Skip to content

Simple question, simple answer

September 7, 2011

Jim Lacey at NRO asks the following simple question

To save a planet that stopped warming in 1998, they want the United States and other industrial countries to reduce carbon output by 80 percent by 2050 (many are shooting for 2020), relative to a 1990 baseline. Let’s assume we multiply our wasteful spending on solar and wind power tenfold. If we do, then on particularly sunny and windy days we may eventually get 25 percent of our energy from those sources. That leaves us short about half the energy we need to support current GDP levels. As studies demonstrate that every 1 percent reduction in power causes a 0.7 percent reduction in GDP, I wonder how the warmists plan to employ the additional 25 million Americans thrown out of work.

There’s a simple answer buried in an earlier paragraph he wrote…

…Carson’s discredited work remains a rallying cry for environmentalists who tirelessly work to ensure that poor nations do not have access to DDT, favoring instead a cocktail of methods that have been proven ineffective. Interestingly, I was once accosted by an environmental zealot over that last statement. He wanted to know what proof I had that other methods were ineffective. I pointed out the continuing deaths of a million people and asked how long he had been involved in the environmental movement. When he told me he had been doing this for a dozen years I casually mentioned that during his activist years he had worked for a movement responsible for killing two times as many persons as perished in the Holocaust, and that was just from malaria-related deaths alone.

Simple answer: You don’t have to employ the dead

2 Comments leave one →
  1. Lynn Comp permalink*
    September 7, 2011 9:56 pm

    Did you catch the study in the UK that “The Register” reported on? It’s pretty ugly – UK would have to be like North Korea to reverse the amount of carbon (which most life on earth relies upon…)

  2. September 7, 2011 7:11 pm

    There is an incorrect assumption built into his numbers, it seems to me. China is the largest producer of CO2 for nine months of the year. (Brazil, celebrating their 189th year of independence today, is the largest during their annual cane burnoff.) China anticipates adding “another US” worth of CO2 every one-to-two decades, and India is nearly that size and growing nearly as fast.

    So in order to keep a well-mixed CO2 level down by the US’s own contribution, we would have to cut back by … well, a very large amount. Using Obama-style numbers, we’d have to cut back by perhaps 250% of our current rate by 2050.

    That would put even more out of work.

    China is perfectly willing to accept billions from Europe and the US to build wind farms and such (though the embezzlement discovered so far exceeds $1 billion), but they are not going to stop their actual growth of energy usage. (There is an open question of how real their growth is, but their people are at about one-fourth of our per-capita levels and they are looking for more.)

    The world has two-dozen times our population or thereabouts, and most are looking to be like us, rather than have us become like them. (A notable exception is the jihadist population.)

    There is a solution, and it’s a win-win: US-supplied solar power from space, beamed anywhere it’s needed around the world.

    ===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: