Climate Change “Solutions”

Climate Change “Solutions”


The global warming debate has been raging for decades, starting soon after the global cooling idea was discarded.

The conversation has not consistently been scientific, with passion and politics frequently replacing logical discourse.  But following recent international decisions, the impact of suggested solutions to what many see as a threat is about to dramatically impact the lives of just about every American, draining resources from the U.S. and some other industrialized nations and transferring them to third world countries, some with unstable and frankly kleptomaniac regimes.

This Autumn, the 27th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP27) took place in the Egyptian coastal city of Sharm el-Sheikh.  It concluded with a decision to establish and begin a loss/damage fund.

Ironically, the nation which is now the planet’s biggest polluter, China, will bear no part of the cost or burden of the effort. China’s emissions are now about three times as large as that of the U.S., and it is massively increasing its use of coal.

Despite headlines and proclamations by climate extremists, there is no consensus on climate change. Nor is the evidence for human-caused warming that does not raise scientific questions. It has been found that some data, including the foundational bedrock of key parts of global warming theory, have been falsified.  A notable example is the research presented by East Anglia University.  Nor is there “97%” agreement mong scientists about global warming.  The number is actually closer to 59% in terms of causing actual harm to environment, according to a Fairleigh Dickenson University study.

There is no consensus that the suggested remedies would be actually effective.

Guardian review of the issue notes that [Climate Czar John Kerry] objected to the lion’s share of the blame being placed on the U.S.”  It has been reported that he was ‘sick’ of shouldering the blame, according to Paul Bledsoe, a former Clinton White House climate adviser, now with the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington DC. ‘Somehow the US became the villain despite aggressive action on emissions, meanwhile Russia and China’s emissions are growing like crazy and yet they are not in the crosshairs of activists, it’s confusing…”

The Biden Administration seeks to cut U.S. emissions by 50 to 52 percent below 2005 levels in 2030, as well as paying “reparations” to third world countries. Already, the President’s energy policies have devastated the budgets of Americans, and spurred massive inflation.  Vast new spending will accelerate and magnify that already devastating impact. The Associated Press has reported that the “U.S. will pay up to $1 billion to compensate developing countries for global warming.”

Actions related to the White House proposal, whether based on science or not, to drastically cut emissions have serious side effects.  They make energy unaffordable for many.  They markedly harm the economy, clearly seen in the inflation caused by the Biden’s assault on U.S. energy independence. They tend to reward China, which produces products used in alternative energy production despite its own history of currently being the world’s greatest polluter.

Most of all, they tend to not actually have a serious impact on the very problem they seek to address. Indeed, most of the measures, such as those suggested by COP27 and elsewhere, have a lot more to do with pushing socialist-oriented wealth transfer schemes than with cleaning up the environment.

There is an alternative that is far more viable, economic, and practical.  Rather than seek to reverse the industrial revolution and plunge the globe into poverty, it employs science to create clean energy.

Recently, the U.S. Department of Energy has announced that it has made significant strides in the development of fusion power. When perfected, perhaps in several decades, it would use a form of power generation that would generate electricity by using heat from nuclear fusion reactions. In a fusion process, two lighter atomic nuclei combine to form a heavier nucleus, while releasing energy. Devices designed to harness this energy are known as fusion reactors.

Placing resources into the development of fusion power which could successfully replace polluting fuels without bankrupting the global economy or indulging in wealth transfer schemes is the direction both the United States and the global community should take.

Frank Vernuccio serves as editor-in-chief of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government

Print Friendly, PDF & Email