None of the Above – An alternate solution to global warming
Posted by Jeff Id on November 9, 2009
Recently, I’ve read on several blogs the proprietors belief in mitigation. It’s a common theme on even skeptic blogs and none of us like pollution so it makes sense at that level. Here I propose the opposite is a better strategy for mitigation. After all, it’s not about how much CO2 we emit now, it’s how much we emit before better solutions can be implemented. This is where I propose the all of the above mitigation argument falls short.
I’ve never offered an opinion on whether CO2 is creating global warming, the theory makes some sense but even the 1.2 degree minimum calculated a century ago has some problems. It’s complicated so we rely on incomplete models for future climate and some very poor data and math for historic climate reconstructions to create a picture. To compound matters liberalism and socialism have corrupted the science to a point where many papers are invalid. Claims about shrinking fish due to global warming is a good example but there are many others. The scientists still get government grant money though, and the government is happy to pay because 100 percent of the solution to this potentially manufactured problem is increased government control. Our founding fathers warned endlessly about this.
In the global ‘mitigation’ strategy money is taken from countries described as rich and given to countries described as developing, in addition massive and economy crushing limits are placed on production. Now I’ve already made the point that developing country means – repressed by socialism and dictatorship religious or otherwise but rich country is an equal misnomer. This Copenhagen wording is a mechanism to force a communistic style redistribution of wealth to countries who don’t deserve support. It is my contention that the argument has nothing to do with the good of the planet but is rather for the personal interests of the politicians.
It is my contention that the proposed solutions are not good for the planet and will actually result in the creation of more CO2. In addition it is my contention that organizations such as think progress, greenpeace and even the UN politicians and world governments secretly agree with me. The unstated purpose is repression of the economy, not for the good of the people but rather for the prosperity of their own personal lives. Now there are plenty of minions in these groups who fully believe they are working to save the planet but my contention is that the leaders do not. When you consider it in that light the irrational promotion of non-science by the UN IPCC, EPA and numerous other organizations in the face of all reasoned criticism is explained.
Again I don’t understand why the population doesn’t see this for what it is. Whether global warming is real, whether it is beneficial or dangerous and whether it can be solved at all are still reasonable questions yet we’re pushed from one half of government, the anti-freedom government control side that there can be no question and we’re presented with the following solutions that don’t work.
While you read the list, ask yourself if you were the government and had solutions that didn’t really work wouldn’t “all of the above” be a good quality obfuscating answer to the public?
#1 – Biofuels – Waste of money adds cost no hope for success.
#2 – Solar PV – Good future, can’t make enough cells due to materials, most use very poisonous elements, add’s cost, no power at night, no energy storage.
#3 – Carbon capture doesn’t work yet- Adds cost, may have a future.
#4 – Nuclear – Works, but is blocked for irrelevant reasons. Add’s some cost.
#5 – Wind – no storage methods. Power is created inconsistently.
#6 – Wave – impractical and expensive
#7 – Carbon trading – Adds cost to limit usage. The worst kind of solution but directly addresses the goal I’m claiming of repressed society and increased control.
#8 – Carbon tax – Even more direct than #7.
#9 – More efficient lighting – ignores heat benefit in housing, the only viable sources are florescent which spread mercury.
The list goes on and on and the only item on it which can help right now is nuclear. I’m sure many of tAV readers will disagree with the points above but consider how bad most are. Consider also that that is the point of an All of the Above policy – to confuse the issue. What’s more, nuclear power stations which are safer than ever cannot be produced because of the same environmental groups saying no to any other working source of fuel!
Really people, you have to ask yourselves – Why do they do that?
So this is why these policies will create more CO2 rather than less.
1- Adding cost to power production reduces the economic output of a country – 80 percent reductions will result in massive massive cost. Even if it’s only a big cost, the ensuing economic downturn reduces CO2 production in the short timeframe but it also leads to substantial poverty globally which of course the government will happily subsidize. However, in a subsistence mode less people are able to go to school, less people are actually working and overqualified people do menial jobs to put food on the table. You should see the very high quality of people we’re hiring for a front office position. The net result is less money for technological development, something seen all across America for the past 20 years. The world is catching up and often develops the latest technology.
2 – Increasing global population requires more energy and new coal plants are built every week in China and India alone to provide power to the masses. They still can’t leave their lights on at night due to rationing in China so this isn’t going to stop soon. CO2 production will continue to rise even in a deteriorating economy. Global consumption will not be reduced anywhere near enough to compensate, what’s more is poverty has been shown to accelerate population growth.
3 – Massive increases in energy costs and/or redistribution of wealth will manifest themselves as increases in all product costs globally. Countries with repressive economies are to be exempted and compensated by the rest such that they gain a huge competitive advantage – new communist sweat shops. The result is a financial support of non – free means of existence at the expense of the free. Treating all government systems as though they are equal.
All of the above will conspire together to slow the development of the very technologies they purport to want. All the above will take freedom from the west and prop up human right violating dictatorships and third world countries. Due to growth of population, exempted third world countries, no enforcement, and increased consumption none of it will eliminate CO2 production and it will continue to grow. As in numerous cases in history the policies will instead increase poverty and starvation potentially to the point where wars begin.
So what then should we do Mr. Jeff? It’s actually simple. Do the opposite. Build cheap coal fired and gas fired plants. Drill everywhere for oil to drive the price of energy down – way down. Stop sending western money to Muslim countries who don’t support freedom of religion and human rights. Build nukes, everywhere you can. Eliminate the foolish envirowhacko’s influence on our politicians. What would happen?
Business will beneifit and with eliminatioin of enough regulation would even prosper again. CO2 would continue to rise, some warming may occur maybe a lot of it. Humanity will prosper to the maximum level the climate allows and new technology will be developed at record rates. Poverty which was at globally record low levels will be pushed down ever further with the success of free people leading the way. Electrical storage methods will be developed and gas engines for cars will be instantly replaced – this will happen in the future. I’m certain of it. The reduced part count, cost and improved performance and safety will make it happen whether we want it to or not.
In the end new generation and storage technologies will replace coal plants (probably naturally within 50 years) wind and solar will make financial sense. If you want to try and accellerate that with some subsidies for research – do it but don’t even think about subsidizing the output or you’re back to the problems above.
You can say I’m wrong it will bring about global warming doom but I say your ideas of mitigation will put more CO2 in the atmosphere than my way. With my plan freedom has a chance to succeed, with the proposed plans it leads to oppression and increased global socialism, strife and a longer time until real solutions can be found. Life and governance are not single step processes despite what AGW solutions purport – every action has consequences and in this case it seems obvious that these would be severe.