Climate activists
want less CO2
in the air,
and think future
global warming
will be a threat.
But they don't
seem to care
about real pollution,
from burning fossil
fuels without modern
pollution controls.
I want more CO2
in the air, to 'green'
our planet, and I think
past global warming
has been good news.
I can't see why adding
CO2 to the air in the
future would be bad
news, when adding CO2
to the air in the past,
has been good news.
And I can't understand
how "environmentalists'
can look the other way
when there is so much
real air pollution in large
Chinese and Indian
cities.
That's air pollution
people can see
people can see
-- not invisible carbon
dioxide, which is the
staff of life on our planet,
and definitely not pollution.
Here's what the climate
change activists
have been pushing so far:
(1)
Political agreements,
such as the Paris treaty.
But it is not stopping
the global CO2 increase,
just like the Rio and
Kyoto pacts failed,
before it
(2)
Don’t eat meat, they say.
Going vegetarian?
Of those who try,
about 84% fail
in less than a year.
Those who succeed
will only reduce their
personal emissions
by about 2%.
(3)
Don’t fly, they say.
Even if all 4.5 billion flights
this year were cancelled,
and every year until 2100,
the global average
temperature would be
reduced by just
0.054 degrees C,
using climate models
that grossly over-estimate
the effects of CO2, meaning
real world real world
temperature reductions
are likely to be less.
(4)
Drive an electric car, they say.
Electric cars are not
the answer -- they are
charged with electricity
generated with natural
gas, coal, etc.
There are just 5 million
fully electric cars
on the road globally.
Assume that count
climbs a huge amount,
to 130 million EVs
in 11 years.
If that happened, the
International Energy
Agency finds CO2
equivalent emissions
would be reduced
by only 0.4% globally.
Analysis of
the Problem:
the Problem:
If every rich country
stopped all their
CO2 emissions today,
for the rest of the century
( no plane trips,
no gasoline-powered cars,
no heating/ cooling
with fossil fuels,
no artificial fertilizer ,
no eating meat )
— the world
would only be about
0.5 degrees C. cooler
( 0.72 degrees°F )
by the year 2100.
How about getting
China, India
and all other
developing countries
to cut emissions ?
But they want
economic growth
supported by
cheap, reliable
energy to help
pull people out of
poverty.
A Logical
Approach:
Approach:
The best investment is
very likely to be in
green-energy R&D,
with the goal of
making green-energy
as attractive,
or cheaper,
than fossil fuels.
During the 2015
Paris accord climate
summit, more than
20 world leaders
made a 'sidelines
promise' to double
green-energy research
and development
by 2020.
Public sector
green energy
R&D spending
2015 $16 billion
2018 $17 billion
That's not much
of an increase.