Dakota Beacon

Last week, London's Guardian website smiled on Europe's global warming alarmists, who seem tickled green with the Continent's progress toward Kyoto "greenhouse" emissions targets. The Guardian cites a European Environment Agency report showing that at the end of 2009, 27 countries' emissions had dropped about 17% in 19 years, "putting them 'well on track' to meet... the EU's own pledge of a 20% reduction by 2020."

Amazing. Wonder how Europe achieved the reduction. Reduced manufacturing? Maybe due to industry fleeing Europe? Maybe because of suffocating penalties on "carbon emissions?"

What Europe is experiencing is not a case of the free market moving jobs around, as happens routinely in America's manufacturing segment (discussed HERE, HERE, and HERE).

So then, toward what end is Europe sacrificing industry and jobs? The official line is that evil carbon-based emissions must be reduced in order to "stop global warming." But this is utter nonsense. Even the United States Environmental Protection Agency has admitted that its own proposed job-killing restrictions will reduce average global atmospheric temperature by no more than 0.006 degree Celsius in 90 years.

So, what will be achieved by Europe's great gas reduction? Nothing positive for Europe.

Nevertheless, Euro warmists are smiling, for the Guardian says that they now have "a headstart [sic] to reach and even over-achieve" their emission reduction goals. Who will benefit from Europe's economic suicide?

Curiously, as opposed to Europe and Washington, D.C., governments like China's care about prosperity--and also seem to know that the global warming hoax is, well, a hoax. As a result, in non-European, non-American places, carbon-based emissions have risen by more than 40%.

The Guardian points out that "some developing countries, such as China, argue they should not be held responsible for emissions generated by consumption in rich nations."

By all means, no. After all, increasing the carbon-based emissions of developing countries by leaps and bounds is a fine thing. Greedy societies like Europe and America must become gas-reducing consumers of the output of gas increasers.

Greedy Westerners will reduce consumption more quickly than warmists care to consider, as thinly-disguised emission reductions have the actual effect of "leveling the global playing field" and inflicting slaughter on the European and American economies. But to paraphrase Scarlet O'Hara in Gone With the Wind, we'll think about that tomorrow.

We'll also have to consider something else, tomorrow, that is. The ability of developing nations to increase prosperity hinges to a large extent on consumer demand in already-prosperous societies. This is one of those nasty little side-effects of something called "reality."

To emit or not to emit. To prosper or not to prosper. These are the questions. Warmists take a mind-bogglingly idiotic position: send gasses and jobs elsewhere. America's November 2nd results will influence how freely Obama's and "environmental justice" zealot Lisa Jackson's EPA will continue to create regulations that do the same.