In the contemporary discourse surrounding climate change, a significant portion of elites and influential figures appear to support climate alarmism, often subscribing to what James Rickards labels the “Green New Scam.” The motivations for their advocacy may differ—some may genuinely be uninformed about the scientific realities, while others may harbor ideological biases or possess vested interests in climate-related infrastructure. Rickards argues that many of these upper-income supporters likely underestimate the lack of concrete evidence linking CO2 emissions with climate change, suggesting that solar cycles, volcanic activity, ocean currents, and atmospheric moisture are the true factors influencing global temperatures.
Rickards further critiques the prevailing narrative of climate alarmism, asserting that historical data illustrates a reverse relationship, where warming periods lead to increased CO2 levels rather than being caused by them. He critiques the climate models often used to predict future warming, contending that they rely on flawed assumptions and consequently exaggerate warming predictions. Many of these models do not adequately reflect the complex interactions within Earth’s climate system, leading him to conclude that the science behind climate alarmism is fundamentally flawed and reflects a political agenda rather than an objective analysis of the facts.
The author links the climate agenda to broader ideological movements, specifically identifying a subset of neo-Marxist thinkers who utilize climate alarmism as a means to undermine capitalism. He posits that these advocates aim for global collective actions that diminish national sovereignty. This perspective suggests that individuals driven by anti-capitalist sentiments may prefer policies that increase costs for consumers and stifle growth in the U.S. economy, thereby supporting climate initiatives that inadvertently or intentionally impede industrial progress.
Moreover, Rickards dives into the financial motivations underpinning the climate movement, spotlighting investors who stand to profit immensely from government subsidies for green technologies. He critiques individuals such as BlackRock’s Larry Fink, who actively promote a climate-focused agenda while managing pension funds that may not align with the interests of the contributing public. This raises ethical questions about the direction of investment strategies and the accountability of fund managers toward their beneficiaries. However, signs of a backlash against such aligned investment firms suggest that consciousness about these issues is growing, potentially leading to changes that serve the interests of the broader public.
The discussion further evolves into the realm of electric vehicles (EVs), illustrative of broader criticisms of the climate agenda. Rickards argues that despite their promotion as clean alternatives, EVs do not significantly reduce carbon emissions, as the electricity powering them often comes from conventional power plants. Additionally, the environmental costs of battery production and the limitations of EV technology, such as poor performance in extreme weather and high ownership costs, contribute to a narrative that paints these vehicles as impractical for the majority of Americans.
Finally, in light of a recent survey indicating a notable percentage of EV owners wishing to revert to internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, Rickards conveys a sentiment of market correction. This growing disillusionment with EVs reflects a broader realization of the limitations associated with green technologies. The shift back to ICE vehicles suggests a rejection of the previously marketed ideals of emission-free transportation. Consequently, Rickards concludes that the overarching “Green New Scam” is faltering, hinting at a potential reevaluation of green initiatives and a movement towards more practical solutions in response to energy and environmental concerns.
