How Many Dollars Does It Take to Stop Climate Change?

The on-going hysteria of climate change and the throwing of money at the issue by the Biden administration is complete lunacy by the Left. I support the idea of clean water and clean air, but all the rest of the nonsense about climate change being “changed” by taking taxpayers hard earned money and injecting it into changing the climate is beyond silly. Man’s input into the climate is minuscule compared to mother nature, volcanoes, the titling of the earth as it orbits the sun. The earth has undergone multiple changes in weather since man has existed and millions of years before. Please, someone tell me how much money it takes to change the orbit of earth, sunspots, positions of the axis of the earth to the sun to initiate the required change. Which person can do that? In on-going discussions with friends that have ten times the common sense as Biden and the Left, a friend wrote the following position on this subject. It makes perfect sense. Feel free to comment! – Henry

“This Is About Climate Change Unfortunately; the idea of climate change is much like guns in our society. Lots of smoke and heat but little recognition and acceptance of facts and very minimal focus on real solutions. Even though the climate science is still being quantified and debated, most everyone has an opinion based on a little knowledge and lots of emotion. I think we can all agree that the weather is changing today, and temperatures appear to be rising. But why?

The answer is complicated. The Earth has gone through climate cycles for hundreds of thousands of years. Has anyone heard or read about the last ice age? We live in the environment we experience today because the Earth warmed some 50,000 years ago. “Warmed” requires increased temperatures. Some scientists say that we are still experiencing the tail end of that warming period. I have heard and read from scientists that weather on our planet goes through cycles, some reported to be thousands of years, every 500 years or so and every 170 years or so, whatever. This data comes from ice core sampling, geologic sediment studies, cross sectional tree analysis, glacier / terminal moraine studies and data and measurement collection.
The Earth is tilted on its axis as it travels in its orbit around the sun. This tilt is roughly 22 degrees today if I remember correctly but it changes. Again, from memory, that tilt within a 20,000-year cycle can increase several degrees. That is enough to expose different features on the earth (think glaciers) to greater exposure to the sun’s influence. This change in tilt causes change in heat absorption and the resultant changes in climate. And then there is volcanic activity. It is reported that there are some 80 volcanic eruptions on the Earth at any one time as recorded globally in our government offices in D.C. By far most of this volcanic activity happens underwater because of moving tectonic plates and plate friction. The heat generated by this volcanic activity raises the ocean’s water temperature.

Are you familiar with the fact that increases in ocean water temperature influences the frequency of hurricanes and drives climate irregularities? What about the gases expelled by these eruptions that work their way into our atmosphere? Just the pollutants alone in our atmosphere could affect the absorption of heat reaching the Earth from our Sun’s radiation. It is reported just one surface volcanic eruption could pollute the global atmosphere to such an extent that it would negate a hundred years of climate investment by any country. Maybe all countries. Remember the Mount Pinatubo eruption in 1991. The pollutants from that eruption circled the globe and in our atmosphere for a long time. The logical conclusion from this is that there are numerous factors outside the ability of man’s intellectual and financial resources to affect climate. The life span of those of living today maxes out at, say, 90 years. Those of us living today have only experienced climate for a very, very brief period of geologic time.

To propose climate solutions, which we are doing, based on this myopic experience of climate issues today is laughable. Yet some things have recently changed. We now have polluting automobiles and industries that were not in existence 50,000 years ago. We need to be objective and exact in measuring the impact of these changes. And cow farts? Sure, let’s measure that too.

But efforts and resources invested to mediate climate has to focus on actually addressing issues qualitatively and qualitatively on a global basis. Touchy / feely reactions will drain us of our resources and won’t address the issue. So, the scientific climate debate goes on and has yet to be resolved. Unfortunately, science today has been politicized. It has always been influenced by money, e.g., grant studies, but not like today. He who control the money controls the narrative and our government is spending the money and controlling the narrative. Scientists have been caught inventing climate numbers. The result of this lack of objectivity is that the solutions offered and paid for by our government today will fall short. Last week our administration passed a bill, in part, addressing climate issues. Our government will levy a large tax on its citizenry, through both inflation and in hard dollars, to address these issues. I am not even sure if the focus of these taxes is for the US or globally. And remember, this is based on only decades of climate observations, not tens of thousands of years of change. Included is the continued subsidization of electric vehicles by our government even though the rare metals for batteries are acquired from countries that are direct competitors to the US politically, militarily, and economically, and they don’t even pretend to address pollution or climate. So, in trying to address climate through electric cars, we generate pollution in manufacturing the components.

We lower the pollution in the US while increasing the pollution in Asia and Mexico. These countries don’t have pollution policies and in support of their economy and their country’s economic stability, they neither regulate nor address pollutants. The results of this are the monies spent by our government to address pollution will have no effect on global climate while hugely impacting every one of us economically living in the US. Reportedly, the US has cut emissions by a large percentage over the last decade. Can you say that you have noticed any climate improvements for the monies and efforts expended?

Just this morning I read California will not allow gas vehicles to be sold in that state after 2035 to fight climate change. That is irrational. Will that effort affect pollution? Yes, I think it could. Will it address climate change? Not a chance. Climate recognizes no state borders. California will not experience more rain because of this edict. What is the cost? Those financially challenged will be penalized because to acquire a vehicle after 2035 will become very expensive for everyone. Electric cars are already expensive, and this will drive up the cost of used gas vehicles. So, again, the poor, middle class and young who can only afford used gas vehicles will be punished. How do we charge these E-vehicles? We don’t have the electric grid capacity or infrastructure today so that is another investment that must be paid for by the citizens. Globally, we have not yet scientifically quantified the real climate problem.

Therefore, we cannot address an objective scientific climate solution. We do not have agreement and commitment by most countries to even address climate issues and we have a government willing to use this “crisis” to further strip its citizenry of their economic resources. Set emotions aside as they rarely drive wise and effectual solutions. We need to be smarter than that. In closing, I want to draw a clear distinction between our country addressing pollution versus climate change. They are totally different with different origins, different costs, and different propensities for success. If we want to expend resources in cleaning up local pollution issues, like in the skies of Los Angeles, I’m all for that. Let them pay for it locally and reap the benefits.

If US leadership feels that spending a lot of our citizen’s resources to address global climate issues today, they will be ineffectual given the reasons stated above.”