The actions of Western countries are self-destructive. The question is why.
In the past and partially to this day, countries acted in their best interests. When those interests collided with those of other countries, the solution could come either through diplomacy, war, or potentially some form of arbitration.
Let’s try an example. Imagine the US building a series of coal-fired power plants near the Canadian border. The addition of electrical capacity offers the US many advantages: cheaper electricity, electricity availability to more citizens, and greater national capacity for extreme weather conditions. Everything is going well until the US adds so many units that Canadians begin to suffer from pollution wafting from the new plants onto their territory. There are multiple potential solutions to the problem including but not limited to the US cleaning up smokestack exhausts, reducing the number of power plants, or paying Canada for damages. In any solution the US and Canada would both try to maximize their national interests. That was the way the world worked until about twenty or thirty years ago.
This simple example stands in stark contrast to the behavior of Western nations today. Whereas some of the worst actors in the world—think Russia, China, Iran—continue to focus on their national interests, Western countries have adopted international goals that often are at odds with the clear needs and interests of their own citizens. Have you noticed the tractor protests in Holland, Germany and France? Hundreds of tractors shut down major roads and commerce. The farmers in France have said that they wish to effectively starve Paris. Why?
In today’s iteration of international negotiations, countries like China and India continue to think of the benefits of their citizens, if only to guarantee the stability of their governments. These ostensibly developing countries refuse to commit themselves to any program that would reduce energy production or economic progress. They still think as rational countries have always thought: how can I maximize my interests? Their behavior, which one might call normal, stands in stark contrast to that of the Western powers. When they negotiate on climate and other issues, they often look from what they claim is a global perspective and thus often ignore or work against the clear interests of their own people. The tractor protests are a result of European governmental decisions to reduce the use of nitrogen fertilizers and/or significantly cut livestock numbers. The decisions themselves definitely act against the local population. Reduced synthetic fertilizers can only mean less crop production, higher food prices, and more unemployed farmers. Not one of these outcomes is beneficial to the local population. One only has to look at Sri Lanka and the famine and political unrest that occurred when they took this WEF-encouraged path of banning nitrogen fertilizers to see that the program is a disaster. If governments in Amsterdam, Berlin, and Paris can follow policies that harm the electorate that put them into office, what recourse do citizens have other than to protest and replace their leaders?
Recommended
So why would wealthy countries who are ostensibly rational actors work so clearly against the interests of their own citizens? The simple answer is that many politicians in the West simply do not see their citizens—the ones who elected them and to whom they are politically responsible--as their primary concern. Those on the left in Europe and the US have become “international citizens” and their eyes are set on world problems, effectively ignoring the interests of their own people. Dutch citizens would normally expect their leaders to initiate policies that lead to the lowest food prices possible—this would make food more available to poorer constituents and leave more money for other uses. We in the US go to Walmart and Costco to make our dollars go as far as possible. But when Dutch politicians ignore their people’s needs and think of the global warming canard, their focus is not cheaper and more plentiful food but rather less gas-generating livestock and significantly reduced nitrogen fertilizer use. Whereas in our example above, the US and Canada each thought of its own interests—US energy versus Canadian health—our current world order has China thinking about China and the US and Europe also thinking about China. The leaders would argue that reducing greenhouse gases serves their countries by guaranteeing a safer future. But the argument is specious. Looking at the data and arguments, I think that the warming arguments are nonsense and that the whole movement is a scam. But even if one bought into the warming business, whatever Western countries do to make their lives more miserable (unreliable EV’s, no more gas stoves, no more meat, reduced air travel, etc.), the greenhouse gas production from China and India will outweigh whatever the West may succeed in reducing. This is not some localized phenomenon: Holland can destroy its farmers and reduce CO2 production, but the Chinese CO2 from increased coal use will more than make up for the difference on a global balance.
It is no coincidence that the Dutch elected Geert Wilders or that Donald Trump still remains extremely popular, pending lawsuits and all. Citizens in Western countries see their elected leaders not promoting the interests of their fellow Americans or Brits or French, but rather the supposed interests of some global community whose needs completely outweigh those of the national population to whom leaders are electorally responsible. The US should be pushing hydrocarbon production and distribution, as by doing so, energy becomes cheaper, leading to more commerce and more jobs in the sector. But everything that the Biden administration does—from reducing available federal land for oil exploration, making permitting harder for pipelines, and weakening LNG exports—works against clear American interests in the name of pleasing some world climate god. And people are sick of it because clear national benefits are shoved aside for some hard-to-define world goals. Gas is over $7 in some places in California. Rational actors would say that cheaper gas makes for a stronger economy as people have more disposable income to spend on things other than energy.
In the old days, countries advanced their interests until those interests bumped up against those of another country. Negotiations or war generally solved the dilemma, but in all cases, countries looked out for themselves and not for somebody else. The endless damage to US interests—lost factories, an open border, anti-American energy policies—for the benefit of other countries or citizens has left people tired of always being last. It’s like giving your best food to your guests and leaving scraps for your own family. Western leaders either hate or are embarrassed by their countries’ economic and material successes and sabotage the same for amorphous international goals. All the while, China, Russia, India, and Iran continue to advance their interests without regard for all of the world's mumbo jumbo about climate change.
Citizens throughout the West have taken notice that they always come in last. They will vote for the candidates who promote their interests and not those who are always thinking about somebody else’s interests
Join the conversation as a VIP Member