Vladimir Putin is responsible for invading Ukraine, but he could not have funded this “special military operation” without help from our climate change lobby. The climate lobby makes possible Putin’s financial geyser as Putin continues selling gas to Europe while the U.S. restricts production ostensibly because using our oil results in greenhouse gases damaging the planet.
Directly, the world is now on the brink of nuclear war because of Putin. Indirectly, we may face nuclear war because of climate change fanaticism that turned back the clock on U.S. energy production, drastically curtailing our income from energy production while boosting Putin’s.
Disastrous U.S. energy policies created steep and onerous regulatory hurdles intended to chill and disincentivize— if not outright destroy— the oil and gas industry in our country. Eliminating the Keystone and other pipelines, terminating drilling rights on federal land, while subsidizing the illusion of wind and solar for all our energy needs sometime in the future, did nothing for the climate and everything for Putin’s war effort.
Without Biden and the climate change cohort driving illogical and ill-informed energy policies, oil would be at $65 a barrel (with gas back under $2.50 per gallon), sanctions would still be on Russia, their Nord Stream 2 pipeline would be incomplete, Germany and others wouldn’t be dependent on Russian oil, Putin wouldn’t have the money to invade Ukraine, and the world would not be on the verge of nuclear war. All this, because of climate change.
Climate change focuses on carbon. Alarmists continue panicking about greenhouse gases, but what is the composition of our atmosphere and how much of it is actually composed of CO2?
According to NASA, “The air in Earth’s atmosphere is made up of approximately 78 percent nitrogen and 21 percent oxygen. Air also has small amounts of other gases, too, such as carbon dioxide, neon, ozone and hydrogen.”
Atmospheric CO2 equals 4 parts per 10,000, and three hundred years ago that number was approximately 3 parts of CO2 per 10,000. Not much of a jump.
The amount of CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere has been constantly changing. With the spectacular increase of carbon fuels since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, we added 1 part of CO2 per 10,000 parts of our atmosphere. We know this from borings in the polar ice caps which can trace levels from the past. We also know that at one time in earth’s history that CO2 was as high as 227 parts per 10,000. Since CO2 is essential for plants to make oxygen, we also know that life could not exist on earth if CO2 were below 1.75 parts per 10,000.
Many things add CO2 to our atmosphere, such as forest fires, volcanoes, the ocean (yes, the ocean is a naturally occurring and large “polluting” source for CO2) and man’s burning of fossil fuels. Some estimates put humankind’s contribution as low as 10% of the extra 1 part per 10,000 added since the Industrial Revolution. And no, CO2 does not have superior heat-trapping properties compared to say, water vapor. In fact, an H2O molecule traps 7 times the heat a CO2 molecule traps. In our atmosphere, H2O is, on average, 200 parts per 10,000, compared to 4 parts per 10,000 for carbon dioxide. So, there is 50 times as much H20 in our atmosphere, and it traps seven times the heat of C02. H20 is therefore 350 times more pernicious than C02. Why is there no worldwide campaign to eliminate or reduce water vapor? Because it’s a tougher sell, and it wouldn’t require the elimination of fossil fuels.
The climate change alarmists aren’t the direct cause of the dangerous situation the world is in, but without them and their campaign we wouldn’t be in this position. But be careful how you connect the dots while explaining this. Your audience might also believe that a “nuclear winter” caused by their climate change campaign will have a cooling effect on the planet and entitle them to carbon offset credits. It’s about as plausible as what they believe in now.
It is well past time to educate Americans about how little carbon dioxide there is in our atmosphere, how little humans have contributed to it, that there are hundreds if not thousands of variables that create changes in weather, and that all decisions must be based on a cost-benefit analyses.
Climate lobbyists might be surprised at the either/or choice they’ve saddled us with. Either we live with a minimal potential rise in average earth temperature or nuclear war. It’s up to us to decide.
