To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to: Info@NorthPacificResearch.com

 

The old Bait and Switch

Nature Magazine May 10, 2007 page 121: An editorial titled –Climate panel offers grounds for optimism – opens this editorial with the statements “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), like its subject matter, can be unpredictable. In the last part of its mammoth fourth assessment report on climate change it has produced a surprisingly optimistic analysis of the possibility of mitigating climate change.” For the first three parts of the document, they spend scaring the hell out of the public with dire predictions of doom and gloom. Now in the last section, they say, ‘Oh never mind, as long as you do as we say nobody will get hurt.’ Hmmm! In the mean time, money rolls in to their pet projects.

These eminent scientist, who are above reproach then state that “…economic forces could drive global emissions in 2030 20% to 50% lower …” and “…the energy sector accounting for two-thirds of emission and world demand set to rise by 60% by 2030….” The 60% increase in energy is based on the population increasing by 60% in that same period. Lowering the emissions in 2030 by 50% would indicate that emissions would only rise by 30% under the best case and 48% percent under the worst case. Notice the emphasis is on reducing the rate of emissions not the emissions themselves. Increasing the emissions by only 48% doesn’t seem to be a solution to Armageddon.

The scientists solution for global warming is to throw money at it. They are confident that, if 5% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is spent to reduce carbon emissions, by 2050 the problem would be solved. It is also pointed out in the article that a 3% reduction in GDP would cause a global recession. A global recession is certainly what we need.

Problems are easy to find with a myopic view, but solutions are hundreds of times more difficult and require a broadminded understand of the entire problem. Maybe we are fixing the symptom and not the disease. Consider that a 60% increase in population will increase the demands for energy but it also increases the demand for products, which are produced by carbon emissions. A population increase will also require a 60% increase in food production, housing, travel, economy, etc pretty much everything across the board.

Suppose we stop focusing on carbon and began to focus on population. If population is driving the carbon emissions, a decrease in world population would also decrease the emissions, decrease the number of cars, decrease poverty, decrease hungry, and in general improve the lives of everything on the planet.



By D J Dodds

http://northpacificresearch.com/blog/



Page :  1 
 
To send a copy of any BLOG to a friend, click on the BLOG Title, Then click on “mail this” button below BLOG.
Enter the information requested and any comments you wish and click send.

Send other comments to Info@NorthPacificResearch.com