The unwritten rule seems to be that each successive climate report
and news release must be more scarifying than any predecessors, especially during
the run-up to international conferences.
Thus Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special
Report 15 claims governments worldwide must make “unprecedented
changes in all aspects of society,” spend $40
trillion by 2035 on renewable energy, and impose carbon
taxes that climb to $5,500 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) by 2030. Or
temperatures could climb another 1 degree F (0.5 C) and bring utter cataclysm
to human civilization and our planet.
Not to be outdone, the 1,700-page 2018 US National Climate
Assessment wailed that failure to eliminate fossil fuels and roll back American
industry and living standards would send global temperatures soaring 15 degrees
F by 2100! Chaos and food shortages would ensue; US economic growth would
plummet.
The hyperbole continues in Katowice, Poland – where 30,000 activists
and bureaucrats (and a few scientists) are meeting to finalize regulations to
implement the 2015 Paris climate treaty and compel wealthy nations to give
trillions of dollars in “adaptation, mitigation and compensation” money to poor
countries that have been “victimized” by climate change, even as the rich
nations de-industrialize.
All of this certainly plays well with those who
orchestrated these reports and programs, are ideologically opposed to fossil
fuels, or get paid to advance climate chaos and renewable energy narratives.
However, a very different response among other audiences is increasingly
evident around the world.
People look out their windows and realize the “unprecedented
climate and weather chaos” isn’t actually happening, is little different from
what they and previous generations experienced, and cannot possibly be
attributed solely to fossil fuel use. They know the sun and other powerful
natural forces have driven frequent climate changes throughout history, and
play equally important roles today.
They understand that the scary headlines are the product of
“scenarios” conjured up by computer models that blame climate change on
greenhouse gases. They see the boy who cried “fifty 20-foot-tall wolves” far too
often. They don’t buy the notion that today’s incredibly wealthy, high-tech,
energy-rich societies are somehow less able to deal with climate change than
those that lived through the Little Ice Age, for example. They typically put
climate change at the bottom of any list of pressing concerns.
More and more people understand that fossil fuels provide
80% of US and global energy – and are essential to lifting billions more people
out of crushing poverty. They see Asian and African countries building
thousands of new coal- and gas-fired electrical generating plants, and making
and driving millions of new cars. They know even Germany and Japan are burning
more coal, as they realize that wind and solar subsidies and facilities raise
energy costs, kill jobs and hurt poor families the most.
People resent being scammed and get angry when they realize
their taxes and energy payments often line the pockets of climate activists,
scientists, bureaucrats, politicians, and wind, solar and biofuel cronies.
Above all, a growing number see the proposed solutions as
far worse than the wildly exaggerated and even fabricated climate disasters. They
won’t tolerate having their livelihoods and living standards disrupted or
destroyed by carbon taxes, even higher energy prices or fossil fuel bans –
especially when the antipathy toward those fuels is combined with plans to
terminate nuclear and even hydroelectric power.
In recent weeks, millions of mostly poor, working class and
rural French citizens have joined the Gilets
Jaunes (Yellow Vests) movement, protesting and even rioting against
President Macron’s proposed carbon tax
hikes on their driving and living standards. Even a French police
union has sided with the protesters. A shaken Macron finally postponed the tax
for six months, then scrapped the plan entirely.
The protests are the first serious backlash against
international eco-imperialism. They won’t be the last.
In Africa alone, twice as many people as live in the USA
still do not have electricity, or have it only rarely and unpredictably. Can
you imagine your life without
electricity? And yet they are told by the EU, environmentalists, the World Bank
and others that they must restrict
their ambitions to what is possible with wind, solar and biofuel
energy. Would you accept such carbon
colonialism? Can actual, real-world climate risks possibly be worse than the
horrid poverty, deprivation and disease that afflicts them now?
The World Bank recently said it would kindly give poor
countries $200
billion during its FY2021-25 cycle, for “adaptation and resilience” in the face of
manmade climate change. But still nothing for fossil fuel or nuclear power. The
White House should read it the riot act, especially if US money is
involved.
Poor countries don’t need climate cash. They need to
develop: energy, infrastructure, factories, jobs, health, living standards. They
need to do
what rich countries did to become
rich – not what (some) rich countries are doing (or at least saying) now that
they are rich. Thankfully, many are
doing exactly that.
Abundant, reliable, affordable electricity, motor fuels and
factory power creates its own prosperity; its own ability to improve roads,
hospitals, schools, homes and so on; its own “drop dead money” to tell carbon
colonialists to take a hike. “Green” energy is insufficient,
unsustainable and ecologically harmful.
With America likely being joined soon by Brazil in rejecting
the Paris climate trap, poor nations are on firm ground. Ontario (Canada),
Poland. Australia, China, India and other countries have also rejected carbon
taxes and coal use restrictions. The Paris deal is fast becoming a climate Potemkin
Village.
But what about that National Climate Assessment? Wasn’t that a
Trump White House document? It certainly needed some adult supervision, to ride
herd on the 1,000 Deep State scientists and bureaucrats who prepared it.
However, the White House let them prove how loony climate alarmism has become.
Indeed, as Nick
Loris, Roger
Pielke, Jr. and other experts have pointed out, the NCA was based on
absurd assumptions (eg, vastly increased coal use and no energy technology
advances over the next 70 years) and a ridiculous worst-case global temperature
increase of 15 degrees F by 2100. That’s twice as high as even the IPCC’s
worst-case projections, and far worse than Garbage In-Garbage Out climate
models are predicting. It’s more than 15 times the total warming our Earth has
experienced since 1820!
The NCA is also based on rampant cherry-picking of data, to
wildly inflate climate risks; an almost total failure to factor in the incalculable
benefits of fossil fuels; and a refusal to consider the
plant-fertilizing benefits of more atmospheric carbon dioxide. It just depicts the
CO2 we exhale solely as a dangerous climate-changing pollutant. The NCA also ignored
the fact that actual observations show no increases in drought, no increases in
the frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in the frequency or intensity
of hurricanes. It didn’t mention the 12-year absence of Category 3-5 hurricanes
making US landfall.
Just as egregious, the Deep State NCA claimed continued fossil
fuel use would hit the United States with $500 billion in annual climate
related costs by 2090. That’s more than twice the percentage lost during the
Great Depression. It’s 10% of the US
economy in 1971. Even with modest economic growth, it’s likely to be a trivial
0.6% of America’s GDP in 2090. The NCA bogeyman is a little stuffed bear.
But based on IPCC and NCA fear mongering, America and the world
are supposed to keep their fossil fuels in the ground – including what the US
Geological Survey says is the “largest continuous oil and gas resource potential
ever assessed!!” Over 46 billion barrels of oil, 280 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids in just part of the Texas-New
Mexico Permian Basin.
No one denies that the climate changes, or even that human
activities have some effects on climate and weather. But there is no real-world
evidence that human CO2 emissions have replaced the sun and other natural
forces; that another degree of warming would be cataclysmic; or that humans can
control climate
changes and weather events by tweaking the amount of carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere.
Want some facts and common sense? See what CFACT and Heartland have been saying in Poland, and read
books by Dr
Roy Spencer, Marc
Morano, Anthony
Watts and others. They’ll be a
breath of fresh air.
Paul
Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
(CFACT) and author of books, studies and articles on energy, climate change,
the environment and human rights.
My Comments:
Dr. Roy Spencer and Anthony Watts are luke-warmers who believe that CO2 causes less warming than the alarmists say it does and that the warming is less than catastrophic. They both hold the consensus view of thermal radiation, which is seriously in error. Dr. Roy Spencer engages in discussions with great patience, but some critical physics he just does not understand. Anthony Watts has called me nasty names because I advocate that the temperature increases caused by additional CO2 in the atmosphere are insignificant and much lower than than what he thinks they will be. Despite their limitations, however, both of these men have played major roles in opposing the excesses of the global warming alarmists. So be nice to them.
I am a supporter of and donor to the Heartland Institute and CFACT.
No comments:
Post a Comment