It was one of Senator Barack Obama’s more troublesome moments on the 2008 campaign trail. In Bristol, Virginia – and without his teleprompter-crutch – Obama was forced to give a campaign speech on the stump about health care and preventative medicine. In a speech that hardly befitted a man usually associated with oratory dexterity, Obama struggled to convey to his audience that if a child was only given an inhaler they would not have to place a burden on the emergency room in their local hospital when their breathing condition worsened.
And yet, only a few years after lamenting the fact kids were unable to access such basic treatments, the Obama administration has decided to ban asthma inhalers that contain chlorofluorocarbons because, according to the Weekly Standard, they “deplete the ozone layer.” So, even the poor kids that Obama was referring to in his troubled spiel, will now have to search for an alternative and – excuse me – cough up more for their treatments: “Epinephrine inhalers are available via online retailers for around $20, whereas the alternatives, which contain the drug albuterol, range from $30 to $60.”
It seems pretty absurd that an administration that squandered so much political capital on an unpopular healthcare bill would now be attempting to fuse these reforms with their radical green agenda, even at the expense of the poor and the sick. In order to treat even the mildest forms of asthma, consumers will have less choice, more costs and less access to treatment. Basic treatments will no longer be available over the counter from a pharmacy. For an administration that often accuses its opponents of putting ideology before the greater good, this move stinks of hypocrisy.
Prince Charles and the ‘Green Pulpit’
Roger Helmer, a vocal British member of the European Parliament, has blogged on Prince Charles’ recent decision to become president of the World Wildlife Fund UK (WWF-UK), a subject matter we also highlighted in our last newsletter. According to MEP Helmer, Charles’ decision to become involved in a seemingly benign organization warrants closer attention, especially when the interests of the developing world – and British taxpayers – are at stake.
In particular, Helmer highlights the fact that Charles will now be using his vast resources and presence to promote “a range of policy initiatives that are seriously damaging to the health and economic well-being of some of poorest people in the world.” WWF may not embrace the same criminal activities as their green bedfellows Greenpeace, but their policies still ultimately lead to the same disastrous ends. As Helmer so aptly puts it, the policies of WWF and Greenpeace “do of course lead to sustainability: sustainable unemployment and poverty in the developing world.”
But there is a wider issue here that should also concern British taxpayers. Through the “Big Lottery Fund,” WWF-UK has received £395,000 for an initiative to preserve forests in Asia, when the government should really be focused on efforts to ease trade barriers and help these countries enter global markets. Paying a country not to produce goods is hardly a recipe for prosperity.
We agree with MEP Helmer completely – Prince Charles’ involvement in this extremist organization certainly warrants more scrutiny and when he “launches a tirade against the developing world’s desire for economic growth and prosperity, we should keep this in mind.”
In the meantime, if you want to voice your concerns about the prince’s complicity in perpetuating poverty and stymieing economic developing, submit a comment to the Royal Family’s Facebook page.
Recent news from the Green Movement
The Left’s attack on Gibson Guitar through the media has escalated over the past week. Activists such as Glenn Hurowitz, commissioned by the George Soros-backed Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), continue in their efforts to smear Gibson Guitar even before they have been subjected to a fair judicial judgment. However, Gibson Guitar, a household American brand renowned for maintaining robust standards and producing quality products, is fighting back with free market groups rallying to their defense. It’s clear that this ideological crusade against Gibson isn’t going away, so stay posted.
The Rainforest Action Network and the California Academy of Sciences will be having their ‘REVEL’ festival next month, an opportunity for pro-poverty activists to “a night of revelry in a living four-story forest, savoring local, organic cuisine, sipping handcrafted cocktails, and hearing inspiring stories from the frontlines.” If that’s not enough to pique your interest, perhaps you’ll hang around to watch Naomi Klein, one of the most aggressive proponents of global socialism, become one of the ‘World Rainforest Awardees’? All the fun aside, one does wonder if these activists ever think about the poor workers in developing world that they’re indirectly insulting when they are “dancing into the night with The Pimps of Joytime and DJs in The Swamp Lounge.”
With gas prices fluctuating and food prices hitting the pocket book, Americans entrust their elected officials to do their utmost to implement policies that ease their burdens—especially at a time ongoing economic stagnation. Unfortunately some activists would like nothing more than to see Americans suffer by paying higher electricity costs. Kumi Naidoo, Greenpeace International’s Executive Director, recently led “hundreds” of protestors in Chicago against coal plants. Given that half of America’s electricity is generated coal, it’s somewhat perplexing that Greenpeace would want to force Americans and businesses to abandon this reliable fuel source—a move that would have a devastating impact on jobs and the national economy.
For all of us at the Alliance, MasterResource has become a regular read—a thoroughly refreshing blend of free market thinking and common sense approaches to environmental policy. Two blogs in particular have caught our eye this week, both written by Alex Epstein, a principal at MasterResource and the founder of the Center for Industrial Progress. In the first, Epstein highlights how the policies being promulgated by radical green groups actually run counter to the very industrial progress, noting that had “our ancestors had followed “green” strictures, industrialization would have never got off the ground.” In the follow-up blog, Epstein notes how Americans have taken “industrial progress for granted” and embraced a green agenda in the belief that this “unprecedented standard of living we had would automatically continue.” Instead policy makers must focus on utilizing the talents of individuals, preserving property rights, a move that will allow America’s “brilliantly talented individuals to lead the way “to the next industrial renaissance and an ever-improving environment.”
Even as Ed Miliband, the leader of the UK’s opposition, gave one of the most left-wing, anti-business speeches from a Labour Party leader in years, some people in the socialist movement are having second thoughts about job-destroying green policies. After one member of Parliament, Luciana Berger, came up with the misguided idea of “taxing energy use to tackle climate change,” her colleague Michael Connarty risked committing heresy by floating the notion that green policies may actually be a threat to manufacturing and other energy intensive industries. Who’da thunk it? Connary went on to point out that if the UK continues to implement radical green policies, British manufacturing could be disadvantaged by “10 per cent in comparison to their European competitors, while Europe is already 10 per cent less competitive on energy costs than the rest of the world.”
Former Vice President Al Gore was in Scotland this week, lauding the nation for its leadership in the renewable energy market. In his remarks at a climate finance conference, the former vice president stated that the country had “unique opportunities with the natural resources, including the incredible percentage of the offshore wind resource…” Interesting, because we imagine when people discuss Scotland and natural resources, they generally mean oil and gas. After all, Aberdeen boasts of being the “Oil Capital of Europe.” So we wonder if Gore did his homework and discovered that 150,000 people are employed in Scotland’s oil and gas industry? Interesting. According to Gore the “answer to our climate, energy and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels.”
Staying with former Vice President Gore a little longer, it looks like the green radical has dropped his bid to control the forthcoming .eco internet domain, leaving the door open for Big Room, a group backed by Mikhail Gorbachev, the former president of the Soviet Union. Fellow backers of the Big Room bid include 350.org, Conservation International, the Green Belt Movement, Greenpeace and WWF, groups that should be more than comfortable with a former president of a collapsed communist superpower. However, to give Gorbachev his due, at least you could negotiate with him (as former President Ronald Reagan famously did in 1985). Unfortunately .eco is likely to become yet another headache for private businesses, with Big Room pledging to use it as “a way of making companies disclose information about their environmental performance, such as their carbon footprint, when they register a name.” More coercion from the radical greens—what’s new?