Why are some people so passionate about “global warming?”

The answer for some is higher taxes for Americans.

That’s right. It’s not about saving the planet or leaving an environmental legacy to the next generation.

It’s about money and power.

In the October 17 issue of Environmental Magazine, writer Sarah Mosco unwittingly reveals the true motivation for some radical environmentalists.

“Mankind has only 12 years left to make unprecedented cuts in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions if we want to stave off unimaginably catastrophic effects of runaway global warming,” she writes. “This is the warning detailed in October’s report from the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the recognized global climate authority which represents the investigations of hundreds of climate scientists and 195 participating nations.”

It might be a good idea to check back in 2030 to see if those “catastrophic effects of runaway global warming” really happened.

The line in the sand is a 2-degree Celsius average global temperature rise would trigger this worldwide disaster, according to Mosco (not to be confused with Moscow).

 We are halfway there and she predicts disaster could occur with just a 1.5-degree Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) rise in temperature. To stop this, the world needs a 45-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 and “net zero emissions” by 2050.

If we do nothing, she writes, the boiling point comes in 2040 and that “effectively ensures the end of civilization as we know it.”

Wow. We really need to take this seriously, don’t we? Who wants civilization to end? Not me.

The end of civilization means poverty, food shortages, coastal flooding, mass migrations, terrible storms, bigger wildfires and that terrible heat that accompanies global warming.

What is her solution? “Americans should be screaming from the rooftops, demanding to know how our government will prevent this very real existential threat to our own and our children’s future.”

Well, liberals are pretty good at screaming already (remember the Justice Brett Kavanagh hearings?) Mosco is “infuriated” that Trump is fine with burning coal and that he has withdrawn from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord. She doesn’t want drilling offshore for oil and natural gas.

What this environmentalist wants is a president like Obama who battled against climate change by bypassing Congress and ordering changes using his “presidential powers.” To her, it’s good when Obama made unconstitutional orders but it’s bad when Trump follows the law.

Mosco writes that there is one thing all economists – liberal and conservative – agree as an answer to global warming.

That’s a carbon tax.

She wants Congress to tax away fossil-fuel based in favor of renewable energy (probably wind and solar power). That would come in the form of a carbon tax on businesses in this country and any imports that come into the United States.

Her plan is for the U.S. government to have massive carbon tax increases with some of that money being returned to American households in a monthly dividend.

The key here is that she thinks America is a “democracy” and not a republic (which it is).

And while Americans tax themselves into the poor house, big polluters like China, India and Russia will be “inspired” to tax their own citizens and stop the greenhouse gasses.

There are so many problems with this argument that space doesn’t allow a response.

First, Americans are leading international efforts to benefit the environment. Pollution in this country is dropping. There is no way that India or China is going to scale down their economies to satisfy some wacky American environmentalists.

Scientists get funding for research only if they come up with spectacular results. An honest scientist who concludes that global warming is a hoax gets no publicity from the mainstream media and no funding from their universities.

Even if the Earth warmed up by two degrees, who is to say that is a bad thing? How do we know that the current average temperatures are the best the world has ever experience or that a little warming might be beneficial?

The middle of North America used to be covered by ice but now it is the breadbasket of the world.

The accuracy of world temperatures over the ages is definitely up for debate. How can we truly tell the average temperature in Europe in the Dark Ages? What was the climate like when Jesus walked in the Nation Israel? We don’t even have reliable records for most of the world at the time of the Civil War.

No, if these environmentalists truly cared for our future they would fight poverty instead of promoting confiscatory taxation for Americans.

Their pattern is to find some professors who will back their theories, create horror stories about the future and, with the help of the liberal media, convince normal people that the only solution comes from bigger (and better funded) government.

These wackos scare schoolchildren and intimidate spineless politicians.

This is why Americans on November 6 should vote for Republicans to retain control of the U.S. House and Senate.