The debate between the right and the left about the environment is simple enough to understand. Conservatives favor limited government, and so they prefer free market solutions for the greater social good. Modern liberals, however, favor expanded government and broader regulation. This basic framework makes sense for understanding the political divide on the environment. Guided by these principles, conservatives historically have embraced lenient environmental policies, while liberals have endorsed stricter regulatory agendas.
But is there more to "the environment" than appears? Below is a clip from a lecture by Lord Cristopher Monckton. Speaking on October 14, 2009, Lord Monckton characterized the forthcoming Copenhagen Treaty as a tool for the redistribution of wealth.
On that basis, Lord Monckton claims it is a tool of communism. Most likely I would be skeptical were it not for the material I have read about another major measure dealing directly with the environment, "cap-and-trade." Briefly, cap-and-trade imposes emissions limits ("cap"), and allows producers with excess credits to sell their credits to producers with excess emissions ("trade"). Critics, on the other hand, view it as a tax on consumers because the cost is passed on to them. More significantly, they deride it because it stifles the free-market economy.
There is, of course, much more to say about cap-and-trade. As to the more general issue here, this might be another instance where it pays to question the motives of our elected officials. Without personally claiming communism, because that is a very slippery slope, the politician's hallmark has never been honesty.
