Commentary
Maintaining a strong military requires a strong economy. And a strong economy requires reasonable regulations that make sense from both an economic and scientific viewpoint. Unfortunately, many policy makers have bought into an extreme regulatory agenda driven by ideology that
does not make sense scientifically or economically, that is harming both our economy and our military.
This agenda was on display at the
2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan from November 11 to 22 of last year. The premise for the conference, and such agreements as the Paris Accord, is that man-made climate change poises an existential threat to human existence. Further it is claimed that even now climate change is wreaking havoc around the world and that regulations, mandates and new technology will slow down and even reverse it.
In other words, if you don’t support draconic climate-change driven policies and mandates you support a weaker economy and have a callous disregard for how climate change is hurting those occupying the lower socioeconomic strata.
These claims, believed by many in academia and the media establishment, have
taken on religious overtones, and consequently there is
little tolerance for opposing viewpoints in both academia and legacy media. Be that as it may, many scientists, engineers, and other knowledgeable, extremely bright people don’t believe the rhetoric and have provided convincing arguments debunking what they believe to be pseudoscience.
One such group of distinguished academicians is the Climate Intel group (Clintel). And one of the most distinguished members of this group is Nobel Prize winner Dr. John F. Clauser, who in August of 2023
signed the Clintel Climate Declaration which declares that there is no climate emergency. As of today, 1600 plus scientists and experts have signed the declaration, with Nobel Prize winner
Dr. Ivar Giaever being the first signee.
The declaration states that climate science has become politized and is lacking scientifically. It notes that climate change models are fully dependent on what go into them including hypotheses, assumptions, relationships, parameterizations, stability constraints, etc. And that “to believe the outcome of a climate model is to believe [blind faith] what the model makers have put in. This is precisely the problem of today’s climate discussion to which climate models are central. Climate science has degenerated into a discussion based on beliefs, not on sound self-critical science.”
Still, for the last 15 years plus, the United States has led the world in reducing carbon emissions. The extent of his leadership can be found in the
2024 Statistical Review of World Energy, which shows that over the last 15 years, the U.S. has experienced the largest decline in carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from energy, process emissions, methane and flaring. Indeed, as compared to 2013, the U.S. has been able to reduce carbon dioxide equivalents by 8.5 percent even as it has massively grown it economy through aggressive drilling for and using
cleaner burning natural gas, including natural gas from fracking instead of coal. During this same period, China’s CO2 equivalents went up by 20 percent to make China by far and away the biggest emitter of green-house gases (GHGs).
China also leads the world in
plastics pollution, and only India beats China when it comes to the sulfur dioxide emissions (SO2) responsible for acid rain. Of note, when it comes to SO2 emissions the United States produces about one-sixth that of China.
Hence, as of today if the climate change narrative is correct, it is China that by far and away that is doing the most damage and it the United States that has done the most to combat it.
Consequently, with the United States already leading the developed world in reducing GHGs and with huge chunks of the world producing GHGs and other pollutants largely unabated, it hardly makes sense for the United States to voluntarily cripple its economy and military even as China and other potential adversaries
pay lip service to the climate change narrative.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.