Skip to main content

tv   Rupert Darwall Green Tyranny  CSPAN  February 11, 2018 3:15pm-4:01pm EST

3:15 pm
then it fell apart entirely, and then they would tell you, this is really a mess here. >> you can watch this and other programs online at >> good afternoon, welcome to the heritage foundation, and our lewis layerman awer toum. we we can those who join us on ore organization. for our guests inhouse we ask you to check that your mobile device is silenced or turned off, and those watching online you're welcome to send questions or comments at any time, e-mail
3:16 pm becky north dunlop is the moderator. she led our restore america project. for joining heritage in 1998, she served as secretary of natural resources for the commonwealth of virginia and the cab knost then-governor george allen and also served significant roles in the reagan administration as deputy assistant to the president for presidential personnel, special assistance to the president and special assistants to attorney general ed meese and was undersecretary of the department and assistant secretary for
3:17 pm
fish, wildlife and parks. joan me in welcoming me colleague and friend, becky north don-dunlop. [applause] >> thank you, john, and let me add my words of welcome to you. we love having people come to the heritage foundation, either personally or online -- oren television, so, welcome, welcome, welcome. you know, the heritage foundation has promoted the american conservation ethic, we call it land of liberty, stewardship of america's environment. the number one principle that we outline is people are our most important unique and precious resource. and our number eight principle is that the most successful environmental policies flow from liberty. people and liberty. so, when i read the opening sentence of chapter one of the become that i got from encounter
3:18 pm
books, i read this sentence: this book is about freedom. and i was hooked. i knew i had to read the rest of this book. well, the author of this book is with us today, and he has got actually a final copy of his book, "green tyranny." and the author is rupert darwall. he has been in business, finance, he's been an investment banker, he's been in the public policy arena. he's been in government. he's seen this issue from a lot of various angles. and he studied at cambridge where he studied economics and history. a great foundation for writing this very, very fine book. let me just tell you what a
3:19 pm
couple of our noted friends have said about this new book, i "green tyranny. michael barone, friend to all of us here at heritage and well-known across the country said: rupe bert darwell has written a definitive and clear-eyed history of global warming alarmism. its success at enlisting western elites in its cause, wow. very, very important. clark judge said: rupert darwall has told the store of frauds and fools thoroughly and well. his truth may be inconvenient to some. and finally, let me say that charles moore, from the daily telegraph, wrote: rupert darwall is a wonderfully lucid
3:20 pm
historian of intellectual and political movements, which is just the job to explain what has been inflicted upon us over the past 30 years or so in the name of saving the planet. many very fine people who have read this become are recommending it to all of us. and we are very fortunate here at the heritage foundation to have the author to come and talk to us a little bit about his book, what prompted him to write it, and take your questions. so, welcome to the heritage foundation, rupert darwall. [applause] >> thank you, becky, for those very kind words. was in washington almost exactly a year ago and it's extraordinary how much has changed since then. nowhere has the change been more profound, more consequential and
3:21 pm
more necessary than in climate and energy policy. the united states is going to withdraw from the paris agreement, the climate treaty in all but name that president obama didn't have the guts to send to the senate for its advice and consent. no one should underestimate the historic importance of president trump's decision. this is the third time, no less, that a republican president has rejected targets and timetabled for emissions cuts. the first bush, president bush, in original u.n. framework convention on climate change, and the second bush, which is reputation of the coyote to protocol. president trump's trump decision is the most important. it is devastating for the u.n. climate process, the whole architecture of the paris agreement had been designed to subvert the requirement to obtain the senate's advice and consent. which frees america to be the world's hydrocarbon super power
3:22 pm
and names epa administrator to roll back the clean power plan. all this is happening because of what happened on november 8, 2016. and it wouldn't have happened but for the tremendous work undertaken by conservative and libertarian think tanks in this city and new chicago and austin, texas therapy. took on the climate industrial complex. they prepared the intellectual ground and showed why it needed to be done and what needed to be done. america owes a huge dead of gratuity heritage who have been at the forefront of this great effort. as do i. so i'd like to take the opportunity to recall my thanks to the experts at heritage who helped me various wiz with "green tyranny," steve moore and his cao author, kathleen, president trump's nominee to lead the council on environmental quality, and steven graves, now working in
3:23 pm
the long building building in w. because this is something bigger than energy policy. it's bigger than economics. the new job being created by the oil and gas sector from the shell revolution and bigger than all the manufacturing jobs being restored thanks to america's energy super abundance, this is about something more fundamental. ultimately this is a battle between the administrative state and america's constitutional order. it's about howmer i governed, about freedom. i'd like to tell you how we got here and the age of global warming turned out to be the age of wind and solar. global warming wasn't meant to be like this. the original idea was that nuclear power would be the solution. politics of global warming began in sweden, much earlier then most people suppose. politicians over here first started to talk about global
3:24 pm
warming warming in the late 1980s it and was in june 1988 that nasa scientists and climatele alarmist james hanson gave his testimony in the senate energy and natural resources commitee. yet seeden had already been obsession about global warming for a decade and a half. in 1974, when al gore was still at law school, the swedish prime minister palmer was says claim change would be the biggest issue at the end of the 20 in century. swede, at the country the progressive left wants america to be, the welfare stair, the social engineering, foreign policy based on moral preen, the longest period of one party rule in any western democracy. a social democratic party claiming direct lineal descent from -- a policy bernie sanders wants the democrats to be.
3:25 pm
in 1971, the london observer scan naveon correspondent, wrote a book on sweden called "the new to at that time tareans." he argue thing he swedish democrats were pioneer a new form of soft totalitarianism. when the social democrats formed this first government in 1921 gave them political system, he says, documented to the swift enactment of the intentions of the centralburg case, the legislature is weak, the executive strong, and for centuries real power has laid in the government administrative machine. does that sound at all familiar? sounds to me very mush like what barack obama's state wanted to become. the swedish state became the perfect -- to carry out the most pro longed experiment in social
3:26 pm
engineering outside of the soviet union some communist china. pioneered a cradle to grave welfare state replace the family. operated a eugene yings program championed by swedish economists and scientist us. a student protest swept the west and used anti-americanism as a safety valve and aligned sweden with the viet kong and castro. sweden had a possessive eye neutrality sin she is nap knoll janik wars and how many know thaw that a secret military alliance with washington. and palmer's first job after returning to sweden from his studies in ohio was in the pro cia wing of the swedish intelligence service. sweden is not what it appears. so when in the late 1960s sweden launched a war on coal, first with the acid rain scare and then with global warming, what is it up to? it would, i think, be naive to
3:27 pm
take this at face value and think that olaf palmer was motivated by genuine concern about global warming. deep deception came easily to this immensely talented and sophisticated politician. in the newspaper interview where he first talked about global warming, palmer explained that vision of utopia has sea same function of a mirage in the desert. without the mirage, you wouldn't get to the next oasis. global warming perhaps is a political mirage, and what was the oasills he was heading to? sweden social democrats were about to embark on the world's largest civil nuclear power program but nuclear power wasn't popular with many ordinary swedish voters, so the social democrats decided they had to frighten swedes by claiming the alternative to nuclear was far worse. sweden does not have any coal of its own so they played the coal card by hyping up acid rain.
3:28 pm
i you don't have nuclear, sweden's forests would die. he wrote the first government report in the world on acid rain. his report has a familiar ring. replace the word acid rain with climate change and -- indeed more than any single individual berlin can claim create for the creation of the intergovernmental panel on climbed change and sweden more than any other country brought the ipcc into being. global warming was pollitt side right from the start and make no mistake, global warming was first deployed for political reasons. yes, sweden succeeded in putting acid rain and then global warming on the international agenda, but it completely failed when it cam to nuclear power.
3:29 pm
given that sweden started the global warming scare to get nuclear power, how did we end up with wind and solar? in my first book i touched on the environmentalism during the darkest chapter of europe's history. history to be an historical fact that they nazis were the first political party in the world to champion wind power, which they did in the 1933 elections. this weak soft invading the soviet union, hitler was telling companions that wind power was the future. i i suppose you might say he got something right. but for the three decade after the second world war, west germany was a model western democracy, as one ecosocialist complaints, the german democrats replaced the class struggle with the american way of life. that changed in the 1970s. no other country had a larger proportion of far left students
3:30 pm
as west germany. a survey found that 30% of high school and university students claimed to sympathize we marxism or communism. in the 1950s the frankfurt school of marxist intellectuals returned from the united states to frank toward. there were student protests against the vietnam war, in june 1967 the student dream e demonstrator was shot and killed the west berlin. their shot that put conservative west germ to evolve into the progressive country it is today. in fact, the west berlin policeman who fired the shat was an agent of the east german communist state. in the 1970s, radicalization of students turned into terrorism, culminating the german autumn of 1977 when a plane was hijacked, he head of the west german employers association was kidnapped and killed and imprisoned leaders of
3:31 pm
the gang committed suicide. ordinary germans were appalled at the violence. the extreme left found itself washed up on the margins of west german society. they soon found a way back. like the swedish social democrats the german spd wanted to bailed string of nuclear power stations. the nuclear -- huge spontaneous demonstrations against nuclear power. this washed up student radicals saw their chance. the green party was formed in 1980. the new left, the student radicals, by then aging -- middle aged radicals, absorbing the old ecological guard far right nationallest us. the aging students just changed
3:32 pm
color and took the left wing concepts of the past and dressed them up in the garb we see today. instead of marxisms catastrophic vision of capital rhythm and ecocatastrophe, instead of the socialist utopia, a new ecological one. instead of the cult of the factory, the cult of the forest, instead of the color red, the color green if wish i'd written that inch fact it was written bay new york intellectual in a brilliant essay published in the new republic in 2001. berlin writes of the german student radicals, the 1968ers being motivate bit anti-naziism. looking for nazis hiding under every bed, they saw the state of israel as a crypto nazi state. as berman says to have set tout to fight nazis in the democratic
3:33 pm
guys, only to have ended up in a modern left wing guise, nazi-like. green tyranny takes berman's analysis one step further. not only did the new left sher the anihilism of nazis they embraced the nazi -- red and green makes brown and the unpleasant truth, the people who were on the wrong side of the cold war came out on top in the post cold war era. the greens helped turn the kremlin backed peace movement into a mass movement to try to event the atlantic alliance from countering the threat posed by soviet nuclear missiles, as france's president put is, pacifism is in the west, the missile inside the east. they opposed nate tee depolite of missiles and advocated eek question kiss stance, not to the west, not to the west but loyal
3:34 pm
to ourselves and argued for what the called nonviolent social defense of the sort norwegians used against nazis. abject total premeditated surrender. to say the peace movement was gift to the kremlin would be understating the matter. it was heavily penetrated by eastern bloc intelligence, the kremlin financed it and local communist party stamped out anything remotely critical of the soviet bloc. if the if greens got they wear the european half of the atlantic lines would have become detached as it would have effectively lost the protection of the american nuclear umbrella. in short, the west would have lost the cold war. for the german greens being on the wrong side of the cold war turned out to be a career enhancing move. by 1997 there were nine red green coalitions at state level in germany and in 1998, the
3:35 pm
first red-green coalition was formed in berlin two years later the german parliament passed the renewable energy act. by giving tariffs to the most inefficient renewable technology put germany on the fight energy insanity. the law was not included in a party man fess city. the mps didn't know what was in the bill. by overrewarding solar, germany had more solar can't unanimous nye country any world and unleashed a solar manufacturing naomi china. where germany led, the rest of europe followed. german insistence, european leaders agreed and extending the energy policies to the rest of europe. the greening of europe was the price the west paid for winning the cold war. energy transformation is the
3:36 pm
word germans use for their rude to energy ruin0. more accurate term would be energy deformation. the first outtake of renewable energy technology is the opposite of the creative destruction described by austrian economist what he called the central fact of capitalism. rather it is an example of destructive destruction at the hand offered the state throw overt and covert subsidies subsd regulation. i devote quite a few pages to analyzing the economic destruction and the obama administration justifying the clean power plan. i want to make a direct point. when you put green ideology and environmentalists in charge of energy policy the out ick certain, car crash. in 2004, the greens energy minister former communist said the an would cost germans the
3:37 pm
equivalent of a scoop of ice cream on their monthly energy bills. nine years later the christian democrats say the cost could be one trillion euros. that's some ice cream. systemic deceit is not a bug. it's a feature of the propaganda put out by the industrial complex. the book i quote a revealing speech made in 1986 by a top german civil servant to this fellow government bureaucrats the official was disarmlely candid about the use of empty phrases to push funder the environmental agenda. equilibrium was an example, a phrase he said was meaningless. another was the claim that eecology and the economy war not to conflict. i have made this claim knowing it to be less than truthful. just remember that, whenever you come across claims about green
3:38 pm
grove growing or clean energy job bow unanimous saturday, as a bonanzas. ed like to mention the book's co-dedicateee. fred singer is a model of a great scientist, seeker of scientific understanding and a great communicator, fred was on a panel of scientists convenes by the reagan white house, that reviewed the science of acid explain had a leading role in unmasking the science of the nuclear winter. another example of where the people who had been on the wrong side of the cold war emerged as victors in the post cold war era. with the examination twofer individuals, all the prominent scientists who signed up to the soviet inspired nuclear winter scare became prominent supporters of the global warming consensus. now people who are now deferred to by governments around the world. i'd like to quote what to me is a priceless exchange involving
3:39 pm
fred. on february 24, 1994, answers night lane gave air time to allegory his allegations about who is funding climate skeptics before reminding viewers the cosmologist carl sagan predict massive environmental damage from the alleged climatic effect offered the first world war. fred on the other hand predicted if there were any smoke, it would clear quickly. as ted koppel told viewers, quote, the record shows in this instance, doctor sagan was wrong and dr. singer was right. before going on accuse al gore of, quote, resulting to political means to acleaver what should ultimately be resolved on a purely scientific basis. which blings me to what the historian, peter gay, wrote in this book on what the call thursday science of freedom. this most important science that there is. the enlighted ended disspots
3:40 pm
believed they knew more than the people they governed. the ruler must have a perfectly obedient bureaucracy, and illinois limited authority to translate this programs into law. die need to say that this is what the climate industrial complex demands of the united states? a form of government americans rejected in 1776 in favor of the truths in the declaration of independence. america's uniqueness lies not in the fact of its independence but that it became independent to create something without precedent. government dedicated to the principle of liberty. the demand of the climate industrial complex and the preservation of liberty are incompatable. the science is settled, we're told. the government must act. the global warming demand more. it demand that citizens agree
3:41 pm
those who don't to hold their tongue and that dissent be silenced. thus global warming harbors a strong impulse towards a governing method the absolutist and the political culture of the totalitarian. at stake is what makes america unique, ultimately global warming is a battle for america's soul and that's why we're here today to fight it. thank you. [applause] >> thank you so very much. we want to have plenty of time for questions so if you have a question, please raise your hand, wait for the microphone to arrive so you can introduce yourself to our audience and then ask questions. who has the first question? all right. very good. i'm going to go first, but we'll go with the audience. >> when the soviet union fell -- i'm mike. an investor and over the hill
3:42 pm
retired physicist interested in climate change, global warming and all that kind of stuff. when soviet union fell, they listed lots of confessionals, you made a good case that this was -- that soviet union and the international communist conspiracy, shall we say, had a role in this, but it was absent in all of the bad things they admitted doing to us in the papers that were released at that it point. there is any documentation that our turncoat spies that said they were -- that global warming and these other thing that are in your book were left wing conspiracies? i accept their left wing conspiracy but like we're
3:43 pm
talking about the election, was there direct collusion? >> i think global warming actually was not soviet inspired. it clearly came from sweden. cooked up by sweden, as i say, because they had a huge nuclear power program. what is the case is during in the 1970s the soviet union, the kremlin, exploited environmentalism. after the helsinki accords which for the west was about human rights. there was language in there about the environment. so the soviets tried to shift the argument about -- about a common home that brezhnev made a speech on the environment and signed up to a u.n. pact on acid rain. they didn't mean they that to do anything but all about demonstrating to greens in the west that soviets were on the right side of the environment. on the nuclear winter, the evidence is very clear, defector
3:44 pm
said this was -- the kgb's proudest achievement, the nuclear winter scare which was taken up by american signties, conference in washington to play up the threat and basically put -- it was really to undermine the reagan administration and the nuclear arms build up, and if they got their way, if the scientists got their way the outcome of the cold war would have been very different. >> okay. right here in the back and then to you. >> paul larken, heritage foundation. i've read a few newspaper conditioned that surmise that the russians are involved currently in efforts to fund opposition to fracking for the same sort of long-term purpose that you described. is there evidence that is actually going on? >> i think it's certainly the
3:45 pm
case that the russians have a huge interest in preventing fracking which is after all dawn immense damage to their economy in term offered the collapse in natural gas prices and turning america from an emporter of narl gauze to an exporter. i don't review the evidence of that in this book. what i do highlight is how the green oligarchs of silicon valley, like eric schmidt of google, have funded anti-fracking campaigns and three -essentially waging war on the hydrocash bone that the heardland of -- hydrocarbon that middle america thrives on and you have a civil war in the american capitalism with the two sides against the middle. >> the gentleman in the back.
3:46 pm
>> introduce yourself, please. >> i haven't read your book -- >> introduce yourself, please. your name? >> i just am -- >> you're a citizen. >> i don't know to -- too much personal. i haven't read your book but from what you said over here, it's about the first time in my close to 80 years old, life, that somebody has need and teach some related together issues through reject some -- whether scientific or real or not -- matter. the question is that is global warming happening or not? if it's not happening, or
3:47 pm
happening, doesn't have anything to do with whether it was done by german, green or he soviet union or antiwar movement or anything. my question is that is global warming actually happening or not? >> okay. thank you very much. >> as it happens if have paper being published today bay different think tank which looks at the science in particular what scientists themselves say about the certainties of, rather, the lack of certain diregarding climate science. the global warming hypothesis. the key thing in the book -- i think motive is import. why this issue was put on the agenda is an important thing to
3:48 pm
understand. but the prototype of the global warming scare in my view, is acid rain, and there is very, very clear that the science turned out to be wrong. the national academies, the national academy of sciences here and in canada, sweden and britain, they all said the science of acid rapper is more certain than on global warming, and they turned out to be wrong, and when the truth emerged, what was very interesting was that the epa was pushing through the clean air ability amendments through come and they suppressed that finding. they demon mid-ed and blackened the india imof the scientist who what the principal scientist involved in discovering that actually the consensus science on acid rain was completely wrong, and to this day, none of the academies have retracted or admitted they got the science wrong. so, i would put a big question mark over the credibility of
3:49 pm
these organizations when they say the science is settled, because there's a previous analog where they said that and got it wrong. >> would you not also say that one of the issues we're dealing with here is the fearmongerring that's going on? in other words, going to this gentleman's question, we started off with a global warming cries, and then it became global warming, and then it became climate change, in other words, they seem to be admitting themselves we don't have a crisis here, whatever the change in weather is. and don't you think that fearmongerring is a tactic they're using to try to affect the government policy. >> not only die think that. i demonstrate in the back that was absolutely imbed from the word go.
3:50 pm
two con friends just as the ipcc was being formed, in austria and italy, and what is clear from the documents is that to get confidents to change policy, they had to reverse engineer the catastrophe because they said unless the discount rates mean that -- traditional discount rates are so low you can't throughlyshow show there's that minute damage from climb -- climate explaining you -- that justifies the policies. absolutely the case as you read from the document summarized in the book they rae versed engineered a catastrophe to get the policy response they waned. >> any other questions here? let me then say as we bring this to a close, we have copies of this book available for you. green tyranny, exposing the to
3:51 pm
at that totalitarian roots of the climate industrial complexment one thing that's important to keep in mind in the united states of america is we want to encourage people to seek truth. that is what we're all about. and i might say one of the most impressive things to me in addition to just the content of the book, is when you get to page 267 there are footnotes they reference other research material and that goes on to page 314. in other words, if you want to seek truth, first thing you should do is gate copy of this book. and then read it. and then go to the footnotes and get those materials and read them. in other words, don't be suckered by fearmongerring,
3:52 pm
scare tactics and politicians. get rupert darwell's book and seek truth. that's thank rupert for being here today. [applause] >> thank you all very much. [inaudible conversations]
3:53 pm
what would be the impact if the democrats won control of congress and there indeed was an impeachment effort? what would that look and feel like and what would the impact be on the people of america 45% of whom in a recent poll feel that trump has done a pretty good job? and susan, let's tart with you and march down this way. >> well, impeachment is a very serious thing, and i think we have to be aware to the fact that there are many people who don't feel that the last year
3:54 pm
has been a fair year. nobody has concentrated on the nation's business particularly, we have heard nothing but stories and gossip and speculation on television every day, and i really fear for our country if we start this cycle, this cycle of impeachment and then a kind of chaos that emerged from that. if you look at the other damaging results of the impeachment effort friday in the past this is a very, very serious thing. also take this seriously because i spent the lion's share of my career traveling to russia and the former soviet union. can barely stand what i hear on television because they never invite experts to come on and talk about russia. the situation is way, way more complicated in all of this. some of the things that come up
3:55 pm
on television are actually not only legal but perfectly normal for people who are engaged in international affairs. now, if there was any collusion -- i mean, real collusion -- not just speculation about collusion -- this is a very, very serious thing. very serious thing indeed. but i would ask all of my colleagues in washington -- i'm still living there -- that old expression that washington is hollywood with unattractive people. let me tell you. they're looking more and more unattractive all the time. so this is a serious thing. a very, very tough place to be. don't think we're looking at the nation's problems in the right way. we don't have a strategy for everybody in this country. and impeachment -- serious impeachment effort without
3:56 pm
un assailable causes behind that measure would cause untold damage, i think to our country. [applause] >> well, up until about four months ago i don't think i would have had any special incite into the mindset of the liberal base of the democratic party, but i joined as the token republican for a liberal news outlet called crooked media. the only republican who writes for them and i moved five minutes from the berkeley border so i've gained also insight into the mindset of the grassrootses things right now and let me tell you, there's going be enormous pressure on the democratic politicians if they take over the house to pursue some type of impeachment. facts be damned. i think that the 2020 candidates will feel enormous pressure to support that kind of inpeople. because that's essentially what the rank-and-file democrat base
3:57 pm
wants from them. so, in that sense the 2018 house elections are very important because it will have -- will result in almost inevitably that impact, at least feel the for your do so. it's possible they'd relent but i wouldn't expect that. as far as the impact of that, i don't think i have much to add forgot wham susan said. we're a country that has become deeper -- more and more deeply fissured and trying to impeach a president that duly elected dish didn't support but was duly elected with 35-40% approval is only going to fissure it more. >> well, i agree with susan and tim. i'd add this sort of practical political observation. let's assume the democrats take control of the house, do so only by winning swing districts distd the pressure that tim talked about the left of the democratic
3:58 pm
party, you have to be for this or you're out, will require one of two things, either going to fruit in one of two things, either result in a lot of democrats in seats that -- where they require independent republicans vote to get elited. no pelosis' ticket or barbara lee's district but a swing district in the method, requires them to walk the plank and will be gone after one term, or it will nut the house of representatives failing to approve an impeachment resolution, supported by virtually all democrats organization pose behaved republican and some democrats and i at the democratic party will be more split coming into 2020. the motor important thing, it's bad for the country, really bad for the country but also bad for the democrats unless there's clear and convincing evidence of impeachmentable offense, and you saw a little bit of this play out inside the republican party in the failed impeachment of a guy who had sex with an senior
3:59 pm
the hallway of the oval office and then i'd it, cost him his law license. ... >> thereby avoiding the issue. but it could have done damage to us in 2000. it did do taj to us. it could do a lot more damage to the democrats in 2020. >> i'd just like to adhere that standing back and looking at these various trends and exactly the kind of thing that karl was talking about, it makes me feel like we're moving more and more to a parliamentary system, in other words, no opportunity to go to the country to reestablish credibility. the point being is that now,
4:00 pm
today, political parties are really only running races to benefit their bases. we don't have any leaders that i can see coming along who have got a strategy for the entire country on either side where we could actually make a choice and to live with that choice for four years. uma registered independent. -- i'm a registered independent. i'm still waiting for both parties to talk to me this a way that -- i regret it, i'd love to go back to the republican party. i'm sympathetic to various elements of both parties. but do you know that 39% of the electorate in this country are independents. which is a larger group than both republicans and testimony accurates. and democrats. so this is really a sign when 39% of the electorate chooses not to be a member of either party. and so i think all kinds of things, it feels like it's a very fluid situation at the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on