If climate change were serious..

How Urgent Is Global Warming?

There are two views on human civilization, one optimistic and one pessimistic.

The pessimists see people as wasters who take precious resources and convert them into useless things that pollute.

The optimists see people as problem solvers who create the solution (and also the next problem).

History has vindicated optimists. For example, the first color TVs had difficulty producing the red color until europium—one of the rarest elements on Earth—was discovered in the 1970s. It was so rare that it could be used to produce only about a hundred million color TVs, yet today we have billions of them.

Pessimists halt progress while optimists advance it. Global warming only becomes a problem when pessimists are allowed to stifle progress.

I develop many of my opinions through my observations of the world. It’s why I knew Covid wasn’t serious from the beginning.

In my view, if climate change were as bad as those who want it to be..

Global Trade

..then we wouldn’t ship things from halfway across the world to save a buck today. If everything were produced on the same continent where it would be consumed, the world would see 704 million metric tons less of maritime CO2 emissions released into our atmosphere yearly. This is like saving 43.5 trillion (yes, trillion as in one thousand billion) commutes to work (20 miles distance).

Since there are 27.7 billion yearly commutes in the USA, that would be like saving 1,572 years of commuting in a single year.

Nord Stream Pipeline Methane

The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipelines in September 2022 released a significant amount of methane (CH₄) into the atmosphere. While not CO₂ directly, it is still highly relevant because methane is a potent greenhouse gas.

In fact, methane is ~80 times more powerful than CO₂ over a 20-year period in terms of trapping heat in the atmosphere.

The Danish Energy Agency estimated that up to 485 million tons of methane were released – the equivalent to 35 million metric tons of CO₂-equivalent emissions — roughly equal to the annual emissions of 8 million cars.

This was the largest single methane leak in history, five times higher than the 2015 incident at Aliso Canyon in regulation-heavy California. And all thanks to WAR!!! See that section below.

Half-empty Public City Buses

..then public city buses wouldn’t be 50% occupied, releasing an extra 3 million metric tons of CO2 annually, compared to having smaller buses with an occupancy closer to 90%. That represents the CO2 released by 40,000 flights across the USA.

Nuclear Reactor Flip-flop

..then nuclear reactors would have never been taken offline and Greta would not be famous. If 50% of the Earth’s energy needs came from near-zero CO2 emission nuclear reactors, this would reduce emissions by 43 billion metric tons annually.

This represents a decrease of more than 60% in fossil fuel emissions. The Three Mile Island (1979), Chornobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011) accidents, while tremendously tragic and leading to the decrease of nuclear reactors, are insignificant disasters, or one could even say a necessary bad, for the overall good no different than how the USA would consider fighting ten wars and killing 15 million humans to stop communism a necessary bad for capitalism to thrive. Oh, wait. They did do that.

Speaking of war.

Wars are Profit Centers for 2 Industries

..then the Ukraine/Russia war, estimated to have released 175 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, wouldn’t have happened. That’s the equivalent of 80 million cows in one year. You know, those animals the global warming rabble-rousers constantly remind us are ruining our planet?

This tells me that short-term geopolitical and economic interests are more important than long-term global challenges like climate change.

Inefficient Government Everything

..then 97% of government employees wouldn’t work from home yet still have an office space in a building that requires fossil fuels to upkeep.

And if all of that weren’t enough, I have one more.

Fossil Fuel Subsidies?

..the government wouldn’t subsidize fossil fuels. Direct subsidies include tax deductions for oil exploration and subsidies for coal mining operations. Indirect subsidies include detrimental effects to public health from poor air quality that governments don’t charge to these fossil fuel companies, allowing them to effectively operate at a lower cost. Tobacco companies have to pay subsidies for public health campaigns.

There’s no “make it make sense” because it doesn’t make sense.

If it doesn’t make sense, don’t tell me to use less energy. I’m turning on that damn A/C when it’s hot and that darn heater when it’s cold. Less energy means a worse life. The goal needs to be more energy. As much energy as anyone wants. This would lift more people out of poverty than Bill Gates’s fake help. And because we all love the environment, the focus needs to be on the cleanest ways to generate the most energy, which has always been nuclear.

Global warming hoaxers have sabotaged modern advancements through energy restrictions for over two decades.

The Infamous Ban of Incandescent Bulbs

In the early 2000s, regulators had a bright idea – to ban the incandescent light bulbs nearly every home was using in favor of the more efficient compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs).

While CFLs tested under ideal conditions used 75% less electricity and lasted 10x longer than the incandescent ones, in the real world, they only lasted 2-4x longer. And that would be a win except for other drawbacks.

First, each bulb had 3-5mg of toxic mercury. This was known from the beginning, but humans are poor predictors. If we weren’t, we could easily predict that this would lead to greater environmental and health problems than sticking with incandescent bulbs.

If a bulb broke, it released trace vapor into the air, requiring careful and expensive cleanup. And, millions ended up in landfills due to poor recycling.

CFLs came with other annoyances, like the 2-minute warm-up period to reach full brightness, not ideal in a bathroom or hallway.

Had none of this been done, a mere three years later in 2010, the world would have opted willingly for LEDs, which came with better savings and none of the drawbacks.

The conclusion: don’t force people to change, create a better option, and they’ll do so willingly.

Conclusion: Is Global Warming a Settled Science?

I do not know whether or not we are ruining the planet with our CO2 emissions and at what rate. I’ve heard valid arguments on both sides. The science is not settled. I sure am for a clean environment regardless of global warming. That means no street trash, clear air, and drinkable water. Who isn’t?

Yet most governments haven’t even been able to provide their citizens with those basics.

So, who to trust?

All I have to go on is either to believe 51 former intelligence officers..I mean a consensus of scientists or my observations of the world. I prefer to go with my observations even if I’m wrong. I’ll learn. I can’t rely on others my whole life, nor should you.

Relying on your own observations to come to your own stance is good for you. It will help you better understand the world we live in, which will help you better predict the future. And those most successful are best able to predict the future.

Think more.

Sincerely, dannybooboo.