American Elephants

If you are not confused about “global warming”, you probably have not paid much attention to the news.  The Senate is in the midst of a debate about to what extent government should take over the American economy in the name of climate change. They are concerned about carbon, particularly carbon dioxide (CO2). Or at least they claim that they are.

Some activists are anxious to bring down capitalism, destroy the oil companies and return to a more peaceful, non-industrial world.  Others want to restrain our economy in the name of redistributing world income — in the belief that it simply isn’t fair that America is a rich country.  It is not only complicated, but all is not as it seems.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. (Bill O’ Reilly, pay attention). Remember your high-school biology. You breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide. Plants take in CO2 and release oxygen. Carbon dioxide is essential to life.  If CO2 increases in the atmosphere, it makes plants grow more rapidly and makes them more resistant to drought or other adverse conditions. CO2 represents about 0.038 percent of greenhouse gasses, which are composed mostly of water vapor. In other words, CO2, a tiny part of the atmosphere, is a great benefit to the earth. It helps crops grow to feed a hungry world.  But…?

Scientists have found that increases in CO2 follow warming, and thus cannot be the cause of warming. They have found that most of the atmospheric CO2 comes from the oceans, not from SUV tailpipes. When the oceans warm in a century long process, they release CO2. When the oceans cool, they take in CO2.

Dr. Tim Ball came up with an analogy that explains things to us non-scientists. He said that attributing global climate change to human CO2 production is akin to:

trying to diagnose an automotive problem by ignoring the engine (analogous to the Sun in the climate system) and the transmission (water vapour) and instead focusing entirely, not on one nut on a rear wheel, which would be analogous to total CO2, but on one thread on that nut, which represents the human contribution.

So what is the use of laws that would cause cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030?  Annual job losses. The average household would pay $467 more each year for natural gas and electricity. The price of gas and food would rise even more. All this to restrain human production of CO2. (And CO2 is a benefit to the world)

If all the cap-and-trade proposals and all the regulations were to work, the difference in CO2 in the atmosphere would be too slight to measure. (And CO2 is a benefit to the world)

Environmental activists are pulling out all stops to influence Congress to pass this dreadful bill.  They are passionate and angry. They don’t care about CO2.  They care about eliminating industry which they feel despoils the world, in favor of smaller, more local business.  They want more government control to bring about the Utopian society they envision. They want more world government, acceptance of the world court, more control by the United Nations. They like more ‘natural’ sources of energy like wind and solar. Never mind that wind only blows occasionally and must have gas or coal powered electricity as a backup or that solar energy takes unacceptably vast acreage for solar collectors.

They want fewer people. The most extreme are anti-human. Others want to herd us all into dense cities so that the rest of the land can be returned to nature, to wilderness. They attract billions of dollars in donations from people influenced by pictures of baby animals and beautiful forests, and a desire to be good to the environment.

The billions of dollars go to lawsuits, lobbying and fundraising.  The object is to deprive Americans of their freedom, their property and their way of life.