A Comment on the Paris Accord
Now that the worst of the weekend storm has passed, I want to comment on the meaningless Paris climate agreement that the New York Times, predictably, celebrates while simultaneously calling it "a profound failure."
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. illustrates its fallacy in a simple graphic. Please take a look at the graphic and each of the explanatory boxes.
Sixty years from now, more than 90% of energy must be created by non-carbon sources. What are those sources? As Roger pithily commented on Twitter:
As both Dr. Pielke and environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg explain: The only way to accomplish this is to create a reliable carbon-free energy source that is less expensive than fossil fuels. There is no question that nuclear is the only way to accomplish this (unless fusion or other unknown future discovery comes along) goal. The anti-global warming forces are against nuclear energy. The people who are in favor of this agreement are largely against the only possible (given today's technology) of achieving the goal.
If the pro's get their way, the choices will boil down to:
Not to mention the worldwide poorest-of-the-poor dying by cooking with dung in their homes because -- science!! -- wants to control the weather. The Wall Street Journal sums up this way,
“The grandiose claims of triumph in Paris represent the self-interest of a political elite that wants more control over the private economy in the U.S. and around the world. These are the last people who will save the planet.”
Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr. illustrates its fallacy in a simple graphic. Please take a look at the graphic and each of the explanatory boxes.
As both Dr. Pielke and environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg explain: The only way to accomplish this is to create a reliable carbon-free energy source that is less expensive than fossil fuels. There is no question that nuclear is the only way to accomplish this (unless fusion or other unknown future discovery comes along) goal. The anti-global warming forces are against nuclear energy. The people who are in favor of this agreement are largely against the only possible (given today's technology) of achieving the goal.
If the pro's get their way, the choices will boil down to:
“The grandiose claims of triumph in Paris represent the self-interest of a political elite that wants more control over the private economy in the U.S. and around the world. These are the last people who will save the planet.”
What I am hoping is that the pro-catastrophic global warming advocates will now declare victory, go home on their private jets, and leave the rest of us alone.
Comments
Post a Comment