Contributed by Nan Potts
“Change is the only constant in life.” - Heraclitus, Philosopher, 500 BCE
The debate over climate change rages on. Unfortunately, the arguments presented have a good portion of the working population being played like ping-pong balls and/or pawns.
One minute, fossil fuels are “in” and the economy booms. The next, they’re a sin, and they’re “out”. Jobs vanish and workers are expected to retrain for newer Green Jobs. Yet, the Green Energy industry is still developing with little standardization, making it difficult to find meaningful jobs. In the meantime, energy and the economy plummets, fanning inflation — all politically driven.
Why? Well, someone has to do something about climate change! Enter the Paris Agreement.
According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC): “The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21[Conference of the Parties, 21st meeting] in Paris, on 12 December 2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016:
Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a climate neutral world by mid-century.
The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat climate change and adapt to its effects.”
What is climate neutral? Answer: Zero carbon dioxide emissions. Is there such a thing? You’ll have to hold your breath!
Taken from the January 25, 2021 update, by Lindsay Maizland, from The Council on Foreign Relations summary:
• “Countries have debated how to combat climate change since the early 1990s. These negotiations have produced several important accords, including the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
• Governments generally agree on the science behind climate change but have diverged on who is most responsible and how to set emissions-reduction goals.
• Most experts say the Paris Agreement will not be enough to prevent the global average temperature from rising 1.5°C. If that happens, the world will suffer devastating consequences, such as heat waves and floods.”
That sounds like weather. According to Scientific American, weather is not climate.
Okay, what has the PA achieved since 2015? (Insert cricket sounds here).
A 2012 article in Scientific American sited the study of Earth’s changing climate — study began in the early 19th century. Identifying and recording ice ages and other paleo-climates through the observations of geological and topographic features relating to ice, wind and water along with the natural greenhouse effect were recorded. It was in the late 19th century, some scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gasses (sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, methane, etc.) could be a cause for climate change. Other natural factors included solar variations, volcanism, etc. In the 1960s, evidence appeared to mount for the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas. But it was in the 1970s, when many scientists began to favor the idea of a warming point of view. By the 1990s, computer models, along with observations of the Sun’s radiation influences, contributed in the growing consensus that greenhouse gases and human-caused emissions were causing discernible global warming. Since the ending of the last global ice age, approximately 10,000 years ago (plus or minus a few thousand), the Earth has been warming, and continues to. This was the agreement of almost all Earth Sciences before 1970.
Yet, scientists continue to argue their beliefs. The scientific community to date, has not drawn ANY definitive conclusions — only models and possibilities regarding CO2 and a change in climate.
Why, when climate changes have been recorded in Earth’s geologic record (rock formations and fossils) ranging on a global scale to localized areas and are billions of years old, is it thought that humans are the cause?
According to geologists, paleontologists, archeologists and anthropologists, with the warming of the Earth and the receding of the massive ice sheets, more land became available in some areas and less in others. As sea levels rose, changes in the distribution of the “then” populations (Human, flora and fauna) changed. It is represented in submerged ancient architectural structures, abandoned cities in arid climes and historical records of past civilizations. All of these changes took place prior to Man’s industrialization.
What has been Man’s response in the past to climate change? Adaptation and/or migration is the result.
The Paris Agreement argues for the reduction of “greenhouse gases”. The evidence remains inconclusive “it” is the cause of the Earth’s warming. Yet, scientists insist it is human industry that is causing this warming. Let’s see, industry produces sellable items and services, that means money. And, wherever there’s money, there are government entities involving taxation and politics.
We humans do affect our local environments. Witness clearcutting, excavation, manipulation of waterways, etc. However, the big factor being debated is pollution by greenhouse gases.
Being good stewards of our environment on this planet is key to maintaining clean air, water and surrounding areas. Eliminating pollution is the desired and worthwhile goal that the United States is in the process of achieving.
But does carbon dioxide pollution cause a change in the change in our climate? The answer: inconclusive (for temperature graphs, see www.faculty.ucr.edu).
So, why should the United States enter into an agreement that addresses something based on an unsubstantiated scientific theory? Remember, the Paris Agreement involves governments, costing taxpayers globally, money, with nothing to show for it so far. And, not all members are in compliance with the agreement.
President Trump, removed the U.S. from the Paris Agreement for what he foresaw as a waste of money. The Biden Administration ran its election campaign on a promise of addressing Climate Change and has re-entered the U.S. into the agreement.
I became confused when White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, in a press briefing on February 21, 2021, attempted to defend Biden’s lack of support during the intense cold spell in Texas. “We can’t control Mother Nature, no one can,” she stated and moved on to explain a contingency plan for vaccine distribution in the state. Well, if Mother Nature can’t be controlled, why should we think we can control our climate?
The question of human impact on the warming of the planet is up for grabs. But, what is really being grabbed are your taxes dollars, trillions of them. Kiss them goodbye!
References:
www.britanica.com, Heraclitus
www.unfccc.int, Paris Agreement
www.faculty.ucr.edu, Earth’s warming graphs
www.scientificamerican.com, The Discovery of Global Warming (2012)
www.oann.com, OAN Newsroom Update, February 21, 2021