The environmental movement has a long history of predicting catastrophe on a global basis. It has on a regular basis brought to the public’s attention various supposedly hopeless ecological challenges presented as virtually unsolvable and requiring immediate action by government entities on a massive scale. Works such as Silent Spring by Rachel Carson focused on the use of pesticides (1962), The Limits to Growth commissioned by the Club of Rome (1972 and updated several times), The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich (1968), Earth in the Balance (1992) plus An Inconvenient Truth (2006) by Al Gore are examples of works with overly alarmist tones.
On the positive side, these works contributed to raising the public’s awareness of several important ecological challenges facing us, however, the usual prescriptions proposed were for comprehensive national and international Government mandated action with large commitments of public funding.
The reaction – attacks on Capitalism and potentially our standard of living
Whether it is population growth, the effects of pollution or more recently the claim that climate change is being produced primarily by man, immediate action in the form of mandates by governments driven most recently by the U.N. agenda of action outlined in the 1995 Paris Climate Agreement of planned corrective action is consistently offered primarily by a variety of prominent Left leaning players. The usual mix of the main stream media, scientists in academia and supported foundations, celebrities and Democratic politicians present their version of Climate Change that must be accepted without question. In their view, mankind exists to destroy the earth.
The issue of Climate Change is usually delivered with an emotional appeal of the irreparable harm to the planet and the added challenge of the actual survival of mankind if we all don’t follow suit with implementing their prescriptions immediately and acquiesce to their will. Their mandated agenda of action is presented while providing minimum consideration as to how their recommended policies may affect our lifestyles, living standards and most importantly our ability to live in freedom. The primary messages are coupled with attacks on Capitalism and the way we live.
The paradox that many fail to recognize is that the world’s wealthier societies all were created by Capitalism and this wealth creation makes possible investments in effective and workable solutions for a cleaner Earth that are occurring now by many of our most prominent corporations and a myriad of entrepreneurs. These days, the major offenders regarding releasing CO2 are the emerging economies such as China and India as they industrialize, not the United States.
Our Energy Future
The rising demands for energy by all nations across the world make most of Climate Change Agenda simply impossible to enact and run counter to the economic interests of most people across the planet now and in the future. Several factors come into play such Earth’s population growing by 1.8 Billion more people by 2040, emerging market nations such as China and India growing their middle class significantly with these people demanding lifestyles that consume significantly more energy. Increased levels of economic growth around the world will power the need for greater energy consumption.
For the foreseeable future oil will continue to play the leading role in the energy line-up, natural gas which does produce fewer CO2 emissions will have a more prominent place, however, it is forecast that coal will continue to prove one fifth of all energy and all alternatives such as wind, solar and biofuels will satisfy less than five percent.
Overall, any realistic forecasts of our energy and economic future are in extreme conflict with the stated objectives of the Climate Change agenda. The Climate Change agenda is based on curtailing the potential for economic growth for people across the planet that are hoping for a better future and is aimed now at penalizing the U.S. for our economic success.
U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement
On June 1 of 2017, President Donald Trump made the decision to have the U.S. leave the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change. The President made a compelling case that continuing to participate in the Accord would undermine the U.S. economy and have a negative long term on the American worker while producing so few benefits so far as climate change is concerned. President Trump claimed that climate action will cost our country $3 trillion and 6.5 million jobs over the next several decades. In addition, this Accord would lead to more authority over an issue of great importance to the American people being delegated to the U.N.
The Paris Agreement would have led to the prospect of hundreds of billions of dollars being transferred from richer countries to poorer countries for the hypothetical support of these countries becoming more energy efficient and to assist with their alternative energy development. Emerging Market countries such as India and China as they grow their economies will become more dependent on abundantly available coal that produces high levels of CO2. India and China are exempt for many years from the mandates of the Paris Agreement while our country which has become increasingly energy efficient is forced to pay the bills for the rest of the world with these transfer payments and increased energy regulation on the domestic front.
Are mankind’s activities primarily responsible for climate change?
Man’s activities as the primary cause of climate change is a controversial subject. Abundant evidence on either side of this argument exists. At this point of time, it is at best difficult to definitively come to final conclusions regarding the actual cause of climate change and the consequences of these changes. Primary contention centers on the accuracy of the many mathematical models that are run by scientists to support claims how fast and to what degree climate change is occurring and whether it is caused by man’s activities. These various models are subject of numerous controversies with many on both sides citing that they are subject to anything from simple inaccurate assumptions and data use to downright politically motivated fraud.
The primary issue that is focused upon and studied is the role of carbon pollution which is created by all types of activities from generating electricity to running industry and transportation plays in causing climate change. The CO2 that is generated and released into the earth’s atmosphere and is created by various human activities is blamed by many for creating a greenhouse effect that leads to global warming. Even the magnitude CO2’s role in promoting global warming is in question given the latest study conducted at the University of Alabama-Huntsville by climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider. If you take the pure emotion that the Left usually invokes regarding evaluating the various claims and merits of Climate Change, it is at best very difficult to discern what is true and not true regarding this very complex issue.
We should all agree to take appropriate steps to protect the environment
At a minimum, people on all sides of the political spectrum regarding this issue should be able to agree to take reasonable, prudent and ultimately effective steps to protect our environment. The question is what approaches work best, what are reasonable timeframes and what sector of society should take the lead?
Government has a decidedly mixed track record in the environmental area
For example, if we examine the record of Government sponsored and mandated action over last several years in the areas of the development of solar energy, ethanol, electric powered cars and nuclear power we will find a series of various failed attempts. Government as it does in so many other policy areas adopts an inflexible top down mandated and usually permanent attempt of managing a major issue with very mixed results.
Government regulations tend to subsidize an unproductive allocation of resources with little accountability for real results. Solar energy, the production of ethanol and the development of electric cars are not economically possible without the commitment of massive subsidiaries and mandates by governments.
For effective solutions for a cleaner Earth, the Private Sector and individual initiative must take the lead
A positive recent development is that hundreds of well-known corporations such as Google, Apple, Nike and Microsoft have taken on more proactive steps regarding conservation and how they use energy. We must take the lessons learned so far and apply them to favor solutions to protect our environment over realistic time frames and in effective and sustainable ways that are fiscally responsible. Of course, this means more private enterprise, emerging entrepreneurial companies, technology and the plain application of human ingenuity needs to be applied to these challenges in an atmosphere where freedom and free markets rule rather than where an increased number of Government, Global, and U.N. sponsored mandates such as the 2015 Paris Climate Deal dominate.
Wherever we are on the political spectrum, we can all agree that a cleaner Earth is in all our best interests. As always, it is how we get there that ultimately dictates success or failure. It is interesting to note considering all the attention paid to the topic of Climate Change, we still do not definitively know; is mankind responsible for climate change and long term warming trends or is it simply the planet we live on?
The RightQuestions 