government.  They believed that the only powers that the Federal government should have are limited and they went to the trouble to spell them out in the Tenth Amendment:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Where does it say in the Constitution that education is a federal function? I’m not against education by any stretch of the imagination, but how can the federal government do a better job than the local school board?  Why is the federal government putting cops on the street?  Shouldn’t each municipality handle this? The Federal Government has gotten too big and too powerful.  It is so vast no one can manage it.  We keep pushing so much up to the federal level we are almost begging for a dictatorship to form.  And with everything they take, and they will take all they can grab, your liberties go with it.

We better wake up, people, and start cutting this monster down to size.  Otherwise it will either consume all of us leaving nothing but a wasteland, or we will be reading our founding documents and see that they are telling to prepare for the Second American Revolution.

As I continue to read the book I mentioned in my last post, I become more wary of the politics surrounding it.  Man’s contribution to global warming is “settled science”, or in other words, no more debate folks the discussion is closed.  The suggestion from a politician in Australia that any Australian that doesn’t believe in man made global warming should be stripped of their citizenship until the are re-educated.  Does that kind of talk scare you?  It scares me.  The American Meteorological Society (AMS) has issued a statement on climate change that reads:

“There is convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other trace constituents in the atmosphere, have become a major agent of climate change.”

Heidi Cullen, the Weather Channel’s climatologist believes that any meteorologist who carries an AMS certification should lose that certification if they do not toe the company line.  If their science and their logic are so convincing, why resort to the threats and coercion?

There is an alternate theory that is not even addressed in the book and that is that the temperature increase that we are seeing is caused by solar activity.  In the book the author touches on the effect of the sun, but only with regard to the position of the earth relative to the sun, not solar activity and since the position hasn’t changed that much, he says it is not a factor.  But it is not the position of the sun that is the factor, it is the amount of solar activity.  There have been very high levels of solar activity between 1940 and 2000.  That activity has since decreased and has been low for several years now.  If you listen carefully you will hear news stories that global warming peaked about ten years ago.

The book states that from 1990 to 1999 global CO2 emissions increased at a rate of 1.1 percent per year.  In the years 2000 to 2006, the rate tripled to over 3 percent per year.  So with such a dramatic increase of CO2 being released into the atmosphere and it being “settled science” that CO2 causes global warming, why did the temperature peak in 1998, and begin falling while the amount of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere accelerated?  Another study concludes, “if you shut down all the world’s power plants and factories, ‘there would not be much effect on temperatures.’”

My concern is that we have a rush to solve a problem that may no longer exist, or worse may be going in the opposite direction, and our “leaders” are clamoring for massive spending and changes to our economy.  But what about all the proof of CO2 emissions leading to increases in temperature?  The question should be what is the cause and what is the effect?  Has the increase in CO2 caused the increase in temperature or has the increase in temperature, caused by solar activity, led to an increase in CO2?

The author unintentionally makes this point when he mentions that increasing temperature in the oceans caused CO2 to bubble up and be released into the atmosphere.  He also mentions that if the arctic tundra should start to thaw then methane, which is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 will be released into the atmosphere.  I think he was trying to say that an acceleration effect would occur where CO2 warms the earth and thereby releases more CO2, but if this was the case we would have baked long ago.  There is a study that indicates that based on past data going back 250,000 years that CO2 concentrations actually lag temperature change, meaning the temperature increase caused the CO2 increase and not the other way around.

With this in mind, any proposal to immediately change to renewable fuels on a massive scale could actually have the opposite effect.  I believe we should convert to renewable fuels when and as they become economically viable.  We recently saw a dramatic climb in the price of a barrel of oil.  With that there came an economic incentive to switch to hybrid cars, build wind farms, install solar systems, etc.  With the housing bubble and the subsequent fall off in economic activity, the price of a barrel of oil has decreased just as dramatically.  Sales of hybrids have sharply curtailed.

So if we artificially push to change from oil to renewable energy now: 1) it will be disruptive to the economy; 2) if the Indians and Chinese do not increase their consumption as fast or faster than we would wean ourselves off, the price of a barrel of oil will continue to fall.  As the price of a barrel of oil falls, the economics of renewable energy will get worse not better, and therefore more coercion would be required through tax incentives and regulations to continue the process.

I believe we should put our energy in driving down the cost of the technology through manufacturing improvements and R&D, so that alternative energy can compete with fossil fuels without subsidies, and let the market determine the pace of the conversion.  We tried the massive government energy program with the Synfuels Project in the late 1970s and every one of those projects failed because they were not economically viable. An enormous amount of money was spent in that effort but it was shut down.  Command and control economies do not work, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the injection of capitalism in China have proved that.  Markets do work, if artificial constraints are not placed upon them by bureaucrats.