Van Jones: The Left's "Pretended" Green Crisis

By Proof



Van Jones Admits Left is ‘PRETENDING’ Need for Regulations in Green Movement

Environmental Adviser to President Barack Obama, and infamous 9/11 Truther, Van Jones was caught in another candid moment last month.

Demonstrating that his intellectual landscape is very sparse or barren*, he says the only way to get "innovation" up on clean energy is to push the "dirty stuff" down. I wonder if any one ever asked him to defend the notion that "innovation" somehow thrives in an atmosphere of heavy regulation, high taxes and licensing? Generally speaking, don't sets of iron clad rules tend to militate against "innovation"?

He then goes on to say, there are only three ways to accomplish getting more clean energy and less dirty energy. Somehow, "innovation" didn't make the cut!

1) "Regulate (them) hard". Businesses complying with endless government regulations have far less time, money and talent that could be devoted to innovation (the missing way) in cleaner energy.

2) "Tax them real hard". Businesses with less capital have less capital for R&D. Higher taxes can change the viability of the company, where it may have little to no budget for R&D just to survive. And transferring that money to the government will make clean energy possible faster? Ask Jimmy Carter, whose Department of Energy, to date, hasn't created any. How much money has this agency chewed through since the 1970's? Maybe the government hasn't thrown enough money at the problem yet? Sheesh!

3)"Or you make them buy permits" Which, in reality, is no different from #2. Why should the fiction of whether it is a license or a tax decrease the cost of doing business to the company that is so burdened?

In reality, a good socialist like Van Jones knows only two ways to deal with what he paints or perceives as a problem: Increased government regulation, or increased taxes (Or both). But, taxation itself can be another means of government regulation. If the government taxes you more heavily to do "A" than "B", you tend to do "B". If given a tax break to do something by a certain date, people will alter their (or their business's) behavior to comply with the whim of government regulation or tax code.

In essence, the government has only one way to regulate business and that is through coercion. The full force of the federal government will enforce whatever regulations they pass and collect whatever taxes and fines they levy.

If Van Jones would ever step away from the ivory tower he is currently living in, he might have taken note of the fact that the old Soviet block countries, where government regulation and enforcement reigned supreme, the pollution was their court's hand maiden. Gross pollution was the mark of the old Soviet block, because the people weren't free to make their own choices. Bumbling bureaucrats were in charge of everything and they had no fear of their customers "taking their business elsewhere". There was no elsewhere.

Also overlooked are efforts currently underway by the "old dirty" companies to advance "green energy". ExxonMobil is currently studying hydrogen powered vehicles. Their efforts are not primarily altruistic, but the possible twofold matter of their economic survival. One, the discovery of a safe, affordable and virtually pollution free means of transportation would bring tremendous profit to whomever perfects it. Secondly, they have a vested interest in the transition to this new methodology, since having thousands of ExxonMobil stations through the interstate highway system selling tree shaped air fresheners and sodas may not be a viable business plan in the foreseeable future.

So, Mr. Jones: Please tell us how increasing the taxes or regulations on a company like ExxonMobil increase the likelihood of them perfecting what you would term a "greener" technology?

No, what you really want is more state control over companies in this country and more control over its people. Raising taxes on ExxonMobil is passed through the company in the form of higher costs and resulting higher prices to the consumer. If the consumer has to spend an inordinate amount of time struggling to keep himself and his family intact, he has less time to contemplate what his government is doing to him. And keeping people broke is a sure way to help keep them powerless, in both senses of the word.

* We also allow for the possibility that his positions are simply more dishonest pretense to advance a different agenda.

H/T Memeorandum

Update:The website on the wall behind him, is from The Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University

Cross posted at Proof Positive

No comments:

Post a Comment

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.