Tag: global climate catastrophism

Categories
crime and punishment folly ideological culture

Spray-​Painting Stonehenge

Last month, members of Just Stop Oil, devoted to “climate activism” — a way of coping with weather that goes way beyond using shelter, culverts, coats and umbrellas — were arrested for an unsolicited paint job. 

They spray-​painted Stonehenge.

The group says that mankind is doomed unless we stop using fossil fuels. Not instantly! That would be crazy. By 2030.

According to a Just Stop Oil spokesman, “Continuing to burn coal, oil and gas will result in the death of millions.” But if we stop, the climate will spare us.

Their website says that fossil fuels are right now “killing millions around the world.” (No mention of any lives saved by, for example, fossil-​fuel-​provided heat in wintertime.)

Worse is to come. The contours of apocalypse are elaborated on a helpful /​genocide/​ page of the site. “Scientists warn of untold suffering and death, of the collapse of whole nations, and the eradication by manmade global heating of entire peoples and cultures.”

I hope I need not stress that not all “scientists” have received this fact-​free revelation.

What will cause the mass slaughter? More weather, sometimes extreme weather? The kind of thing that we use fossil fuels to cope with and protect ourselves from? And for which, barring much wider development and acceptance of nuclear power than we are likely to see any decade soon, there is no reliable substitute?

You can wash the paint off Stonehenge. Bringing irrational fantasists to reason is a much tougher job.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
ideological culture national politics & policies regulation

Children’s Crusade Goes Forth

climate panic

In 2015, a group of young people sued the federal government.

The government’s allegedly actionable dereliction was having “known for decades that carbon dioxide pollution was causing catastrophic climate change … and a nation-​wide transition away from fossil fuels was needed to protect plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”

The government “recklessly allowed” transport of fossil fuels, combustion of fossil fuels, etc.

I blame the lawyers more than the kids for the filing’s falsehoods and non sequiturs. Outlawing fossil fuels would be the actual catastrophe and actual reckless violation of individual and constitutional rights.

Climate variations are nothing new in the earth’s four-​billion-​year history. We should expect to see all the usual dry spells, hurricanes, and tornadoes that have buffeted human beings since we emerged as human beings. Fossil fuels help us to protect ourselves from these things.

Government cannot outlaw fossil fuels slowly or quickly without in effect putting a gun to the heads of everyone who wants to use a gas-​fueled car, bulldozer, or airplane and saying, “You have no right to take the actions required for your survival.”

Efforts by several states and the federal government to outlaw various uses of fossil fuels are what deserve lawsuits.

Judge Ann Aiken, who recently had a chance to end this litigation but is illogically allowing it to move forward, has one thing right: “Some may balk at the Court’s approach as errant or unmeasured.…”

I balk. It’s errant. And over the top.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies property rights responsibility

Climate Changelings

Paris, climate change, global warming, natural gas, fracking, Common Sense, illustration

Worried that the world is going to sacrifice progress for the mess of pottage that is “global climate change”?

Don’t. Years ago, economists specializing in game theory recognized that the governments of the world would be extremely unlikely to agree to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The incentives are all wrong for that.

Last month, the great debunker of junk climate science, Patrick Michaels, reporting on the recent Paris talks, concurred. The international agreement going forward is so worded as to be “free to be meaningless.” Countries can claim to be “doing something,” but effectively accomplish nothing. Which allows “the world’s largest emitter (China) and the third-​largest one (India)” to balk.

But the ole USA? It is doing something …

and it’s going to cost. Here’s one reason: Under Obama’s Clean Power Plan, substitution of natural gas for coal in electrical generation isn’t going to increase, even though it produces only half the carbon dioxide per kilowatt of electricity as coal. Instead, his EPA says power companies have to substitute unreliable, expensive “renewables,” mainly solar energy and wind. These are mighty expensive compared with new natural-​gas power. And even the Clean Power Plan won’t meet our Paris target.

Obviously, what we have to worry about are our martyrdom-​prone environmental zealots and their power-​hungry (political power-​hungry) friends ensconced in government.

They just can’t leave well enough alone, for, as Michaels notes, even CO2 emissions improve with industrial progress — when markets are free and property rights established.

But anti-​capitalists in and out of government don’t want improvements to come naturally. Apparently, they would rather make things worse even by their own standards than let markets work.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Paris, climate change, global warming, natural gas, fracking, Common Sense, illustration

 

Categories
Common Sense general freedom nannyism responsibility

Millions to Move 400 Villagers

Kivalina,

Apparently, it takes a federal government to move a village.

Thinning ice sheets have made it hard for the people of Kivalina, a seaside village in Alaska, north of the Arctic Circle. The Iñupiats who live there have lived off the sea, especially bowhead whales, for a mighty long time. And climate change, town officials say, has raised havoc with their traditional occupation.

Worse yet, the federal government suspects that soon Kivalina will become uninhabitable. “The question now facing the town, the state of Alaska, and the nation,” Chris Mooney writes in the Washington Post, “is whether to move the people of Kivalina to a safer location nearby, either inland or further down the coast — and who would pay upwards of a hundred million dollars to do it.”

If you look at the sandbar upon which Kivalina rests, you can see why it might be subject to erosion and the vagaries of the weather. 

But does that make it a government concern? Really?

In times past, it wasn’t up to taxpayers to guarantee every outpost of humanity’s continued existence. When a way of life became untenable in a given place, the people moved. 

Now, folks tend to look to governments, seeing their “communities” as something others owe them, rather than something they must work to keep.

A bad sign if climate change proves real and massive.

If it takes over a $100 million to move a village with 400 people, what happens when whole cities must be abandoned? I’m sure government will be involved, but if a million Americans must move, we cannot afford to spend the Kivalina ratio: $250 trillion is quite a price tag.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF

Categories
too much government

Al Gore Reinvents the Internet

Former Vice President Al Gore wants a “purpose-​driven Web.”

See, cyberspace isn’t purpose-​driven … yet. It only helps us access all the information in the world, communicate instantly at no cost with people on the other side of the globe, find true love, shop, download books and movies and lectures, elect presidents, refute environmentalist alarmism, save lives, and other such trivia.

A New York Times article reports that in Al Gore’s view, “we” haven’t done enough to spread his vision of the imminent doom of the earth.

Gore can’t be held accountable for anybody else’s understanding of his views, of course. So let’s find a direct quote from this article about how “we” must do more with the Web than just trade party photos on Facebook.

According to Gore, speaking at an Internet conference in San Francisco, “Web 2.0 has to have a purpose.”

What purpose?

Nothing less, he declares, than “bring[ing] about a higher level of consciousness about our planet and the imminent danger and opportunity we face because of the radical transformation in the relationship between human beings and the Earth.”

Sounds quite grand, as long you don’t try to divine what the words actually mean.

In my online world, individual lives and individual purposes matter quite a lot, despite a lack of overarching purpose. Offline too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.