Crossposted at Right Minds
Recently, Al Gore made headlines by declaring that the world must end the use of fossil fuels for energy within ten years in order to prevent irreparable harm to the planet. According to the UK Guardian, Gore didn’t get into specifics in his speech, which was probably a good idea since the Alliance for Climate Protection (which Gore chairs) estimates that the cost of ending fossil fuel would range between 1.5 trillion and 3 trillion dollars. Gore claims that he is aware of the difficulties of this goal. He isn’t .
Reducing carbon dioxide by any meaningful amount is not just difficult—it is impossible. Anyone who claims differently simply has no idea of the role carbon dioxide plays in the modern world.
It really isn’t clear just how much carbon dioxide needs to go. Gore thinks all emissions should stop by 2018; that obviously won’t happen, even if we discover alternate energy sources which would provide for our energy needs. Gore and his alcolytles really don’t say just where the tipping point is—the emissions level in 1900 were 50 billion metric tons, and today emissions hover around 350 billion tons, but just where worldwide emissions crossed the line isn’t clear. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the salvation of the world depends on reducing greenhouse gas emissions by fifty percent. While probably actually less than Gore and company would want, that is a goal that is at least somewhat concievable.
And to meet even this comparatively modest goal, America, China, and Taiwan would have to completely eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions, and we still just barely reach this objective. And by America, I mean all of America—Canada and Mexico are included, along with the entirety of South America. That is what climate change advocates are up against—you could wipe two continents off the face of the earth and the problem would still exist. (Chart
here)
Fortunately, Gore (Gore, by the way, seems to represent nearly all global warming doomsayers, so his statements usually speak for the whole movement), has a plan. By doing simple things like using environmentally friendly light bulbs, turning down the thermostat, and turning off lights when not in use, YOU can do your part to save the planet.
Nonsense. You could eliminate Great Britain and over 98% of carbon emissions would remain. Fighting global warming is waste of resources—if the science behind the theory is flawed, then doing so is unnecessary, if accurate, then it is futile. There is nothing we can do to affect global warming.
Most environmentalists would, I assume, would counter that argument by saying that when faced with a crisis of this magnitude, the least we can do is to try to stop it, even if the chances of success are slight. This is a bad idea. First, the concept of “humanity banding together to meet a near impossible challenge” only works in science fiction movies when the aliens invade Earth—it doesn’t hold up so well in real life. Second, humanity may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb—if the oceans will boil and the icecaps melt, we might as well preserve a decent standard of living in the process.
Furthermore, fighting global warming has a steep price. In Tanzania, the population can’t turn their thermostats down two degrees because they don’t have thermostats. In many South American countries, most people don’t have lights to turn off. Most of the globe remains poor in a world in which energy is mostly cheap and abundant. If Gore and his cronies get their way, energy will become immeasurably more expensive. These people will remain forever poor, victims of a war fought against an enemy that is either nonexistent or inescapable.
Climate change advocates should realize this fact. Taking government action to prevent global warming is more than pointless or futile—it is grossly irresponsible, and the global warming movement should consider the consequences of their policies.
