Why the Hysteria About Climate Change? Follow the Money

Global warming hysteria, as we wrote yesterday, is not science. The models on which it rests are known to be wrong, since they are refuted by observation. So why, then, does climate change hype persist?

Because a great deal of money depends on it. The purpose of global warming hysteria is to bamboozle voters into transferring vast amounts of wealth and power from the private sector to the government. This will be done via a carbon tax and regulations on, or prohibitions of, fossil fuels; but the scheme goes much deeper than that. Since virtually every human activity (including breathing) generates some quantity of carbon dioxide, global warming is an excuse to regulate pretty much everything, conferring unprecedented power on the federal government. Further, global warming justifies vast federal subsidies of “green” energy scams. The Democrats, in turn, are rewarded for those subsidies by enormous political contributions by the likes of Tom Steyer.

The Science and Environmental Policy Project reveals the tip of the iceberg, at least:

In August 2013, the White House reported in FY 2013, US expenditures on Clean Energy Technologies were $5.783 billion, Energy Tax Provisions That May Reduce Greenhouse Gases were $4.999 billion, and Energy Payments in Lieu of Tax Provisions were $8.080 for a total $18.862 billion. Such expenditures created a sustained green lobby for climate change.

That is $19 billion per year. But again, that is only the beginning of the story: it doesn’t count the vast sums that would be involved in a carbon tax, or the selective suppression of the economy through regulation that climate hysteria enables.

shutterstock_143762137

Still, the $19 billion figure is striking. How does it compare with what the federal government spends on actual human health issues: SEPP provides the numbers:

For FY 2013, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported its expenditures on cancer research were $5.274 billion and expenditures on all categories of clinical research were $10.604 billion. Government expenditures on alternative energy sources were 78% greater than NIH expenditures on all categories of clinical research on known threats to human health. The fear of climate change has distorted spending priorities in the Federal government.

Only they aren’t distorted if you are a Democrat eager to expand the scope of government, and to assure a steady stream of hundreds of millions of dollars into Democratic Party coffers.

Responses