Why “Climate Bills” To Save The Planet Won’t Work

The Obama Administration is attempting to ‘save the planet’ with the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill. But will it work if passed?

According to this analysis — not even close.

Using mainstream models and assumptions, Mr. Knappenberger finds that in the year 2050 with a 83% emissions reduction (the aspirational goal of Waxman-Markey, the beginning steps of which are under vigorous debate), the temperature reduction is nine hundredths of one degree Fahrenheit, or two years of avoided warming.

A full implementation and adherence to the long-run emissions restrictions provisions described by the Waxman-Markey Climate Bill would result only in setting back the projected rise in global temperatures by a few years a scientifically meaningless prospect. Climate Impacts of Waxman-Markey (the IPCC-based arithmetic of no gain)

Regular readers (that I’ve convinced of the foolishness of politicians) should well understand that our government has absolutely no intention of ‘saving us’. Their indifference and ineptitude is absolutely legendary.

This is a perfect example of “too little, too late” and the smoke and mirrors obfuscation of the truth.

Additionally, these models are still using the 2100 estimates, a time-frame that is now being rejected as at least 50 years too far into the future by some scientists.

The bottom line is that a reduction of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions of greater than 80%, as envisioned in the Waxman-Markey climate bill will only produce a global temperature savings during the next 50 years of about 0.05ºC.

The article fails to state what should now be obvious — there is too much carbon buildup RIGHT NOW in the pipeline. Simply “reducing” our present and future carbon expenditures and we’re still screwed.

This is something that should be common knowledge. But it is kept carefully guarded.

In Part II – we find:

The Bottom Line

The ability of the industrialized world, through emissions reductions alone, to impact the future course of global climate is minimal. If the U.S., Canada, Australia, Japan, Europe, and former Soviet countries all limited their emissions of greenhouse gases according to the schedule laid out under Waxman-Markey”a monumental, unexpected development it would, at most, avoid only a bit more than one-half of a 1°C of projected global warming (out of 4.5°C”or only about 10%). And this is under worst-case emissions assumptions; middle-of-the-road scenarios and less sensitive climate models produce even less overall impact.

To make any significant in-roads to lowering the rate (and thus final magnitude) of projected global temperature rise, the bulk of the emissions reduction needs to come from other parts of the world, primarily Asia, Africa, South America, and the Middle East. The problem is, is that these governments are not inclined to restrict the energy usage of its citizens in fact, they either are in the process of, or are soon hoping to, significantly expand the amount of energy available to their (growing) populations and in the process, subsuming all potential emissions savings from the (current) industrialized world.


admin at survivalacres dot com

Leave a Reply