Cornwall Alliance works to ensure reliable, affordable energy for poor families worldwide
| Guest essay by Paul Driessen |
In a more rational, moral, compassionate, scientifically literate world, this Cornwall declaration would not be needed. It assesses the “far-reaching, costly policies” that the world’s governments are adopting, supposedly to prevent global warming and climate change. It calls on governments to focus instead on protecting the poor, who desperately need the affordable energy that those policies circumscribe.
The declaration was crafted by the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. This coalition of theologians, faith leaders, scientists, and economic, environmental and policy experts is committed to safeguarding God’s entire creation: not just the Earth and its wildlife, but the people who also inhabit our wondrous planet, especially the poorest among us. More than 150 have already signed the declaration.
The declaration lists ten reasons to “oppose harmful climate change policies.” It notes that our Earth is “robust, resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.” Its climate system will respond to and correct damage that might arise from the relatively small effects of carbon dioxide that we humans are adding to the atmosphere – compared to the numerous, complex, powerful, interacting natural forces that have always ruled our planet’s ever-changing climate and weather.
For one thing, crops and forests and other plants will respond to the extra CO2 by growing even faster and better, greening the planet and helping to feed wildlife and people. For another, as my extensive new climate report makes clear, the real world is simply not cooperating with the alarmists’ dire forecasts.
President Obama says climate change “will define the contours of this century more than any other” issue. Secretary of State John Kerry insists that climate change is “the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” and poses “greater long-term consequences” than ISIL, terrorism or Ebola – even as ISIL butchers crucify men, behead little children, and promise to murder Westerners in their homes and streets.
Reality tells a different story. Not a single category 3-5 hurricane has struck the United States in nine years – the longest such period since at least 1900 and perhaps the US Civil War. Arctic ice has rebounded. Antarctic ice that is supposed to be melting is instead expanding to new records, “because of” global warming that’s supposed to be happening with increasing speed, but instead stopped 18 years ago. Sea levels are barely rising. Perhaps all this good climate news is due to our carbon dioxide emissions?
All these “inconvenient truths” are at the heart of the Cornwall appeal. Look first, it suggests, at actual, empirical, real-world climate observations. In almost every case they differ significantly from – or are directly opposite to – what the White House, Environmental Protection Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other alarmists assert and predict.
Second, the declaration implores, consider how anti-fossil fuel climate policies would affect the poorest and most vulnerable people on Earth. Then “abandon fruitless and harmful policies to control global temperature, and instead adopt policies that simultaneously reflect responsible environmental stewardship, make energy and all its benefits more affordable, and so free the poor to rise out of poverty.”
As UCLA emeritus professor Deepak Lal (who wrote the foreword to the India edition of my Eco-Imperialism book) wrote in Poverty and Progress: Realities and Myths about Global Poverty:
“The greatest threat to the alleviation of the structural poverty of the Third World is the continuing campaign by western governments, egged on by some climate scientists and green activists, to curb greenhouse emissions, primarily the CO2 from burning fossil fuels.… [I]t is mankind’s use of the mineral energy stored in nature’s gift of fossil fuels … accompanying the slowly rolling Industrial Revolution, [that] allowed the ascent from structural poverty which had scarred humankind for millennia. To put a limit on the use of fossil fuels without adequate economically viable alternatives is to condemn the Third World to perpetual structural poverty.”
The Cornwall Alliance echoes and expands on these concerns in its Call to Truth, Prudence and Protection of the Poor, a 55-page analysis by professor of climatology David Legates and professor of economics Cornelius van Kooten.
Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is indispensable to lifting and keeping people out of poverty, the Alliance points out. Mandatory reductions in CO2 emissions would greatly increase the price of energy, as well as goods and services. Such policies would slow, stop or even reverse the economic growth that enables people to prosper and adapt to all climates. They would harm the poor more than the wealthy,
President Obama says the United States is committed to helping poor nations deal with the effects of “climate disruption.” However, he has also signed an executive order requiring that federal agencies take climate change into account when preparing international development, loan and investment programs. This has meant that U.S. agencies will support wind, solar and biofuel projects – but will not provide loans or other assistance for state-of-the-art gas-fired power plants in Ghana, coal-fired power plants in South Africa, or similar projects in other severely energy-deprived and impoverished nations.
Worldwide, 2.8 billion people still use wood, charcoal, coal and dung in open fires to heat and cook. At least 1.2 billion people still do not have access to electricity and the countless blessings it brings. In India alone, more than 300 million people lack electricity; in Africa more than 550 million. The result is millions of deaths every year from lung and intestinal diseases. The vast majority of these victims are women and children.
But under current White House, IPCC and EU policies, they are not likely to get electricity anytime soon. Mr. Obama justified his policies by telling students in Johannesburg, South Africa, “if everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over – unless we find new ways of producing energy.”
In other words, in a world where hydrocarbons still provide 82% of all energy, for this White House and IPCC, exaggerated concerns about climate change 50 or 100 years from now trump concerns about safeguarding billions of people from rampant poverty and lethal diseases. This is intolerable.
Wind and solar power will let people in remote areas have light bulbs, cell phone chargers and tiny refrigerators, until they can be connected to an electrical grid. However, such limited, unreliable, expensive electricity cannot support modern economies, factories, shops, schools, hospitals or families.
No wonder China, India and other developing countries are building hundreds of coal-fired generating plants. Their leaders may be happy to participate in wealth transfer schemes, in which they receive (at least promises of) “climate adaptation and mitigation” money from rich countries. But they will not sign any international accord that restricts their fossil fuel use and economic development. They understand all too well the need to end rampant poverty, misery, disease and premature death – even if Mr. Obama, UN Secretary Ban-Ki Moon and Al Gore do not, or do not care.
Put bluntly, “climate-smart” policies for poor countries and poor families are stupid – and immoral.
As American University adjunct professor Caleb Rossiter asked in a June 2014 Wall Street Journal article, “Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”
So study these issues. Ponder what the Cornwall Alliance has to say. Sign the declaration. Speak out against energy deprivation, prolonged poverty and needless death. And help protect your children’s futures – and the hopes, aspirations, lives and basic human rights of the world’s poorest families
______________
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As an atheists I have no problem with the religious component.
Religious folk in their clearest concepts are a force for good.
The oldest joke when invoking a deity, is which god/gods?
None of which changes the common sense of this declaration.
The evidence we have, does support their claims of a self regulating climate, may not be true but is the best Null we have right now, until the next ice age.
The heart of this declaration is the simple fact, that the Climate Cult pretends to be saving the future world, while killing the poor living today.
Electricity is the lifeblood of our luxurious lifestyle, the vital essence without which our civilization would collapse.
Never have some humans lived so well, the common North American and European lives a magical lifestyle, by the standards of our ancestors. Yet a large chunk of our citizens are determined to deny the rest of the world the life of ease we enjoy.Yet they insist they do this for ethical reasons.
This is the weakness of the CAGW cult, the real destruction they wreak today to mitigate an imaginary future doom.
Once you focus the Alarmed Ones attention on the destruction they advocate for, you get some real interesting responses. The empty bluster fades away, for once they see how others view their Eugenics, anti humanism and blatant racism, they have no answers.
Never mind the science, we have years of evidence that the CAGW believers do not give a wet slap for science, they believe, they are good, they know they are saving mankind.To doubt their wisdom just shows we are ignorant deniers.
But actions speak louder than all the good intentions.
Kill the poor is the action. Dice the Bald Eagle, Rupture the native bats.Rob the many to enrich the chosen few.
This is their legacy. Actions which they can not Deny.
exactly right. frame the argument against AGW in moral terms. show that the proposed solutions are not solutions at all. that the cure is worse than the disease.
It is also the cult of the ‘zero sum game’ where there is only so much wealth or only so much food, therefore being unable to create more wealth or create more food, we have to stop and share equally. Sharing is of course a natural tendency of humankind so it is a good argument. But the idea that there is only so much of anything is a bit of a stretch. At any time in history there was ‘only so much of anything’. The idea that there is only so much energy, and therefore we necessarily cannot create more is crazy. The world is awash in energy. The solar system is full of minerals. We are not going to develop backwards.
I am very sympathetic to the idea that we should uplift the low in spirit and energy and access and food and comforts. I am very sympathetic to the idea that we should eliminate extremes of wealth and poverty. But that does not mean we have to have total compulsory ‘equality’ or forced ‘sameness’ in the manner of Marx, however well-intentioned he was, and how badly his minions executed their secular visions. Raw capitalism is a pretty awful alternative.
The idea that we can lie and cheat our way to equality is as crazy as arguments get. Conspicuous consumption and profligate waste are nothing less than insults to the downtrodden. Forced sameness is nothing less than utter suppression of the individual gifts and talents with which we have been endowed. It is our privilege to share them, and our knowledge and resources. To do that effectively does not require adopting tin-foil-hat-CO2-scare stories about ‘climate disruption’ or the unlimited power of the magical gas. Rational ideas much endure while superstition fades into oblivion.
I’m glad that such a group has spoken out – the Cornwall Alliance is a well known charity in the UK, and its public position will be influential.
The global policy of withholding cheap energy from people who live in abject poverty, because of worries about something which might happen in 50 years, is an act of unimaginable cruelty. Nobody who has true compassion can stand to see such madness.
Cheap energy you reckon. The cost of electricity ain’t cheap. Here in a first world country folks bleat about how expensive electricity is. How will the poor folks in third world countries pay their expensive electricity bills huh? Someone has to pay for the huge infrastructure of poles and wires…
Actually electricity is relatively cheap to produce, the cost of infrastructure/customer falls as more consumers sign up. What is jacking up hydro bills all over is government.
Taxes, riders, green schemes, high water fees, low water fees, bigger christmas bonus fee.
It is endless.
Once electricity generation and supply was considered a common essential good.
Now its a cash cow.
The Earth is weak and we are all going to DIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Effects of past HOT global warming. It really is going to be a cataclysmic CAGW event when we reach 850ppm. It’s much, much worse than I ever dreamed.
Act now and make lots of money for these scam artists’ investments. FOOL.
Hollywood stars want to keep Indians in the Asia burning DUNG to cook food while they use natural gas. They also fly private planes et al and think (foolishly) that people like me can’t see them. IT’S WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT!!!!
Realities aside it really is time to turn the heat up on WUWT. I am ready, my comments are mild – so far.
Easy big boy ??
Don’t want to turn off the newcomers ?
A good early project for the Cornwall Alliance is to publish a newspaper for distribution in Africa and other poor areas of the world with articles that spell this stuff out to them, tells them that they are being subjected to a new colonialism that is far worse than anything they have endured in the past. Use Obama and EU policies on energy and aid as focus points to deliver the message. Transferring wealth from US and EU coffers may seem a good thing to African country leaders, but this ‘wealth’ will not be of much benefit and impoverishing the world’s economic engine is the real way to create a terminal disaster for humankind. Let us spread the things that make up the economic engines to the poor – giving them loads of money as we have over half a century has simply gone down a rabbit hole.
NGOs, far from engendering economic aid, are barriers to development as are Gov Aid that is filtered by their idiot policies on such things as CO2. First their skill sets are of little use to these nations (maybe a mining engineering NGO would be a good idea if its results you want). But no, the last thing they want is a quick solution to the problems. Their ideologies are failed old world stuff – not something to emulate. These people are all on safari and don’t want anyone to interfere with their adventure. Fledgling economies need to develop their mineral and other resources as the first stage and as the quickest way to prosperity. Manufacturing comes a lot later. Selling coconuts and pineapples and converting their land all to national parks is all very nice but the income per capita is a joke. Actually large mining companies usually have to build electrical generating facilities, serviced towns, hospitals, etc.
The Alliance should promote this kind of thinking. Love your God, but don’t be tempted to go to save souls, they got all that they needed of that with 19th Century missionaries in the mid to late 20th Century.
OK , say 1 million years out the sun for the prior 2000,000 years has been acting up.
Would it have been possible for mankind to have found a way to use nuke/new tech to keep the earth powered up with out sun energy?
The God language in the declaration is irrelevant to the core argument, and is divisive. While I agree with the main sentiment of the piece I cannot in good conscience put my name on a document that contains language that supports unscientific nonsense like “intelligent design” I’d go so far as to say such language opens the whole thing up to ridicule and be dismissed.
James your narrow minded intolerant Liberal musings on “intelligent design” expose your complete lack of understanding the broad meaning this term can encompass.
What is your goal sun spot? Want to win the climate debate? Stick to the science. It goes without saying you’re entitled to your religious beliefs. Just leave them out of the discussion if you want to persuade those intolerant liberals.
pokerguy September 26, 2014 at 7:46 pm
I have no religious beliefs. I think ID is a failed attempt to disguise Genesis literalism as science. So what? I agree with the Cornwall Alliance that misguided policies based on bad climate science have negatively impacted the world’s poor and will continue to do so (they’ve negatively impacted everyone!). They propose to do something about it and I think that’s a good idea. Cornwall Alliance happens to think ID is valid science and Genesis literally true (apparently). So what? They also accept and base their declaration on a lot of valid science. So we have common ground on which to oppose the bad climate science now in vogue. Your objections?
If you think their acceptance of ID and a literal interpretation of Genesis will impede the argument against the ‘intolerant liberals’ (your words) I agree somewhat. Some of the responses in this comment thread are examples. Keep in mind, however, that a lot of robust science supports their argument, regardless of their religious beliefs. If you want to ‘stick to the science’ (your words) I’m all for it. But I’m not going to disabuse the Cornwall Alliance because they don’t agree 100% with everything I think. They have the right to believe what they believe and a right to oppose CAGW and advocate for the poor of the world for whatever reasons they please.
At the end of the day, we’re on the same side.
James Hastings-Trew September 26, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Then don’t. Maybe the language contained in reason #1 will, as you assert, open up the whole thing to ridicule and dismissal. You are certainly not alone as this comment thread illustrates. I don’t like the references to ID and Genesis any more than you. But I’m willing to grant the Cornwall Alliance has as much right to oppose CAGW for their reasons as do I for mine. In fact, a lot of our reasons are the same.
I guess the difference between you and me is that I don’t think it’s worth throwing an ally under the bus because he doesn’t agree with me 100%. You seem to think otherwise. Your choice.
Possible that Nicholas Tesla had a way to power all but it was not possible to meter/charge for the power. Thus he and his idea got the deep six.
What then is this “Carbon Pollution”?
A sinister, evil collusion?
CO2, it is clean,
Makes for growth, makes it green,
A transfer of wealth, a solution.
http://lenbilen.com/2014/02/22/co2-the-life-giving-gas-not-carbon-pollution-a-limerick-and-explanation/
Having been to Africa several times and actually have seen this first-hand I can tell you no-one living like this cares for CO2 emission reductions. Even so I have seen, and used, “kitchens” like in the picture and yet they still are able to cook great food.
Yeh, but in some of the villages I lived in wood was a long way away and if you could afford a gas stove, even a hand-pumped kerosene Petromax one-burner, you were way up on the social scale.
My ex-wife, from Ethiopia, had one of these. Had two settings, off or on and stank the room out with fumes. She was lucky, she had access to power and a fridge too.
Patrick
There was always the fuel problem and remoteness. In one good-sized village, a prized stove was fueled with gasoline instead of kerosene. The resulting burn eventually killed him before he could get to a clinic because it was rainy season and, well, you know about the roads.
After getting up before daylight and walking several miles to cut/gather wood, then bundle it up into a load that would crush Arnold S. in his hay day, then walking back to the village to sell it or turn it into charcoal for sale … It used to take two or three washes of my clothes to get the smell of charcoal out when I came back to Canada from Africa. It is a hard life in Africa where a small amount of electricity and liquid fuel or gas would make life so much more tolerable and clean up the air. However, when you have no money and a subsistence level economy it is difficult to come up with money for electricity and gaz. Education and some moderate development must come first. It will take a hundred years or two, but we have thousands (not 24 months like some alarmist folks might say, for my great grandmother was on the Great Plains at the time of Sitting Bull, not so very long ago.)
In Ethiopia, charcoal is banned by the Govn’t. But not many people pay attention to that given there is no sensible alternative. Not only do most people not have access to cheap energy, their only option in many cases is to use wood, specifically Eucalyptus, which was imported in the 1960’s, grows like a weed and sucks lots of gound water. Great wood for building. By contrast, I have seen wood/mud huts with power meters hanging on the outside wall in rural Ethiopia.
Patrick – My company spent about 30 years working in Addis on Water Supply and Sewerage, as well as southern Ethiopia in rural and developing water around Awasa all the way to the southern border; and north to the Red Sea in rural villages as well as Asmara and Massawa before the fighting got too bad and we moved back to Addis although we worked in the east around Harar and did a plant in Dire Dawa. Some of those mud huts have a lot of dung in the walls, from personal experience. 😉 A beautiful country.
Oversimplification to say that Einstein believed in God. He explicitly rejected the idea of a personal god, and took more the position of a Spinozan pantheist.
Some food for thought, FWIW: those who say that the planet needs saving are like those who say that God needs ‘defending’ against blasphemy. The planet is not going to keel over and die just because of some extra CO2.
And God needs no defending. So if Gaia is true, that is even more reason to reject CO2 driven alarmism.
“Ignore street children and people coming up to you in the streets with hard-luck tales. They may be pickpockets or part of an elaborate scam. The best thing to do is just to walk on and ignore them.”
Well, I am happy to give food or goods (train tickets etc.) to people who claim to be needy. But I won’t give them money. Most people would agree with me, I think.
Thanks for publishing the article Anthony .
I’m one who has to actually work in 3rd world countries, and see the damage that western environmental activists do.
1st example: Norway oil money is being used by activists to stop developing countries developing their oil resources. So the very thing that made Norway rich is being used to keep third world countries poor.
2nd example: Corrupt 3rd world governments and officials use western environmental activists to stop projects from helping the poor. They set up websites to counter business competition by making claims against such businesses so they can monopolise. This is rife for example, in South America, where wealthy landowners use environmental activism to keep projects such as dams being developed and mines being built to keep people in poverty and maintain a rigid landowning status quo.
Numerous other examples.
I don’t need to go to the impoverished third world countries to witness the harm that these climate change policies do to the poor. This past winter I saw the carbon tax policy of the government of British Columbia, causing poor families to reduce their consumption of natural gas in order to heat their homes because they could not afford to. This last winter in Eastern North America also caused the natural gas consumption to rise and in doing so caused a further increase in the price of natural gas. The two factors, coupled together, could conceivably result in deaths, which is entirely inexcusable in a country which has a surplus of cheap energy.
The “Ten Reasons” lost me at the thinly veiled pro creationism. As a forum dedicated to scientific understanding of the climate, I’m quite taken aback that this would slip in.
Many Africans, and others in poor nations such as the Philipines, follow the “Bible” and the doctrine of creation. Alot of Americans do too. We roamed with the dinosours? It’s sad in this day, in the 21st century, that billions of people follow the rants of an “freed” tribe of Egyptian slaves called “Israel” from about 2000 years ago.
TS Naylor,
Did you read this part?:
“We call on Christian leaders to study the issues and embrace sound scientific, economic, and ethical thinking on creation stewardship, particularly climate change.”
Christian Creationism is not anti-science. The science in the “Ten Reasons” is the reason they were posted in this forum. Rebut the science if you can, if you wish to inter into the scientific debate on this forum. Objecting to the messenger is not a scientific rebuttal of the message.
SR
Oops. enter , not inter
TS Naylor September 27, 2014 at 1:03 am
Too bad, because the rest of reason #1 and all of reasons #2 – #10 contain valid science, all of which has robust evidence in support. Much, if not all, has been discussed on WUWT to refute CAGW. The group has a plan to oppose policies based on bad climate science using valid science. Are you afraid they might add an “amen”?
Steve Reddish
September 26, 2014 at 3:24 pm
JohnWho,
It is interesting that you seem to agree with all the Cornwall Alliance’s statements and assertions, then claim that their statement of belief in God weakens those facts in the eyes of Atheists, Agnostics and Undecideds.
Just look at many of the posts throughout this topic and you’ll see what I mean. I am not passing judgment on who is right or wrong, just making an observation.
JohnWho,
Granted. As my following statement attempted to make clear, I did not object to your statement, it was the point and its resultant conclusion that I found interesting. I should have written “observe” instead of “claim”. Sorry.
SR
In re the many posts in this thread that take exception to the Cornwall Alliance statement due to the Christian beliefs of the organization. The objections seem to take 2 forms:
1. Christians are anti-science so any seemingly scientific evidence they present must not actually be supported by true science.
Any who believe that need merely present the “true” scientific evidence to make effective rebuttal. None have done so. The preferred method of rebuttal seems to be a request that Christians be censored.
2. Christians are stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent, therefore anything they say should be opposed.
In this case, to slightly misquote Forrest Gump: Stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent is as stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent does. Is opposing climate policies that have no scientific basis because of the resultant harm to the poor stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent? Or is opposing these attempts to help the poor because of dislike for Christians’ beliefs stupid, misguided, and/or malevolent?
SR
Steve Reddish September 27, 2014 at 1:56 pm
+10
“If everybody has got a car and everybody has got air conditioning and everybody has got a big house, well, the planet will boil over”.
Translation: Screw you I got mine. The true face of Obama and supposedly compassionate democratic party.
Any idea what all these missiles and other military hardware going off on the Middle East add to CO2 load? All seems a bit hypocritical to me from Lord O Bama
On the God objections.
A small mental exercise for those who bristle at religion, substitute “Everything” in place of God.
If the article still makes sense, carry on.
If it circles into oblivion, abandon it.
The more narrow ones beliefs the uglier your deities can be.
As Shakespeare wrote, “There are more things in Heaven and earth than….”
“A small mental exercise for those who bristle at religion, substitute “Everything” in place of God.”
————————————————————-
A small mental exercise for you… if it read “Satan” in place of “God” would you still be happy to sign?
The Light Bringer?
This could be a really tidy resource for those of you who would like to help people in the churches understand the sustainability/climate change messaging in the media.
Try to think of yourselves as getting to the churches before Kathrine Hayhoe of Green Jesus fame does.
Take this declaration to a Calvary Chapel on Sunday and give it to the pastor after the service. Dress is casual. You will also understand why it is important to talk to people who are already involved in missions in Africa, Haiti, the Philipines, and other places.
All churches I have been part of (mostly Calvary Chapel) send their own members to these countries. Priorities are literacy, schools, clean water, and goats. Motorcycles too. Challenges are so great. Sometimes it is very hard for small outreaches to get a working generator to a remote village. But this is better than sending money to a huge, international organization in response to a natural disaster. I think this is better than sending money to the Red Cross, by a long shot.
Please, adopt a pastor. (: Just remember, John Kerry and the State Department also think “religion is very important.” Tell them you would like to provide them any information they need about datasets, sea ice, renewables, etc.
Most State Constitutions say something like this in the pre-amble:
PREAMBLE
We, the people of the state of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare do establish this Constitution.
And the declaration of rights clearly show a familiarity with the abuses of royalty and aristocracies – and any kind of caste system, which gives separate rights to separate classes.
Do you refuse your individual liberties because of the pre-amble? I think you do not.