RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.frontpagemag.com/democracy-dies-in-climate-panic/

The United Nations is one of the most sacred political cows in the liberal media. This is especially true when they convene the global elites on the perils of “climate change.” The latest confab in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, began with the usual appeal to fear and panic from U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, formerly known as the Socialist Party prime minister of Portugal.

“Our planet is fast approaching tipping points that will make climate chaos irreversible,” Guterres warned. “We are on a highway to climate hell with our foot still on the accelerator.” If that AC/DC song echo wasn’t strong enough, he added, “It is either a climate solidarity pact, or a collective suicide pact.”

Journalists consider anyone who questions this my-way-or-hell viewpoint as not only a “denier” of science but an enemy of the people. Their standard practice is to sound like U.N. publicists.

NPR’s comically titled newscast “All Things Considered” ran a U.N.-boosting story on Nov. 7 that they headlined “U.N. climate conference opens with alarming warnings about the global climate.” There was no dissent allowed from the “highway to climate hell” talk.

Anchor Elissa Nadworny helpfully asked reporter Ruth Sherlock what the U.N. hoped to accomplish. Sherlock touted “developing” countries demanding “loss and damage” money, insisting “wealthier countries that are responsible for most of the carbon dioxide emissions should pay reparations to emerge economies.”

Conservatives are calling this the “Sharm el-Sheikh-down.”

https://www.frontpagemag.com/how-the-war-on-nitrous-oxide-threatens-global-food-supply/

An extremely dangerous trend in public policy is growing around the world: demanding reduced emissions, mainly from agriculture, of nitrous oxide (N2O) because it contributes to global warming. Indeed, we’re told, every molecule of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere has 230 times the warming potential of every molecule of carbon dioxide-and governments all over the world concluded long ago, rightly or wrongly, that we must cut carbon dioxide emissions to reduce global warming. Clearly, then, it is even more important that we cut nitrous oxide emissions.

What’s dangerous about this? Nitrous oxide is a critical input of agricultural production. Reducing its use will seriously reduce food production, harming the world’s poor. But, if global warming is even more dangerous than reduced food production (which it is not, but for the moment we’ll assume it is for the sake of argument), surely, we must go ahead and take this step. Life is full of tradeoffs, after all.

Not so fast. Things aren’t quite that simple.

I want to begin with a thought experiment. Imagine that you have two cans of paint, A and B. Like all paint, their content is a mixture of clear liquid, through which light passes unimpeded, plus some color pigment. The concentration of the pigment determines how intense the color is, that is, how much light it absorbs so it doesn’t pass through the clear liquid. In can A, 230 out of every 1,000 molecules of paint are pigment. In can B, 1 out of every 1,000 molecules is pigment. It follows obviously that a coating of paint from can A will absorb 230 times as much light as a coating of the same thickness of paint from can B.

Now imagine that you apply 10 coats of paint from can A to a sheet of clear glass, and 23 coats of paint from can B to another sheet of clear glass. Which will block more sunlight? The sheet with paint from can A, because 230 times 10 is more than 23 times 1. Now imagine that instead you apply 10 coats of paint from can A to a sheet of glass, and 30,000 coats of paint from can B to another sheet. Now which will block more sunlight? Obviously, the sheet with paint from can B, because 30,000 times 1-30,000-is 13 times more than 230 times 10-2,300.

https://issuesinsights.com/2022/11/14/the-abcs-of-g-r-e-e-n/

The 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) is currently underway in Egypt. With American visionaries such as Nancy Pelosi, Al Gore, and John Kerry featured speakers, how could anything go wrong?

Once again, it is frustrating to hear politicians and activists advocating astoundingly wasteful, mostly ineffective, and sometimes destructive “green” policies and programs. Thereby, we lose the opportunity to fund initiatives that could make a difference, as resources are squandered on you-can’t-get-there-from-here virtue-signaling.

The Basics

Unlike most other greenhouse gases (GHGs), once emitted, carbon dioxide (CO2) remains in the atmosphere for 300-1,000 years, because the sun does not break down CO2 as it does more complex molecules. The concentration of the gas in the atmosphere thus steadily increases because emissions are greater now than what is finally dissipating from the pre-industrial periods. By cherry picking arguments or models or citing predictions that did or did not come to pass, we can debate endlessly the impact of the accumulation of CO2 on today’s climate, but it is undeniable that humans are a major contributor to the buildup. That leaves us with two feasible options to slow the accumulation: limiting emissions or capturing and sequestering the gas (more on that later).  

It is irrelevant where the CO2 originates, because there is plenty of time for it to disperse widely. The U.S. emits about 13% and the European Union about 7% of the world’s total – and overall, “the West” accounts for 25% – so any globally effective mitigation policies must be economically sensible for the other 75%. Until such measures are found, we are fighting a losing battle. A September Wall Street Journal editorial put it succinctly:

“Anything the U.S. does to reduce emissions won’t matter much to global temperatures. U.S. cuts will be swamped by the increases in India, Africa and especially China. Look no further than China’s boom in new coal-fired electricity.”

Focusing self-destructive restrictions and initiatives only on the West is, therefore, an exercise in masochism and undermining its nations’ geopolitical security, by depriving them of plentiful energy and economic prosperity.

The Fallacy Of Electric Vehicles