EXCELLENT! NOW FUSION, NEW SILK ROAD
President Trump Dumps
Paris Climate Accord
by Benjamin Deniston
President Trump’s announcement that the United States is going to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord is a really big deal; this is excellent. To my knowledge, this is the first U.S. President who has actually kicked back against this whole climate change scare in a serious way. The Clinton Administration pushed it; despite the narrative of this being a Republican versus Democrat issue, the George W. Bush Administration went along with the broader program, as with the insane biofuels program, for example; and Obama pushed it big time. Now, we finally have a President who is actually kicking back against this.
This is very important. Trump deserves respect and support for fighting against this climate change scare, because this isn’t just some policy issue, this decision is confronting a coordinated global campaign run by the highest levels of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchy. Now we have the chance to end this Malthusian program and get back to growth and development, if President Trump can follow this up by joining the new global development paradigm being led by China’s New Silk Road development policy.
It was important that Trump highlighted the economic effects of CO2 reduction schemes during his announcement. Some try to limit the discussion to an academic debate, but there is the reality of the manner in which this is affecting the general population. What’s the effect on your citizens of going with these policies? They say CO2 is terrible, it’s a pollutant, and therefore, we must to go with all these wonderful, clean energy solutions. They paint this rosy picture about green energy, when in fact it has devastating effects on the real-life conditions of our population. This whole Green energy narrative is ridiculous.
If you want to talk about the reduction in CO2emissions and the Green energy programs, look at what Germany is facing in terms of their energy prices. This is an important case study in what happens when you massively subsidize wind and solar, while abandoning nuclear and reducing fossil fuels. In Germany, between 2004 and 2015, their energy prices went up 50%, from $0.23 cents a kilowatt-hour in U.S. values, to $0.35 cents a kilowatt-hour. They were already, in 2004, twice the rate we pay in the United States on average. But over that ten-year period—driven by CO2-reduction efforts, green energy, and then the nuclear exit—prices went up another 50%, to three times what Americans pay on average for energy. What does this mean for your economy? For your industry? For your poorer population? This has already been driving industries to leave Germany.
In 2013, just one subsidy in Germany—a major surcharge added to residential power bills to pay for wind and solar—was the equivalent of $0.07 per kilowatt-hour. That alone is 60% of what we pay on average in the United States. This is just for one subsidy, just for wind and solar.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and State Climatologist at the National Space Science and Technology Center, University of Alabama, Huntsville, Alabama; presented at a May 13, 2015 House Committee on Natural Resources hearing.
This surcharge is before the massive, extra expense of new transmission systems, battery banks, and related aspects of a so-called “smart grid” infrastructure system (needed to handle the irregular surges and collapses inherent in wind and solar) are added.
Most importantly, these cost values are shadows of a physical principle: LaRouche’s metric of energy flux-density. Human progress is characterized by increases in energy flux-density, associated with fuels with higher energy densities and new domains of physical chemistry.
The idea that we can transition to some wonderful world powered by wind and solar electricity is a farce; it’s a fraud. These power sources inherently have a lower energy density, necessitating a higher physical cost to society per unit of power supplied. We need to go in the other direction, and to the degree necessary, use oil, coal, and gas in the context of existing infrastructure systems, while rapidly developing the more advanced, higher forms of energy such as nuclear fission and fusion—that’s really the future. The future is increasing energy use per capita, increasing the use of higher qualities of energy per capita.
What Does CO2 Not Do?
Secondly, in the context of the freakout reaction to Trump’s exiting from the Paris Accord, it’s worth re-examining the issue of rising atmospheric CO2 levels. What does CO2 do? It’s now officially labeled a pollutant by the EPA, and the media bombards you with claims that it will cause disastrous, extreme weather, catastrophic climate change, flood our cities with sea-level rise, and create a mass extinction of species. All bunk.
A lot could be said, but let’s just highlight one study, comparing 32 different climate models’ predictions of the effects of CO2 increase, with the reality that’s happened just in the last couple of decades.
The many thin dotted lines [in the graph above] are what these computer models predict for temperature rise due to CO2 increases, and the thick red line is their average prediction (based on a run from 1979). But compare that to the actual observations indicated in the blue and green lines (the squares and the dots). You see that none of the computer models have been accurate in predicting what actually happened. Satellite measurements derived from two different assessments, as well as independent in situ measurements with balloon systems, have shown that the temperature over the past 15 years has been relatively flat with little or no increase—despite the largest increases in CO2 levels in recorded human history. None of the models predicted this global temperature flatline, they all predicted significant global temperature rise (as a response to the CO2 increase). So, have this in mind when you hear these scare stories about CO2 increase being some terrible thing. They’re basing it all on these models that have already been shown to be ridiculous.
What Does CO2 Actually Do?
But there’s another interesting aspect to the CO2 issue, which isn’t discussed at all. Apparently, it’s a secret for many of these fear-mongering climate change pundits, that CO2 is actually a critical part of the biosphere. People talk about being “pro-green”—CO2 is totally pro-green, it’s as green as you get!
A few weeks back I had the opportunity to interview a scientist who has reviewed and consolidated thousands of studies showing the positive effects of higher CO2 levels on plant life. Dr. Craig Idso is the Founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, and a member of CO2 Coalition.
His work covers controlled experiments with greenhouses (studying different plant species at different CO2 levels), assessments of the implications of this for agriculture, and satellite measurements of regional and global biospheric activity.
The results of these studies are remarkable and speak for themselves. According to global satellite measurements, over the past 35 years the entire biosphere has seen a 6% to 15% increase in total plant biomass production. We’re not talking about a 10th of a percent or a half of a percent, but 6% to 15% for the entire globe; that’s huge.