Despite zero evidence that human greenhouse gas emissions are harming Earth, the Democrats, cheered by the media, continue to enact energy policies they say are necessary for saving our world. But all they’re doing is increasing energy scarcity, which forces prices higher, and ignoring facts that don’t fit their narrative.
America’s worst energy policy offender is California, where the ever-eager-to-mandate-and-forbid ruling class is outlawing automobiles that burn fossil fuels, halting electricity generation from conventional sources, and executing a war on gas stations.
It’s all so entirely pointless. California’s humanity produces only about 1% of all global greenhouse gas emissions. If the state fell into the ocean tomorrow, as some have predicted it will (it won’t), the world thermometer wouldn’t be moved one bit.
The story is the same for the entire country.
“Here’s the most important fact about the Green New Deal: It wouldn’t work,” says the Heritage Foundation’s Nicolas Loris. “Ultimately, fully implementing the Green New Deal would have no meaningful impact on global temperatures.”
Yet if enacted, the law would nevertheless “bring huge changes to our country,” Loris continues, as it “is a wish list for big government spending, expansive government control, and massive amounts of wealth distribution.” It would also allow progressives to implement their twisted definition of “social justice.”
“This deal would fundamentally change how people produce and consume energy, harvest crops, raise livestock, build homes, drive cars, travel long distances, and manufacture goods,” says Loris. But “even if Americans were on board with this radical change in behavior and lifestyle, it wouldn’t change our climate.”
How can he make such a statement? Because his colleague Kevin Dayaratna ran the numbers – and put them before Congress during a 2017 House committee hearing.
“We simulated the environmental impact of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the United States completely,” Dayaratna said in testimony.
“Simulation results indicate that if all carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions were to be eliminated from the United States completely, the result in terms of temperature reductions would be less than 0.2 degrees Celsius, 0.03 degrees Celsius, and 0.02 degrees Celsius, respectively. These temperature reductions would also be accompanied by minuscule changes in sea level rise (less than 2-centimeter reduction).”
This isn’t hard to understand when it’s put next to the fact that more than half of the world’s human greenhouse gas emissions are produced by 25 cities, all but two of them in China, none of them in the U.S.
It’s truly asinine to believe that Washington and our state lawmakers can do anything about greenhouse gas emissions when China and India have been busy building hundreds of coal plants and that, as of last year, 350 coal-fired power plants were under construction worldwide. China – which, we must point out, produces most of the solar panels installed in the West in factories powered by that country’s “mountain” of coal – is not going to yield to John Kerry’s embarrassing begging that it cut emissions. Beijing will do only what it wishes.
But then so will America’s climate alarmist policymakers. The difference between them and China’s leaders is that the Chinese want to move their economy ahead by using cheap and reliable energy sources, while our “leaders” are determined to reverse the advances that fossil fuel energy has brought this country, the West, and the world, no matter how much it hurts.
And for no reason at all, since nothing they can do will have an impact on the climate. It does, however, allow them to stroke their egos, something few of them can live without.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board