In the global warming debate, an understanding of global warming language is critically more important than an understanding of global warming science. Since the science has increasingly been found to be specious and the most vocal scientists to be neurotic, dilettantes with political agendas, this is very good news. It’s easier to learn the language than the science, especially when both keep changing. For example, the phenomenon itself has recently been renamed as global climate change. Scientists who were predicting global cooling during the 1970’s apparently got together with the scientists predicting global warming during the 1990’s to come up with language making their scientific predictions unassailable - global climate will change.
But “global climate change” is more than a clever tautological phrase. For it means that both temperature increases and decreases will increase our taxes. That global temperature has not increased for more than 10 years would ordinarily cast doubt on the validity of the "Mann Hockey Stick” curve, made famous by Al Gore - the one predicting the dramatic, relentless increase in global temperature well into the 2000’s. Published in 1998, temperatures began leveling off instead of rapidly increasing in, well, 1999. But undeterred by empirical data, Al and his team of crack scientists employ methods by which recent cooling can be used as proof of future warming. It’s too complex to explain (or understand) here. Suffice it to say that “flat-earthers” (people who question the manipulated and lost climate data, the fuzzy climate prediction models, and the shrill claims and tortured logic of fretting environmentalists) are the only skeptics.
To many, it has become axiomatic that global warming is anthropogenic. Dictionaries define anthropogenic as “caused by humans.” When used by the U.N., Al Gore, Barack Obama and other high priests of climate change, anthropogenic means effects caused by wealthy humans – the very ones responsible for creating the hockey stick trend and the concomitant demise of civilization. This leads to another important global warming theory: global warming is only solvable by decreased energy consumption in wealthy nations.
The Kyoto Protocol, which embodies this theory, commits 37 industrialized countries to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These so-called Annex I countries agreed to reduce their collective emissions by 6 - 8% from 1990 levels. This leads to the Annex II countries, a subset of the Annex I countries, and the corollary that wealthy nations must additionally pay for the developing countries. That is, developing countries, which include countries such as China and India, get a pass. They are not required to reduce emission levels unless Annex II countries pay for the technology to do so. Having only wealthy nations suffer the economic consequences of greenhouse gas reduction is thought to be the fairest way to achieve sustainable global growth.
But sustainable global growth should be an alarming concept for people living in Annex II countries, especially U.S. citizens. That a 6 – 8% emissions reduction by a small handful of advanced countries can curb global warming is pure fantasy. It can’t be done. Climate change experts estimate that if the Kyoto Protocol was carried out in full compliance through 2050, the global temperature would be reduced by less than 1/10 of 1% - this, at an economic cost of tens of trillions of dollars, most of which would come from the U.S., the greatest sinner against the planet. In reality, Kyoto is simply a scheme to transfer wealth from advanced countries to less advanced countries. It is the mechanism for sharing global wealth - reducing living standards of industrialized nations - until the economies of developing countries catch up.
China, with 1.33 billion people, and India, with 1.17 billion, comprise 37% of the world’s population. Both are trying in earnest to catch up. India, for instance, has over 400 million people it plans to add to its electrical grid. In Sub-Saharan Africa, the total number without electricity has grown by 78 million since 2001 and is projected to reach nearly 700 million by 2030. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), 1.43 billion people worldwide are without electricity. While the geniuses at the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC ) have finished the science on global warming, they haven’t done the math on the time it will take poor countries to add over a billion new electrical customers. Nor have they calculated the carbon footprint in these countries when they graduate to luxuries such as indoor plumbing, appliances, heating and air conditioning, cars, etc.
Where will they get the money to pay for these items? To achieve sustainable growth, it must come from the increased taxes and energy costs foisted on Annex I countries. Companies in wealthy nations will be forced out of business or into outsourcing the work to companies in developing countries. The latter, who already have a huge competitive advantage with respect to labor costs (e.g., U.S. per capita income is $47,440 while that of China and India is $3,259 and $1,017, respectively) will accept the resulting transfer of jobs and revenues with alacrity. Ironically, this will include the green jobs promised by the Obama administration.
In president Obama’s green economy, we are to have clean, renewable energy generated by solar panels, windmills and lithium batteries. The catch is that it will cost up to 19 times more (e.g., $.38/KWH for solar vs $.02/KWH for coal) than our current dirty energy and most people will not want to pay $40,000 for a battery-powered Schumer-mobile such as the Chevy Volt. If you are counting on a highly skilled $80,000/year green job to help cover your future energy bills and car payments, think again. American scientists and engineers may design more efficient technologies, but the jobs to produce them will immediately go to companies in developing countries. Here, the principal skill will be the ability to quickly move solar panels, windmill blades and Schumer-mobile batteries from conveyor belts into boxes for shipment to the U.S.
With the Kyoto gift of comparatively lower energy costs, they will happily produce the new orders in their archaic, pollution-spewing factories. U.S. energy generation is much more efficient, producing much less greenhouse gas and pollution. If our energy is dirty, then that of developing countries can only be characterized as filthy. Yet our factories will languish due to prohibitively expensive energy while those in developing nations will flourish. China, for instance, which builds a coal-fired power plant each week, will be a major beneficiary. It is also home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities. And since 80% of the world’s 6.8 billion people resides in developing countries, any Kyoto-effected reductions by Annex I countries will be more than negated. Ironically, under Kyoto, the world will get more greenhouse gas emissions, with vastly more pollution as a bonus.
Worse yet (much worse yet), population growth in the non-advanced world will make sustainable global growth a dramatically bigger farce. By 2050, world population is expected to reach 9.85 billion with the population of developing countries reaching 8.69 billion (87.6% of the total population). That is, the population of developing countries is expected to grow from 5.44 billion to 8.69 billion with little or no growth in advanced countries. Here, again, IPCC wizards failed to do the math, leaving out the calculation of the greenhouse emissions that will be produced by the extra 3 billion carbon footprints in the environment-unfriendly, Kyoto-free part of the world. Thus, sustainable global growth means an increase in the living standards and populations of developing countries and fewer jobs, higher taxes and greater energy costs for advanced countries.
To date, the United States is the only industrialized country smart enough not to have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. But things are changing. Although climate change is less popular than even ObamaCare, Harry Reid is about to take up Cap & Trade legislation in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi has already passed the House version. The delusional ignorance of their Utopian plan is exceeded only by their arrogance. The green economy and sustained global growth are preposterous concepts that will turn our economy into an empty house of cards.
It would be comical if not for their influence on the coerced extraction of tens of trillions of dollars in taxpayer money to expand government and enrich developing countries while lowering our standard of living and exacerbating global pollution. And, as if Apollo himself stood behind them haughtily mocking the inanity of their ill-conceived, but zealously promoted, policies, they will, in reality, drastically increase man’s contribution to global warming. There is only one up-side - and a glowing one at that. They will be able to say that the “flat-earthers” were wrong in their denial of anthropogenic global climate change. Climate change will indeed be anthropogenic – the anthropoids being the likes of Al Gore, Barack Obama , Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.