About time someone knocked some climate sense into the country

---

Finally we got someone who really understands the critical importance of addressing climate change! Imagine if we hadn't been able to jigger the 2020 election in time so we could take over and do things right, Donald Trump might still be in office, and we would have peons burning two dollar gas and traveling wherever they liked. We might even have enough food to feed everybody and lots of electricity available whenever we needed it.

Lots of electrifying opportunities

Now that we are finally eliminating our dependence on fossil fuels, here are some of the things we can look forward to. First off, use of fossil fuels isn't limited to just cars. Coal and natural gas are both fossil fuels and are used to generate almost 80 percent of our electricity. Natural gas is also widely used for heating homes and businesses, for cooking, and for producing hot water for baths and showers. Farm equipment, most train systems, commercial aircraft, long haul trucking all depend on fossil fuels. No aspect of modern life is unaffected.

Let them drive electric cars

When we get rid of gasoline, the most obvious fossil fuel, several good things will happen. Most people will have to scrap their polluting gas powered vehicles and move into cities where fuel efficient mass transportation will be used. Some people may be able to afford electric vehicles, but since we are near or past the generating capacity of our electric grid, only a few will be permitted to own such vehicles. High vehicle licensing fees will help keep numbers down. Finally the era of the personal automobile is at an end. Even electric vehicles will only be available for the most deserving.

They won't need that much electricity anyway

Solar and wind will provide electricity, but at the current build rate, it will take nearly 100 years to replace our current capacity from fossil fuels. That means that there will be several decades where we will have to cut our electricity consumption by seventy to eighty percent from our current use after we phase out those ugly CO2 producing fossil fuel plants. That is just fine because solar systems only produce electricity during a portion of the daylight hours, and wind farms average about thirty percent of their nameplate capacity. Those factors alone will cut electricity production by the requisite percentage.

---

Electric home renovation

With elimination of heating oil and natural gas, most of the population will have to move to coastal locations where temperatures are moderated by the nearby oceans. Those who choose to remain will have to convert from fossil fuel heating and cooking to electric. Converting a house from natural gas to electricity would be in the $20,000 to $50,000 range with replacement of furnaces, water heaters, stoves, and even certain air conditioners.

Your home is an asset?

Considered as part of the total cost of a home, this is a modest cost to bear. For those on fixed or low incomes, such as retired people and most employed homeowners, they could likely receive government subsidies, or lacking those, could simply sell their properties at a discount with the new owners required to perform the conversion. Money obtained from a sale would likely finance a move to a nice rental unit in a city, unless the discounted price of the property was less than what might be owed on a mortgage. In that case, you might be able to live there until the gas is turned off and there is no hot water or winter heat. Climate deniers like you deserve whatever happens to you.

Can't keep 'em down on the farm

There presently is only one company that produces an electric tractor, and that one requires several hours to recharge and is of only modest power. There is a lack of other farm equipment, such as combines, that are fully electric. That means that once we cut off fossil fuel, there will be no way to produce crops at the levels we have been. We will have to return to the environmentally sound use of horses and mules, with lots of hand labor. Fortunately, with the closure of industries dependent on fossil fuel, there will be lots of available labor. It will be good for people to get out in the fresh air and sunshine, and get good exercise instead of being cooped up in air-conditioned offices all day. A side benefit is that use of horses and mules reduces the need for additional fertilizer, as they will produce large quantities of natural fertilizer.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---

Culling the herd

Experts have determined that the maximum number of humans the Earth can support is 500M people. The current population worldwide is almost 10B. This population is almost twenty times the recommended number of people in the world. Fortunately, that can be fixed at the same time as we address the climate crisis. Environmentally responsible and enlightened governments in the Netherlands and Canada have already taken measures, with the US not far behind. Elimination of the use of modern agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides will reduce food production nicely. In just a few months, the population will begin to decline as foodstocks are consumed and no new supplies produced. The process will be humane and will take only a few months until the population falls to sustainable levels. Most strongly affected will be all those surplus people who really don't contribute anything significant to civilization, and mostly are just hungry mouths.

The real climate crisis

I think you might be starting to get the idea that the whole business of fossil fuel use causing climate change could be just be a cover for a different agenda. Before I continue, though, let me emphasize that the comments and attitudes expressed above are not my own, but rather ones that I have heard from some of the climate and population activists when they think I am not listening, or am one of their own. Getting back to the real climate crisis, many people have observed that the proposals to avert or remedy climate change all seem to involve more centralized power and control, and fewer resources, including energy, available for the general population. That is not to mention actual reduction of the size of the general population.

Why, then, the focus on CO2 and fossil fuels?

There are several reasons. First is that CO2 is the combustion product of the most widespread, inexpensive, and readily available source of energy at scales ranging from individual use to commercial applications, to even state and national scale - oil, the source of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels power almost every aspect of our lives, ranging from personal transportation to home heating and cooling, to the trucks, trains and airplanes that transport our food and goods, to agriculture that produces the foods we need, to the electricity that powers our homes and cities. By placing controls on CO2, one can control the production and use of our most common source of energy. From there one can control the economies of nations and the lives of all their citizens. This chain of dependence was noticed by Maurice Strong, the founder of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the IPCC. Mr. Strong was once an oil producer in Canada who then proceeded to become involved in politics. It was his oilfield experience that led him to realize the powerful control that could be exerted through the leverage of CO2 and the idea that it could cause catastrophic climate change.

---

The case against human caused climate change

There is no question that climate change is happening. What is still open is whether the change is due to human use of fossil fuels, or is it something natural? Climate activists and even government authorities have tried to claim that the science is settled, and there is consensus that human activities are the cause. Aside from the fact that science doesn't rely on consensus, there is considerable evidence that the change is natural. I don't have room here to present all the evidence against human caused climate change, but a good collection of several thousand science papers can be found at NoTricksZone, while Watts Up With That? provides a forum for discussion along with good science based data. Consider, though, just two bits of evidence. First, in the mid 1600s, Europe was in the depths of the Little Ice Age. It was so cold that the Thames river froze over - something that has not happened since. About 1650 temperatures began to rise, and that rise has continued at about the same rate until just recently. Use of fossil fuels didn't begin until about 1850 when coal began to replace wood for heating, cooking, and industrial applications such as steam power. In other words, the temperature rise began two hundred years before the use of fossil fuels and the corresponding rise of CO2. The rise in CO2 followed the temperature rise; how can the effect precede the cause? A second bit is that the historical record is clear. Carbon dioxide levels in prehistory were over 20 times the level we have today, yet there was no catastrophic heating or runaway greenhouse effect. Indeed, all the evidence points to that period as one of lush forests, a benign climate across all the continents, and no tipping points. Part of the evidence is found in the massive limestone deposits found across the world. Close examination of limestone shows it to be the fossil remains of uncountable creatures who thrived in the warm seas, drew dissolved carbon dioxide from the water around them, used it to form calcium carbonate for their shells, which then fell to the ocean floor to form the limestone we see today. All that prehistoric CO2 is now found locked up in limestone, and we are left with dangerously low levels in our atmosphere today.

---

---

What if they're right?

Still, though, the activists might be right in that the increases in CO2 might be changing our climate. They are quick to point out the catastrophic events they expect to follow such increases. But is the picture they paint correct? What might happen if more CO2 is actually causing a slight increase in temperature? Is there more to the story?

New lands for old

One effect that is seldom mentioned is that the size of the Earth's temperate zones would increase. This would result from two major factors - the first being how the sun's energy is distributed across the sphere of the Earth. The temperate zones receive sunlight at an angle that reduces its intensity from that in the equatorial regions. The second is that both ocean and atmospheric circulation carries heat from the equatorial regions toward the poles, helping to even out the temperature balance between regions and warming land that would otherwise be uninhabitable. Most schoolchildren know that England would be a frigid waste without the heat carried north by the Gulf Stream. Imagine northern Canada or the frozen tundra of Siberia warmed and made habitable by heat transported by global circulation patterns. At one time in the not so distant past, the area we call the Sahara Desert was covered by broad grasslands and abundant forests. Falling CO2 levels created greater stress for the plants there, and changing circulation patterns brought less moisture to sustain them. With more CO2, the desert could bloom again. Already, great stretches of world deserts have experienced regeneration of their plant life, even from the fairly small increase in CO2 we have seen in recent years. NASA has estimated that a thirty percent increase in global plant cover has come about in recent decades due largely to increased CO2.

Feeding the hungry

Along with the increased plant growth has come an increase in the global food supply. Carbon dioxide is food for plants that they can, in turn, convert to food for humans and animals. The small increases in CO2 have had the result of increasing global food production to the point that food insecurity has been almost eliminated. Starvation and famine have become things of the past throughout the world due largely to the increased plant vitality supported by increased CO2. Unfortunately, many of the climate activists also believe that there are too many people and see the ability to produce more food as a dangerous effect that supports an over-large population. Better for the excess to starve. Interestingly, increasing the food supply can actually lead to a reduction in population. It is a well established fact that increased prosperity and reduced food insecurity leads to lower reproduction rates. Most first world countries today are experiencing significant reductions in their original populations. As fossil fuel use supports increases in prosperity, we can expect that the newly wealthy populations will find other interesting things to do with their time so that their reproduction rates will fall just as has happened in all other prosperous civilizations.

Cleaning up messes

It was not long ago that most of Africa was covered in a pall of smoke, as forests were ravaged to obtain wood to make the charcoal that was used to cook food. The introduction of cheap fossil fuel supplies gave the people a much cleaner source of energy and resulted in a cleaner and healthier environment. Most pollution occurs because it costs more to implement clean technology than it does to pollute. Wherever there is cheap, plentiful energy, the environment is cleaner. Fossil fuels have been one of the greatest contributors to clean environments ever. Banning them means a return of pollution and filth like was in Africa before fossil fuels. Electricity helps, but will never be enough, and it brings its own environmental costs.

At a crossroads

I could go on discussing the positive side of more CO2, and if you want to read more, leave a comment. This is not what the Climate Cult wants you to hear, which is all the more reason to listen. We need rational discussion instead of fear mongering. There are choices that lie before us that will determine if future generations will be free and strong, or fearful and enslaved. I know what I choose. Power to the People!