You Are What Your Government Says

In Oregon last week, Senator Barack Obama emphasized his environmental sensitivities, calling on the United States to lead by example in the battle against global warming.

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen.

Writing for National Review's The Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty said:

Obama apparently feels Americans eating as much as they want is something that cannot continue, or at least with other countries' approval. What will his administration do to change that? If he isn't going to act as president on this matter, why bring it up?

When you hear a politician speak, ask yourself the policy implications of what he just said. Can or will he turn his words into actions? Can SUVs be outlawed directly or taxed out of existence? Yes they can. Can food and gas be rationed? Yes they can. (It happened in World War II.) Can homeowners be fined or even jailed if they don't lower energy usage compared to previous years' levels? Yes they can!

Senator Obama apparently wants to tell you what to drive, where to set your thermostat, and, most amazing of all, how much you can eat. That's a pretty personal list of things to regulate in Americans' lives. Critics of the global warming scenario have long warned that it's really about taking control of people. If so, this may be the ultimate example.

If the government really wants to limit carbon emissions, sending out the French Fry Police, won't help. What they really have to control is housing. In 2000, President and Mrs. Bush (in an example for the rest of the world) built a highly energy and water efficient home on their Crawford ranch. It's nothing like, for instance, some rambling old Chicago mansion.

In 2005, Obama, who says we can't eat as much as we want or drive what we want, bought exactly the house he wanted — forget the carbon footprint. With the help of notorious "political fixer," Tony Rezko, the Obamas bought what the Chicago Tribune described as "a 96-year-old Georgian revival home that has four fireplaces, glass-door bookcases fashioned from Honduran mahogany, and a 1,000-bottle wine cellar."

What is the carbon footprint of a 96 year old home with four fireplaces? It's got to be worse than eating a Big Mac. (I wonder if he plans to ban double patty burgers?) Keeping Obama's house heated and cooled will be like driving a small fleet of SUVs. It is to housing what the failure to carpool is to transportation — lots of energy used on empty space.

Maybe the government could solve the problem by moving a few more families in — call it "house-pooling."

If he's serious enough about global warming to limit what Americans eat, anything's possible. We have the technology to take every home's central heating and cooling thermostat and replace it with a device that could be connected easily to the Central Bureau of Government Control . . . er, Temperature Control.

As Mr. Geraghty asked, "If he isn't going to act as president on this matter, why bring it up?"

It could be the scariest question of the year.

Posted: 5-23-2008 Note: At original posting, all links were active. Thanks!