During The Great Depression of the 1930s, governments in many parts of the world undertook huge infrastructure projects for the sake of putting people to work and stimulating their economies. The road networks that began to appear allowed far greater mobility and economic activity. Three quarters of a century later, our civilization is built around the use of private automobiles. Many people fear that our transportation system is economically and environmentally unsustainable. Now, governments in many parts of the world have a solution: interfere with the economy even more.

Indeed, the entities that facilitated the problem are growing bigger to serve our increasing need for control over the energy systems that have come to play such important roles in the lives of almost every person on the planet. Governments, in their infinite wisdom, have committed to fight the supposed threat of climate change (that happened thanks to their earlier meddling) by subsidizing so-called “green energy solutions”. Automobile manufacturers receive tax-payer dollars to produce cars that are powered by electricity.  Meanwhile, they are doing their best to make electricity more expensive, by requiring electricity generation be composed of an increasing amount of wind and solar power.

According to surveys that I have encountered, over 60% of Canadians believe climate change in a problem. Surly a significant number of those people could be persuaded to ride a bicycle at least once a week if a prominent alarmist like David Suzuki or Leonardo DiCaprio went on a bike tour to promote alternative transportation. They could eat and sleep in electric support vehicles that are covered in solar panels.

I understand that most people are unable or unwilling to stop driving a car or truck every day, but cycling is the most efficient form of transportation known to person-kind and if CO² is the turbo-emergency that the fear mongers say it is, then millions of environmentally aware people should be willing to endure the inconvenience, exercise and fresh air of a few bike rides per week.

If enough alarmists put their money where their mouths are and peddled from time to time, not only would there be significant cuts to emissions, but huge investments in roads and public transit could be reduced. If CO2 was really the turbo-emergency that Al Gore’s documentary AN INCONVIENIENT TRUTH  claims, it should be easy to persuade believers that a few kilometers is well within reach of most able-bodied people, at least sometimes. If alarmists really want to save the planet, the most efficient form of transportation should be much more than the afterthought it currently is.

One of the many reasons that I doubt the sincerity of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change alarmists is because they favor the much more expensive and economically disruptive option of a carbon tax. They are happy paying for big roads and now they are happy to pay for electric cars to keep people needing roads so governments can keep taxing us to build them. They are happy with people driving to all of their destinations with cup-holders, A/C and satellite radio. They are happy with drive-through fast-food, pot holes and traffic jams. The vast sums of money they are determined to spend make it obvious that much more of a business plan than environmental policy.

Bicycles not only reduce carbon emissions and the need to cover The Earth with pavement and strip-malls; bicycles can help increase physical fitness. Climate alarmists say nothing about a problem that some doctors call an “epidemic” of obesity. They are happy for children to sit in the back seat, watch cartoons and eat ice-cream, as long as the vehicle in question is electric.

With good intentions, FDR’s New Deal literally paved the way for the consumer culture that we have today, but now the environmental movement has decided that the economy needs another massive adjustment in order to save the world from its success. The Green New Deal that is being floated today will build upon the government interference of the past. This time, the intentions are even better.

I wonder how roads will be financed if no one is paying a fuel tax.

…and then there is the rhetoric…

“The science is settled” is only the most high-profile phrase that illustrates the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) movement’s contempt for debate. There is plenty of equally deceptive language from those who lust for a carbon tax. They weave it into mainstream media news whenever they can.

There are buzz-words like “overwhelming” and “consensus” to help their questionable claims. However, their claims seem questionable in light or many data and their unwillingness to defend their ridiculous demands. They tell us that human prosperity has caused every recent adverse weather event and they attack the integrity and intelligence of anyone who points out the epic age of the Earth and the changes that happened before fossil fuels began improving life for people around the world.

Naomi Klein explained that people in North America are more likely to be skeptical of the CACC theory because they retained a “pioneer/settler” mentality. They lacked the European sense of the limits of land and nature. They might have survived on a wild continent and help to build our country but apparently my ancestors were out-of-touch with what the land was able to provide. Europeans, with their wars, nude beaches and monarchies have a closer connection to  nature, according to Ms. Klein. However, Norwegians tend to be as skeptical about CACC as North Americans; more in some cases. Is that because their free universities do a bad job in revealing the scientific consensus to students? Is it because they have made a fortune from their North Sea oil extraction? I think it is because there are screaming inside as depicted by Edvard Munch. That is why they are so extreme in their thought.

The Danes, leaders in wind power generation, are also skeptical. How did so many of them become idiots, as science/entertainment superstar, Neil DeGrass Tyson might ask? Germany is one of the European countries where belief in CACC is at its highest. They are known for being a very intelligent society; but they are also known for succumbing to a cult of personality and electing one of the most terrifying governments of the 20^th century.

On a CBC Radio program called IDEAS, a scientist/activist was asked why he thought that anyone would ever doubt the CACC theory in light of the “overwhelming” evidence supporting it. The scientist/activist sighed as though he was thinking racist thoughts. Finally he supposed that The ClimateGate scandal (totally discredited, he said) might have made some people wonder about the intentions of the movement. The scientist/activist also lamented that some people will never change their opinions no matter how clear the evidence. Basically, he was saying that people who are skeptical about CACC are just stubborn conspiracy theorists.

Canada’s environment minister, Catherine McKenna, says that she has no time for people who think that action needs to be taken. When she says “action”, she means, of course, taxing people. I am surprised by how little appetite climate alarmists have for challenges to their belief in the need for money to save the planet from a catastrophe that is always just ten years away.

I suppose they might describe their distain and cynicism as anger and fear about the impending doom that they claim human prosperity is causing. However, when I used to believe in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, I rode my bicycle as much as possible, even in the winter time. I stopped driving my small automobile all together to reduce my carbon footprint. High profile climate alarmists continue to maintain energy intensive life-styles that include mansions, private jets and luxury automobiles as they demand free-market economics be neutered and government control over our lives be increased.

Perhaps I should make some sort of point. My interests are wide but my focus is clear. The issue that I find most compelling at this point in my life is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC). I used to be terrified of the claims being made on a regular basis. However, I have come to be skeptical about the continuous warnings and occasionally sensational statements made by alarmists. I also find the solutions being pursued by to this supposed problem to be highly questionable at best and insane at worst.

It was my father, who I first remember questioning my belief in CACC. He suggested there might equal amounts of “overwhelming” evidence to suggest that global warming is natural. I had no response, but it would be several more years before I heard about the so-called CLIMATEGATE emails. Thousands of messages were stolen from a prominent university department that specialized in climate research. A great deal of the language discovered within the text certainly appeared to be that of people trying to make the data fit the theory. From that moment, more and more of the claims made by alarmists sounded suspicious to me, especially as I found facts that spoke to how old the Earth is and how much its systems can oscillate. I felt that the changes to weather patterns that I was witnessing were less frightening than some people frantically insisted.

When I believed that the carbon dioxide level was like a control knob on the Earth’s temperature, I became an avid cyclist because I wanted to reduce my environmental footprint. I wondered why no high-profile alarmists tried to push the most efficient form of transportation as part of the solution. If I had the fame and fortune of Al Gore, David Suzuki or Leonardo DiCaprio at the time, I would have toured the world by bicycle to promote clear air, healthy lifestyle, and sustainable urban planning. I understand that many people are unable or unwilling to ever ride a bike anywhere for any reason, but most people are able to bike to some of their destinations and most people have been on at least one pleasant bike ride in their lives. Could a significant number of people be convinced to change some of their transportation habits? We don’t know because none of the jet-setting hypocrite/megastars who insist that we must be burdened with another tax have tried to make a high-profile bicycle journey.

Rich and famous alarmists have different ideas about how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Rather than encouraging people to voluntarily use the least energy intensive mode of transportation, so-called action on climate change is mostly mandatory and directed at the least most energy intensive mode of transportation. Bumbling, out-of-touch politicians who refuse to debate the issue are making decisions about the economy that have already destroyed businesses and threaten many more enterprises including non-profit organizations and public institutions.

The alarmist movement not only expects us to believe that there is nearly unanimous scientific support for the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change, but they also expect us to adopt the extremely expensive and occasionally ridiculous solutions.

Replacing the entire global automobile fleet and electricity generation systems is an enterprise on an epic scale. Vast sums of money will be spent and governments will do a lot of the spending. Governments will interfere in the economy in general much more than they do now.

Carbon credits distort the free market. They make otherwise outlandish pursuits financially feasible. I remember seeing a fellow on TV describe his plan to build a flotilla of ships that will go out to sea and take life-giving CO2 out of the air and freeze it into a torpedo shape before dropping into the deep ocean where it would supposedly stay frozen forever. Only the economic shell game of carbon credits could allow someone to get paid to do something as crazy as trying to filter an important trace gas out of the atmosphere and put it someplace where plants can never use it, because we must fear this very beneficial warming period; because we must feel guilty that our good fortune to might be a side effect of human prosperity.

Calgary installed cycle tracks on several streets for about 5 or 6 million dollars (which is relatively tiny compared to other infrastructure projects)(it was completed under-budget). Meanwhile rich industrialists get billions of dollars in subsidies to build electric cars which perpetuate automobile dependency, urban sprawl, energy consumption and spending on the massive system of streets bridges and highways required to accommodate North American car culture. Excuse me if I see a more of a business deal than real environmental policy.

TOP GUN was a recruiting tool that succeeded in increasing interest in the US Armed Forces. After 9/11, Americans were urged to spend and invest to stimulate the shocked economy. They did exactly that. How many people would peddle to some of their destinations if there was some there was a half decent effort to show the world how great bike rides can be? How many people would adopt an inconvenient commute that only required an affordable bicycle and some decent pavement that is clear of snow and ice?

One of the many reasons that I suspect Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change is about money is because there is so much money involved.

I suppose 1995 would have been the time to start a blog. Twenty three years down the road will have to do. A lot has changed. The netbook that I use in the this moment while riding to Canmore in a work Van was still unavailable back in those days. I remember a computer with a 40mb hard drive that first let me onto the exciting information superhighway.

I remember using Internet Relay Chat (IRC) to talk trash and sex with strangers are various distances. I remember boobie pics and controversial theories about the world that we live in.

My coworker drives the van and we listening to CHQR 770AM. Equalization payments are discussed. The idea of Alberta separating from Canada bubbled up. True-dope Justin has no immediate plans to help Alberta getting her resources to market.