This page was last updated on June 12, 2017.
Global warming is real; how will we respond?; William Angel (WA); Beaver County Times; June 4, 2017.
Previous WA letters are here and here.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject letter.
“Global warming is serious business. It is a proven fact that the earth is warming.”
[RWC] It is? When did that happen?
It appears WA didn’t get the memo. Manmade global warming (MGW) believers have been embarrassed too many times by weather colder than they expected. As a result, they have mostly switched from talking about MGW to talking about climate change.
Please read my paper “Manmade global warming.”
“On June 1, the United States joined Syria and Nicaragua in rejection of the Paris Agreement. Nicaragua is skeptical as to whether or not the agreement will be enforced.”
[RWC] As usual, follow the money. Let’s be honest; the U.S. could generate as much CO2 as we want and the UN wouldn’t care as long as it could keep its hand in our wallet.
“As the world becomes more industrialized, industrial competition will increase. The five countries with the most industrial output are: the United States, the European Union, Japan, China and India. The five most-polluted countries are: Mongolia, Botswana, Pakistan, Senegal and Saudi Arabia.
“In its 2015 Statistical Review, British Petroleum stated that energy consumption continues to increase, yet the G7 wants to eliminate fossil fuels by the end of the century. Electricity can be generated where there are hydroelectric turbines, but there are no substitutes for petroleum, natural gas and coal.”
[RWC] As soon as “renewable energies” get close to commercial viability, they are routinely no longer deemed “green.” We’ve seen this already with some hydro, wind, and solar projects.
“Now more than ever, we need to balance concern for the environment along with America’s ability to satisfy its needs and wants.”
[RWC] Do we need to be a party to the Paris pact to accomplish this?
According to the EIA, U.S. CO2 emissions were lower in 2015 than in 1994. Though there are year-to-year variations, U.S. CO2 emissions have been in decline since 2005, long before the Paris pact.
oldwob Jun 4, 2017 10:17pm
“Great letter! Why would anyone who calls themselves a conservative deny climate science? What do we have to lose by pursuing policies that save resources and invest in clean and green energy? Let’s help those working in fossil fuel industries to transition to renewable resource jobs. Our children’s, grandchildren’s, and great-grandchildren’s futures depend on how we act now!”
“Nevertheless, when it comes to climate change, I think the conservative view would be to go with the overwhelming consensus. Why not play it safe? We’re risking the health of our planet and the world our children and their children will inherit, not to mention our own health right now. Isn’t it more conservative to want to preserve the purity of our air?”
“Now more than ever, we need to balance concern for the environment along with America’s ability to satisfy its needs and wants.”
[RWC] Do we need to be a party to the Paris pact to accomplish this?
According to the EIA, U.S. CO2 emissions were lower in 2015 than in 1994. Though there are year-to-year variations, U.S. CO2 emissions have been in decline since 2005, long before the Paris pact.
© 2004-2017 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.