CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T UP FOR DEBATE

Back to Article
Back to Article

CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T UP FOR DEBATE

Lily Gumbinner and Madison LaRocque

Lily Gumbinner and Madison LaRocque

Lily Gumbinner and Madison LaRocque

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Four years ago, climate change was completely discredited by Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) when he tossed a snowball onto the Senate floor.

It’s a wonder that Inhofe chose a life of politics when his skills of observation and analysis are unparalleled in the scientific community. Through months of arduous research, Inhofe concluded that the “very, very cold” weather outside of the US Capitol definitively proved that global warming was nothing more than an elaborate hoax cooked up by the 97 percent of scientists who claim to believe in man-made climate change.

In similar fashion, President Donald Trump, whom all can recognize as a “very stable genius,” courageously resisted the onslaught of fake news when he implied that this winter’s polar vortex was clear evidence against “good old fashioned Global Warming.”

His presidential tweet came only ten days after the Department of Defense released a report detailing the “significant effects” of climate change on military operations.

 

“The Green Dream or Whatever They Call It”

Despite the total debunking of the climate change myth, leftists and CNN pundits continue to push their America-hating agenda of climate science, intent on destroying the economy, enforcing the vegan agenda, and murdering every puppy, just for fun.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Senate colleague Ed Markey embodied these very aspirations when they introduced the Green New Deal (also known as “the Green Dream or whatever they call it,” if you’re Nancy Pelosi), a resolution that aims to eliminate carbon emissions, provide healthcare guarantees, and make college education more affordable, among several other ambitious goals. Although the legislation contains proposals that would have been considered radical five years ago, 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the plan. Go ahead. Click the link. I’m not making this up.

While Jim Inhofe and Donald Trump were persuasive in their arguments against taking action on climate change, it was ultimately the scientific community that won over the American people. Though a snowball is tough evidence to dispute, I can see why some voters would buy into the idea of climate change.

Last week, scientists announced that evidence for man-made climate change has reached a “gold standard” of certainty, meaning that there is a one in a million chance humans are not the source of climate change. Additionally, global temperatures have been on a steady upward trend since the early 1900s, with 2016 being recorded as the warmest year in history. This is on par with an increase in carbon emissions over the same time period, as well as rises in ocean temperatures, sea level, and rates of glacial retreat.

Even if you find this convincing enough to refute a snowball, the average global temperature has only increased by about one degree Celsius since 1940, according to NASA. While the Fahrenheit scale is the patriotic way to measure temperature, I can still tell that one degree Celsius isn’t much and certainly couldn’t be very detrimental. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her Democratic minions in the field of science have come up with a weak refutation to that argument too.

 

What’s the Big Deal?

The only “evidence” that such a small rise in global temperatures could have even a marginal impact is from the most obscure and unreliable of sources. In December of 2018, the UN released a “report” that claimed a temperature rise of 2.7 degrees Celsius could have catastrophic effects on global infrastructure and the economy. If we continue to emit carbon at current rates, this global crisis could be expected to arrive by 2040. I don’t know what UN stands for, but it must mean Uneducated Nincompoops. Besides, how bad could this so-called crisis be?

Not bad at all, from the looks of it. The worst that could happen would be stronger storms and hurricanes, prolonged droughts and heat waves, wildfires, floods, and sea level rises that could partially submerge coastal cities. All of this would come at a $54 trillion price tag, which is, like, four pairs of AirPods. If the liberals call that a crisis, I’d hate to see them when a real crisis comes along (like when the government tries to take away their AR-15s).

One of the biggest flaws in the conspiracy of climate change is that it claims carbon emissions are the primary cause of global warming. Unfortunately, when the Democrats came up with this preposterous hoax, they forgot that most of our energy comes from the burning of coal and fossil fuels, which releases carbon into the atmosphere. If we want to stop climate change, we would have to stop burning fossil fuels, which would mean an American energy crisis. We can’t afford that! Plus, what about the humble coal miners who will be out of jobs?

If you’re smart (like me), you know that nothing could ever beat fossil fuels in the energy sector. Apparently, the International Renewable Energy Agency, an intergovernmental organization consisting of 158 countries and the EU, is not much like me. In 2017, the agency claimed that renewable energy sources will be consistently cheaper than fossil fuels by 2020, making them competitive with our current energy sources. Another report, which I can only assume is fake news, states that the clean energy sector is creating jobs 12 times faster than the rest of the economy. Ridiculous. Burning dead dinosaurs is the only way to satisfy our energy needs.

It’s important to understand that even if renewable sources became cheaper than fossil fuels, that wouldn’t necessarily make them more effective. The only way to make renewables better than our current energy resources would be to invest in a ton of research. Obviously, that would be a complete waste of taxpayer money, especially when we need those funds to support the President’s golf trips. Only 100 companies account for about 71 percent of total carbon emissions worldwide; the path to clean energy lies in the business sector. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no scenario in which a profitable corporation spends money looking into new sources of energy.

 

A Solution for Everyone

That is, unless they have an incentive to do so. Surprisingly, the best answer to our energy dilemma comes from … Republicans. Although many conservatives don’t believe in climate change, the plan presented by the conservative Climate Leadership Council to cut back on carbon emissions would bring us one step closer to making America great again.

Don’t take it from me. The list of people who have supported the CLC’s plan is exhaustive: former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, former Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of State George P. Schultz, Walmart CEO Rob Walton, and the late astrophysicist Stephen Hawking, among many other notable figures.

Now that you’ve probably skipped past the list of names, you’re likely wondering, “What is this magical plan?” The proposal contains four main principles:

  • A gradually rising carbon tax, starting at $40 per ton. By implementing a tax on carbon emissions, companies would have reason to invest in alternate sources of energy. The introduction of a carbon tax has proven to be effective in reducing emissions in other countries. The United Kingdom began taxing carbon in 2013, and its carbon emissions have decreased to 36 percent less than in 1990, about the same as they were in 1894. Declining profit margins forced businesses to adopt new methods of efficiently generating energy. Janet Yellen, who led the Federal Reserve under President Obama, called a carbon tax “absolutely standard textbook economics” for decreasing the carbon content of the atmosphere.
  • Carbon dividends for all Americans. This is where things start to get interesting. In order to develop public support for a carbon tax, all money from the tax would be sent directly to Americans in the form of equal monthly dividends. Because the carbon tax would rise with time, the amount of money generated for the dividends would remain consistent, even as companies increasingly turn toward clean energy. Many critics point out that a carbon tax could lead to significantly higher prices on power and gasoline. However, with the implementation of carbon dividends, an American family of four would be expected to receive $2,000 a year, and for Americans in the bottom 70 percent of income, carbon dividends would exceed increased energy costs. By some analyses, real disposable income per capita would increase to five times its current amount under a system of carbon dividends.
  • Border carbon adjustments. Countries without major policies to decrease carbon emissions would “face fees on the carbon content of their products.” This would encourage other nations to enact similar climate reforms and reduce global emissions. Any money raised from these “border carbon adjustments” would go directly toward carbon dividends.
  • Regulatory simplification. Existing legislation aimed at limiting carbon emissions (like the Clean Power Plan) would be repealed. This would have minimal effects on businesses because the proposed carbon tax would do more to reduce carbon than current regulations. However, the minimization of regulations would help to win over conservative Republicans and some business owners.

What the country needs right now is an idea that can unite both sides of the political spectrum. Carbon dividends have the potential to boost the economy and build the working class—while appeasing those climate-crazed liberals at the same time.