One of the areas in which EU legislation is the most far-reaching is environmental policy, However, as this legislation pertains mostly to businesses and national governments, the majority of the people are unaware of the overreaching bureaucracy behind the green mask (to quote the title of a very interesting book on such legislation). The truth of the matter is, though, that it is exactly these kinds of rules that have a very profound impact on the EU economy and therefore its citizens – and for what purpose? That’s what we will get into here.
Environmental “protection” in Europe actually goes back as far as the 1957 Treaty of Rome and has since been expanded by other treaties, most notably the Lisbon Treaty, the de facto constitution that was voted down through referendums in several countries and then forced down the throat of Europeans in the form of a treaty. Besides, the EU took a leading role on a global stage in Kyoto to combat climate change. Which, by the way, was still popularly termed “global warming” at the time but later renamed “climate change” when it turned out global warming had stopped in 1997. Funnily enough it was in that exact same year that the UN Conference took place. Apparently the fact that all of the world leaders flew out to Japan literally left Mother Earth cold. Nonetheless, it became clear very early on that the European Union was serious about imposing as many environmental regulations as it could get away with.
This was further evidenced by the Emissions Trading System (ETS) that was launched in 2005 as “a cornerstone of the European Union’s policy to combat climate change and its key tool for reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions cost-effectively”. This type of system is more commonly known as cap-and-trade; i.e. limit the legal amount of certain greenhouse gases allowed and let companies and countries buy and sell emission allowances. We will not get into the climate change debate here but it is clear that the EU will not be bothered to look at the real science on this topic, which suggests that the theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is very questionable at best (see for example “The Great Global Warming Swindle” aired on British television several years ago).
Whereas the perceived benefit of this green bureaucracy is controversial, the economic consequences are inevitable and very real. In fact, it is already happening. A study conducted by the Juan Carlos University in Madrid found that on average, 2.2 regular jobs were lost for every “green job” created in Spain – the country that has given the broadest support to the construction and production of renewable energy. And that number does not even take into account the loss of jobs resulting from businesses moving out of the country or the reduced employment opportunities inside the country due to higher energy prices. Or the loss of purchasing power of the Spanish people because of these prices and its economic effects. When you really think about it the entire economy is affected by higher energy prices, because the production of anything and everything requires energy. Not to mention the transportation. Who knows how much better off Spain would have been today if it wasn’t for all those phony “green jobs”!
The only reason why these jobs ever even came into existence in the first place was because of a grave distortion of the free market through subsidies, which I covered in my last blog post. For now, however, let’s focus our attention on the cap and trade scheme. What proponents like about this plan is that “the polluter pays”; the more greenhouse gases a business or country emits, the more it pays. The naiveté of this assertion is so blatant it could only have been dreamed up by some clueless bureaucrat who has probably never had a real job in his life yet has been assigned the task of dreaming up legislation that would somehow benefit us all. Who are these people kidding? Who in their right mind would think that the increase in energy prices is not ultimately borne by the end user? Just think about it: do business executives take a pay cut to compensate for higher energy prices? Do shareholders accept lower stock prices or dividends for that reason? Of course not! In the end there is only one group of people that’s left holding the bag and it’s the consumer. That means you and me, by the way.
But wait, it gets worse. Not only do we pay in the form of higher energy prices, we are also forced to pay higher taxes to subsidize these “green jobs” into existence in the first place! We are being screwed over twice and these people have the guts to get on TV to proudly pronounce their latest brilliant ideas to “reduce our carbon footprint”. It’s so insane it’s hard to believe we are putting up with it.
The list of other consequences – unintended or otherwise – truly is endless and we will not go into those further here. However I believe this will help anyone with even the slightest bit of common sense to realize how bad EU citizens are being cheated by their bureaucratic overlords.
For those interested to learn more, the answers to your questions are only one Google search away. Or actually, use Startpage.com if you care about your privacy.
 Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21 by Rosa Koire available through Amazon at http://www.amazon.com/BEHIND-THE-GREEN-MASK-Agenda/dp/0615494544