Kermit the Frog poured his heart out when he sang, “It’s Not Easy Being Green.” I couldn’t have said it better myself. In fact, it’s quite costly to be green. But policymakers and environmentalists alike are purporting the ‘Green Revolution’ as the solution to both our financial woes and our environmental concerns.

And it’s not just the United States. The United Nations is proposing an environmental ‘New Deal’ that would “be similar to Franklin D Roosevelt’s New Deal which helped the US recover from the Great Depression of the 1930s.”

First, the reality is that FDR’s New Deal did not help the U.S. recover from the Great Depression but simply made things worse. Second, the only thing a green ‘New Deal’ will do is lead us down a Green Road to Serfdom. (Nobel Laureate Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom is a telling portrayal of what collectivism in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany can lead to: impoverishment and oppression of freedom.)

More regulations. Higher prices. Less freedom. All for a negligible change in the global temperature. Sounds great.

The Center for American Progress reports that building solar, wind, and expanding mass transit and infrastructure will not only reduce emissions but stimulate our economy. So and outrageously expensive cap-and-tax scheme that reduces jobs and increases energy costs across the board will be a remedy for a weak economy?

Green is the color of money, too, which makes you wonder if this was really ever about the environment. Mary Frances Repko, a senior policy adviser to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) asserted that

there is a growing tide even among House leadership about looking at a carbon bill as a way to raise revenue for other things.”

But there’s a problem with this. Taxing and spending does not create wealth – it merely transfers it. It’s the same reason the second stimulus package is a bad idea. And if you think that the companies being taxed by carbon legislation will be passed down to the consumer, go to the head of the class.

The threat of climate change legislation is very real and very scary. If implemented, the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that died on the Senate floor this past June would have promised,

extraordinary perils for the American economy. Arbitrary restrictions predicated on multiple, untested, and undeveloped technologies would have led to severe restrictions on energy use and large increases in energy costs. In addition to the direct impact on consumers’ budgets, these higher energy costs would have spread through the economy and inject unnecessary inefficiencies at virtually every stage of production and consumption–all of which will add yet more financial burdens that would be borne by American taxpayers.”

Simply put, any damage done by global warming legislation would far outweigh any “benefits” that spending on green technology would “create.”

Even though the cap-and-trade bill failed to move forward in June, Congress will inevitably bring another one to the table next year. Both presidential candidates support cap-and-trade, and Obama went as far as saying he doesn’t even need legislation to reduce carbon dioxide. He’ll leave it up to the Environmental Protection Agency:

The Democratic senator from Illinois will tell the Environmental Protection Agency that it may use the 1990 Clean Air Act to set emissions limits on power plants and manufacturers, his energy adviser, Jason Grumet, said in an interview.”

Again, this is a blueprint for an economic and regulatory disaster. The EPA has proposed an outline of the harmful regulations it will place carbon dioxide, the economy and your life. The Heritage Foundation will release a report next week highlighting the perils the EPA’s regulations would impose. In the meantime, if you want to see how silly and absurd these regulations could be, watch this short, humorous video below.


There is something you can do about it. EPA is now is accepting public comments so you can voice your dissent and we make it easy for you. Simply go here and submit a comment.