Pielke Jr. – One blog post, Ten wrong turns
Posted by Jeff Id on April 25, 2010
Can you imagine any discoveries or conclusions in climate science would indicate that accelerated decarbonization of the global economy does not make sense?
Now he is right that “climate science” AKA Scientology– today won’t conclude or present evidence otherwise, however he conveniently assumes the whole government funded exercise hasn’t been polluted by preferential funding. Like so many individuals sheltered from the war that is small business, he advocates accelerating ‘decarbonization’ despite the fact that so many questions remain unanswered and despite the massive pressures already on global business.
In Pielke’s vast worldly experience, he can’t think of any reason not to accelerate the decarbonization of our society. Well, it looks like it will fall on those of us who produce product for a living to help the good doctor think of a few.
Ten reasons Pielke Jr and enviroclimatoscientology are wrong:
1 – The semi-industrial countries hold the greatest populations (China, India) Billions vs Millions US/UK. They will not, and are not expected to, stop increasing their own CO2 output during the same timeframe we are limiting ours. Therefore unilateral limits have no chance of eliminating or even slightly reducing global annual output.
2 – Limitation of CO2 is a tax on energy followed by the necessary limitation of availability of every single product on Earth. Humans are already pressured to their limits, and it has only been within the last 30 years that mass scale poverty and starvation’s have been so limited by technology.
3 – When prices rise, the poorest suffer first. How does creating immediate suffering balance a potential problem which may not exist?
4 – The IPCC has determined that CO2 remains resident in the atmosphere for thousands of years – I don’t believe this for a moment but nobody has proven otherwise. Pielke must recognize that under this scenario, any solution requiring minimization of output has to recognize the effects of output can only be calculated by a long term integration of CO2 released and not a short term CO2/Year issue. Therefore, he must explain how the taxation/limitation of CO2 emits less total CO2 before new technologies can be implemented. This is completely ignored by those of an environmentalist economic limitation viewpoint.
5 – Nobody has conclusively demonstrated that CO2 has caused even ONE DOLLAR of financial or environmental difficulty. I’m not saying it isn’t possible, but warming hasn’t been connected with even the smallest of troubles. Claiming it should balance our future troubles requires the confirmed identification of even one problem.
6 – Redaction of bad law is incredibly difficult. If we find that CO2 isn’t nearly as dangerous as expected down the road or the law doesn’t work as expected (which it won’t), policy adopted is politically nearly impossible to reverse.
7 – Taxation of any sort, empowers government and limits people and companies from being able to invest in real solutions.
8 – Recommending the government act to reduce CO2, fails to recognize that politicians that take the money have entirely different goals than those who believe government machinations can solve our energy issues – problems created entirely by government! When was the last time you saw a law enacted that actually did what it was advertised to do?
9 – Gas/energy prices have already risen 50 percent in the last 8 months by current economic conditions. Taxation and limitation in addition to the increases caused by an artificially limited supply are entirely unnecessary, even under the best economic scenarios. Failing to recognize the damage that environmental policy has already created and following through by adding more load, is the height of ignorance.
10 – _____This one is for you______