By Chris Talgo
While in France observing the 80th anniversary of D-Day and honoring the thousands of brave soldiers who gave their lives fighting the existential threat that was Nazi Germany, President Joe Biden could not help himself from descending into crass political talking points by comparing the most destructive and deadly war in human history to climate change.
“The only existential threat to humanity, including nuclear weapons, is if we do nothing on climate change,” Biden declared. Due to the “existential threat of climate change, which is just growing greater, we’re working together to accelerate the global transition to net-zero. It is the existential threat to humanity,” Biden reiterated.
In reality, climate change is nowhere near an existential threat. In fact, in many ways, the slight warming that has occurred over the past half century or so has made life better for humanity. For instance, NASA satellite data show a significant rise in global plant growth in recent decades — what some call global greening. A slightly warmer planet is also beneficial because it produces greater crop yields.
However, one can make a compelling argument that climate alarmism, and the policies that climate alarmists support, actually comprise an existential threat to humanity.
First and foremost, climate alarmists are hellbent on ending the use of affordable and reliable energy in the form of fossil fuels. This alone is a horrendous stance that puts millions of lives at risk.
Like it or not, the advent of fossil fuels, namely oil, coal, and natural gas, has been the biggest boon for humanity in all of history. The harnessing of these resources to supply virtually unlimited energy in cost-effective terms has raised billions of people from abject poverty.
Without ample access to fossil fuels, our modern way of life would literally cease to exist. Not only do fossil fuels provide abundant and affordable energy. As the U.S. Department of Energy notes, “Petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas make the manufacturing of over 6,000 everyday products and high-tech devices possible.”
Second, climate alarmists demand that the world immediately transitions to so-called renewable energy and achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions. The problem is that renewable energy from solar panels and wind farms is too expensive, unreliable, and not nearly scalable. If the world were to shun fossil fuels in favor of wind and solar, the amount of energy available to use would plummet. This would result in devastation across many fronts.
Third, climate alarmists constantly call for degrowth, both in terms of the economy and in terms of population. Somehow, the climate alarmists have convinced themselves that the solution to the nonexistent problem of a slightly warming planet is for humanity to cull its population growth. This is extremely short-sighted and fails to consider that many developed countries are currently experiencing a stark population decline. If this is not reversed, and soon, many of these once-thriving nations will experience severe demographic problems.
Likewise, calls for economic degrowth, which has been a cause célèbre among climate alarmists for many years now, would wreak havoc and would instantly result in decreased living standards for billions of people. This is especially true for several developing countries, which are banking on economic growth and increased prosperity to lift billions from poverty.
Fourth and finally, climate alarmists, whether they realize it or not, are akin to modern-day Luddites because they excoriate innovations and technological breakthroughs. In many ways, climate alarmists are the opposite of progressives because they seek to regress humanity back to a time when creature comforts and access to the latest and greatest technologies were limited to a select few rather than accessible to the masses. Even worse, by hindering the development of new technologies that could solve some of the world’s most vexing problems simply because it does not align with their worldview, climate alarmists are essentially preventing the betterment of the human experience.
Fortunately, it seems like the climate alarmists are losing ground. Polls show that more and more people are skeptical of the constant fearmongering and are becoming aware of the failed doomsday predictions. This is great news, but it is just the start. Unless and until there is a general consensus that climate alarmism is the problem and that the misguided policies supported by climate alarmists are outright rejected by an overwhelming majority, climate alarmism will remain a grave threat to the future of humanity.
Chris Talgo is editorial director at The Heartland Institute.
Feature Image: Vladimir Morozov/akxmedia
Proof that reality is a simulation: we all disappeared into a puff of blue smoke during the 80’s.
The Green Blob is basically a milenarian religious cult.
The UN that is pushing it has the loudest voice on the planet and almost all the leaders at least listen to them.
Whether it is the mendicant states wanting “climate reparations”, woke Westerners feeling guilty or other reasons.
Someone needed to say this about 30 years ago, before all this nonsense gained a foothold, as all of the talking points were obvious even back then
Some people did say all that 30, 50 years ago, but very few listened as usual. The Megaphone was in the wrong hands.
Very nice. We do not have a climate crisis, we have a government crisis. A crisis of government using a climate crisis as a tool to gain more power and control. It must stop.
‘Hairy Legs” Joey Biden said he was going to shut it all down kiddo. He said it used to cause oil film on his windshield back in Pennsylvania…and caused cancer and stuff.
Joey says a lot of crazy stuff.
‘Fortunately, it seems like the climate alarmists are losing ground.’
That seems optimistic in light of this:
https://thecountersignal.com/canada-passes-bill-to-tackle-environmental-racism/
(story tip)
Making Canada colder for black people? That sounds like a plan.
As soon as you put any particular race into written legislation.
That is absolute definition of RACISM. !!
Would love to see how all those petulant petals in the top picture coped if they had no access to fossil fuels or anything that required them
I think EXTINCTION is exactly what would happen.
I’m looking forward to seeing what they say when they realize how easily they were duped for years and cheated out of money and education (albeit not much of either of those). They’re gonna take lessons from Nick … “I never said that. That was somebody else. Word X (Panic, for example) means something other than crying, and soiling your panties in public ….” and so on and so forth.
Don’t hold your breath. I can think of a couple of former Marxists who have gone public with their change in worldview, but not many.
About 2010or so, I visited a national Ice Core lab just west of Denver Colorado. I thought “optimum” was a high school word, but this M.S. in Geology could not define climate optimum. He seemed to think it was a warm period, and that this was not particularly good. Actually, in the 20th century geologists researched climates, comparing temperature proxies to abundance and variety of life. It was found that life did better in warmer temperatures. The Eocene Climate Optimum was about 6 degrees warmer than today. Celsius, I think.
The desire to cut temperatures is not as bad as the desire to cut carbon dioxide itself, however. All life comes from photosynthesis, as the primary production of food (oxygen is a trivial byproduct, as there is 20-21% O2 in the atmosphere and turning all the CO2 in the world to O2 would increase that only 0.04%). Thus, climate hysteria is intended to kill every living thing on Earth.
Few people realize when looking at their meal that everything in it came from quite recently airborne carbon dioxide. (Except for water and salt.)
The democrats will never end their war on domestic oil and gas, but today they officially ended their opposition to nuclear. A Biden-Harris Fact Sheet” published May 29th specifically mentioned SMR’s and today the Senate passed the “Nuclear Boost” Bill.
The Big Story (abbreviated by D.)
Senate set to send nuclear power boost to Biden’s desk
The Senate is poised to send a major energy bill to President Biden’s desk this week, which could allow for more nuclear power to be built throughout the U.S.
The bipartisan bill is seen as a win for the nuclear power industry — making it quicker and less expensive to build them.
The legislation seeks to reduce fees for companies that are proposing to build nuclear reactors and establishes a prize that aims to incentivize nuclear deployment.
It also seeks to speed up the process for approving new nuclear reactors, establishing and codifying a 25-month timeline for approval — including giving just 18 months for environmental review.
Though it has undergone some changes since its initial introduction, supporters of the nuclear bill argue that its passage is crucial for the energy sector’s buildout.
“America can and should be a leader when it comes to deploying nuclear energy technologies, and this bipartisan legislation puts us on a path to achieve that goal,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (http://R-W.Va.) said in a statement last year.
Read more when the story goes live tomorrow at http://TheHill.com
“The legislation seeks to reduce fees for companies “
Oh No, another subsidy for nuclear !! 😉
I see. Anytime the government does not charge the theoretical maximum fees or taxes to nuclear energy or fossil fuels, then that’s a subsidy.
Take note of smiley face symbol.
Sorry MSG, I was being very sarcastic. ! 😉
. Not to mention the 30% tax credit matching what wind and solar have had for decades/.
Oh dear the greenie Lusers won’t like that !
I can see an apoplectic fit coming … 1, 2, 3…
So much for global warming, Queensland Australia has just broken a 32 year old record for the coldest morning, minus 6.9 Celsius converts to 44.42 Fahrenheit, and the forecasters tell us its not going to get better for the next few days. Brrrrrr, we are not used to this cold.
Where was that, please?
My daughter moved to Qld to get away from the cold.. seems it has chased her. 😉
You should redo your calculation of deg. C to deg. F.
Using a Fisher Scientific ruler with side-by-side temperature scales, I find that -6.9 deg. C is
21 deg. F.
Oops! I miss read the F scale. Change 21 deg. F to 19 deg. F. That’ is cold.
Better check that conversion. MINUS 6.9 Celsius is below freezing, so the Fahrenheit conversion will be below 32 F. I think you forgot the “minus.”
My company was headquartered in Detroit, but we had significant operations in Melbourne. I found the Detroit’s warmest days were the coldest days in Melbourne CT. Thus, I am not surprised that it is cold in Australia since Detroit is sweltering.
(I do know that Melbourne is not in Queensland).
My wife and I had an enjoyable visit to New Zealand in February. We spent several delightful days in Queenstown, but noted that it was colder (in the middle of the summer) than it was back here in southern California on the same day (in the winter).
-6.9 C is not 44.42 F (which is greater than 0 C). -6.9 C is 19.418 F.
how did you come up with that 🙂
Thank you Chris, I agree with all you have said and love the clarity of your message.
I will be attending a political hustings this evening in my local town.
There I hope to make the simple statement and point after asking my question.
“Is Net Zero pointless or, is it the most expensive suicide note in history?”
____________________________________________________
No they’re not.
I agree they’re not- at least in some places like Wokeachusetts, where nary a word is spoken against it.
Yes, but, as they say, hope springs eternal. I have been following the idiocy for 40 years: plus ca change rien ne change.
As long as saying you support the Agenda offers you “a here & now safe space, much healthier income, bank balance and access to services you may otherwise be refused” then the alternatives are at a very big disadvantage long before the conversation thinks about discussing the meaning of here, now and reality. COVID-19 proved the point and, even now as evidence grows of mass corruption, still the perpetrators are free from proper meaningfully deep investigation.
Mankind needs to get real and not be led by real time specious fantasies such as CAGW into the kind of dark spaces found in most religious cults,
I’ve often said the most dangerous people in the world are the ones trying to save us.
What about people who are trying to save us from people who are trying to save us?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I wonder what the next generation of hyperbolic rhetorical terminology will be.
What comes after climate apocalypse?
Or precipice or code red?
One cannot predict climate. The basics of science and mathematics prevent such efforts unless one ignores and ever increasing error band.
Therefore one cannot predict impending doom.
One can with reasonable accuracy forecast weather: a few hours, 1-2 day, at best 1-2 weeks in advance, but consider that those forecasts are updated hourly as new data is recorded. The forecasts can be validated merely by looking out the window.
Climate is a definition. It is a 30 year running average of weather. Climate changes minute by minute: the weather right now is not the same as it was exactly 30 years ago. Subtract the old, add the new and get a new average. Micro climate, as the 30 year definition was originally called, did not attempt to forecast severe weather. In fact, The Farmer’s Almanac was much better in it’s predictions.
If weather forecasts are, at best, good for 2 weeks, how can climate model projections be accurate for 25 or more years into the future?
Joe Biden has been on the wrong side of history, for every issue, for 50 years. If he says Climate Change is an existential threat, you can be absolutely certain it is not an existential threat.
Gee Chris, added CO2 is 60-70% of the Greening miracle and possibly more if you include the drought proofing effect. What to you think the expanding biomass of this greening is actually made of.
Just in case you have doubts about this:
These trees were planted at the same time and endured the exact same temperatures
Chris, you should correct your essay to give CO2 it’s due.
I wonder what that banner in the picture is made of?
Light shines through it and it’s flexible so, considering how long it is, not likely paper. Paper would tear.
Cotton maybe?
How is cotton grown and processed?
The dye and the ink used?
I don’t feel any urge to join such a group or support their (rather unclear) “cause”.
I only counted about 25 of them in the picture blocking the street.
I can’t help but wonder how many people in that city wanted them to be “extinct”?
Every one of them wearing synthetic rubber shoes. ! 🙂
Obviously not overly BOILING either, most are wearing jumpers and coats, almost certainly made from synthetic materials.