Climate change:
It's time to stop the blame game and fix the problem.
It was in 1963 during my freshman year of high school that I first became aware of global warming or, as it is now called, climate change. I was taking an Earth Science class and one of the chapters of the textbook dealt with the issue of “ the greenhouse effect.” It was this phenomenon of “ the greenhouse effect “ that eventually became global warming and later climate change.
My understanding of “ the greenhouse effect “ is that the rays of the sun beat down on the earth’s surface 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The heat from the sun is then reflected back up into the atmosphere where it is trapped by the layer of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGE) which is the result of the burning of fossil fuels by humans. These emissions form a blanket around the earth which inhibit the heat, which is being reflected back up into the atmosphere, from escaping into the upper levels of the atmosphere and then into space. It is this process, which is basically the same as what happens in a greenhouse, that is causing global warming or climate change.
With the increase in the population of the earth, the use of fossil fuels has increased causing the amount of GHGE to also increase. This is the problem we face today. If nothing is done to reduce the use of fossil fuels, the production of GHGE will continue to increase and the earth’s temperature will continue to rise. That said, there is a point at which life as we know it on this planet will be at risk. Over the last twenty years or so, climate change, aka global warming, has become a central issue for the US and for the world at large. The issue is now being referred to as an “ existential threat to the planet. “
The GHGE of the seven largest polluter countries in the world, which includes the US, account for roughly 55% of the world’s total GHGE. If we were to add the GHGE produced by the 27 countries which make up the European Union ( EU ) that number would increase to about 63% of the world’s total.
Going back to 1990 the US was responsible for roughly 17% of the GHGE produced worldwide. That amount has since been reduced to about 11% according to the EPA and also Wikipedia.
According to John Kerry, our climate czar, who flies around the world in his private jet spewing GHGE, the US is responsible for about 10% of the world’s GHGE. Also according to Mr. Kerry, if the US were to unilaterally reduce its GHGE to zero, it would have no effect on climate change worldwide. In Mr. Kerry’s opinion, it will take a global effort to win the war on climate change.
In the early 1990’s the US and the EU were responsible for approximately 33% of the world’s GHGE combined. Since then both political entities have made significant progress towards lowering their production of GHGE. Currently the US and the EU are responsible for about 18% of the world’s GHGE combined.
When the above is compared to the GHGE of China at 27% to 30%, and India at 6.6% one has to wonder why the US and the EU are the “ go to “ targets of the world’s climate change activists. Over the last decade there have been mass protests here in the US and in Europe. When one considers that both the US and the EU have reduced and continue to reduce their GHGE, and also that China and India continue to increase their GHGE, one has to question why these two countries are also not targets of climate change activists such as Greta Thunberg and her ilk.
These protests have taken place here in the US and in Europe. In addition to cities here in the US, protests have taken place in the UK, Germany, Belgium, France, and in other countries as well. To the best of my knowledge no protests have taken place in either China or India despite the fact that GHGE in both of those countries are on the increase. What this means is that these two countries will be responsible for producing an even larger percentage of the world’s GHGE than they are currently. It is also highly probable that India will soon overtake the US as the world’s 2nd largest producer of carbon emissions.
As a red blooded American I have always been a staunch supporter of the US Constitution. In this particular case we are talking about the right to free speech and the right to peacefully protest. Both of these rights are guaranteed by that document. That said, climate change activists have the right to speak out and protest against this country’s use of fossil fuels. However, with the significant reduction of GHGE, both here in the US and in the EU, it is my view that the time and effort of these protesters would be better spent in China or India where GHGE are on the increase.
It is a fact that China and India combined account for approximately 35% of the world’s population. It is also a fact that the populations of these two countries are continuing to grow. It is also true that in order to support their sizable and growing populations it has become necessary for both countries to expand their economies and create more jobs. For this to happen it will be necessary, at least until a cleaner energy source becomes available, for both of these countries to increase their usage of fossil fuels. This will result in increased GHGE in each country as a percentage of the total GHGE produced worldwide.
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is hell bent on growing its economy for as long as it can. This means that there is no upper limit to the amount of fossil fuels, including coal, that China is willing to consume in order to achieve their goal of maximum economic growth. China’s interest in saving the planet, if it even exists, is secondary to becoming the foremost economic super power in the world.
There are several pieces of evidence that will confirm China’s total disregard for the existential threat to this planet that is being caused by their increased use of fossil fuels. One example of this was China’s absence from the COP 26 meeting in Glasgow, Scotland. Also conspicuously absent from this meeting were Russia, Japan, and Brazil, all three of which are among the top seven polluters on the planet. Can you imagine the absolute sh-t-storm that would have occurred if the US had chosen not to attend?
Another reason for China’s lack of cooperation in reducing its GHGE, which has not been widely reported, is that China wants political concessions in return for their participation. These concessions would be in the form of relief from US economic sanctions.
Reason number three is that China is in the midst of a power shortage. This is why they continue to build new coal fired power plants and put them on line as quickly as possible. The need for this additional power is for both commercial and domestic consumption.
As I wrote above China needs to grow its economy, create jobs, and increase its GDP. This is necessary to not only support its population of 1.4B, but to also upgrade and expand its military, which at 2.2 million men, is the largest in the world.
In addition to the goal of having the largest, most dynamic economy in the world, it is also China’s goal to become the world’s largest military superpower. Military might is not cheap. It takes trillions of dollars spent over years to develop, test, and manufacture military hardware for all the different branches of the armed services. In addition there is also the cost of manning and training the personnel needed to operate and maintain this equipment.
India is the world’s second most populous country and its third largest polluter. It is responsible for 6.6% of the world’s GHGE and its percentage is growing. If India’s share GHGE continues to increase it will soon overtake the US as the second largest polluter on the planet. Its economy, while nowhere near the size of China’s when measured in terms of GDP, continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Over the last ten years India’s GDP has grown from $1.675T in 2010 to $2.625T in 2020. That’s a 57% increase in just ten years and it is continuing to grow.
India is in much the same situation as China. It needs to grow its economy in order to support its ever growing population. This means bringing new business and industry into the country. This will increase its GDP and create new jobs. As its economy expands and its GDP increases the use of fossil fuels will also increase and as a result more and more GHGE will be produced.
Although many of the same issues that motivate China to grow its economy are shared by India, I don’t believe they are quite as obsessed with becoming the world’s largest economic superpower. They also do not seem to be motivated to become the world’s largest military power.
Even though India shares a common border with China, a border which it had to defend a short time ago, its military exists for defensive purposes only. I am unable to recall an instance where India has made an aggressive move towards one of its neighbors. India seems to be more focused on expanding its economy for the betterment of its citizens than to be an aggressor towards its neighbors.
Brazil is one of the top seven producers of GHGE in the world. It is responsible for approximately 3% of the world’s pollution. The reason that I even mention the country of Brazil is because it is unique as to how its GHGE are produced.. It has been determined that 45% of the GHGE produced by Brazil are the result of deforestation. Over the last 40 years or so, 700,000 square kilometers of rainforest have been logged and then cleared of the remaining underbrush. This underbrush is then collected and burned to make room for cattle ranching and soybean farming. It is the burning of this massive amount of underbrush that accounts for 45% of the GHGE produced by Brazil. The balance of its pollution is the result of burning fossil fuels.
Cutting down the Amazon rainforest affects climate change in another way besides the burning of underbrush. By the process of photosynthesis trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and release oxygen. When trees are cut down ( we’re talking about tens of millions of trees in the Amazon rainforest ) carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere. In addition, once those trees are cut down, they no longer exist to perform photosynthesis which releases oxygen back into the atmosphere.
In my view the direction that we are heading is unsustainable. Eventually when this blanket of carbon dioxide and other GHGE becomes thick enough, the heat that is being reflected from the earth’s surface will be unable to escape the earth’s atmosphere causing the earth’s temperature to rise. When that temperature reaches a certain point, life on this planet will be at risk or at least more difficult.
In addition to China, India, and Brazil wanting to grow their economies, there are other underdeveloped countries who wish to expand their economies as well. The desire of these other countries to grow their economies is creating an impasse in the world with regard to climate change. On the one side there are the economically advanced countries who have been consuming fossil fuels for decades. It is the desire of these countries who have been “ living the dream “ since the end of WW2 to maintain their current standard of living and to even improve it.
On the other side of this impasse are the developing countries who have come to the party late and are starting from an extremely low level of economic development. These countries want to expand their economies and improve the standard of living of their citizens. In order to accomplish their goal it will become necessary to increase their consumption of fossil fuels.
Both groups want and need more energy to achieve their goals. Right now the most plentiful source of that energy is fossil fuels. Neither group is open to ending its dependence on fossil fuels, at least until a dependable alternative emerges. This alternative source, or sources, would need to fill the void that would result from completely eliminating the use of fossil fuels. To do that, this alternative source would need to be plentiful, safe, and cost effective.
There are several other sources of energy that are available to us that could be used today. Climate activists and the liberal media are proponents of wind, hydro, and solar power. Presently these three sources combined supply approximately 17% of the electricity consumed by the US.
I was unable to find out the exact number of acres on which these solar farms and wind turbines are currently placed. I would estimate that the amount of acres currently being used for this purpose is upwards of a thousand acres or more. There is an opportunity cost associated with tying up all that land to generate electricity. If this land was not being tied up generating electricity from solar panels and wind turbines, it could have been used for other purposes, such as agriculture or building plots for new homes. In my view wind and solar are not the most efficient way to produce electricity.
To my way of thinking the best option open to this country to produce electricity would be nuclear power. With today’s technology nuclear reactors are a safe, plentiful source of electric power. It could eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels in this country. Nuclear power could be used to heat and power our homes and businesses. It could also provide the energy needed to power the electric vehicles of the future. With all that said, the most important benefit of nuclear power is that there is no GHGE. As a matter of fact there is little or no pollution of any kind. If I am not mistaken, isn’t that the primary motivation for eliminating the use of fossil fuels in the first place?
There is a downside to everything and nuclear power is no exception. In this case the downside is that there will always be those who believe that nuclear power is unsafe. They invoke the headlines of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima and the discussion ends, at least from their point of view. Two of those events happened over thirty years ago. The failure at Fukushima occurred over ten years ago. Today’s technology is far more advanced with multiple layers of safety systems and other protections built into the reactors. There are currently 96 nuclear reactors operating in 56 power plants across the US. There are at least two more under construction here in America and more are planned. In addition to those being built here in the US there are fifty more nuclear power plants being built worldwide.
There are also alternative sources of power for automobiles other than nuclear generated electricity. Without going into great detail I will name just a few. This list includes hydrogen power cells of which the only byproduct that I am aware of is water vapor. Two other alternative sources of power for automobiles would include ethanol and natural gas, both of which burn much cleaner and produce substantially less GHGE than conventional gasoline. All of the above mentioned alternative sources will provide the needed energy to power our vehicles of the future with little or no GHGE.
China is the number one producer of GHGE on the planet and the amount of air pollution it spews into the atmosphere is increasing. This increase in the amount of GHGE is due, at least partially, to the large number of coal fired power plants that are being built in that country. The reason that China decided on coal fired power plants is simple. China has an abundance of coal and coal is cheap. It’s obvious that China’s main concern is saving money. The welfare of the earth be damned.
India is the third largest polluter on earth. Like China, India’s GHGE are on the increase while the GHGE produced by the US and the EU are decreasing. If the current trajectory continues, India will become the world’s second largest polluter surpassing the US.
This brings me to the next issue which is, why don’t these climate change activists travel to China to protest in their streets? After all, as the world’s largest polluter, shouldn’t it be the main target of the world’s scorn? Is it too expensive for tens of thousands of protesters to travel to China? Would the commercial aircraft needed to transport all these environmentally conscious activists to China spew too many greenhouse gases into the atmosphere? While all the above may be true, I suspect that the real reason for not protesting in China is that the Chinese Communist government would round up these so-called climate justice warriors, who are fighting to save the planet, and throw their asses in a cell and leave them there until they rot. I am curious, however, as to how long it would take for the bravery and their devotion to their cause to evaporate.
The other reason I suspect is that the amount of media coverage and also the amount of financial support that would be available here in the US and in the EU would not be forthcoming in China. The media, as we all know, is tightly controlled by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). It is therefore doubtful that much, if any media coverage would be let out of the country.
Without media coverage there will be much less in the way of big dollar donations and other funding to support their cause. So evidently even environmental justice has a price tag.
As I alluded to above, one of the many reasons these activists come to the US and to the EU to annoy us, is because we allow freedom of speech and the right to peacefully protest while China does not. The other reason is that the US and the EU are economically developed countries. What this means is that in these days of social justice, economic justice, criminal justice, and all the other justices that we are now forced to put up with, it would be unacceptable to protest in India, Brazil, or Indonesia and complain about GHGE and climate change. After all, these countries, who are much lower on the economic ladder than we are, are only trying to raise the standard of living for their citizens. If it is necessary for these countries to spew GHGE into the earth’s atmosphere, so be it. I guess it’s acceptable for less developed countries to pollute the planet, but not those countries that are more economically advanced. Maybe their pollution is cleaner than ours.
The other problem which doesn’t seem to get a lot of attention, is the pollution going into the groundwater and the rivers and streams of these undeveloped countries. Pollution travels downstream which means if a river or stream in one country gets polluted and that a river or stream travels to another country, that other country will be the recipient of that pollution. This type of scenario poses a direct threat to the inhabitants of the country that is located downstream.
There are some so-called experts on the subject of climate change who are of the opinion that the amount of GHGE produced per capita is a more equitable method of measuring a country’s production of GHGE. It is this method, they argue, that should be used to determine which countries should bear the most responsibility for climate change.
There is some merit to this view. However, I would be much more sympathetic to this argument, especially with regard to India and China, if the GHGE produced by these countries was decreasing instead of increasing. To make matters worse, according to the Paris Climate Accords, China will not reach its peak output of carbon emissions until the year 2030. Further, China will suffer no consequences, that I am aware of, if they fail to stop increasing their GHGE after that date. My five year old grandson could have made a better deal than this.
To continue, the US and the EU will carry on with the process of reducing their GHGE and, in doing so, may negatively affect their economies. China, India, Brazil, Russia, and other countries as well, will continue to increase their output of GHGE with little or no regard for the damage it will do to the planet or its inhabitants.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the subject of climate change and the use of fossil fuels. My conclusion is that it is most likely true that the earth is warming and that the use of fossil fuels is at least partially to blame. That being said, it is not the responsibility of the US and the EU to solve the problem on our own. As John Kerry said when he was hired to be the “ Climate Czar, “ and I’m paraphrasing here, It will take a global effort to combat the effects of climate change.
Although there is some truth to this statement, it is not set in stone. We have the technology to gradually eliminate the use of fossil fuels. Nuclear power could heat and power our homes and businesses and power the electric vehicles of the future. The technology is here. We need only start the process.
Electricity generated by nuclear power is clean, plentiful, dependable, efficient, and safe. After the initial investment in plant and equipment the price of electricity to the consumer is as inexpensive as electricity generated by natural gas or coal fired power plants. In addition, nuclear reactors are built with redundant layers of safety systems which make nuclear powered electricity just as safe as electricity generated by conventional means.
Every year dozens of coal miners die during mine cave-ins or from lung diseases, such as, black lung or other respiratory illnesses caused by working in coal mines. Also, thousands upon thousands of people worldwide, suffer and die each year from respiratory illnesses caused by GHGE produced from the use of fossil fuels. There are no such health risks associated with the use of nuclear power. In fact there are virtually no GHGE produced from the use of nuclear power.
Finally I don’t know anyone who really cares what kind of electricity heats and powers their home. They just care about turning up the thermostat and having the heat come on. They also could care less whether the energy to power their vehicles comes from gasoline or from some other type of fuel. Here again, they just want to turn on the key and go. That’s it. The source or the type of power is unimportant.
I also fail to understand why the process of converting over to nuclear power generation has not begun in earnest. I fully understand that this transition is not going to happen overnight but the fact remains that the sooner the US and the countries of the world begin this conversion process the sooner it will be completed, and the sooner this rare earth that we all call home will begin to heal.