Climate crock: Facts vs. rhetoric
Nothing better reveals the true agenda of environmental extremists than the fact that even an immediate, total U.S. carbon-emissions halt wouldn't affect climate change significantly — but would cripple America's economy and way of life.
Writing for The Examiner of Washington, Ron Arnold, executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, highlights that key conclusion of a new Science and Public Policy Institute report ( scienceandpublicpolicy.org ).
If America eliminated all carbon emissions today, says report author Paul Knappenberger, global temperatures would rise just 0.08 degrees Celsius less by 2050, 0.17 degrees Celsius less by 2100 — “amounts that are ... negligible.” That's because the rest of the world would replace U.S. carbon emissions in less than seven years; China alone would do so in less than 11 years.
Bob Ferguson, the institute's president, tells Mr. Arnold that the climate alarmism of “Al Gore and a league of crony capitalists” seeking to make millions of dollars by selling “carbon offsets” is really about “money and power.”
So, don't expect environmental extremists to temper their familiar anti-growth, anti-U.S. rhetoric at this week's new round of United Nations climate talks in Doha, Qatar — where issues include “how to spread the burden of emissions cuts between rich and poor countries,” according to The Associated Press — even though that rhetoric rings more hollow than ever in light of the inconvenient truth about U.S. climate mitigation revealed by the Science and Public Policy Institute.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.