The rot of our eco-overlords
It’s “voluntary.” Yeah, right.
We refer to a dispatch from the Post-Gazette that “Pittsburgh’s energy strategy now has been extended to private developers.”
It’s all part the “green” efforts of the erstwhile Steel City to be implemented over the next four years. As the P-G tells it, “The city says it wants private entities to submit climate and energy-efficiency plans along with other building plans.”
To what end, pray tell?
“Ideally,” the report continues, “developers would detail how they planned to meet goals that, in addition to energy efficiency, would include having on-site renewable electricity generation.”
And if they don’t? No worries, the city says; it’s all voluntary.
Of course, it is. Let’s just see what happens.
Perhaps if you don’t meet the city’s criteria for “green” development, approval for your building plans might just take be sent on an extra-onerous journey through bureaucratic hell, eh?
After all, as the P-G also notes, much of the city’s strategy to “go green” — cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50 percent by 2030 and make the city more “sustainable” – relies on “how the city can implement climate goals into the development process.”
By golly, it could raise bad old-fashioned palm-greasing to a new level. Of course, all will be defended because water-soluble, environmentally safe grease will be used, no doubt.
And the city’s not going to have what it calls a “Green Building Advisory Reviews” for nothing, you can bet.
“No ‘green’ from you, no ‘green’ from us,” very well will be the retort to those seeking to feed at the trough of “green economic development” taxpayer subsidies.
Come to think of it, that might be a good thing, considering all the big corporate bellies that continually waddle to the trough to feed on the taxpayer wallet (including banks, who an old banking pro recently reminded, can get their money for practically nothing).
“Pshaw!” Mayor Bill Peduto would say to such a contrarian’s “green-for-green” contention. But the lame-duck Hizzoner does say this:
“We must act collectively and quickly to develop a sustainable city in order to support healthy and equitable communities, create jobs and produce opportunities for clean, renewable energy to help meet our climate action goals.
“The City Energy Strategy allows us to work together to integrate climate efficiencies and build a city that is livable and sustainable for all,” Peduto says.
But that’s rather odd, considering most of these “sustainable green” schemes aren’t sustainable without hefty public subsidies and most hurt the very people – the poor – to which these “green” pushers claim will bring “equity.”
Who thinks up this stuff?
The answer, in general, can be found in a passage from Walter Russell Mead’s Nov. 16 Wall Street Journal column, a spot-on assessment of the reason-perverted goings-on at the latest international “climate summit” in Glasgow, Scotland:
“If there is one thing the world should take away from the Glasgow COP26 summit, it’s that the most dangerous greenhouse-gas emissions come from the front ends of politicians, not the back ends of cows.
“Pandering is much more dangerous to human civilization than methane, strategic incompetence a graver threat than CO2; and dysfunctional establishment groupthink will likely kill more polar bears than all the hydrofluorocarbons in the world.”
Yes, that sums it up well, sadly. And more’s the pity that Pittsburgh’s eco-overlords haven’t a clue on the manifest rot they are creating.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (email@example.com).