Kermit the Frog poured his heart out when he sang, “It’s Not Easy Being Green.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. In fact, it’s quite costly to be green. But policymakers and environmentalists alike are purporting the ‘Green Revolution’ as the solution to both our financial woes and our environmental concerns.

And it’s not just the United States. The United Nations is proposing an environmental ‘New Deal’ that would “be similar to Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal which helped the US recover from the Great Depression of the 1930s.”

First, the reality is that FDR’s New Deal did not help the U.S. recover from the Great Depression but simply made things worse. Second, the only thing a green ‘New Deal’ will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom. (Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is a telling portrayal of what collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany can lead to: impoverishment and oppression of freedom.)

Remember when Liberal leader Stéphane Dion unveiled his carbon tax plan earlier this year? The green lobby was thrilled. It had finally found a mainstream politician ready to fight an election on a promise to implement a tax on heating fuels, diesel and other traditional sources of energy that households consume. Environmentalists were convinced voters would rally around the plan, particularly since the carbon tax and ensuing higher energy prices would be offset with tax cuts targeted to low- and modest-income earners. Canada was set to become a world leader in the climate change debate.

Dreams of a carbon tax are dashed now, although few environmentalists will publicly say so. More likely, they will soon assert the messenger failed, not the carbon tax idea. But of course, we know this is bunk. The Liberals campaigned unequivocally on a revenue-neutral carbon plan to save the planet. It was soundly rejected.

David Suzuki: lower your standard of living, just not mine

If you need more evidence that the Greens intend to destroy our standard of living, you need not look further than the Oct. 18 issue of New Scientist magazine — the cover of which reads, “The Folly of Growth: How to stop the economy killing the planet.”

The issue features eight articles that New Scientist editors believe justify their editorial entitled, “Why economic growth is killing the planet and what we can do about it.” Presented below the editorial is an ominously drawn graph purporting to show how global temperatures, population, carbon dioxide concentrations, GDP and loss of tropical rainforest and woodland have dramatically spiked upward since 1750, and how species extinctions, water use, motor vehicle use, paper consumption, fisheries exploitation, ozone depletion and foreign investment spiked during the 20th century.

The editorial concludes that “the science tells us that if we are serious about saving the Earth,” economic growth must be limited.

GORE LIED note: GL is all for wind energy, although we do not look at wind energy through rose-colored glasses. The external factors of wind energy should not be over-looked, and this so-called green energy should not be given the crutch of governmental subsidy. We now return to our regularly scheduled post.

Richard Shertz has four wind turbines on his property near Wyanet, Illinois. Schertz told pjstar.com (hat tip: WSJ Environmental Capital blog) the wind turbines were installed by Suzlon Wind Energy in May or June of 2007, and one has been inoperable all summer due to a crack in one of it's 140 foot long and fifteen foot wide blades - until Wednesday. On that day, a blade on one of the other three turbines broke off and landed 100 to 150 feet away from the structure. By the graced of God, nobody was injured or killed.

Forget pretty much any news reporting you see that attributes disastrous phenomena to global warming, because it's all designed to create a fog surrounding the core issue: is climate change human-caused or not?

A most recent example is from Monday's Washington Post, in which alarmist reporter Kari Lydersen (who has a long record of such journalism, in addition to work she does for leftist publications such as In These Times and the Progressive, on topics including  "environmental racism") told about how waterborne diseases are expected to multiply due to future climate devastation:

Now, scientists say, it is a near-certainty that global warming will drive significant increases in waterborne diseases around the world.

Rainfalls will be heavier, triggering sewage overflows, contaminating drinking water and endangering beachgoers. Higher lake and ocean temperatures will cause bacteria, parasites and algal blooms to flourish. Warmer weather and heavier rains also will mean more mosquitoes, which can carry the West Nile virus, malaria and dengue fever. Fresh produce and shellfish are more likely to become contaminated.

Andrew Weaver

A major problem with the climate change debate is scientists, especially those in government or academia, claiming or pretending they have no political motive. There is a lesson for all in what is happening in Canada, because it is true in most countries and at the UN, especially the IPCC, as I have documented in articles in Canada Free Press.

Andrew Weaver is a professor at the University of Victoria who has built a career around climate change. The assertion in the October 12th Ottawa Citizen that “it was pure chance” that his book, “Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a warming world”, was published during a Federal election campaign is not credible.  Weaver may not have known about the specific election date, but it was general knowledge that an election was planned. Similarly, his claim that he was driven to telling people how to vote because of “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s [supposed] war on science and scientists” is self-serving and not extraordinary given Weaver’s background.