One of my favorite cliches is that “all extreme positions are wrong, including this one.”
I do not believe the following is an extreme position. I believe it’s measured. Balanced, between what we need as a society, and what we need to do as stewards of our environment.
While I hate to disappoint the climate alarmists, the world is not going to end tomorrow because of plastic straws, the sea level isn’t going to rise and swallow Manhattan and most of Florida, and the air isn’t going to choke you with excess levels of CO2. Those are extreme positions that were postulated by some of the most alarming alarmists, including our former Vice President, Al Gore.
The facts are that the climate has not cooperated with any of the climate models or forecasts in any way, shape or form. I’m not going to argue the “science” (which is far from settled), but I am going to argue the numbers, and they are crystal clear. Reality has not supported their forecasts.
It’s been said Republicans tend to look at the climate as more of a national security and economics issue, while the left is solely concerned with “the planet.” The rub is the left’s “save” the planet at any cost that has ramifications they refuse to rationally consider.
As a society, we have made great strides in cleaning up pollution. No one who lives near the Ohio River would argue that it is not cleaner and healthier today than it’s been in the past century. We don’t discard toxic waste irresponsibly and take the necessary steps to properly treat and dispose of the by-products of the industrial processes that make modern life possible.
There are universally agreed-upon measurements for pollutants, and with every measure our air and water are better. The cost for this improvement was significant, but we knew this going in, and there was little doubt that it had to be done.
We didn’t up-end our economy. We didn’t hurt those least able to afford it. We didn’t reduce our standard of living. We achieved real, measurable results.
We kept our coal miners working because we added scrubbers. We insisted industrial and chemical firms did the right thing. Of course, these fixes were largely local in nature. Our waterways are local. Particulate-based air pollution is local. How we treat and handle industrial waste is local.
Cleaning this up did require energy – energy that created significant amounts of a colorless, odorless chemical compound that has been vilified as environmental enemy #1. Carbon Dioxide, or CO2.
It’s a whopping 0.04% (that’s four-tenths of one percent) of our atmosphere.
CO2 is what puts the fizz in your Pepsi. It’s what those who study agriculture know to be one of the key drivers for plant growth and health.
Those who feed us are concerned that “carbon neutral” might seriously jeopardize our food supply. … but we have to do something extreme to save the planet, or so we are told.
The extremists demand “carbon neutral” at all costs, and that includes starving hundreds of millions of people in developing nations in an effort to further their extremism. I don’t know if I consider CO2 “pollution” since we need it to live. It’s one of the building blocks of life.
Controlling CO2 can only occur on a global basis. Every nation in the world would need to participate equally to make even a marginal change in our output of this compound. No one nation can do this alone. If, for example, the United States reduces its CO2 output, while the Chinese increase theirs, there is no improvement. None. No change.
But only one society suffers.
Eliminate the cow population because of cow flatulence? Eat bugs? Eliminate air conditioning? Ridiculously expensive “solar power”? Force everyone who can afford it into tiny, electric cars with limited range? Put coal miners out of business?
There are all sorts of extreme remedies to achieve a questionable, nearly impossible-to-measure goal, with methods that are not considered from a cost/benefit standpoint, but what is the reward?
The Eco-Extremists pray at the altar of “Saving the Planet at any cost,” which is right now politically fashionable.
U.S. Sen. John Kennedy, R-La was recently asking Deputy Energy Secretary David Turk about how much of a measurable difference spending $50 trillion of taxpayer money for the US to become carbon-neutral by 2050. He was unable to answer the question. Is it that he didn’t know, or that the answer would not support the radical, extreme position advocated by the administration of which he is a part? Fifty TRILLION dollars. No measurable results, beyond “less carbon,” and we are supposed to be happy with that?
Spending $10 to get seven cents of climate improvement is not going to get us where we need to go, regardless of the agreed-upon measures. Knuckling under to the UN and other “global agencies” who think we should be punished because of the actions of our parents and grandparents who built this nation is not reasonable.
We have watched the Germans materially damage their economy and their world standing by destroying their domestic energy and shifting to powering their economy from the dirty gas they buy from Putin. That they would do this to themselves is unfortunate, and likely criminal.
I believe our coal miners and coal-fired generation plants operate responsibly. They produce energy in a cost-effective manner and have eliminated much of the pollution associated with burning coal. What that can’t change is the basic chemical process of combustion. It’s going to produce CO2. Until “carbon capture” is proven on an industrial scale, it’s some scientist’s dream.
While society works its way through this quagmire, beware of extremists. Question the numbers. Consider the costs and the benefits. Demand clear and measurable metrics.
Extremists on both sides of this issue are just wrong.
