“Climate Change” Is Just an Empty Talking Point

© 2020 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

The Environmentalists don’t care about the environment. All they want to do is preserve a talking point and hammer conservatives with it.

The plausible truth of the matter is that there is no provable man-caused global warming. There is so much contrary evidence, missed calamitous predictions, and examples of warmer periods from the past—long before so-called “industrial activity” would have produced greenhouse gases—that from a strict scientific method standpoint, the unequivocal link between mankind’s recent actions and warmer global temperatures simply can’t be established beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s not to say that the earth is not warming. It may very well be. The earth historically goes through cyclical periods of warming and cooling, but these stages are caused by naturally occurring events in nature, not by human activity.

But what about the famous “97% of climate scientists” saying that reckless human activity is causing global warming? That statement is so intentionally misleading, it’s utterly risible. It’s the classic example of a popular cliché being repeated often enough by its proponents that it’s accepted as “true,” regardless of the actual facts. When one looks closely at the study that produced the notorious 97% figure, it turns out that it’s not 97% of 12,000 climate scientists as regularly reported by the environmental lobby, but rather, only a paltry 77 of 79 self-identified climate scientists who had already taken a position in favor of human-caused warming. That’s where the 97% comes from—77 out of 79, not 97% of 12,000!

Still, let’s posit for the sake of this discussion that global warming is real and that it’s caused by mankind’s recent industrial activity producing an excess of CO2. Let’s take the whole issue of global warming fault off the table. Let’s even assign blame: It’s the fault of conservative white Western businesspeople, in pursuit of immoral capitalistic profits.

It doesn’t matter. There are solutions at hand but the environmentalists don’t want to pursue them. There are better ways for Western economies to spend their wealth for the betterment of all people, rather than to chase a “cure” for so-called climate change.

First, there is no cure for global warming, even if it’s man-caused. The Paris Accords won’t do it. John Kerry, America’s representative at those meetings, even said so:

If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”

It may be popular for know-nothing liberals to bleat nonsense like, “We’ve only got 12 years to save the world! This is our World War Two!” but such utterances are completely irrelevant, unprovable and unintellectual.

Let’s look instead at what Bjørn Lomborg says about what should be an alternative response to global warming. Lomborg is a well-respected Danish academic (PhD in Political Science) and pro-environmental activist. He’s one of “them,” a clear-cut Green Warrior. His contention is that the West’s considerable wealth, resources, research capabilities and influence should be focused not on amorphous fool’s errands like imposing vindictive regulations on businesses to punish their success or implementing arbitrary restrictions on personal consumer behavior, but instead, on attacking the solvable problems in the world that truly impact peoples’ health and quality of life. Lomborg says the West can and should address issues such as making clean drinking water available to the millions of people who lack it, eradicating diseases that still afflict far too many, like malaria, and increasing access to quality education and healthcare.

These are actions that Western concerns could actually do to make an immediate positive impact. The notion of the ocean rising an inch a century from now from theoretical “warming” has little meaning to a starving Third World family that doesn’t have access to adequate drinking water and education today.

Anyway, chances are quite good that a century from now the whole CO2-based global warming issue will be moot. There are many alternative energy sources being developed that could end the world’s dependence on fossil fuels. One such source is the SMR—Small Modular Reactor—by NuScale of Portland OR that has just received design approval from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The SMR is a small nuclear reactor, just 65 feet tall, with a core just 1/20th the size of a conventional reactor. Importantly, its safety features are passive, meaning that if the reactor loses electrical power for any reason, the gravity-based safety system automatically drops the fuel rods back into the core’s water, assuring complete safety and protection. The SMR is small enough to be factory-produced in quantity, rather than site-made like conventional large reactors. This will dramatically lower costs and largely solve the “too expensive” complaint about existing nuclear plants.

The environmental lobby largely ignores nuclear, dismissing it with unspecific, superfluous complaints about safety and cost.  The safety issues are overblown. Even Three Mile Island—the only serious near incident in U.S. nuclear power history was just that—a “near” incident. That was in 1979—41 years ago!—and technology safeguards have progressed significantly since then. SMR-based nuclear power generation is not even structurally subject to the same failures as was the case at TMI.

And isn’t it interesting that no environmental group ever protests, or even mentions, the widespread use of nuclear propulsion in dozens of naval warships and submarines around the world. The operative word here is warships. These vessels are subject to coming under hostile fire at any time, to be blown up and sunk, their nuclear innards being flung through the air and settling into the oceans of the world. Yet no Green fanboy ever calls for the dismantling of the world’s navies. This is a concrete example of both their naïve, emotionally-based opposition to nuclear power generation and their ignorance of the current state of nuclear power usage in general.

The anti-nuclear environmentalists are not interested in a clean power source that eliminates CO2 emissions, nor are they interested in Western countries truly raising the quality of life in impoverished Third World nations. The environmentalists are only concerned with preserving their talking points in order to bash conservatives, so they can gain more political power for themselves.

The Democrats Will Wreck Everything

© 2020 Steve Feinstein. All rights reserved.

The cliché currently floating around is, “This is the most important election in the nation’s history.” That was said last time and the time before that and it will be said next time too. The point is, in the last 20 years or so, they have all been extremely important elections. As the chasm between the opposing parties widens and the governing philosophies diverge to an ever-greater degree, presidential elections have greater consequence in all areas: social, economic and tax policy, military readiness, high court judicial matters and environmental/energy.

In every single area, the quality of day-to-day life in America will decline precipitously if the Democrats regain control. (Note I didn’t say, “If Joe Biden wins the presidency.” That was intentional. If “Biden” wins, everyone knows he will be a figurehead, an inert surrogate of unseen, unelected Democratic operatives working behind the scenes, implementing Leftist policy, creating Leftist legislation, while Diminished Joe smiles and nods unknowingly.)

Let’s look at the major areas that the Democrats will ruin:

Democrats Will Raise Taxes

Biden has promised to “Rescind Trump’s tax cuts.” That’s a cowardly, deceptive way of saying he’ll raise taxes. The Democrats like to imply that only the 1%-ers benefitted from the Trump tax cuts, just like they lied and said the same thing about Bush’s tax cuts in 2001. Everyone benefitted, and a $200/month tax cut means a lot more to a lower income family than $1000/month means to a multi-millionaire. Nonetheless, pompous Democrats spout dishonest drivel like, “The rich need to pay their fair share” and “Everyone should play by the same rules.”

Democrats seem to regard the “rich” and the “corporations” as static, ever-constant objects, whose income is permanent and there to be taxed to whatever degree the Government wishes. Democrats apparently think their income is inelastic—i.e., not subject to change in changing circumstances.

It’s not. It’s very elastic. That income will shift and move the more the Government tries to go after it. Corporations will transfer more of their profit-producing operations to locales beyond the reach of U.S. tax laws. Wealthy individuals will find more tax havens and loopholes. Many individuals and businesses will simply retire or close up shop, weary of the chase, and then that fat, juicy taxable income—once so tantalizingly close—evaporates into nothingness.

This is the folly of punitive taxation. Higher tax rates really slam middle-class workers and small businesses right over the head. Higher taxes don’t “punish” big corporations anywhere near as much as they hobble the average 9-to-5 worker. So much for the Party of the People.

Democrats Will Undermine the Business Climate

Democrats’ knee-jerk, reactionary business policies introduce the worst possible element into an economy: the element of uncertainty. Higher business taxes, restrictive, burdensome regulations and irrational, arbitrary race-based quotas are all bad enough. Any of those puts a chokehold on business and limits hiring and expansion. But the worst thing is this: Most of the time, Democrats impose these taxes, regulations and quotas as punishment, to give a favored group some advantage, putting their thumb on some arbitrary scale of justice. Businesspeople never know when the Democrats’ next hand grenade is going to be lobbed in their direction, ripping apart their best plans.

Human nature being what it is, when people are faced with financial anxiety, they pull back, they spend the least amount possible. For individuals, this means no new car or vacation, the old sneakers soldiering on. For businesspeople, it means expansion plans delayed, hiring the bare minimum, pay raises on hold. Under President Trump, sure, taxes were reduced and job-killing regulations were rolled back. But the best thing was that businesses felt confident about future conditions, that the rug was not going to be pulled out from underneath them. This is precisely why the economic “recovery” was so tepid under President Obama: Businesses were never confident—they felt that Obama would betray them at any moment to please his voters. Under the 2020 Democrats, it will be even worse.

Democrats’ Misguided Sense of Social Order

Let’s give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt here and stipulate that all their efforts concerning racial quotas, gender equality and so on are done strictly for the compassionate, high-minded reasons of improving daily life, and not with the cynical intent of merely currying favor with carefully identified special-interest voting blocs. That’s a huge leap of faith, but let’s go with it for this discussion.

Even if their intentions are good, the Democrats’ recent history is abysmal. They go much too far and push for changes that end up ruining the very institutions they’re trying to improve. In the supposed name of equal rights for people identifying with different genders, we get grown men being allowed in girls’ bathrooms and biological men competing in women’s scholastic sports. Biological males beat biological females in athletic competition virtually all the time, so legitimate girls are being denied athletic scholarships and the distinction of being listed as record-holders. Affirmative action racial quotas end up creating a new racism, with entirely new ethnic groups (mostly Asians and whites) being denied admittance to colleges strictly because of their race/ethnicity. This is lunacy.

Democrats Will Pursue Pointless Green Environmental Initiatives Why? Mostly to raise America’s image among the liberal European states and mollify their domestic environmental voting constituency. It certainly won’t be to lower America’s energy costs (alternative renewables tend to be far more costly than traditional fossil fuels) and it certainly won’t be to “save the planet.” Even John Kerry admitted that the Paris Climate Accords wouldn’t do anything to stop so-called global warming. Like virtually all the current Green New Deal policy proposals, Paris in 2015 was all show and no go. With Democrats, energy costs go up, the average American suffers and the planet doesn’t benefit.

The Judiciary Will Become More Liberal Activist

We’ll get rulings that restrict speech that is arbitrarily deemed “offensive” or “hurtful,” peoples’ gun rights will be severely curtailed and we’ll have reduced access to religious participation. For Democrats, a well-run society is where abortion clinics and liquor stores stay open during the lockdown, but churches are closed.

They Will Weaken the Military

A crippled military reduces our options in how we respond to critical global flashpoints, be it in the South China Sea, Korea, the Middle East, etc. American interests will be threatened and our influence will be dangerously curtailed.

This is what Democrats will give us. Many well-off Democrats dismiss the current rioting and unrest as something that will end once that irritant Donald Trump is out of office. From their vantage points—safely ensconced in their insulated, higher income residences in untouched neighborhoods—they live their lives pretty much as they always have. None of the current turmoil has actually reached them, nor does the virus-caused economic slowdown really affect them. They have enough money to afford the luxury of simply pointing accusations at a president whose personal style rubs them the wrong way.

If the Democrats assume truly influential power in this country, life will never be the same again. Every aspect of daily life will be worse.