.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Monday, October 24, 2022

Save-the-Planet Hysteria: Is It a Pretext for Impoverishing the People?

UPDATED 11-4 & 11-14-2022, 10-8-2023. Mention of M Ryle added 9-10-2023 

It was about 40 years ago when all of a sudden you started to hear talk about the environment and the climate all over the press and media and from some of the school teachers who seemed to be "connected." I was suspicious right then. A coordinated blast about a previously low profile topic. Very curious.

 Now I ask; Do you believe everything that you read in the press or hear and see on the electronic media? 

Do you agree that there are a lot of lies in politics? How about Global Warming? Is it for real? Let's look at the whole discourse about "climate change" and "global warming" and the need to stop it by 2050 or 2030 or whenever.

Let's ask a few questions about the save-the-Planet hysteria:

1-- Is there climate change? In fact I agree that there has been climate change since my childhood.

2-- How does climate change take place or how does it show itself? What form does it take? How is it manifested? In what ways does it present itself?

3 --What causes these changes?

4 -- Do the measures commonly proposed to "solve" the problem or save-the-Planet match or correspond to the real or alleged causes and have the capacity to deal with the supposed phenomenon of Global Warming? Or do these measures have other motives, other purposes, other intentions?

If climate change is displayed through global warming, then why did the Middle East have a heavy blizzard in early December 2013 [before the scientific start of winter on 21 December]? The snow was piled up on my balcony in Jerusalem to a height of about a foot and a half or half a meter. There was snow in Cairo --much less than in Jerusalem to be sure, but still snow-- whereas it had not snowed in Cairo since 1904.

Another example is the summer weather here in Jerusalem in 2020, 2021, and 2022. It was very hot here in July and August of 2020 --when we were largely restricted to home because of the pandemic. It was so hot that we bought an air conditioner, for the first time while living here, and we used it often. However, the summer of 2021 was not as hot as the one of 2020. We used the air conditioner much less and in this past summer of 2022 we used it for only a few days in early  August and at the end of that month  continuing into early  September, as I recall,

So the summers have been getting cooler here in the past few years compared to 2020. Now what about that blizzard of nine years ago?

Maybe in other parts of the world the temperatures have been getting warmer but why has the Middle East or Levant been an exception? Can the true believers in global warming please explain that blizzard?

Do the examples above prove global warming OR put that notion into question?

Next let us take up the proposed causes of "global warming" and climate change.

We hear about automobile carbon dioxide emissions and even cow farts. But when the powers gathered in Paris to try to legislate supposed measures to stop global warming, much of Chinese and Indian industry were exempted. 

Before the 2015 Paris climate conference India & China had jointly called for differential treatment --as they were supposedly "developing" countries-- while  jointly calling on the "developed" countries to do the "equitable" thing and shoulder the main burden [". . .  the principles of equity and common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, reflecting different historical responsibilities, development stages and national circumstances between developed and developing countries"; May 2015]. 

And China --an industrial giant-- uses lots of coal, acknowledged to be the dirtiest of commonly used fossil fuels. Now if China and India --an  upcoming industrial giant-- are allowed to keep on using great amounts of coal [a use likely to increase in both countries (re China, NYTimes 5 November 2022)], then what good would it do to restrict the use of less polluting fossil fuels by other countries, whether industrial giants like the USA, UK, Germany etc or smaller industrialized countries, assuming that there is global warming and that it is caused by carbon dioxide emissions?

If carbon dioxide [CO2] emissions are the main cause of "climate change" & global warming, then projects to control emissions such as the Paris Accords will not get far, when major industrial countries --such as  China or India-- are allowed to do what is "equitable" in their own eyes.

Those two countries have become major industrial powers yet their industries were exempted from the agreed on restrictions. So if those two large countries are exempted from restrictions in the 2015  Paris climate accords, then does that mean that the Powers are really not all that concerned about burning fossil fuels? Indeeed, if major users of fossil fuels like India & China are exempted, how will restricting other lands solve the alleged problem of carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels and/or other sources of carbon dioxide? And since natural gas yields much less CO2  than coal and petroleum, then why ban natural gas along with coal and oil, the other two main human-controlled sources of CO2?

Now, if global warming as conventionally asserted is not taking place then what form does climate change --and I agree that there has been climate change-- take? And if global warming is not happening in a simple sense, then what is the role of carbon dioxide [CO2]? Some argue, including a founder of Greenpeace [the ostensibly pro-environment organization], now a dissenter, that humans and their acts do not control the climate and that there is natural climate change, such as the beginnings or ends of the ice ages, which mankind did not control.

Now if climate change consists of other phenomena than global warming caused by causes other than CO2 emissions then what about --why-- the supposed efforts to limit these emisions? As I said above, I do believe in climate change. What I have noted since the early 1960s is that Spring and Fall seem shorter than before, and that winter lasts longer into what is scientifically supposed to be the Spring [March 21 until June 21]. I have definitely noted that here in Jerusalem there can be chilly weather into early June. Could the change in climate be a move to the extremes in winter and summer both? Global Warming anyone?

What took place in the early 1960s that might have caused longer winters and summers and shorter Springs and Falls? In 1962 [8 July] the USA exploded a hydrogen bomb in the Van Allen Belt, or belts of radiation around the earth, made up of electrons and protons trapped in the earth's magnetic field. When the USA announced that it would set off an H-Bomb explosion  in the Van Allen Belt, a certain controversy was aroused among legislators, meteorologists, astronomers and the like. The New York Times --a more trustworthy publication at the time-- covered the controversy and published its coverage in at least one article [30 May 1962; which I read] which quoted from a number of  scientists,  both favorable to and critical of this strange project. One of those strongly objecting was Martin Ryle, the official Queen's Astronomer of the UK [Ryle's stance was not likely UK Govt policy]. Some, as I recall, warned that the explosion might or would have a harmful effect on the world's climate [a US secretary of defense admitted that "the use of electromagnetic waves. . . ."  "can alter the climate. . ." What is happening when a H-bomb goes off in the Van Allen Belt?] Others felt that that was not a concern. However, most of the scientists surveyed insisted that something like an explosion in the Van Allen Belt should be a matter for an international consensus of scientists and governments, not a matter for one government to decide unilaterally.             [by the way, Time magazine also covered the controversy, apparently using the NYTimes article as the source for most of its material, while distorting some of the quotes in order to yield the argument or "proof" that Time wanted which was to defend the unilateral US action. Distorting a quote meant, in one case, chopping a sentence in two parts in order to use the part that was favorable to Time's position and discarding the unfavorable part].                            The effects on the earth's weather patterns might be caused by what are called "geomagnetic storms" or "electromagnetic storms" originating in Van Allen Belts. Of course that is just a layman's speculation.  Be that as it may, Steve Koonin & Bjorn Lomborg, both academic experts, are skeptics towards the Save-the-Planet claims.

Now to get back to the Paris Accord. If it does not seem to be a serious international effort [because China & India are left out], if in fact carbon dioxide emissions [or "greenhouse gas emissions"] are causing global warming or, on the other hand,  if CO2 emissions are not the cause, assuming that there is global warming, then what is the purpose of all the restrictions on human activity in the various signatory countries. If purported climate change and/or global warming is caused instead by that 1962 explosion in the Van Allen Belt, instead of by carbon dioxide emissions and cow farts and the like, then what is the use or purpose of the many restrictions on fossil fuels enacted or proposed by the Biden regime in the USA, for example? The very fact that India & China are exempted from so many of the Paris accord restrictions may indicate that the massive present and future use of carbon-based fuels by those countries are not of real concern because some influential folks seem not to really believe that carbon-based fuels are the major concern.

Now if global warming is not a reality or much less significant than commonly asserted in the mass media and by bien-pensant politicians [and by Greta, let's not forget Greta], then the question of the real purpose or real ends of the restrictions on fossil fuels becomes much more salient.

We know that countries that have gone far in enforcing restrictions [and sometimes high prices] on fossile fuel have seen much harm to the standards of living of ordinary people. In Sri Lanka protests against measures supposed to "protect the environment" [forbidding chemical fertilizers]  led to massive increases in prices for food grown in the country and the fall of the government after protesters broke into the presidential palace, among other acts of mass protest. In the Netherlands too [followed by Italy, Germany & Poland] there were mass protests by farmers against restrictions on chemical substances making farmers labor and livelihoods more difficult.

In the USA inflation initiated by the restriction on gas and oil production has led to suffering and a clear lowering of the standard of living of ordinary folks. Yet   Larry Summers, a Democrat and economist for  President Obama, pointed out that shutting down building the Keystone pipeline --one of Biden's first acts as president-- made no sense because the oil that it was meant to carry would have to be transported instead by truck and/or train, less safe, less clean, more expensive means of transport for petroleum. The working class in many countries have been impoverished. Apparently, the "save-the-Planet" measures are meant to impoverish masses of people and to lower their standards of living by means of general inflation and indeed to change what has been the modern way of life what with the loss of mobility for ordinary  people due to the higher prices of fuel. Will the ordinary American family still be able to drive to a vacation in a far off place because of fuel price inflation? And we have already seen that so-called "renewables" and "sustainables" cannot replace fossil fuels, although I too dislike the soot, the filth produced by burning coal, but natural gas again is relatively clean. The "renewables" and "sustainables" have shown their incapacity. For instance in Texas several years ago, the windmills in the windfarms to generate electricity froze in a blizzard, unusual in Texas to be sure [thereby also supplying an argument against global warming since Texas is normally relatively warm], and causing suffering from the cold for millions whose electricity depended on those windmills. Of course, the sun does not always shine nor does the wind always blow. So those "renewables" and "sustainables" would need to be backed up by fossil fuels. Nor will the infrastructure for "renewables" and "sustainables" be in place for years. Yet Biden's gang --Susan Rice, Brian Deese, Jennifer Granholm etc-- want to implement a so-called Green Economy next week while conditions are not ready for that and may not be ready for a very long time, if ever.

So Save-the-Planet Hysteria is  a Pretext for Impoverishing the People.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

More Examples of Misguided --Or Misanthropic-- Measures to Limit Fossil Fuel Use

1- The Biden Regime in its  anti-fossil fuel policy, seems to have hurt poor populations such as American Indians [also called Native Americans], breaking treaties in the process. The US Government in the 19th century signed peace treaties with various Indian tribes, recognizing them as nations with sovereignty over the lands left to them, the so-called reservations. Yet the Bidens seem to have violated that sovereignty by forbidding these tribes/nations  to issue leases to oil exploration companies to explore for oil and natural gas on their tribal lands. Thereby the Biden regime prevents these peoples, often poverty stricken, from improving their economic situation both from fees paid for the leases and for potential royalties for the oil or gas found, as well as well-paying jobs for the tribal members living on these reservations. Of course, the Bidens claim to be forcing an eventual changeover to the "renewables" and "sustainables" by this policy. Meanwhile, the people on the Indian lands may be poor and may stay poor because of the regime prohibitions which are the fruit of executive orders  rather than laws passed  by Congress.

2- Electric vehicules, the divine demigods of the Save-the-Planet cultists, may be a paradoxical savior from these enthusiasts' point of view. After all, electrcity has to be generated. And EVs will require much more electricity than now being generated,  if EVs become widespread. And the "renewables" and "sustainables" are not yet up to the job of generating the needed extra electricity for EVs, if they ever will be, certainly not alone, as it seems. Moreover the batteries for the EVs require rare earths, rare minerals. Such as lithium. Now these minerals must be mined, in China or wherever else they are found. And mining requires heavy excavating and/or tunneling  equipment. Which requires fossil fuels -- unless we now have heavy equipment powered by heavy batteries. But which comes first, the chicken --as it were-- or the egg?

And do not forget that the world does not now have the capacity to generate the addiional electricity that will be needed if electric vehicles become the rule. Indeed, California, dominated by save-the-Planet enthusiasts, has been undergoing regular blackouts for a couple of years now.

Nor are the present electricity grids up to conducting the additional electricity that will be needed.

Labels: , , , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home