I just read a column written by noted climate scientist Robert Redford on CNN's site in which he laments the terrible damage done by President Trump with regard to climate change. Trump's sin, according to this "expert" is that he has formally withdrawn the USA from the Paris climate accords.
Let's start by saying that Robert Redford is actually an old actor whose knowledge of climate science appears to stem from his role in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. As Sundance, Redford apparently was given some secret knowledge about the Sun. Allright, maybe I'm being too snarky, but the idea of someone gaining knowledge about climate change by being a washed up actor is ridiculous.
Even worse than giving Redford a platform, though, is what Redford has to say.
Let's start with the Paris accords which Redford makes the centerpiece of his screed. Those supposedly "vital" accords are voluntary. Countries "commit" to goals, but they don't have to meet them. The world's biggest polluter of all kinds, China, doesn't even commit to doing anything to reduce emissions until 2030. That's right, under the Paris accords, China which emits huge amounts of pollutants won't have to do anything to reduce those pollutants until after the dates on which the world as we know it will supposedly come to an end due to global warming. Think about that for a moment. From the point of view of the global warming crowd, it's the rough equivalent of being told by a doctor that you have a bad infection that will kill you but that treatment will only start after you are already dead.
Then there's the issue of actual reductions in emissions. Right now, there is only one large economy that has been making major reductions in emissions. That country is the USA. Trump pulled us out of the Paris accords because they could be used to disrupt our economy; he hasn't stopped progress towards controlling emissions. In the fantasy world of the left, however, what matters is what one says, not what one does. It's a crazy upside-down world.
If Redford is really concerned about man made global warming, he should start a campaign to pressure China to reduce emissions. That could be done. If China were to switch its power grid from one that relies mainly on coal to one that uses natural gas, Chinese emissions could rapidly drop by 25% or more. There's plenty of natural gas in the world to power all those plants. As a result of the use of fracking, the world has a glut of inexpensive natural gas. But wait, in the global warming world, fracking is evil because it allows production of more fossil fuels. People like Redford are against it. That's why Elizabeth Warren has said that she would ban fracking on her first day in office. She doesn't care that taking that action would put millions of Americans out of work. She doesn't care that taking that action would force emissions from American power plants to start rising in dramatic fashion. It doesn't matter what would actually happen; it just sounds good to say that she would ban fracking, and what matters is what one says, not what actually happens.
There is plenty to debate about man made global warming. Is there really warming of any sort? That's far from clear. Is any of the warming due to the actions of man? That also is far from clear, although the evidence suggests that any warming is most like a natural phenomenon. I'm not going to debate these issues now, however. If one assumes that there is global warming and that it is due to human activity, then the position espoused by Robert Redford on CNN is still idiotic. Redford and those like him are either ignorant or willful. You decide.
Let's start by saying that Robert Redford is actually an old actor whose knowledge of climate science appears to stem from his role in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. As Sundance, Redford apparently was given some secret knowledge about the Sun. Allright, maybe I'm being too snarky, but the idea of someone gaining knowledge about climate change by being a washed up actor is ridiculous.
Even worse than giving Redford a platform, though, is what Redford has to say.
Let's start with the Paris accords which Redford makes the centerpiece of his screed. Those supposedly "vital" accords are voluntary. Countries "commit" to goals, but they don't have to meet them. The world's biggest polluter of all kinds, China, doesn't even commit to doing anything to reduce emissions until 2030. That's right, under the Paris accords, China which emits huge amounts of pollutants won't have to do anything to reduce those pollutants until after the dates on which the world as we know it will supposedly come to an end due to global warming. Think about that for a moment. From the point of view of the global warming crowd, it's the rough equivalent of being told by a doctor that you have a bad infection that will kill you but that treatment will only start after you are already dead.
Then there's the issue of actual reductions in emissions. Right now, there is only one large economy that has been making major reductions in emissions. That country is the USA. Trump pulled us out of the Paris accords because they could be used to disrupt our economy; he hasn't stopped progress towards controlling emissions. In the fantasy world of the left, however, what matters is what one says, not what one does. It's a crazy upside-down world.
If Redford is really concerned about man made global warming, he should start a campaign to pressure China to reduce emissions. That could be done. If China were to switch its power grid from one that relies mainly on coal to one that uses natural gas, Chinese emissions could rapidly drop by 25% or more. There's plenty of natural gas in the world to power all those plants. As a result of the use of fracking, the world has a glut of inexpensive natural gas. But wait, in the global warming world, fracking is evil because it allows production of more fossil fuels. People like Redford are against it. That's why Elizabeth Warren has said that she would ban fracking on her first day in office. She doesn't care that taking that action would put millions of Americans out of work. She doesn't care that taking that action would force emissions from American power plants to start rising in dramatic fashion. It doesn't matter what would actually happen; it just sounds good to say that she would ban fracking, and what matters is what one says, not what actually happens.
There is plenty to debate about man made global warming. Is there really warming of any sort? That's far from clear. Is any of the warming due to the actions of man? That also is far from clear, although the evidence suggests that any warming is most like a natural phenomenon. I'm not going to debate these issues now, however. If one assumes that there is global warming and that it is due to human activity, then the position espoused by Robert Redford on CNN is still idiotic. Redford and those like him are either ignorant or willful. You decide.
No comments:
Post a Comment