By Dan Calabrese ——Bio and Archives--December 2, 2015
Global Warming-Energy-Environment | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Here's the good news. There is no climate crisis. You knew that of course but it sometimes helps to be reminded amid the apocalyptic nonsense we're always hearing from elected officials and their news media servants. The past generation has seen a slight uptick in global temperatures - almost all of it occurring before the turn of the century - and none of this is the slightest bit unusual given the broader history of global temperature variances since the beginning of time.
But no INDC exposes the Paris farce better than America’s. Mr. Obama promises that the U.S. will reduce CO2 emissions by 26% to 28% from 2005 levels by 2025. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s greenhouse gas inventory, that would be some 1.8 billion fewer tons of CO2-equivalent in a decade. Yet the U.S. INDC outlines only about a billion tons, 45% short of the goal. Keep in mind that the reductions the Administration has identified touch everything from coal-fired power plants to landfill management to efficiency standards for home appliances. Mr. Obama doesn’t lack ambition so much as legal authority; most of these unilateral rules are being challenged in the courts. Yet his green diplomats still can’t explain how the U.S. will meet the targets they are selling in Paris.
Not that Mr. Obama’s plan won’t damage U.S. jobs and living standards. Energy-intensive industries like manufacturing, chemicals, cement and pulp and paper will be particular victims and may decamp for overseas. The President is trading away the competitive advantage of cheap U.S. natural gas for a bag of anti-carbon promises. Moreover, nothing that emerges from Paris will have a discernible effect on world temperatures. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology studied the INDCs that have been released so far and concluded that temperatures in 2100 will rise 3.7 degrees Celsius if they are followed to the letter. Then again, these are the same scientific models that predicted much higher temperatures than we’ve had.Now here's what's ironic about this whole thing: We've said all along that predictions are not fact, so you can't say someone hates science because they question a prediction. The predictions of 15 years ago that portended global doom because of global warming have been hilariously wrong, so whatever anyone predicts now deserves as healthy dose of skepticism. In this case, as MIT predicts the climate agreement will do no good - even assuming it's implemented as presented, which of course it will not be - the skeptic like me can point to the prediction and say, see? And the global warming true believer can say they have to press ahead anyway. Why do they hate science? And all of this just goes to show how completely nonsensical it is to do all this based on models and predictions about the future. But that is not to say this climate agreement would have no effect. It would, and not a good one. By imposing heavy new taxes, fees and regulations on industry, Obama will hamper economic growth so it is even worse than the weak 1.99 percent quarterly average we've seen since 2011. He knows this because if he comes right out and says that's why China and India won't have to reduce their carbon emissions for another decade or more. So as not to harm their growth. But it's perfectly fine to harm ours. And for what? For a non-solution to a non-problem.
Support Canada Free Press
View Comments
Dan Calabrese’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain
Follow all of Dan’s work, including his series of Christian spiritual warfare novels, by liking his page on Facebook.