The Freddie Mack, Fannie Mae mortgage market collapse was partially (perhaps the biggest, but certainly not the only factor) a result of certain politicians creating a housing bubble through a system of social welfare (housing for people that could not afford to purchase), and rewarding their constituents. In other words what we have here is, “I get votes through social welfare and campaign contributions, my buddies get rich, and the tax payers foot the bill.” As one economist pointed out, “We privatized the profit, but socialized the risk.”

However, the US economy was turning down before this financial collapse, and not just because of the war in Iraq. The cost of energy was creating an economic downturn. This excessive cost, as in the case of the financial crisis with Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac, was a result of political actions, which in tandem with additional pressure from environmental activist have stopped virtually every effort to develop this nations natural resources.

The US consumes about 7 billion barrels of oil each year. The cost of oil has of late consistently been over $100 per barrel. If the US in particular and the free market economies of the world in general had a less obstructed energy policy what would the per barrel cost of oil be? Would $40 to $60 dollars US be a reasonable estimate? If the international cost of oil was $40 to $60 ppb would this mean that the current $100 plus ppb is a drain to the US economy of 280 to 420 billion dollars annually?

On a microcosmic scale, in the US about 200 million people are paying $75 to $100 more per month for gasoline then they did two or three years ago.

Additionally how much inflation has the cost of oil indirectly added to the US and world? Many companies now charge a 2% petrol surcharge on services and products so as to reflect the additional cost of transportation and producing their products?

Of course carbon credits and trading reflect additional cost on the worlds societies.

Government subsidies in alternative energy certainly reflect greater cost to tax payers and the economy, obviously off set to a degree by the jobs they produce. But the negative to the economy must be based on what the true cost of the alternative energy is against the assumed cost of oil, clean coal, natural gas, nuclear and hydro in a less restricted economy. What would these costs be in a less restricted environment?

And if these traditional sources of energy were less restricted then certainly a reasonable portion of these savings would and should go directly into dealing with known environmental problems such as land use, palatable water, particulate pollution, etc.

At this point then would the development of renewable energy and cleaner conventional energy and nuclear energy, such as generation 3 and 4 plants, continue at a reasonable pace?

Would the societies of the world then have more resources to deal with the actual effects of Climate change, human caused or not?

Are energy efficient and prosperous societies environmentally cleaner then less advanced societies? Do more developed societies have far less population growth? Does this benefit the environment?

Economically speaking, how much is the potential damage of AGW reduced by the fact that most of the warming takes place at night?What economic and environmental disasters will be averted by the current energy policies if China and India do not follow the same Kyoto calls for action?

The world is facing economic crisis, and AGW alarmism may make it impossible to overcome the problems. Some economist say WW II pulled the US out of a recession. WW III is not however a good option. Only a war on economic self destruction due to unwise environmental activism will prevent this.