The Socialist Line on Rapid Decarbonization from the National Academies – Are You Happy with That?

From CFACT

Via David Wojick

The title of this 800-page book is “Accelerating Decarbonization in the United States: Technology, Policy, and Social Dimensions” of the US National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM).

I rarely use the term “socialist,” but it is the perfect word here once the concept is updated. It originally referred to government ownership of the means of production. But in today’s legal State, ownership is not necessary for control, so it means that the government controls production, or more broadly, the government controls both production and use.

In this case, the government controls the production and use of what it calls the “energy system.” Since everyone uses energy, this includes controlling everyone. Under the proposed system, the government does not serve the people; it “manages” them, or at least their energy use, which is largely what we do.

However, they are quite confused about this. The very first sentences state their basic assumption, which is extremely wrong. They say this:

“The world is rallying around the need to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the impact of human-caused climate change, with many countries aiming for net zero emissions by mid-world. this century. As the largest cumulative emitter, the United States has the opportunity to lead the global fight against climate change. It has set an interim emissions target of a 50–52% reduction from 2005 levels by 2030, aiming for zero emissions.” (All quotes are taken from the Executive Summary.)

The United States has not set such goals. America is a large country with a population of hundreds of millions, so it does not set a target. Perhaps they meant the United States Government, but Congress has not set any such goal. In reality, these so-called goals are merely wishful thinking on the part of the Biden Administration and its net zero progressive colleagues, which appears to include the National Academies. And if a Republican wins the next election, it won’t even be the President’s wish.

So there is much less here than what you see. This book is essentially a radical socialist manifesto, and that is how it should be read.

The funding is amazing. NASEM studies used to be conducted at the request of Congress or Federal Agencies and were funded by them because objective advice on them was considered the work of the Academy. Instead, this work is funded by a collection of Foundations, presumably left-wing. So the National Academies are staffed by people with progressive ideals.

The socialist management thrust is exemplified by this theme, listed as a central theme: “Managing the Future of the Fossil Fuel Industry.” Only under socialism is this a function of government.

That the required regulatory process is also undemocratic is made clear in their opening discussion of risks: “In developing its findings and recommendations, the committee recognized the inherent risks and the uncertainty associated with such an unprecedented long-term situation. -long-term transformation of the entire society. These include… the risk of political, judicial, and social polarization—that political and judicial actions or social pressures will change the policy landscape….”

So elected officials, the Courts, or the general public can get in the way. Their solution is not to gain popular support; rather more management. “Mitigating these risks will require adaptive management and governance to coordinate and evaluate policy implementation and communicate progress on results,” they said.

It appears that the Plan is to manage the elections, the Courts, and the people. Sit down, shut up, and we’ll tell you what we did as we go.

For those interested in the details of the net zero wish list, this is a great resource. Otherwise, it’s just another radical manifesto shelved on the shelf.

My concern is that the three National Academies have abandoned their mission and thereby lost their integrity. The tools of left-wing organizations are not worthy of the name National Academy.