Climate Analogy

Some climate alarmists compare carbon dioxide to a blanket placed over the Earth which will cause it to heat out of control and produce death, discomfort and disappointing ski seasons. They claim that only fundamental changes in economics, industry and lifestyle can prevent the suffering that is supposedly threatening every nation in the world. This belief bothers them so much that they become angry and insulting to anyone who doubts the doomsday predictions that are ruining their lives. Their devotion to this belief is unshakable and they expect everyone else to experience the same dread that the wake and sleep with every day.

Instead of a blanket, I like to think of the Earth as a building and its atmosphere as a the insulation that keeps it warm. Imagine, if you will, 10,000 batts of fiberglass insulation within its exterior walls. Imagine further that there are different kinds of insultation with different thermodynamic properties. The most common type makes up includes 7,800 batts. The second most common type includes 2100 batts. A third type includes about 900 batts.

There are a few other pieces of material preventing heat from leaving the building, but just four special units of 10,000 are going to make this building significantly warmer. Environmentalists expect us to be as upset as they are over a similar tiny fraction of the Earth’s atmosphere. They believe that carbon dioxide has such intense heat retention properties that it will destroy the balance of nature after increasing from 0.03% of the air that our planet holds, to 0.04%…a difference of one in ten thousand.

Alarmists scold and warn us about a terrible calamity that is upon us because our use of the fuels that are found far below our feet. They fret and worry that extremely weather will result from the incredible prosperity that abundant energy has brought. They say these dreadful changes have already started to kill people and reduce the quality of life.

One of the many problems with these dire predictions is the fact that deaths from weather-related events has declined dramatically over the past century. Better building materials and techniques are mitigating the disasters but it also seems increasingly possible that the climate of the next century will be less adverse than alarmists claim it will be. Crops yields continue to rise and people continue to live longer, healthier lives than they did before gasoline, diesel, natural gas and coal became widely available. Certainly, our industrial society produces pollution, but carbon dioxide is essential for all plant life and plant life is essential for everything else.

The solutions that alarmists propose are just as questionable as the intensity of the scowls that they have for anyone who questions the integrity of their claims. Bicycles are the most efficient form of transportation. If someone really wants to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and still move around a city, nothing compares to cycling. However, alarmists demand the replacement of every automobile and every piece of electricity generation equipment. I understand that people still want comfortable, fast cars and trucks with cup holders and Bluetooth sound systems, but if the planet really depends on significant reduction in so called “green house gas” emissions, Greta Thunberg would set a much better example to the world if she went on a bicycle tour around North America instead of the incredibly impractical example that she set with her Atlantic crossing. Few will ever traverse an ocean in a sail boat. Daily commutes in vehicles like the one that brought the United Nations poster child to New York Harbour are even rarer.

Greta could have shown the world a determined young woman using technology that everyone has access to. She could have said, “If I can bike across the United States, you can bike to work.” This would have ended the excuses for millions of people who want to save the planet, but just can’t see themselves getting around without a private automobile. It would have given her adoring fans an opportunity to peddle with her and form a PELOTON FOR THE PLANET. I predict that it would be wildly popular and effective and it would produce many excellent TV moments.

Instead, we have a carbon tax that funnels financial wealth from productive enterprises to strange new sectors of the economy that would not be economically viable without subsidies and some convoluted claim to producing goods or services that are favorable in light of the alarmist narrative. To me, it shows how little most people believe in the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Perhaps the level of direct interaction with people would have been too much for Greta. An autistic person like her might shrivel at the intense attention that might result. What about some other champion of the Paris Accord? Peeonardo DiCraprio could have pushed for action on Climate Change and looked like less of a multi-millionaire hypocrite. What about David Suzuki? He seems like he is still fit enough, in his golden years, to peddle at a modest pace across Canada. I wouldn’t fault him for sleeping in a luxurious motor coach along the way and I think most people would also understand the message of such a campaign and he too would attract a following. He old age would only add to the message the way Greta’s diminutive stature would. If he can bike so many thousands of kilometres, most able-bodied people could ride to some of their destinations on a regular basis.

None of these people make such demonstrations. I suspect their goal is a carbon tax because the big money (I mean really big money) is in the wealth transfer; the replacement of every automobile and piece of electricity generation equipment in the world. Giving people the opportunity to put their money where their mouths are will result in a small number of people enjoying a safe, comfortable bicycle path system. Avid cyclists will delight at the favorable conditions in their cities, towns and country-side, while motorists will continue to have their incredible mobility. In theory, if enough of the Canadians who claim to want “action on climate change” took the most effective action possible, there would be significantly fewer private automobiles on the road and levels of physical fitness would improve. We would save money on roads and have cleaner air and better health, but Gretta, Suzuki or DiCraprio will never tell you that. Their path to perceived salvation is through taxation and massive government interference in the economy.