| |
It’s become clear that climate change, i.e. global warming, has been
taking place in recent years. However, what is not clear is whether this rise in global
temperatures is primarily man-induced or simply a natural change in the earth’s climate.
Maybe it’s a combination of both. Truth be told, we simply do not know for sure. We also
don’t know whether the trend will ultimately be good or bad. Would it be so bad, if
winters in Alaska, Canada, and Siberia were milder than they are now? Let’s remember
that the globe has undergone several cycles of global warming and global cooling well
before mankind began burning fossil fuels. The environmentalist terrorists want us to
believe that it’s all mankind’s fault and the we need to drastically reduce all economic
activity in order to stop global warming. It doesn’t matter if we starve to death in the
process or if we freeze to death. We need to stop driving our cars and heating our homes.
We need to ground all those airplanes that are spewing forth their exhaust emissions and
we need to shut down all the polluting power plants that burn fossil fuels. We need to
generate all our electrical power needs with solar power and wind turbines. It goes without
saying that all nuclear power plants must be immediately shut down, lest one of them has
an accident and we all die from radiation poisoning. Any industrial operation that produces
even one gram of carbon dioxide or any other pollutant that can contribute to global
warming must immediately cease. Also, we need to kill off all the cattle
because cattle produce methane gas, a contributor to global warming. As a last possible
contribution to the war against global warming, the climate change terrorists will propose
that we limit the number of children in families to one or two. This
prohibition on large families (three or more children per family) would be a major factor
to reducing the threat to humanity as envisioned by these climate change terrorists.
The climate change terrorists issue their doomsday warnings and tell
us that we must allow the governments of the world to head off the calamity before we all
perish. We are told that only government intervention will avoid the climate apocalypse.
But, bitter experience has shown the thinking person that government is the last
thing we need to make things better. Mankind’s influence on climate is at best
uncertain, but the environmental extremists have decided to settle for only one option
- just as the Catholic Church did with Galileo. That option is massive government intervention
- in what is almost certainly a futile effort – to reverse the global warming problem. But
even if the “climate change crisis” requires prompt action, let’s not forget that famous
quote: ”Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the
problem.” Just a few examples of failed and futile government attempts to
reverse global climate changes are recounted in Reference 1. As pointed
out in this reference, government non-interference often produces the best results.
Such a non-interference policy worked well in the case of natural gas from shale.
Thanks to a huge increase in its exploration and production, by 2014, the U.S. was
actually able to decrease its greenhouse gas emissions down to 1994 levels according
to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Is global warming occurring? – yes. If so, is mankind responsible?
– very uncertain. If mankind has caused global warming, can mankind reverse the trend? –
likely no. To try to reverse global warming should mankind take drastic steps that could
do irreparable harm to people and society? – I sincerely hope not! I attempted to address
these issues in an article in 2015. (Ref. 2) In that article,
I noted the environmental alarmists’ attempts to panic the world into taking precipitous and
destructive steps to supposedly fix the alleged calamity. In this article, I will not repeat
the arguments discussed in that article.
“In the 1970s, Americans were told we were in a global cooling crisis
and if something weren’t done, we’d enter a new ice age.
“When that didn’t happen, a few decades later we were told that entire
nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming
trend was not reversed by the year 2000.
“Despite the consistent failure of these apocalyptic warnings, that
hasn’t stopped climate change alarmism. We’re now being told we only have 12 years to combat
climate change and the solution is to fundamentally dismantle the system of free enterprise.
That means Washington controls things like how we produce our energy, what food we eat and
what type of cars we drive.
“The question is, even if we believed their alarmist, catastrophic
predictions, would their proposals work?
“Not according to the climate scientists’ own models.
Based on those models, even if the United States cut its carbon dioxide emissions to zero,
it would only avert global warming by a few tenths of a degree Celsius — in 80 years!
[Emphasis mine]
“We would see no noticeable difference in the climate, yet it
would come at an enormous cost to the American people. Climate change is happening and
human activity undoubtedly plays a role, but big-government climate policies are
all economic pain, no environmental gain. [Emphasis mine]
“After all, the purpose of climate change regulations is to
drive energy prices higher so families and businesses use less energy. Abundant energy
sources such as coal, oil and natural gas have allowed Americans to affordably drive to
their jobs, light and heat their homes, and power their refrigerators, computers, and
iPhones.
“On the other hand, more heavy-handed climate regulations would
drive up electricity bills and prices at the pump. Families would be hurt multiple times
over, paying not just more for energy but also more for food, clothing, and healthcare,
as energy is critical for every stage of planting, harvesting, manufacturing, and
transporting goods to consumers.
“These rising costs would stifle economic growth, one
of the most important factors for maintaining a cleaner environment. As a country’s
economy grows, the financial ability of its citizens to take care of the environment
grows, too. So creating more economy-killing climate regulations and taxes would not
only harm the livelihoods of the American people, they would also harm our ability to
protect our environment. [Emphasis mine]
“Instead, government should focus on keeping the economy strong
by reducing taxes and eliminating regulatory barriers to energy innovation. For example,
some states produce clean, cheap natural gas, but excessive regulations and litigation
prevent the construction of pipelines to distribute natural gas to other parts of the
country. {Such is the case in my home state of Massachusetts, where the cost of natural
gas is among the highest in the nation because of the inability to get permits for routing
natural gas pipeline into the state.} . . .” (Ref. 3)
What about that Green New Deal that was introduced in
the Senate by Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on 7 February
2019? The Senate voted the resolution down on 26 March, but Ocasio-Cortez was drafting a
series of smaller, related bills. Wouldn’t that solve the global warming conundrum? Let’s
take a look what this Green New Deal would mean if actually implemented.
“If someone asked you to describe the Green New Deal, what
would you say?
“According to Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., it's a ‘bold idea’
that would ‘create millions of good-paying jobs’ and help ‘rebuild communities in rural
America that have been devastated.’
“Oh, you thought the Green New Deal was all about fighting
climate change? Well, think again. Turns out it's a green-glossed Trojan horse designed
to increase government control over the economy {i.e., it’s another scheme to
bring the failed policy of socialism to America. }.
- - -
“Just how much change would the Green New Deal bring to the
economy? Put simply, it would bring it to its knees.
- - -
“{Like most socialist utopian dreams, the} Green New Deal is big
on vision, but sparse on details. For example, it calls for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions to 60% below 2010 levels by 2030, with the ultimate goal of reaching net-zero
emissions by 2050. But it doesn't say how to get there.
“One thing is clear: to meet these goals, Washington would have
to force all Americans to reduce their energy consumption and/or switch to ‘green’
energy sources – and fast. And the only way to do that is to impose coercive taxes and
regulations.
“To assess the economic effects of such a scheme, we started by
looking at a carbon tax – the most popular recommendation of those asking government to
‘nudge’ us off of fossil fuels.
“Using the Energy Information Administration's model, we tested
to see how high a carbon tax would have to go to meet the Green New Deal's emission targets.
We ratcheted the tax up to $300 per ton, which dropped emissions 58% below 2010 levels –
but not until 2050.
“That left us far short of reaching the deal's targets, but when
we tried to push the tax higher, the model crashed. Clearly, the Green New Deal's emission
targets are unrealistic. Yet the danger they pose to the economy are far too real.
“Before the model's lights went out, we found that a $300 per ton
carbon tax and associated regulations would cost a family of four nearly $8,000 per year in
income lost to higher energy costs, consumer prices and foregone wages. The 20-year cost
totals $165,000.
“During that same 20-year period, the tax would siphon off an
average of 1.1 million jobs per year and diminish GDP by a total of more than $15 trillion.
“That's a hefty price to pay for getting barely halfway to the
net-zero emissions goal. Is it worth it? After all, proponents of eliminating conventional
fuels argue that the cost of climate change dwarfs the cost of climate policy. However,
in terms of ‘climate insurance,’ eliminating greenhouse gas emissions doesn't get you
very far.
“To see if this is true, we turned to another tool: the Model
for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC). Developed at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research, this model assesses how much increases and
decreases in greenhouse gas trajectories will affect global temperatures and sea levels.
“Running this model, we found that overhauling America's economy –
as envisioned in the Green New Deal – would abate global warming by approximately 0.2 degree
Celsius {that's only about 1/2 degree Fahrenheit} by the year 2100. The reduction in sea-level
rise would be less than 2 centimeters{less than 1-inch!!!}.
"In other words, the Green New Deal offers minimal
climate improvement at impossibly high prices. [Emphasis mine]
“. . . The Green New Deal isn't a ‘climate thing’ at all.
And it would certainly change the economy – for the worse. (Ref. 4)
The Green New Deal is just one more part of the climate
change terrorists’ attempts to panic the unthinking into believing that the end of the
world is nigh because of a changing global environment. The solutions to their perceived
apocalypse would end capitalism, destroy the standard of living which this capitalistic
economic system has brought us and put us at the tender mercies of the commissars who have
ruined the economies of all the countries that have experimented with socialism, e.g.,
Stalin’s former Soviet Union, Mao’s People Republic of China, Kim Jong-un’s North Korean
basket case, and Chavez’s glorious failure in Venezuela.
“The Green New Deal nonbinding congressional resolution unveiled
by Democratic lawmakers {in February 2019} calls for economically destructive and
environmentally toxic extremist policies that would be an utter disaster for our country
and the American people.
“The radical and impractical plan could suck trillions of dollars
out of our economy, raise costs of much of what we buy, wipe out millions of jobs and plunge
our country into a recession or perhaps even a depression. It would be a self-inflicted
wound causing enormous harm to us all.
“Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen.
Ed Markey, D-Mass., released the proposal, elements of which have already drawn support
from some congressional Democrats, including several seeking their party’s presidential
nomination {i.e., Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D- MA and Joe Biden}.
“Calling climate change ‘a direct threat to the national
security of the United States,’ the resolution calls for the United States to ‘achieve
net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities
and workers.’
“In reality, the direct threat to our national security
and economic security comes from the Green New Deal itself. [Emphasis mine]
“The resolution aims to accomplish its ambitious goals by
eliminating virtually all fossil fuels from U.S. electricity generation within 10 years.
That would destroy at least 3.4 million jobs in the oil, natural gas and coal
industries. [Emphasis mine]
“The radical plan would replace fossil fuels by building hundreds
or even thousands of costly new renewable energy facilities across the country. It also
calls for building high-speed rail and eliminating as many gasoline-powered vehicles ‘as
is technologically feasible.’
“All this would hit American families and businesses hard
in the wallet – not just with increased taxes to fund the Green New Deal but with
dramatically higher prices of much of what we buy.
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar power
are two to five times more expensive than existing conventional energy sources like
natural gas. [Emphasis mine]
“Forcing Americans to ditch their perfectly good gasoline-powered
vehicles and pay far more than they do now to provide power for their vehicles and homes could
cost families billions of dollars each year, harming low-income families the most.
“Higher power costs for businesses would create huge incentives
for them to relocate to other nations to reduce their power bills. This would be particularly
true of factories, which require large amounts of power to manufacture all sorts of products.
“The Green New Deal would mandate the removal of ‘pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions’ from every manufacturer and industry. This provision alone would
have devastating economic effects.
“If manufacturers and all industries are forced to go
‘green,’ the cost of producing products in the United States will increase so substantially
that it would be virtually impossible for American companies to beat their global competitors.
Manufacturers staying in the U.S. would try to cut costs in other ways – by holding down
wages and by replacing as many workers as possible with automation.
[Emphasis mine]
- - -
“If all this wasn’t bad enough, so-called green energy sources
are also much more unreliable than fossil fuels, because the wind isn’t always blowing
and the sun isn’t always shining. Electric power brownouts and blackouts would likely
become common if the American people were forced to depend on these ‘green’ energy sources.
“And it surprises many people to know that many forms of
renewable energy – supposedly better for the environment – can in fact cause significant
environmental problems.
“Solar facilities and wind farms take up far more land than many
existing conventional energy facilities. For example, solar energy requires 40 to 50
percent more land than natural gas facilities. Wind energy production takes up 90 to 100
percent more land.
“Additionally, in order to build the thousands of new wind
turbines and solar panels that would be needed to power the country, substantially more
steel and rare earth minerals would need to be manufactured and mined, causing massive
environmental damage.
- - -
“The Green New Deal would also have the federal government
‘work collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector.’
“The radical plan would do this in part by mandating
‘sustainable’ farming and land-use practices, giving tremendous power to the federal
government to manage U.S. farms and ranches – immensely increasing the costs of
producing the food we eat.
- - -
“Another disturbing provision of the Green New Deal would require
‘upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to
achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort,
and durability, including through electrification,’ costing trillions of dollars more.
“Not only would these policies kill jobs, hurt families and
insert the government in everyone’s home and business – they would provide few,
if any, environmental benefits and would do nothing to avert climate change. [
Emphasis mine]
“Even if you believe that humans are causing climate change and
that climate change will cause significant problems in the future – claims not all
scientists accept – the Green New Deal would not reduce global carbon dioxide emissions.
“This is because countries like China and India are increasing
their carbon dioxide emissions by so much that they will, based on current projections,
more than offset any carbon dioxide emissions cuts made in America.
“And unfortunately, the above economically disastrous policies
are just the tip of the iceberg. The Green New Deal has still more harmful provisions
when you look below the surface.
“The resolution also includes dozens of socialist policies that
have little or nothing to do with the environment – including some that were not included
in Ocasio-Cortez’s initial draft proposal released last year.
“For example, the Green New Deal resolution would provide ‘resources,
training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the
United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities.’
“Translation: implementing the Green New Deal will likely
include a universal free-college provision that could costs trillions of dollars over the
next couple of decades. [Emphasis mine]
“The Green New Deal also promises ‘universal access to healthy food,’
‘economic security’ for all Americans, universal health care, and a jobs guarantee that would
provide employment to anyone who wants it ‘with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and
medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security.’ {In other words, the Green
New Deal is a blatant first step toward replacing America’s proven successful system of
capitalism with a socialist system that has failed wherever it has been tried!}
“Funding all these government giveaways would require massive tax
increases – and not just on the wealthiest Americans, because there are not enough of them
to pay for all these enormously expensive programs. And even with gigantic tax increases,
soaring federal deficits would still be likely under the Green New Deal.
“The bottom line is that the Green New Deal would transform gigantic
sectors of the U.S. economy – energy, health care, college education, and potentially more –
into huge socialist, government-run or managed programs that would be controlled by an army
of bureaucrats in Washington.
“And all this would be done in the name of trying to control the
weather 80 years in the future. This isn’t just socialism, which has been proven
to fail repeatedly throughout the world over the past 100 years. It’s crazy. ”
[Emphasis mine] (Ref. 5)
To the climate change terrorists, the human race has no right to
change any aspect of nature; all living creatures (except people) have priority over humans;
any cost is acceptable that prevents a change to the natural environment; the human race
is a destroyer and polluter of the natural environment and should be allowed to exist only
to the extent that it does not change the natural environment; the negative impact of
environmental considerations upon people is irrelevant.
For our climate change terrorists, people have no rights -
only animals and the environment do. According to these extremists, damn the cost, the
inconvenience to people, and all the negative and disastrous consequences.
Instead of blindly following the destructive path of the Climate
change terrorists, we must insist that environmental concerns be realistically balanced
with the needs and objectives of people. It is said that God gave man dominion over nature,
not vice-versa. Indeed, we are obligated to be stewards of the environment, but the needs
of people must also be considered.[6]
The climate change terrorists foisted a meaningless sham of a
solution to global warming with the egregiously misguided Paris Climate Accord, more
commonly known as the Paris Agreement. This accord, signed in 2016, is an agreement
within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), dealing with
greenhouse-gas-emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance. The deal required countries
to set their own targets for reducing emissions by 2020. The Obama administration committed
the U.S. to reducing carbon emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025.
“The Paris climate agreement was negotiated badly and
signed out of desperation. In fact, there was enough bipartisan opposition to the pact
in Congress that President Obama bypassed sending it to the Senate for ratification as a
treaty. The American agreement rests on nothing more than the former president’s handshake.
That is why America’s agreement was based upon an executive order and not a formal
treaty.” (Ref. 7)
In June 2017, President Donald Trump announced his intention
to withdraw the United States from the agreement. Under the agreement, the earliest
effective date of withdrawal for the U.S. is November 2020. In practice, changes in
United States policy that are contrary to the Paris Agreement have already been put
in place. In November 2017, the Trump administration announced America's withdrawal
from the Paris Climate Accord.
Without producing “any impact on global temperatures,
Paris was the open door for egregious regulation, cronyism, and government spending that
would have been as disastrous for the American economy as it is proving to be for those
in Europe. Heritage {Foundation} analysts projected that this agreement would have raised
energy prices, killed jobs and cost the average family of four $20,000 by 2035.
[Emphasis mine] . . .
“This decision has come after a long debate over the issue . . .
research showed that the Paris plan would have created a shortfall of 400,000 jobs, a
total income loss of $20,000 for a family of four by 2035, and an increase in household
electricity expenditure by 13 to 20 percent . . .” (Ref. 8)
“. . . the Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt
climate change on the honor system, a system that internationally rarely, if ever,
succeeds. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report
progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. Under the agreement, it is highly
likely that the United States and wealthy developed nations would have implemented severe
climate change rules while many of other countries would have avoided doing anything that
would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy
and other nations’ economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.
[Emphasis mine]
“There are some who regarded (and still do) the Paris climate
accord as nothing but blackmail on the part of several countries who want lots of U.S.
dollars to consider reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, ‘Yemen has
promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris
climate agreement.
“ ‘North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by
2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check.
Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.
“ ‘Peru says it can cut emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared
with its ‘business as usual’ projections, though that would be a net pollution increase of
22 percent and is contingent on billions of dollars in funding.
“ ‘India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African
Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up,
or else they will have to keep polluting. [Emphasis mine]
- - -
“ ‘. . . for many that remain in the accord, the demands for cash
are fueling the argument that the Paris agreement, at its core, is as much about
redistributing international wealth as it is about saving the planet from climate
change.’ “ (Ref. 9), (Ref. 7)
But, let’s forget the horrendously negative impact of the
Paris Agreement on America. Would it save the world from the imminent disaster predicted
by the climate change terrorists? “From The Wall Street Journal editorial page: ‘The
Big Con at the heart of Paris is that even its supporters concede that meeting all of
its commitments won’t prevent more than a 0.17 degree Celsius increase in global
temperatures by 2100, far less than the two degrees that is supposedly needed to
avert climate doom.’
“That’s right: Both MIT and the UN’s own Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change have projected that full adherence to the Paris deal would have little
or no impact on global temperatures. Meanwhile, even without an agreement, U.S. CO2 emissions
were 23 percent lower (per GDP dollar) in 2015 than in 2005. We’re cutting greenhouse gas
emissions faster and farther than the same European nations that are denouncing Trump for
destroying the Earth. [Emphasis mine]
“Ah, but who can bother about boring old facts when {the tree
huggers of the world scream that the sky is falling and that} ‘Trump Pulling Out of Paris
Accord is a ‘Suicide Note To The World!’ “ (Ref. 10)
As the head of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) said
in September of 2019, “the alarmist narrative on climate change resembles ‘religious
extremism.’
“{Here in the U.S., many, like} congressional representative
Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) {are}. . . trying to impose extreme socialist policies
on the basis of the catastrophic scenario drawn by the climate change narrative.”
(Ref. 11)
As a consequence of past actions induced by the environmental
terrorists, America is now facing threats from China that impact not only our
national defense but also our ability to make positive impacts on climate control.
I have previously discussed the threat to our national security by China that has resulted from
environmental activists’ pressures on previous American administrations
(Ref. 12) and I will not repeat that discussion here.
“The recent threats by Beijing to cut off American access to
critical mineral imports has many Americans wondering why our politicians have allowed
the United States to become so overly dependent on China for these valued resources in the
first place.
“Today, the United States is 90% dependent on China and
Russia for many vital ‘rare earth minerals.’ [Emphasis mine]
“The main reason for our overreliance on nations like China for
these minerals is not that we are running out of these resources here at home. The U.S.
Geological Survey reports that we still have up to 86% or more of key mineral resources
like copper and zinc remaining in the ground, waiting to be mined. These resources aren’t
on environmentally sensitive lands, like national parks, but on the millions of acres of
federal, state and private lands.
“The mining isn’t happening because of prohibitive environmental
rules and a permitting process that can take five to 10 years to open a new mine. Green
groups simply resist almost all new drilling. [Emphasis mine]
“What they may not realize is that the de facto mining prohibitions
jeopardize the ‘green energy revolution’ that liberals are so desperately seeking.
“How’s this for rich irony?: Making renewable energy at all
technologically plausible will require massive increases in the supply of rare earth and
critical minerals. Without these valuable metals, there will not be more efficient 21st
century batteries for electric cars or modern solar panels. Kiss the Green New Deal and
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ utopian vision of 100% renewable
energy goodbye.
“Yet, for decades now, environmentalists have erected every
possible barrier to mining here in America for critical minerals — which we have in
great abundance.
“Thanks to the extreme environmentalists, we import from
unfriendly and repressive governments the critical minerals needed to produce rechargeable
batteries (lithium and cobalt), wind turbine motors (dysprosium), thin films for solar
power (tellurium) and miniature sensors that manage the performance of electric vehicles
(yttrium).
- - -
“Here is one simple but telling example of the shortsightedness
of the 'no mining' position of the environmentalists. Current electric vehicles can use
up to 10 times more copper than fossil fuel vehicles. Then, additional copper wire networks
will be needed to attach convenient battery chargers throughout public spaces and along
roads and highways. Do we really want this entire transportation infrastructure to be
dependent on China and Russia?
“Also, because our mining laws — the ones that don’t outright
prohibit mining — protect the environment far more than those in nations like China and
Africa, by importing these minerals, we are contributing to global environmental
degradation.
“So, there you have it. The keep-it-in-the-ground movement
environmentalists demand against use of almost all of America’s bountiful energy and
mineral resources is blocking a green future and a safer planet. Do they know this?
Do they care?” (Ref. 13)
In their mad dash to supposedly stop global warming the
environment terrorists are urging people to destroy the economic and industrial
breakthroughs that have made modern life on planet earth possible. Their blind rush
to solve one problem would result in a multitude of catastrophes greater than the one
on which they have set their sights. Like all terrorists, these environmental zealots
believe that they are speaking for the Lord when they tell us to do as they say or we
will all perish. Their solutions to their perceived number one threat to human existence
must be blindly accepted and implemented – no matter what their unintended consequences
or practicality. Their battle cry is that of Chicken Little – “The Sky Is Falling.
The World Will Come To An End If You Do Not Do As I Command!”
“Zealots convinced of their own righteousness are dangerous
people. When they conclude the courts have failed them, the democratic processes have
failed them and the government itself has failed them, violence will be their only
recourse. They will have plenty of supporters in the media willing to justify it.
After all, they are all convinced the world will end in a decade if they sit idly by.
“Listen to the environmental zealots, and hear for yourselves
how salvation is obtained. It is not pretty. The United States has done more
than most countries to cut its emissions, but the zealots always demand more. They do
so because, as long as sinners still sin, those who should be saved cannot be.
[Emphasis mine] In Christianity, the unrepentant sinner will not find salvation.
For the saved, however, access to heaven is not dependent on the unrepentant. In
environmentalism, the penitent environmentalist will not find salvation as long as
the polluters pollute. If the government won’t stop the sin, the zealots will have
to.” (Ref. 14)
In their headlong rush to panic the world into taking catastrophic
action to avoid their vision of the end of the world, the climate change terrorists are
enlisting and brain-washing the impressionable youth of the world. Under the direction of
these apocalyptic fanatics, teenagers around the world have taken to the streets to call
for environmental action. A 16-year old Swedish climate alarmist was invited by Democrats
to testify before Congress. Thousands skipped school to take part in global protests.
All this “sturm und drang” is the climate change terrorists’
attempt to convince the youth that the world will come to an end because of mankind’s
destruction of the climate. “The ‘existential threat’ scenario is another left-wing
falsehood used to whip up hysteria that will lead to the left’s control of the economy
and society.
“And that takes us back to the children: If you can’t sell your
hysteria to adults, try kids. And that is what the left has done. After all, no one is as
malleable or as easily indoctrinated as children.” (Ref. 15)
“Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate change activist Greta Thunberg
lives in the healthiest, wealthiest, safest, and most peaceful era humans have ever known.
She is one of the luckiest people ever to have lived.
“In a just world, Thunberg would be at the United Nations
thanking capitalist countries for bequeathing her this remarkable inheritance. Instead,
she, like millions of other indoctrinated kids her age, act as if they live in a uniquely
broken world on the precipice of disaster. This is a tragedy.
“ ‘You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty
words,’ Thunberg lectured the world. And maybe she’s right. We’ve failed her by raising
a generation of pagans who’ve filled the vacuum left by the absence of faith, not with
rationality, but with a cultish worship of Mother Earth and the state. Although, to be
fair, the Bible-thumping evangelical’s moral certitude is nothing but a rickety edifice
compared to the moral conviction of a Greta Thunberg.
“It’s not, of course, her fault. Adults have spent a year
creating a 16-year-old because her soundbites comport with their belief system. It
was ‘something about her raw honesty around a message of blunt-force fear [that]
turned this girl from invisible to global,’ says CNN in a news report about a child
with a narrow, age-appropriate grasp of the world.
“It should be noted that ‘blunt-force fear’ is indeed the
correct way to describe the concerted misinformation that Thunberg has likely been
subjected to since nursery school.
“There probably isn’t a public school in America that hasn’t
plied the panic-stricken talk of environmental disaster in their auditoriums over and
over again. . .
“We’ve finally convinced a generation of Americans to be
Malthusians. According to Scott Rasmussen’s polling, nearly 30% of voters now claim
to believe that it’s “at least somewhat likely” that the earth will become uninhabitable
and humanity will be wiped out over the next 10-15 years. Half of voters under 35
believe it is likely we are on the edge of extinction. Is there any wonder why our
youngest generation has a foreboding sense of doom?
“It’s the fault of ideologues who obsess over every weather
event as if it were Armageddon, ignoring the massive moral upside of carbon-fueled
modernity. It’s the fault of the politicians, too cowardly to tell voters that their
utopian vision of a world run on solar panels and windmills is fairy tale.
“It’s the fault of media that constantly ignores overwhelming
evidence that, on balance, climate change isn’t undermining human flourishing. By
nearly every quantifiable measure, in fact, we are better off because of fossil fuels. . .
“Thunberg might do well to sail her stern gaze and billowing
anger to India or China and wag her finger at the billions of people who no longer want
to live in poverty and destitution. Because if climate change is irreversible in the
next 10-12 years, as cultists claim, it can be blamed in large part on the historic
growth we’ve seen in developing nations.
“China’s emissions from aviation and maritime trade alone are
twice that of the United States, and more than the entire emissions of most nations in
the world. . .
“Boomers, of course, have failed on plenty of fronts, but the
idea that an entire generation of Americans should have chosen poverty over prosperity
to placate the vacuous complaints of privileged future teenagers is absurd. No generation
would do it. Until recently, no advanced nation has embraced Luddism. Although these days,
Democrats who advocate for bans on fossil fuels and carbon-mitigating technologies such
as fracking and nuclear energy are working on it.
“Climate activists could learn something from Thunberg’s honesty,
though. She argues that ‘money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth’ have to come to
an end. The emission cuts that environmentalists insist are needed to save the
earth would mean economic devastation and the end of hundreds of years of economic growth.
This is a tradeoff progressives pretend doesn’t exist. [Emphasis mine]
“And Thunberg’s dream for the future means technocratic
regimes will have to displace capitalistic societies. We can see this future in the
radical environmentalist plans of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, one
supported by leading Democratic Party candidates. It’s authoritarianism. There is no
other way to describe a regulatory regime that dictates exactly what Americans can consume,
sell, drive, eat, and work on. [Emphasis mine]
"One imagines that most Americans, through their actions,
will continue to reject these
regressive ideas. One reason they should is so that Greta Thunberg’s generation won’t
have to suffer needlessly.” (Ref. 16)
Let’s be honest. Climate change does not forecast the end of the
world. The climate may change and mankind will adapt to the change. Mankind and all other
species on this planet have been doing so ever since the dawn of creation. In the end, change is
inevitable in the world in which we live. Adaptation is what enables mankind, and all other
life on earth to exist. What mankind does or does not do to impact the environment and the
climate is, at best, unknown. But the chances of mankind creating an Armageddon through
climate change is not likely. More realistically, we should all be more concerned with
preventing a manmade nuclear Armageddon.
Instead of listening to the threats and dire predictions of death
and destruction being rained down on us by the climate change terrorists, we would all do well
to step back, consider the real science and the real facts, and decide upon a balanced approach
to addressing all the issues facing us - not just the single perceived problem of
global warming. Life on this planet involves more than just one issue. The truth is that
we can reduce pollution and protect the environment while, at the same time, continuing to improve
the quality of life on this earth. We have the technology and the power to do this. And we don’t
have to return to the dark ages, as the climate change terrorists would have us do. We have to
carefully consider the consequences of proposed courses of action and not be led down paths leading
to disastrous outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
- Climate Change: The Unintended Consequences of 'Green' Energy, PierreGuy Veer,
The Blaze,
13 May 2014.
- The Sky is Falling!, David Burton, Son of Eliyahu; Article 227,
13 July 2015.
- The Right Way to Ensure a Cleaner Environment, The Heritage Foundation,
Accessed 16 September 2019.
- The Green New Deal: Less About Climate, More About Control, Nicholas Loris and
Kevin Dayaratna,
The Heritage Foundation, Accessed 16 September 2019.
- Democrats’ ‘Green New Deal’ is a Crazy New Deal that would be a disaster for us all,
buzzdept.com,
8 February 2019.
- Environmentalists and Bureaucrats Combine to Cheat Us, David Burton, Son
of Eliyahu; Article 202,
26 September 2014.
- The Paris Climate Agreement - Trump Finally Got One Right, David Burton,
Son of Eliyahu; Article 295,
15 June 2017.
- President Trump just announced the US is leaving the Paris Climate Agreement,
Edwin J. Feulner,
The Heritage Foundation, 1 June 2017.
- Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero
Environmental Benefits,
Kevin Dayaratna, Nicolas Loris and David Kreutzer,
The Heritage Foundation, 13 April 2016.
- Getting beyond Paris, OpEd, Boston Herald, page 14, 2 June 2017.
- Climate change narrative resembles ‘religious extremism’ say scientists,
Sandra Flores, The BL, 9 September 2019.
- Now is Not the Time to Let Our Guard Down, David Burton, Son of Eliyahu;
Article 356, 29 April 2019.
- Green New Deal depends on mineral mining, Stephen Moore, Boston
Herald, Page 16, 20 September 2019.
- Environmental zealots grab media spotlight, Erick Erickson,
Boston Herald, Page 17, 23 September 2019.
- If You Can't Sell Your Hysteria to Adults, Try Kids, Dennis Prager,
The Jewish Press, Page 6, 27 September 2019.
- The Tragedy of Greta Thunberg, David Harsanyi, The Daily Signal,
28 September 2019.
|
|
