Authored by Stan Crader,published 20 November 2015. StanCrader.com
The U.N.’s climate chief, Christiana Figueres, says openly that the aim of the talks is “to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.” Let’s take a look at what has and what has not happened during the so-called ‘reign’ of the current economic development model and the projected consequence of climate saving proposals.
In the past 150 years; life expectancy has more than doubled from 30 in 1870 to 71 in 2013, it’s estimated that 75% lived in extreme poverty and the world bank estimates that less than 10% do so today. So, under the current model we’re living longer and enjoying much better living conditions.
What has not happened?
Life magazine, 1970: Scientists have solid evidence to support the following predictions: In a decade (1980) urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution, by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching the earth by 50%. Didn’t happen.
The Environmental Defense Fund, 1990: By 1995, the greenhouse effect will desolate North America with horrific drought causing crop failures and food riots. The Mexican police will round up illegal American immigrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands. Not even close.
March 29, 2001, CNN: In 10 years (2011) time, most of the low lying atolls surrounding Tuvalu’s nine islands in the South Pacific will be submerged under water as a result of glacial melt and rising sea levels. I’m sure where the islands are but pretty sure they’re still above sea level.
There’s more; you get the picture.
The Unnecessary Consequence:
The U.N.’s proposed climate stabilizing plan calls for significant emissions reductions. Several countries have committed to significant emissions reductions. Emissions reductions come at a cost. While the estimates are all over the board and official economic impact estimates aren’t made public, the Standford Energy Modeling Forum estimates the annual cost of these reductions at over $1 trillion dollars per year, if everything works according to plan, which it rarely does.
But here’s the kicker. All of these changes, at a cost of $1 trillion dollars per year are estimated to reduce the global temperature by .306 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100.
Clearly, the goal of global climate change initiatives are not to reduce global warming, but to control the economic model.
Fear is a selling tactic that works, particularly with the uninformed. So, when it’s said that climate change is a contributor to terrorism, remember that the world is living life longer and in more abundance than ever before. And that even if the claims of a relationship between terror and global warming were true, reducing the global temperature by 3/10 of a degree probably won’t change the heart and mind of any terrorist.
So, the economic model is working, life is getting better. Proposed expensive emissions reductions will have very little impact on the global climate. Why all the fuss? I have no idea. All of this talk is just climate crap; don’t fall for the trap.