The Green Gambit

Gambit: a device, action, or opening remark, typically one entailing a degree of risk, that is calculated to gain an advantage. (Google Dictionary)

An example of a gambit is "The Green New Deal."

Many of the concepts expressed in the document have been around for a lot of years.  I enjoy reading science fiction and in that genre there are generally four basic scenarios for the future of earth.  1)  It becomes one massive, all-encompassing city and we exploit outer space to support it.  2)  Through war, or other global catastrophe, we devolve to a more primitive age of small tribal enclaves surviving against an extremely harsh environment and fighting each other for the limited resources.  3) There is some scientific breakthrough in the realm of energy research that provides unlimited power without dependence on fossil fuels.  4)  Some form of power such as nuclear energy is utilized to power the cities while the agricultural sector is dependent on horses, oxen and people for food production.

All of the scenarios focus on energy/fuel/power -- whatever you want to call it.  Utilization of energy drives our economy.

Fossil fuels such as coal and oil (or, its derivatives) is problematic.  Burning it (which is the only way the energy is released) frees carbon that has been sequestered into the earth, to circulate back into the carbon cycle.  Too much carbon, or other particulate matter, pollutes the atmosphere in a manner that causes a slow and general rise of temperatures.  It is basic science.

This heating occurs in natural cycles which can be detected through examination of the geologic record through time.  Part of it is connected to solar activity and part to volcanic activity on the earth.  It also has been theorized that a meteoric impact could cause a sudden escalation of the effect and may have contributed to the demise of various life forms such as dinosaurs at some time in the distant past.

The science and logic behind an effort to curb or, virtually eliminate the release of sequestered carbon is sound.  Many of the predictive models, however, are just that, predictive.  Predictions, by their nature, are often inaccurate.  They are "educated" guesses.

In the case of "The Green New Deal" we are seeing an exploitation of a developing global mindset that is properly motivated to reduce dependence on the release of sequestered carbon to fuel our economy.  It is much like profiteers who exploit any global event of a catastrophic nature.  In this case, it is a move toward communism (not socialism which is a pie-in-the-sky concept that has never been achieved on a large-scale basis.)

Gambits are often designed to exploit ignorance.  In a business deal it is frequently the knowledge by one side of some piece of information that materially affects the outcome which is believed to be unknown by the other side.  It is a high-stakes bet based on perceived advantage that may, or may not, be real.  "The Green New Deal" is a high-stakes gambit designed to expand power.  The groundwork has been laid over the past 30 years.  We are just now seeing the opening moves of the "game."

Yes, we need to find alternative sources of energy.  It doesn't need to be wind turbines, or ethanol.  Nuclear is a much better bet.

We also need to be vigilant against those who would exploit ignorance in an effort to gain power.  "We the people" are being manipulated by those we have elected to serve.  They in turn are being manipulated by those who have power and wish to expand it.  We must become better informed of both the science and the political systems that seek to exploit us.  It is all about power and control of it.

The greatest appeal of "The Green New Deal" is to those who are most isolated from the beauty that is the natural state of this earth.  Those whose lives are surrounded by concrete, people and pavement -- i.e. live in the cities -- long for the opportunity to touch that natural beauty.  Those in the country still get to experience it on a daily basis -- if they are paying attention.  The appeal of "The Green New Deal" is to those in the cities.  It is also the environment most ripe for a reform of some kind that would improve their lives -- even for the most affluent.  "Socialism" appeals to those trapped in inner-city ghettos.  They also vote.  They are frequently ignorant.  They are angry at their circumstance yet feel powerless to escape.

We need to do something about it.  Instead, we complain about their ignorance, their violence and their perceived unwillingness to do something about their circumstance.  When you have no hope, it is nearly impossible to change without help.  The promise of socialism is a life preserver floating just out of their reach, but visible.  We must provide an alternative.