Climate Catastrophe?
Written in conjunction with guest writer LRM.
“Climate change” has become quite the “bandwagon.” Anyone who’s “anyone” (as well as all those who, apparently, are “no one”!) need to jump on! For politicians, Hollywood elite, school children suing the government, and aggrieved teenagers it’s the biggest crisis facing our world. Bigger than World War II. Bigger than terrorism. Bigger than World War III! According to these people we are only 12 years away from the literal “Eve of Destruction“. Anyone not on the “bandwagon “ is labeled a “denier”, a term synonymous with “deplorable” or worse. But just because everyone believes something to be true does not make it so. The world turned out NOT, after all, to be flat as was the consensus back when.
Just to set the record straight—I am not a “denier”. I believe wholeheartedly in climate change. I believe in climate change for the simple reason that “change” is what the climate does. It has been changing, drastically I might add, since the Earth cooled. In the past, it has been cooler, warmer, wetter and drier. CO2 levels have been higher and lower. And, prior to the industrial revolution, mankind had absolutely NOTHING to do with the these changes. But if you listen to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, our major media, adorable 12 year old girls or insolent teens given a grandstand, you’d think that, before the advent of man, the earth’s climate had been rock stable for some 4 billion years. Nothing, however, could be further from the truth. Ice ages come and go. Warm epochs come and go. Rainy millennia alternate with dry.
Although there is no question that the earth has gone through numerous and drastic changes in climate throughout its history, the cause of these changes are actually poorly understood. Scientists aren’t certain why ice ages start, nor why they stop. This uncertainty should, perhaps, not be surprising, because even “simple” forecasting of the weather just a week in advance remains an inexact science at best. In the 1970’s many scientists thought that the earth was cooling and many articles were published to that effect. Google has buried most of those. One long term trend that is uncontested, however, is the alternation of glacial periods (ice ages) and interglacial periods over the past million years (the pleistocene epoch). It’s no coincidence that the ascent of human civilization has taken place in its entirety during the most recent interglacial period which began about 11 thousand years ago, and provided the climactic conditions necessary for advanced societies to develop. Moreover, glacial periods last about 100,000 years, but warm interglacial periods only about 10,000. If this pattern repeats, as is likely, we may be due for another Ice Age soon. And, lest you think this would be an improvement over global warming, recall that during the last Ice Age, the glaciers came down as far south as Long Island on the east coast and the Mason-Dixon Line inland. During those times, a large portion of the northern hemisphere was covered under ice several miles thick. Sea levels were very low during that time. Although this would radically reduce the cost of flood insurance for my coastal house, the mile of ice on top of it would hardly improve its resale value! Furthermore, during past glacial periods CO2 levels are known to have been very low (about half of what they are now). Since CO2 is actually a plant “food”, some scientists are concerned that if CO2 levels become TOO low, plant life would struggle or even perish, as would the entire food chain, including, unfortunately, even us.
Those who claim that the question of global warming is “settled” beyond a reasonable doubt, are nothing if not naive. Just because the earth warmed during the last 50-100 years is no guarantee that it will continue to do so. (Past performance is no guarantee of future results as the stock brokers often remind us.) That is why we need to continue to study climate critically and with an open mind. Scientists must consider all possibilities and all scenarios. That is how real science is done. Unfortunately, that is becoming increasingly difficult to do; research grant monies flow only to projects that are expected to support the global warming hypothesis.
It is also interesting to consider how, over the past ten years, “global warming” terminology has morphed into the more vague and all encompassing term of “climate change”. This allows leftists, “progressives” and those with an axe to grind to cover all bases. Although leftists may profess great concern for the environment, their overarching quest, I suspect, is for political power. The threat of catastrophic climate change is a perfect pretext for increasing government control over the you and I. Under the banner of saving the planet, the government can dictate what type of car you drive, how you heat your house, what kind of lightbulb you buy, how much meat you eat, etc. The “New Green Deal”, for example, calls for the virtual elimination of cows (for the unforgivable sin of farting green house gases!) as well a virtual end to air travel (except for “important” people like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, George Clooney and Leonardo DiCaprio). One of the great ironies in the climate change debate is how the wealthy elite who travel around the globe to attend climate conferences do so in their PRIVATE JETS, thereby leaving a carbon footprint the size of King Kong’s. They then have the gall to preach to the “little people” (you and I) about the energy we use. Hypocrisy knows no bounds!
Finally we hear much about the corporate greed of the fossil fuel companies like Exxon Mobile, but the fact is that there is also a tremendous amount of money that flows to the renewable energy sector (in the form of government subsidies, tax breaks, and venture capitalist investment). And, although they are demonized, the fact is that fossil fuels have done more to improve the quality of life for mankind and create the civilization that we now enjoy, than almost anything else. Without fossil fuels we’d still be huddled around campfires and living in mud huts. Do we really want to go back to that?
So here’s the “rub”: The climate is changing. That’s what the climate does. It’s not completely clear that man’s activities are responsible. But even if a portion of climate change is due to man’s activities, the radical schemes that have been proposed to reverse it would likely bankrupt the world’s economies and, as a result, human society would regress to a more primitive state. How primitive will depend on how much energy use is curtailed. Would we consent to regression to the level of the 1800’s? Or to the level of preindustrial societies? Would we deny third world countries their chance to raise their standard of living up to ours? Do we really think we can stop them? And what about the feasibility of actually reducing the global carbon “foot print?” Even the vaunted Paris climate accords, when fully implemented, have been projected to have a minuscule effect on future temperatures (5 HUNDREDTHS of one degree Celsius). And, despite the copious lip service the signatories have given to “saving the planet”, not a single participant has come close to their self professed goals of green house reductions. (The United States, which did NOT sign the accord, by the way, HAS reduced its carbon footprint substantially). And, so far, alternative energy strategies have all been found to be lacking, in one way or another. Neither wind nor solar are viable comprehensive solutions right now because they require extensive back up systems (coal, natural gas, etc.) when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. And all proposed alternative energy solutions remain much more expensive. Even with the cost of “scrubbers” factored in, coal plants can produce electricity at 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour (source: www.instituteforenergyresearch.org). Solar power is TWICE as expensive at 6 cents per kilowatt hour (source: www.energy.gov) and off shore wind power is FIVE TIMES as expensive at 15 cents per kilowatt hour (source: www.instituteforenergyresearch.org). Only nuclear power beats coal at about TWO THIRDS the cost at 2.1 cent per kilowatt hour (source: www.instituteforenergyresearch.com).Although the thought of more nuclear energy brings terror to the hearts of American college students, the efficacy of the “nuclear option” is attested to by the fact that “enlightened” France currently derives 75% of its electricity from nuclear plants, and China, at this very minute, has ONE HUNDRED AND TEN nuclear plants under construction!
So America must not be be overly swayed by the earnest entireties from either AOC, adorable eight year olds, or strident teenagers. We need to study climate change with an open mind and unbiased approach. We need to abjure “bandwagon” declarations from progressives and the socialist left. Combatting real climate change, be it global warming or a new ice age, and safeguarding both our planet and our civilization will require smart, creative thinking. Such thinking is best fostered by intellectually honest study and debate and supported by a free market economy which will, ultimately, benefit from the right choices. And this will happen only in a prosperous, tech savvy society, not one in which society has regressed back to preindustrial times.