$3 Trillion a Year for Nonexistent ‘Climate Crisis’? Seriously?

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of the accompanying video from professor Peter St. Onge.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen says governments will need to spend $3 trillion every year to fight climate change.

Bend over and open that wallet wide, here it comes again.

Meanwhile, a new peer-reviewed study finds that carbon dioxide emissions now has zero impact on global warming because new CO2 falls out into more plants, because it’s what plants crave.

In other words, burning fossil fuels simply converts toxic sludge—petroleum—into beautiful forests.

Meaning, we’d spend $3 trillion a year for … fewer trees.

Yellen’s $3 trillion hustle came at the Group of 20 finance leaders meeting in Brazil, where she’s currently spending your tax dollars promoting a Soviet-style takeover of the global economy in the name of climate.

Hilariously, she frames that tax as the “biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century.”

If $3 trillion a year to dig holes and fill them with broken wind turbines and solar panels is the economic opportunity of the century, I’m having what Yellen is smoking.

For perspective, $3 trillion is roughly 30 times what’s already being spent on crony handouts to green billionaires and activists—40% of which comes from so-called multilateral development banks that are funded by your tax dollars going through a Rube Goldberg machine so you can’t see it.

Alas, Yellen is just a cog in a much bigger machine. The U.N. is demanding $150 trillion for the imaginary climate crisis—the most ambitious taxpayer fleecing since the Federal Reserve.

That $150 trillion, it’s worth noting, is roughly half the accumulated wealth of the human race going back to Babylonia—whizzed away so we have less trees.

So what’s next? Like most government programs, climate change has nothing to do with the alleged crisis. If it did, that CO2 study would be on every front page—after all, it means we’re out of the woods, the planet’s not doomed after all. Worth a headline or two.

Instead, of course, crickets.

That’s because climate is just the excuse. The actual goal is that $150 trillion Soviet takeover. They’ll do it with climate. They’ll do it with COVID-19. They’ll do it with war, if that’s what it takes.

Of course, this is nothing new; the granddaddy of fake crises was World War I, fought allegedly over … Serbia. And even today it’s painted as just one big misunderstanding.

In fact, the Deep State engineers of that war on both sides openly saw it as a way to install what they called “wartime socialism.”

Murray Rothbard writes about this in “WWI as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals” at Mises.org.

Then, as now, the left-wing media was only too happy to play along, ginning up a crisis to scare the plebs into handing over their liberties, their life savings and, of course, their lives measured in the millions.

More than 100 years later, the excuses change, but the goal remains the same: the eternal battle between liberty and the monopolies of violence we call governments.

Given former President Donald Trump’s skepticism toward global warming, this next election will be a stark choice on climate. But given the profits involved—half of humanity’s wealth—the battle will, alas, be permanent.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.