Dignitaries from across the globe have assembled in Poznan, Poland this week to negotiate a framework for next year’s meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark. The purpose of these UN-sponsored assemblages? Agreeing on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The big villain at these shindigs (other than the United States) is the invisible trace gas carbon dioxide. The anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis is based on the assumption that increasing amounts of CO2 are trapping additional heat in the Earth’s atmosphere and thereby warming the planet. There is no hard evidence to support this hypothesis – increases in temperature don’t come with a “Caused by humanity’s use of fossil fuels” label – just speculation and some degree of correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. In science, however, correlation does not equal causation.
Climate change is the natural order on Planet Earth. Change is the only constant when it comes to climate. Our planet’s history extends billions of years and its climate regularly swings from ice age to sweltering interglacial. Likewise, concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have varied wildly – soaring to over 7,000 ppm during the Cambrian period, to current levels during the Carboniferous period, rising to 2,500 ppm during the Jurassic period and declining to our current (historically low) concentrations.
Plants grow best at CO2 concentrations around 1,200 ppm – triple the concentration in our atmosphere today. They clearly evolved in a more carbon-rich environment. If anything, increasing CO2 concentrations is a return to the Earth’s natural order and provides free fertilizer for every green plant. More vigorous plant life benefits every animal on the planet.
Regardless of how little mankind truly understands the dozens of factors that affect Earth’s climate, there are dedicated and fanatical devotees from the Church of AGW demanding action. “So far I think it’s going really slowly,” Susann Scherbarth from Friends of the Earth in Germany said of the talks in the western city of Poznan. She and other protesters in Poznan waved a banner reading: “Stop clowning around, get serious about climate action.” They might as well wave a banner reading: “Stop clowning around, get serious about putting pants on squirrels.” Nothing mankind can do will have any affect on global climate. But that won’t stop the world’s “leaders” from squandering trillions of dollars trying. The best thing we could do is commit to ensuring we have the ability to adapt to whatever climate curveball Gaia throws.
One sure way to reduce emissions is to cripple economic development. Recession means that developed nations’ greenhouse gas emissions will fall by about 2 percent next year, making other action less urgent. We also learn that President Obama wants the US to reduce “greenhouse gas” emisions to 1990 levels by the year 2027. US GDP was ~$7.1 trillion in 1990 compared with ~$13 trillion today. Such a reduction can only be caused by stunting economic growth or a wholesale return to the hunting-and-gathering way of life. It’s doubtful that Americans will embrace either. Diverting enormous amounts of money and resources out of the marketplace and into government-subsidized programs to battle the phantom menace would cripple US productivity for a generation. Republicans and moderate Democrats in Congress need to step up and quash this madness.
Of course, the real goal of these conferences is creating a global climate slush fund to transfer wealth from unpopular but productive entities to the unproductive:
A successful global effort to reduce greenhouse gases would establish a common price on emissions in all countries, at a level that induces the required reduction in the emissions intensity of economic activity. It could do this through agreement on applying a common rate of tax on emissions in all countries. Alternatively, and more directly, it could allocate entitlements to emit greenhouse gases across countries through an emissions trading scheme: international trade in emissions entitlements would tend to equalize the carbon price across countries.
Once again, it seems unlikely that Americans would consent to a global climate change tax on every item they purchase. Unfortunately, that will be the end result of any global emission reduction agreement. Higher costs for manufactured goods, higher transportation costs, higher costs for retailers, and less money in consumers’ pockets.
Money spent on preventing climate change might just as well be spent making the sun rise in the west and set in the east. It is pointless and diverts resources better used elsewhere. Ask Bjorn Lomborg. We are far better served ensuring future generations have the wealth to adapt to their climate – whether it be a warmer world or a cooler world. Considering the difference in biodiversity between the polar regions and the equator we should hope for a warmer world. Whatever our climate future holds, we don’t want our grandchildren looking back and scratching their heads like we do now when discussing belief in a geocentric universe or the Salem Witch Trials. We must adapt, overcome and improvise rather than sacrifice wealth creation thinking we can tinker with the global thermostat.
Posted by Baron Von Ottomatic
