I & I Editorial BoardCarbon dioxide is a pollutant, the Environmental Protection Agency says. It’s been drilled into us for more than 30 years that we have to cut our CO2 emissions if we don’t want the world to end too soon. But we know that the climate scare is in no way related to protecting the sky. The data tell us so.
Over the last three calendar years, 2021, 2022, and 2023, “no country has reduced its carbon emissions more than any other major nation on a per capita basis,” the Committee to Unleash Prosperity tells us.
“Even though our GDP is about 50% higher than China’s, our per capita emissions are roughly the same,” says the group.
The data also tell us that though China’s emissions grow every year, “ours have come down every year over the last decade.”
Yet the U.S. is continually singled out as the worst greenhouse gas offender, while China – and India – escape the wrath of the klimate kooks, from Greta Thunberg to Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who actually “praised China’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
The CTUP chart above shows a sharp decrease in U.S. emissions and a modest drop in European Union emissions. But look at the increases in India, Southeast Asia, and China, particularly the latter. Can anyone remember when climate alarmists traveled to Beijing, Mumbai, or Jakarta to publicly chastise the nations these capitals represent for their emissions? When was the last time a U.S. lawmaker demanded that these countries cut their fossil fuel use?
If our “leaders” were being honest, then we wouldn’t have an entirely mad administration demanding that we cut “greenhouse gas emissions 50-52% below 2005 levels in 2030,” reach “100% carbon pollution-free electricity by 2035” and achieve “a net-zero emissions economy by 2050.”
Nor would our elites have feted Thunberg and treated her as an authority who must be revered while she ranted and scolded and screeched. Pope Francis would not have admonished America for its “irresponsible” Western lifestyle and Bill Nye, no science guy but an engineer and an actor, would have never said that voting (he means for U.S. Democrats) is the best option “if you want to do one thing about climate change.”
Then there are the cranks at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, who insist that “observed and anticipated increases in greenhouse gas emissions from China and other countries don’t let Americans off the hook for reducing emissions.” And never forget that Al Gore has made a post-vice presidential career out of blaming the U.S. for what believes is a disaster in the making.
If the climatistas were truly concerned with the planet, they would nag the countries that are increasing emissions. But those aren’t developed Western nations, so they get a pass. This gives the game away. Climate hysteria is not about stopping some imagined warming, it’s about choking capitalism, punishing wealthy societies, and establishing a socialist-collectivist governance model.
Should the U.S. cease to exist tomorrow, or if we simply stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, (which means we’d cease to exist not tomorrow but in a short time), the global temperature, whatever that is, would not move. Surely the climate zealots know this. But emissions are not the issue. The issue, as we’re reminded, is always about the revolution with these people. The goal is to punish the West for daring to ride capitalism to a prosperous existence.
— Written by the I&I Editorial Board
“Yet the U.S. is continually singled out as the worst greenhouse gas offender”
False. the US has been the worst offender over history, but not in recent years, and the experts acknowledge that.
“Pope Francis would not have admonished America for its “irresponsible” Western lifestyle”
The US emits far more CO2 per capital than China or India. But they have far more people.
And China and India DO NOT get a pass. All the experts know that it is extremely important that they cut emissions. That’s why many economists and climate scientists favor a carbon tax with border adjustments, which would encourage other countries to have similar programs.
Then why does China continue to build coal plants, bringing a new one on line at least monthly?
China’s bad choices do not mean they get a pass from scientists.
China’s bad behavior is not evidence of what is needed.
First, nobody gives a damn what the Pope says about climate change.
Second, it doesn’t matter how much CO2 anyone emits because it is not a pollutant.
Third, if you think China and India give the slightest damn about any of this and are prepared to hobble and stifle their own economic growth in the name of a “climate crisis,” then I have the deal of a lifetime on a bridge you maybe interested in buying.
Saying CO2 is not a pollutant is like saying water is not a pollutant. Too much of either causes problems.
We have to MAKE China and India care.
This is to Glen, hey nutso, our atmosphere has about 1/3 the CO2 it has had at many times in history. Stop pretending we have some extreme amount or that is has anything to do with warming
Saying that we are the “worst offender” is not an objective description. It is hyperbole designed to scare ignorant people into believing the lie that CO2 is a pollutant. Without CO2 we would all be dead. I suppose you think water vapor is a pollutant as well.
-Gasses don’t reflect light, greenhouses without roofs hold no heat – because convection.
-Gasses absorb energy and re-radiate energy in all directions, mainly in the infrared.
-CO2 disperses evenly, H2O doesn’t – because it condenses into droplets when cool and falls out. Areas of the atmosphere that lack water vapor cool off rapidly – infrared re-radiated upward has little to stop it(0.04%, or .0004/1 CO2), downward and it’s more likely to run into water vapor and thicker atmosphere.
– “The average amount of water vapor in Earth’s atmosphere is around 0.4% by volume, but it can vary from almost 0% to over 2%. The concentration of water vapor depends on location, with higher levels in tropical climates and lower levels in arid or cold regions. ”
– Note that there’s damn little H2O in the upper air, the lower atmosphere probably averages at least 1% – but .4% is still 100x the CO2
-Above 15,000 feet mountaintops are likely to have snow year-round. This is because the air is thinner, and most of the water vapor precipitates out before getting much higher.
– Dry air is why deserts cool off rapidly as soon as the sun goes down, becoming very cold despite heat radiating off of the sand that’s heated all day by the sun.
I think anyone who claims scientific knowledge and advocates for AGW should have their degrees revoked and replaced with a degree from an online clown college.
They lied when they told us: “you aren’t smart enough to understand this”. That’s what scammers say. Once you understand that greenhouse gasses don’t reflect energy, they absorb and re-emit it in all directions, the whole thing falls apart.
I wonder- does our education system still teach about convection? That’s the major force transferring heated air upward till it can radiate it’s energy to space.
I’m tired of the bs about co2 causing global warming.
Stop chemtrails and geoengineering and then we’ll talk.
There is solid evidence from ice core samples that we are in a warming phase but we have been at the bottom end of of a cooling trend for hundreds of years. So now the temp is up.
Anybody that has a brain can see that the sun is the main driver of global temp. Get off your horses people.
What Scientists say this. For over a hundred years we scientists have known that CO2 block four narrow pathways in the infrared scpectrum. In order to shed energy recieved from trhe sun, the remaining pathways must carry more infrared radiation, which they can only when the global temperature is increased. Along with blocking caused by water vapor, this amounts to a global temperature of about 55F more than the planet would otherwise have in absense of these two gases. But, that’s where it ends. You can’t further block these pathways, because they are already maxed out. Further warming requires a third gas, which was supposed to be methane when this whole thing started back in the early 80’s. All of that real science has been dumbed down by the politicians, because they simply want to use fear to control people.
I read reports such as yours but also scientific journals. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction . In my view all the CO2 that continues to be dumped into the atmosphere has to cause reaction. Consequently I see you as a shill for the oil/gas industries. I have grandchildren and am worried about the world they will grow up in. I’ve also observed, maybe anecdotally, that it’s the pro fossil fuel backers who hate immigration into the US. What do YOU think will happen when large parts of the earth becomes uninhabitable? Thanks for reading my message and keep up with your good propaganda er work
Nothing from noaa is believable. Being a fisherman I can assure you they have been lying for decades
IF you are really concerned about CO2…do your part…stop breathing.
Breathing isn’t the problem. The problem is taking sequestered carbon out of the ground and putting it into the atmosphere.
No it is entirely gullible people who believe CO2 is somehow bad for the planet
Greta would have been jailed indefinitely in some countries for attempting to sabotage the economy. She is a rich spoiled brat guided by family and unknown persons, used as a media tool to influence policy. Sentiment does not generate megawatts.
Why do you care about Greta, rather than the experts?
I have a solution for climate change. Let everyone who believes in it immediately stop using anything that is made from or uses fossil fuels in their manufacturing or transportation processes. Problem solved. And it would also fix the housing crisis, as half of all homeowners will have to sell their homes and move into caves.
As I have been saying for years; “when they are living in caves and eating berries I will believe they have the courage of their convictions”. Until then, POUND SAND!!
Yeah, I suppose you would have said the same thing about the smog in the 1970s. But we fixed that, no thanks to the likes of you.
So we should let the alternative facts fools continue to drive us down the path to destruction? No, thanks.
they are facts, not alternative facts. What you bring are lies
In 1991 The Club of Rome published the book The First Global revolution, in which they spill the climate scam’s beans:
From The First Global Revolution, page 75:
It would seem that humans need a common motivation, namely a common adversary, to organize and act together in the vacuum; such a motivation must be found to bring the divided nations together to face an outside enemy, either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.
New enemies therefore have to be identified.
New strategies imagined, new weapons devised.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.
Al Gore is a member of the Club of Rome, as was Mikhail Gorbachev, an avowed communist to the very end.
The Earth doesn’t care about their politics, my politics, or your politics. But we have increased atmospheric CO2 by 50%, which HAS to cause warming.
Do you ever stop lying?
CO2 is not a pollutant. The Earth is still in a CO2 deficit. Levels should be near 1000ppm. CC is just a ploy by the left to garner more control. Everything the left does is about control. Everything. Once you have total control you can do anything.
Nonsense. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere regulates the temperature. A sudden change of temperature causes mass extinctions, and will negatively affect our crops and livestock, not to mention our coastal cities.
Nonsense^2. Look at the historical climate record – CO2 increases lagged temperature increases by centuries, and likewise temperature decreases let to CO2 decreases, with at least a 200-year lag. Climate models are set up to treat CO2 levels like they’re a dial that sets the global temperature, but there is NO evidence in the historical record for this.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
Your writing has a way of resonating with me on a deep level. I appreciate the honesty and authenticity you bring to every post. Thank you for sharing your journey with us.
The personal behavior of 1% of the U. S. population results in their CO2 footprints being 50 times that of the average of the other 99%. Were this small group to only emit 25 times the CO2 of the average of everyone else, overall U. S. CO2 emissions would immediately, not over years or decades, decline 17%. Alas, as many of this small group are AGW scammers, the people are never told this fact.
I agree the climate zealots have cretinous conclusions, all of which blame the US for adding to pollution. Their conclusion and accusations shows that the cadres of climate cretins are anti-US. But are they anti-capitalism?
India, I believe, uses capitalism in its society to have achieved its economic largesse. The same with many nations in Southeast Asia. The only way you can improve economic and financial satisfaction is by harnessing capitalism to upgrade the situation. So these nations do, and there are no protests of the activity in India or the Southeast nations.
While I do believe that many of the climate “warming” or “change zealots hate capitalism (because in my opinion they are both fools and socialists, if not outright communists-and, of course, lonely guys who want to meet girls). But I also believe that the climate propagandists are surrounding us (and hate the US in particular) because they so much hate the US (due to their poor public schooling).
I also believe that it is not so much because they hate capitalism (although they do, since the US uses capitalism as its engine of achievement)-but because they hate freedom. And the US symbolizes freedom. So they hate the US as much if not more than they hate capitalism.
“The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.” -D. Horowitz
Carbon dioxide makes up .04 of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere. For comparison, .04 of one percent of 100 gallons of water is about 4 ounces. What magical properties does carbon dioxide possess that makes it such a “dangerous pollutant” given its extremely low concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere?
If we really cared about reducing emissions and climate change, we would also strongly oppose war.
Amazing how many here seem to doubt the well proven physics of how rising C02 levels cause the atmosphere, and thus the earth as a whole, to retain more heat. Whether you call CO2 a “pollutant” or not is meaningless.
As jfmoris110 writes “greenhouse gasses don’t reflect energy, they absorb and re-emit it in all directions”. Unfortunately jf fails to recognize that his point describes why the rise in CO2, and other greenhouse gases, is the reason why the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate.
The fact that some large countries are failing to cut their greenhouse gas emissions is a threat to our environment, not proof there is no threat.
The idea that folks advocating we take this threat seriously are trying to destroy the US / capitalism / etc is nuts. We love our children too.
Funny how you believe all the incredibly false information you just provided
I received my degree in Environmental Conservation from the University of Colorado in 1975. It was a small degree program at the time, based in the Geography Dept. To its undying credit, this degree program taught us that radical measures to impose environmental constraints on the world’s economies would lead to economic disaster, authoritarian central planning, and massive social unrest. Now, all these years later, all the socialist Marxists (including Al Gore) have been using environmentalism as the cudgel to leverage their agenda on the developed world. I never thought I’d live long enough to see the prophecies of our studies become a reality, but here we are. Sadly, these concepts are too complicated to explain to a world that has been dumbed down by an equally Marxist public education establishment. At 71, I fear for the next generation.
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It’s plant food and some more of it in the atmosphere would be beneficial to humanity.
CO2 is not a problem. The ice cores that claimed increased CO2 caused historical climate warming were misread. Closer analysis shows that warming temperatures created more CO2, not the other way around. CO2 did not cause rising global temperatures. Rising CO2 levels followed rising temperatures. Technically we are still in an ICE AGE, so rising global temperatures should be happening naturally.
Wally is correct. You can test his statement by this simple experiment:
Take a room temp can of coco cola and gently pour it into a glass. Take a refrigerated can of coco cola & gently pour it into a glass. Which one loses its fizz first?
The warmer coke will. Without getting into the thermodynamics of why, simple observation shows the colder water more easily holds onto dissolved CO2.
Colder oceans hold a higher level of CO2. Warmer oceans release CO2 to the atmosphere. Thus higher atmospheric levels of CO2 LAG global warming.
The trace gas proportionality correlates with the export of real pollution from western nations.
Conservationists realized a long time ago that contamination of soil, air and water with industrial waste was creating an unendurable level of toxicity.
It was a happy coincidence that necessary limits on environmental contamination gave a competitive advantage to totalitarian nations who held their citizens’ health in undisguised contempt; happy for power-hungry politicians and everyone else seeking unearned or “passive” income.
The result, exporting heavy industry and importing finished goods, created the illusion of progress in reducing environmental toxicity in the USA.
As far as the new religion of anthropocentricism is concerned, the constant stream of disingenuous hysterics lends verisimilitude to the arguments of those who have been attempting to discuss the CO2 hypothesis rationally and objectively.