The U.N. has proposed that $2 trillion per year be provided to them to ensure the development of "green technologies" over the next 40 years. Failure to let the U.N. do this, according to them, will result in the end of the world as we know it.

Here's the interesting part. Most of the $2 trillion a year is to come from the United States, if the U.N. has its way. Obviously, only economically productive nations -- the ones that are still semi-capitalist, at least -- can generate the funds the U.N. wants to turn the world economy green. Yet how is this money produced? Through economic activity primarily fueled by the hated oil itself. The U.S. economy as we know it would literally evaporate overnight without the use of oil to fly airplanes, drive trucks, get food and goods from one place to another, and literally make everything work. We're well aware that even this vibrant economy is floundering, as the entire world continues to endure a years-long recession. It stands to reason that even MORE oil-based economic activity and productivity will be required to hand over that $2 trillion a year the world's private sector simply does not have.

Now think about this for a minute. If you were the U.N., and you really believed that the world is going to end in 40 years or less without the total replacement of oil-based energy with "green"energy, then wouldn’t you see folly and danger in stepping up oil-based economic activity? What point is there in developing a "green" economy 40 years from now if the cost of paying for that economy will be the destruction of the world with oil-based productivity?

All of this assumes, of course, that the U.N. even has a right to take this money from otherwise free people who aren't convinced that the world is going to end in 40 years because of oil, and who recognize there's evidence to the contrary and are willing to try different approaches -- like, say, science and the free market. And this also assumes that even if everyone wanted to hand over this responsibility to the world government wannabes represented by the U.N., that they could accomplish it any better than non-world governments have. Remember Soviet Russia? Command-and-control governments cannot produce wealth. They confiscate and destroy it. The U.N. is no different, because (claimed) intentions alone will not produce.

The outrageous part is that the U.S. pays most of the U.N. bills. And the Obama Administration, who runs most of the current U.S. government, is on board with the general attitude and philosophy of the U.N., including on turning the economy "green." How is the U.S. to pay this $2 trillion per year, over and above its unsustainable debt and deficit? Medicare and Medicaid alone are on track to eating up 100 percent of our private economy before these 40 years pass, at least without reform (i.e., privatization) of these social welfare schemes. And what about defense? What good will a green economy do us if the currency collapses from deficits and inflation, and violent thugs the world over are free to invade and terrorize our lands?

The supposedly smart people at the U.N. and in the Obama Administration haven't thought this out too well. Or maybe they have. Maybe, to them, "green" isn't about environmentalism but about money (and power). They want money, and they want it now. They crave unlimited power. It justifies their existence, pays their bills, and allows them to live the lives of elite international officials while claiming to be "doing good," never having to prove a thing.

And they say capitalists in the free market, creating objective value according to consumer demand, are greedy? Stop kidding yourselves. It's the Big Government people, especially at the U.N., who have their hands on your wallet -- the entire world's wallet, that is.

 Get more information on Dr. Michael Hurd's latest book, Bad Therapy, Good Therapy (And How to Tell the Difference)  by clicking here. Plus, see the recently posted review by author Alexandra York!