Continued hype and deceit drive climate, energy
agenda – clobbering poor families
By Paul Driessen
Despite
constant claims to the contrary, the issue is not whether greenhouse gas emissions
affect Earth’s climate. The questions are whether those emissions are overwhelming the powerful natural forces
that have always driven climate fluctuations, and whether humans are causing dangerous climate change.
No
Real-World evidence supports a “dangerous manmade climate change” thesis. In
fact, a moderately warmer planet with more atmospheric carbon dioxide
would hugely benefit crop, forest and other plant growth, wildlife and humans –
with no or minimal climate effect. A colder planet with less CO2 would punish them.
And a chillier CO2-deprived planet with less reliable, less affordable energy (from
massive wind, solar and biofuel projects) would threaten habitats, species, nutrition
and the poorest among us.
And
yet, as Hurricane Matthew neared Florida on the very day the Paris climate
accord secured enough signatures to bring it into force, politicians, activists
and reporters refused to let that crisis go to waste.
Matthew
is the kind of “planetary threat” the Paris agreement “is designed to stop,”
said one journalist-activist. This hurricane is a “record-shattering storm that
is unusual for October,” said another; it underscores how climate change could
“turn seasonal weather events into year-round threats.”
What
nonsense. What hubris. Suggesting that humans can control planetary
temperatures and prevent hurricanes, tornadoes and other severe weather is
absurd. Saying an October hurricane augurs year-long chaos is either grossly
ill-informed or deliberately disingenuous.
Matthew
was a powerful storm that left destruction and death in its wake, especially in
impoverished Haiti. Its slow track up the southeastern US coastline pummeled
the region with rain, flooding and more deaths. But it was a Category 1 hurricane with 75 mph winds when it made landfall in South Carolina October 8,
and a post-tropical storm as it moved offshore from North Carolina a day later.
Despite
the rain and floods, that makes a record
eleven years since a major (Category 3-5) hurricane last made landfall in
the United States (Wilma in October 2005). The previous record major hurricane
hiatus was nine years, 1860-1869, according to NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division.
Only
a charlatan would suggest that this record lull is due to rising atmospheric
carbon dioxide levels. But plenty of alarmist charlatans claim that any violent
or “unseasonal” storms are due to “too much” CO2.
Since
recordkeeping began in 1851, the US has been hit by 63 Category 3 hurricanes,
21 Cat 4 storms and three Category 5s (1935, 1969 and 1995). Of 51 hurricanes
that struck in October, 15 were Category 3-4. Other significant gaps in major
hurricane strikes on US coasts occurred in 1882-86, 1910-15 and 1921-26.
The
worst periods were 1893-1900 (8 Category 3-5 ‘canes), 1915-21 (8 Cat 3-4),
1926-35 (8 Cat 3-5), 1944-50 (8 Cat 3-4), 1959-69 (7 Cat 3-5), and 2004-05 (7
Category 3-4 hurricanes in just two years).
There
is no pattern or trend in this record, and certainly no link to carbon dioxide
levels.
Even
more obscene than the CO2-climate deception is the response to Matthew’s
devastation. More than a week after the Category 4 version of this hurricane struck
Haiti’s unprepared shanty towns, hundreds of thousands still had not received
food, water, medicine or clothing.
Just
as intolerable, United Nations “humanitarian and disaster relief” agencies were
issuing “emergency appeals” for $120 million in “life-saving assistance” funds for the desperate
Haitians. This after President Obama improperly diverted $500
million from an economic aid
program set up to address disease epidemics – like the Zika and cholera cases
that are rapidly rising in Haiti – to the UN’s
Climate Action Fund. So Obama and the UN blame hurricanes and diseases on
manmade climate change, but refuse to spend money they already have on a
hurricane disaster, and instead beg for more money. Incredible!
It is clearly not climate change that threatens the poor.
It is policies imposed in the name of preventing climate change that imperil
poor, minority, blue-collar, farm and factory families.
A new study by
the Institute for Competition Economics concludes
that Germany’s “green energy transition” will cost €520
billion ($572 billion) by 2025 – just to switch from gas and coal to renewable electricity
generation. These costs will keep accumulating long after 2025, and do not
cover “decarbonizing” the country’s transportation, heating and agriculture
sectors, the study points
out.
This
€520-billion bill amounts to a €25,000 ($27,500) surcharge for every German
family – and 70% of it will come due over the next nine years. That bill is
nearly equal to the average German family’s total net worth: €27,000. It is a massive regressive tax that will
disproportionately impact low-income families, which already spend a far higher
portion of their annual incomes on energy, and rarely have air conditioning.
Germany is slightly smaller than Montana,
which is 4% of the USA, and has just 25% of the US population and 22% of the US
gross domestic product. (One-fifth of US
families have no or negative net worth.)
All
of this strongly suggests that a forced transition from fossil fuels to wind,
solar and biofuel energy would cost the United States tens of trillions of dollars – hundreds of thousands per American
family.
The
impacts of climate change obsession on developing nations would be far worse,
if they bowed to President Obama’s suggestions and agendas. African nations, he has said,
should “leapfrog” “dirty” fossil fuels and instead utilize their “bountiful”
wind, solar, geothermal and biofuel resources. In practice, that would mean having
expensive, intermittent electricity and growing biofuel crops on Africa’s nutrient-depleted,
drought-stricken lands, with no fertilizer, mechanized farming equipment or GMO
seeds.
That
is racist. It reflects an elitist preference that the world’s poor should die, rather than emit carbon dioxide
“pollution,” drive cars, build modern homes, or engage in other “unsustainable”
practices.
Thankfully,
few developing countries are listening to such nonsense. Instead, they are using oil, natural gas and especially coal, in ever-increasing amounts, to lift
their people out of abject poverty – because the “climate-saving” Paris non-treaty
imposes no restrictions on their use
of fossil fuels.
But
meanwhile, “keep it in the ground” pressure groups are redoubling their efforts
to prevent Americans from using their own bountiful fossil fuels to create jobs
and prosperity. Even though a new NOAA study
confirms that rice growing and meat production generate far more methane than do oil, natural gas and coal production and use – with US
operations contributing a tiny fraction of that – these groups use every legal
and illegal tactic
to block drilling, fracking and pipelines. (Methane is 0.00017% of the
atmosphere.)
The
dictatorial USEPA nevertheless stands ready to issue tough new methane rules
for oil and gas operations, while Al Gore and assorted regulators advocate
forcing farmers to control cow flatulence
“to combat climate change.” Meanwhile, even Hillary Clinton has recognized that
Russia provides millions of dollars in support for anti-fracking and
anti-pipeline agitators in Europe and the United States.
Keeping
fossil fuels in the ground really means depriving people of reliable,
affordable electricity; prolonging unemployment and poverty; having no feed
stocks for plastics and petrochemicals, except what might come from biofuels;
and blanketing hundreds of millions of acres of farm, scenic and habitat land
with biofuel crops, 400-foot-tall wind turbines, vast solar arrays and new transmission
lines.
And
as the UN’s top climate officials have proudly affirmed, “preventing climate change” is really about replacing free enterprise
capitalism with “a new economic development model” and having an excuse to
“distribute the world’s wealth” to crony corporatists and other “more
deserving” parties.
When
taxpayers, consumers, unemployed workers and poor families finally recognize
these inconvenient truths, the world will be a far better place – with true
freedom, justice and opportunity for all.
Paul
Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow
(www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green
power - Black death
and other books on the environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment