To the 34% of American Adults Who Are “Worried a Great Deal” about “Global Warming”

If You REALLY Cared about Climate Change … You Would Stop Promoting Solutions which Do More HARM than Good

Preface:  A recent Gallup poll showed that 34% of American adults worried “a great deal” about “global warming”.  This essay is written for that 34%.

Many well-intentioned people are desperately trying to stop climate change …

And yet they are proposing things that will put more C02 and methane into the air and otherwise do more harm than good.

Frack That

Many propose nuclear and fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

In reality, scientists say that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment. Indeed, a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that fracking puts between 100 and 1,000 times more methane into the atmosphere than the EPA assumed.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.

As such, fracking actually increases – rather than decreases – global warming.

Are Nukes the Answer?

It turns out that nuclear is .

Mark Jacobson – the head of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, who has written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those issues – notes that nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have melted down. More information here, here and here.

Jacobson also points out that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant, whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently 55-65% coal.

Scam and Trade

One of the main solutions to climate change which has long been pushed by the powers that be – cap and trade – is a scam. Specifically:

  • The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won’t work for global warming
  • Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won’t effectively reduce carbon emissions
  • Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this).

As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.

War: The Number One Source of Carbon

The U.S. military is the biggest producer of carbon on the planet.

Harvey Wasserman notes that fighting wars more than wipes out any reduction in carbon from the government’s proposed climate measures.

Writing in 2009 about the then-proposed escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman said:

The war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?

The continuance of fighting all over the Middle East and North Africa completely and thoroughly undermines the government’s claims that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.

I can’t take anything the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the government ends the unnecessary warsall over the globe.

So whatever you think of climate change, all people can agree that ending the wars is important.  (War also destroys the economy.)

Anyone who supports “humanitarian war” by the U.S. is supporting throwing a lot of carbon into the air.

Dumb as a Mongoose In Hawaii

Many scientists suggest “geoengineering” the Earth’s climate. But that could actually worsen climate change. It could also increase the risk of drought.

Moreover, geoengineering would increase ocean acidification and decrease available sunlight for solar power.

And once we started, we could never stop.

Some of the geoengineering proposals are downright nuts.  For example, “government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of ‘global warming.’ ” Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being studied and tested (and see this and this), involving such things as dumping barium, aluminum and other toxic metals into the atmosphere.

Remember, the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rats (which were eating the sugar cane used to make rum). It didn’t work out very well … mongeese are daylight-loving creatures while rats are nocturnal. So the mongeese trashed the native species in Hawaii, and never took care of the rats.

Similarly, the harm caused by many of these methods have not been thought through … and they could cause serious damage to our health and our ecosystems.

So – whatever you think about climate – you can obviously agree that we should approach climate change from the age-old axiom of “first, do no harm”, making sure that our “solutions” do not cause more damage than the problems.

So What’s the Answer?

If nuclear, fracking, cap and trade and geoengineering aren’t the answer, what is?

There are 3 main strategies which both climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on, because they have big upsides whether or not the Earth is warming:

(1) Reducing soot will quickly reduce melting of ice and snow. Reducing soot will be cheaper than the “decarbonation” which many policy-makers have proposed. And it would increase the health of millions of people worldwide

(2) Use specific smart combinations of solar, wind and geothermal energy

(3) Decentralize power generation and storage.  That would empower people and communities, produce less carbon, prevent nuclear disasters like Fukushima, reduce the dangers of peak oil (and thus prevent future oil spills like we had in the Gulf), and have many other positive effects

We don’t need fascism to make this happen …  We just need a sound plan.

This entry was posted in Business / Economics, Energy / Environment, Politics / World News, Science / Technology. Bookmark the permalink.
  • kimyo

    other examples of carbon-based mal-investment: capture/sequestration and corn-based ethanol.

    Norway abandons Mongstad carbon capture plans

    Cornell ecologist’s study finds that producing ethanol and biodiesel from corn and other crops is not worth the energy

    like nuclear, neither would be feasible/in operation without subsidy.

  • Charley Enron

    Oil companies + Gov’mint are fascism. As soon as we regain Democracy (destroy/overturn USSC decisions, finance campaign and otherwise reform, DC circuit, etc, etc) we begin a series of legislative, cultural, philosophical attacks on big-mafia oil, and this means war against TBTF. First antagonize the living hell out of the profit seeking fiends, lay them low with an agressive population that demands confiscatory taxation. Bleed them to poverty with taxes. Gut the house and senate – then change legislation to make so-called “eco-terrorism”, become fully legal eco-patriotism, the useful drones in federal law enforcement will encourage, protect, serve and assist protection of the environment not profit. It’s a tall order, but we’re up against Banksters, FIRE sector, Big Oil and militarism, not to mention the hopelessly confused rabble who hate the Gummint purely out fear, delusion and right wing propaganda. Bad odds, but do-able.

  • Charlie Primero

    Please stop promoting the Climate Fraud.

  • wunsacon

    “Artificial” intelligence is the mother of all black swans. Were it not for the AI event horizon, I would confidently predict climate change will happen because too many people are against doing anything about it. Those who believe in it should take steps to save themselves, if nothing else.

  • If you get cornered by a AGW member show them this movie.

    The Carbon Connection

  • The U.S. Is Letting China Steal Its Nuclear Innovations … Just Like Xerox Let Apple and Microsoft Steal Its Valuable Breakthroughs

    Specifically, the U.S. created a safer, more efficient form of nuclear energy running on thorium. But – like Xerox Parc – America isn’t doing anything with its innovation, and China is running off with prize.

    Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.

    “The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.

    The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead.

    US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.

    The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.

  • AnnOnaMice

    Sure, the bomb-making facilities known as “nuclear power reactors” are not efficient, or low carbon, but to put a blanket of “harm” over the entire possibilities of nuclear-derived energy is as stupid as trying to say (‘cuz you certainly can’t prove) “there is no climate change”.

    There are definitely “safer” reactor designs than the bomb factories that are pushed upon us.

    Thorium-based reactors, in reality, not theory, are very low carbon approaches that can even be used to consume plutonium or uranium, which would make the “disposal” of these current problems go away.

    It’s impossible to discuss climate change or any possible remediation while the world is run by corporations and greed. The technology is there to make real change, it’s just not being allowed to be developed

    • Dee

      Ann .. Given the history of Nuclear Power so far and the absolute assurances of Safety and fail safes and back-up that have been given all along, I’m afraid ANY claim of Nuclear safety has reached that point where extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to be credible. Besides that.. we have an enormous spent fuel and rad waste problem and no place to store it. I think it is not unreasonable to expect the nuclear industry to catch up on their house keeping and develop a capability to handle a worst case accident .. so far all the really bad accidents, Three Mile, Chernobly, fukushima , SL-1, Fierus, K-19, Onagawa, Fosmark, Erwin, Atucha, Sellafield, Braidwoods, PAK, Tokalamur, Yanangio,, Windscale .. the list goes on, have all been an ad hoc makeshift expedient disaster response with no actual plan or the appropriate equipment on hand to control and stop the accident or mitigate the spread of contamination. Call it an act of keeping faith with the people about actually caring about public safety if you will.
      Here in the US we have over 100 reactors most aging and on license extensions and past their original 40 year design life.. some so old and decrepit that they are scheduled for shut down because they are no longer economical to operate due to the cost of down time and constant repairs. Those 100 reactors supply 20% of the nation’s power or about 1/5th or a percent per reactor.. .. I think we can reduce our need thru efficiencies and new technologies on the consumer end, and a little thoughtfulness , as well as increase supply by other low carbon options like solar and wind , geothermal, tidal so we can both close down the Nukes and reduce use of fossil fuel. But a lot is going to depend on each and every consumer to make an effort to use electricity wisely and efficiently. Please quit thinking the individual is powerless, and only the corporate forces have the answers or capability to impact the problem.
      If the Nuclear Industry steps up, cleans up, safely store the massive amount of above ground spent fuel and rad waste and remediates the old contaminated reactor sites and failed storage areas like Hanford , Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats ( technically cleaned up and now a national wildlife preserve, until you take out a rad meter and take a reading) , all EPA super fund sites being paid for by the tax payer and not the folks who made the mess, Contractors hired by the Government that got to walk away with the profits and leave the mess, and develop the actual technology to step in and stop and control a worst case accident.. we probably should give nuclear a second look… but not before.

  • Dee

    Seems to me reducing usage would be helpful..

    And.. this whole large power plant thing.. nothing is 100% efficient ..

    You lose energy at every step of the process .. from inefficient conversion of fuel to electricity, line transmission loss .. loss at every transformer stepping up or stepping the voltage down and loss due to the inherent inefficiencies of the end use appliance.
    You shorten the lines , localize the power generation, and use more efficient end use appliances like LED bulbs, super insulate homes to reduce heating and cooling, on demand water heaters, actually turn off stuff you aren’t using, allow daylight to light the house during daytime .. and you can reduce the need for how much is generated and lose less due to transmission and changing voltages.
    Most of those fixes, almost all if you do the solar thing on your roof and have a battery bank .. are totally within the control of the consumer at the consumer level and don’t require little if any government action , perhaps some zoning issues or housing association rules. Complicates things if you want to sell back excess solar that seems so popular these days, because that approach still needs the grid, but even that is better than nothing.
    I would point out building new nuclear reactors, replacing old reactors or conventional power plants of any design and repairing and preplacing old infrastructure as well as on going maintenance is estimated to cost about 4 trillion dollars +/- just for the new nuclear power plants to replace the current aging ones and dispose of the old ones and the backlog of spent fuel we still have no place to store, could be as much as 8 trillion dollars for everything.. and the longer we delay the repairs and replacements the more it will cost.
    It is like we are at the sub $1.00 a gallon gas point in history, only with electrical power, and we are looking at the $3.50-$4.00 a gallon near term future in the next 10 to 20 years with electricity rates.
    Pretty much all of your electrical usage , and if you wish, generating capacity, can be under your direct personal control, and at rates competitive with the current cost of electricity.. and would , in effect, be a rate price lock in at current prices , or a reduction of usage large enough to offset or mitigate any pending rate increases depending on how much you personally do, as well as putting competitive price pressure on the electrical power industry to keep rates low to keep customers and find efficiencies themselves.
    And all this without any government action, or having to develop energy plans, and the lobbyists getting in there and carving out sweet deals for their clients or any of that. the Technology exists right now, prices are falling like crazy on solar and high efficiency appliances, the construction industry is hurting and needs the work which both creates jobs, and good for you, a more competitive bidding environment for the work. And you control how much you do, how much you can afford, instead of possible government reduction in use mandates in case of more of the grid dying of old age than they can repair/ renew/ rebuild in time. The Government had , or felt they had to do the lightbulb law, smart meters, which if you think about it is a type of rationing by price concept, gently for the time being, but in place if they need to “emphasize” usage reduction, minimum appliance efficiency standards.. make no mistake.. the need to control your usage is something that is being looked at, and being planned for.
    The sooner you start taking control of your usage and perhaps your creation of electrical power the better off you will be.. and whatever you spend , even if rates never go up again ( I don’t personally think that is a likely scenario) does have a real payback date and at some point will put you money ahead ,, probably much sooner than any of us expect.
    It really is just a matter of being mindful of your own energy usage habits and proactive about energy in your own personal interest.

  • great post. thanks!

  • Man on the street

    I am an environmental engineer with 30 years of experience in the energy field. Oil, gas, alternative fuels, energy conservation, nuclear energy, and rentable energy.

    I had a front seat in the cap and trade legislation for SO2 emission. Before the cap, and trade we had scrubbers for coal fired plants, as well as regulation on emissions. Local, and federal environmental authorities were enforcing emission laws on all. So, what CAP& TRADE did to reduce SO2 emission? Nothing zero nada! It simply got brokers to speculate, buy and sell allowances as commodities. So, some Wall Street scammers made money, but the environment did not benefit one bit.

    An electric company buys fuel that has say 1% sulfur content? You burn that fuel to make electricity, and its sulfur will be up in the air if you did not have scrubber. So, now you install a continuous emission monitor (CEM) on the stack and report to uncle same your SO2 emission every minute? So, if you reported the emission more frequently, would that reduce your emission? Of course no.

    So, at the end of the day the environmental liberal gang do not understand what they are talking about.

    Essentially, energy efficiency, and less foolish consumption are the only legitimate way to be a good environmentalist. Controlling cow farts is not.

  • Bob

    Of course, under the guise of protecting the environment, power companies across the U.S. are now rushing to install smart meters in consumers’ homes.

    It’s all part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Smart Grid initiative (

    The problem is that smart meters are dangerous to human health, as is noted in the following article from Global Research:

    In a press release, the Department of Energy touts the benefits of Florida Power and Light (FPL) installing smart meters. The problem with the use of these meters is that they can be used to spy on consumers, as is noted in the following article from the

  • dontchemtrailmebro

    the solar scientist who never wanted to be involved with educating and attempting to save the planet from greedy weather derivatives, inland hurricanes (Joplin hit), Sandy Hook, and many others including the earthquake directly under Port of Prince Haiti……..when Chavez seriously commented that next the U.S. would be using their tectonic weapon on Iran………..did anyone hear a word about the other 1/2 of the island shared w/ Haiti? Dominican Republic? NO, right? And hey, think Bush and Clinton ever helped the poor people of Haiti with all that $$$? I have asked Haitians, they say NO.
    Seriously people, how do you really feel about your air you breathe being poisoned with heavy metals and nano particulates of bacteria and crap? ( and Dr. Carnicom, Dr. Gwen Scott) Depopulation agenda per instructions at Georgian Guidestones and Rockefeller, Turner, E. Emanuel etc. dictate in their speeches and writings. Warfare should be on the ground, not sprayed in our air, no? An Aussie’s site is good too – – links are good. Good luck to all and don’t forget to take a chorella type green tablet for chelating metals………..I hate the international cartel of bankers, period and the Air Force goons that carry out the destructive agendas. free film – ‘What in The World Are They Spraying’ and following films tell the evil afoot. (for example, aluminum blocks the uptake of nutrients in trees, our boreal forests are weakening, making way for the pine beetle, fires then take place more readily. Thoughtful of our geoengineers, huh?