CO2 Reductions Good for Nothing

Written by Henry Payne, Planet Gore.

patmichaels“What the government has not mandated, the economy is doing on its own: emissions of global warming gases in the United States are down,” thrills New York Times’ reporter Matthew Wald. “In part, the Great Recession has been good for something.”

Good for what?

The Green Church and has long advised the importance of economic sacrifice to heal the planet, yet — despite seven years of declining U.S. carbon dioxide emissions — its media disciples are still complaining this summer of hot temperatures. “Experts say it’s difficult to prove a causal relationship between climate change and last week’s wild weather in Michigan, but record temperatures and violent storms appear to fit the widely-accepted scientific model,” worried MLive’s liberal Jonathan Oosting this July.

Clearly the draconian six percent decrease in U.S. CO2 emissions since 2005 has been good for nothing. Despite the most wrenching economic downturn since the Great Depression — costing millions of jobs and destroying thousands of businesses — emissions reductions have had zero effect on the climate.

The dirty (pun intended) secret of the green agenda is that even harsher economic measures will make no difference either.

You thought the economy has been bad since 2005? President Obama and his media allies want 80 percent more in CO2 reductions by 2050. That’s an economy-strangling 20 percent per decade – over three times the reduction from the Great Recession. For four more decades. Yet, scientists concede, the millions more in unemployed people and the billions more in subsidies for boondoggles like Solyndra and Beacon Power will do nothing to reduce global temperatures (even if one believes in climate science after the devastating Climategate scandal).

Why? Because the CO2 emissions of the rest of the world — up 3 percent in 2011 and 9 and 8 percent respectively in the rapidly growing behemoths of China and India — will continue to rise. Veteran climatologist Patrick Michaels points out that — according to the U.N.’s own climate models — cutting global carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 would only reduce predicted temps by 7 percent.

Read rest…

Comments  

 
Gator
# Gator 07-23-2012 15:14
Right now the crops around me could use a lot more CO2. As study after study has shown us that plants use less water when CO2 levels are higher, not to mention the higher yields crops produce under those conditions.

This CO2 reduction is simply more insanity, brought to us by the same geniuses that brought the world Marxism.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
anne
# anne 07-24-2012 01:53
am2prd0710.outlook.com/.../... Well I don't know if everything in this article is true, however, I do know that the results for the American people are the same, everyone should read this.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 
 
Boxorox
# Boxorox 07-24-2012 08:23
Unfortunately, carbon dioxide in the atmosphere goes around the world. Reduction in outputs in the U.S. over years will not permit a worldwide reduction. For climate change this is meaningless, but on the political scene it means everything.

Since the rest of the world is not reducting its CO2 output and the U.S. has demonstrated that it can do so, the onus is upon this country to reduce even further and demonstrate its "leadership" to reduce its nonsensical carbon footprint.

If I had my way, I'd say this country ought to embark on a CLEAR (non-dirty) carbon dioxide production frenzy. Only this way, by pushing CO2 concentrations up to 1 million ppb can we show that climate will change accordingly.
Reply | Reply with quote | Quote | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.

PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.


Security code
Refresh