DECEMBER 9, 2018
And how that’s being accomplished (hint: fracking)
Nineteen nations “believe” in climate change. How are they backing up their statement of faith?
China was praised for signing on to the Paris Climate Agreement and in Argentina reaffirmed its commitment to controlling greenhouse gas emissions. Last year, however, China increased those emissions by 1.7 percent.
India, the fourth largest source for CO2, saw their emissions grow by 4.6 percent in 2017. Luckily for them, they too were praised for signing that “nonbinding communiqué.”
Overall, the European Union raised their CO2 output by 1.5 percent.
France, home of the Paris Agreement, is leading the diplomatic effort to save the planet. They increased their greenhouse gas emissions by 3.6 percent. . . .
If the nations paying lip service to climate change aren’t meeting their goals, imagine how poorly the oil-drilling, coal-mining Americans must be doing. President Donald Trump was pilloried for withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and for being only G20 leader who refused to sign the climate change statement in Argentina.
From 2016 to 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.7 percent. Emissions from large power plants declined 4.5 percent since 2016, and nearly 20 percent since 2011. All without signing a piece of paper in Paris or Buenos Aires.
It’s almost as if they’re more interested in submission to a transnational bureaucracy than in results. And note that the U.S. reduction comes from the switch to cleaner fuels made possible by fracking, which environmentalists opposed.
Personally, I think it verges on the criminal to demand that the Third World limit its growth to a bare minimum and leave its citizens in abject poverty. I also reject Al Gore’s favorite environmental prophet Bill McKibben’s (Harvard, editor of Harvard Crimson chief editor, New Yorker writer, non-scientist) prescription for how the world should be ruled:
"The environmentally sane standard of living for a population our current size would probably be somewhere between that of the average Englishman and the average Ethiopian," he wrote in his 1989 book The End of Nature.
He acknowledged at the time the political reality of such a proposal. "This sort of talk would erode what support environmental concerns enjoy among the privileged," McKibben wrote.”
Make no mistake: what was considered radical in 1989 is now mainstream today — ask our incoming new Democrat-controlled Congress — or any newly-minted college graduated. If I expected to still be around in twenty years, and I don’t, I’d be worried. I wouldn’t want to live in a shit hole third world country (funny enough, the left’s hysterical sympathy for refugees from those countries is proof that it also considers the countries they’re fleeing from shit holes, but that’s another matter). But like it or not, that’s what’s coming ‘round the bend. The “greens” have mobilized to stop every possible avenue of bringing in energy, from pipelines to hydro-power to transmission lines, even from windmills and solar factories. The leaders and organizers of this movement intention is to stop modern civilization, even though their sheeple haven’t caught on to that yet.