CNN recently broadcast a seven-hour infomercial drumming up political support for the “climate crisis.” The show allowed Democratic presidential candidates to one-up each other on the severity of their solutions.
While the candidates differed in the amount of trillions to be charged to taxpayers for their CO2-reducing solutions, they all agreed we face an “existential threat.” They warned that unless government took World War II level actions, catastrophe would befall humanity by 2030.
But are they serious? I think not.
For example, they called for an immediate end to fracking. Yet fracking led to a 40 percent reduction in U.S. emissions in 2017 because it allowed power plants to replace high-emitting coal with low-emitting natural gas.
They want to shut down nuclear power plants, even though nuclear has zero emissions. Since wind and solar are incapable of replacing them, nuclear power would have to be replaced by power plants that emit CO2.
They called for re-joining the Paris Climate Accords but had nothing to say about the fact that Paris allows high-emission countries like China to keep right on emitting CO2 at ever higher levels through 2030, the year of catastrophe.
In sum, the presidential candidates proposed solutions that lead to more CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, not less.
Would these proposals be made by people who really believe we face an “existential threat”? Or by cynical politicians who think that scaremongering gives them a path to power through unquestioning voters who will never notice the contradictions?