As opportunistic statists and potential tyrants always say, never let a crisis to go to waste.
This is exactly what Philippines’ climate change czar and representative to the United Nations’ climate meeting in Warsaw, Poland, Yeb Sano did when he urged the global body to take drastic action to reduce climate change-causing carbon dioxide emissions.
“It has become clear that there are now impacts from climate change that can no longer be avoided,” he said.
His proposed policy? He said: “It is therefore essential that we establish an international mechanism on loss and damage here in Warsaw and address this crisis once and for all.”
Such a policy includes imposition of carbon taxes and radical climate, industrial regulations that will negatively impact poor countries like the Philippines, India and African nations.
Is Mr. Sano a scientist? Well, he’s a political appointee, and his mission is to help push man-made global warming regulations at the UN. Here’s one of his policy statements that presents nothing but pure emotionalist AGW propaganda.
What Mr. Sano did is just another cheap fear-mongering tactic to push for AGW regulations to impose carbon taxes and other regulations. It’s utterly disgusting and opportunistic.
AGW regulations will only punish, impoverish poor countries like the Philippines. There is an undeniable link between poverty and a country’s capacity to cope with major natural calamities. As many scientists now know, MAN-MADE global warming theory does not reflect scientific reality and records. Global temperature has been flat for the past 16 or so years despite increase in CO2 levels.
What does Mr. Sano’s proposal mean to poor Filipinos and over 7 billion inhabitants of this planet? First, his AGW policy proposal seeks to globally criminalize 80-95 percent of future fossil fuel use and force people, especially those living in third world countries, to live on expensive, unreliable alternative (solar and wind) energy.
Alex Epstein, energy expert and founder of the Center for Industrial Progress, shows the deadly implications of Sano’s and AGW alarmists’ proposal to save this planet from MAN-MADE global warming (with very minor paraphrasing):
It would mean that the 1.4 billion people around the world who lack electricity—and thus have a life expectancy of 48—would not be lifted out of poverty, but would be joined by billions more.
It would mean a far dirtier environment—only high-energy, highly-developed countries have clean environments. And it would mean a far more dangerous climate.
While [Sano] makes time to publicly declare his solidarity with the victims, he should take some time to think about what would have actually protected them: industrial development powered by affordable, reliable energy. Had the Philippines been a more industrialized country, it would have likely had much closer to the 100-200 deaths of Hurricane Sandy than thethousands that have been reported so far.
To [Mr. Sano], affordable, reliable energy from fossil fuels is a meaningless abstraction. He may know that there is energy involved in fueling his limo or chartered jet or Hollywood galas. He certainly doesn’t seem to realize that energy is the key to anyone and everyone having food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, and leisure time. Or that all sources of energy aren’t created equal.
Now, one important question that Mr. Sano needs to deal with is: What is the relative contribution of CO2 to our planet’s greenhouse effect? Or: how much is the planet’s greenhouse effect is enhanced by adding more carbon dioxide?
Real scientist Roy Spencer (he received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and worked as a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center) provided answers to these questions in this blog article.
What he said are as follows:
- There is naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Every third rate scientist knows this.
- He wrote: “First, assume there was NO naturally occurring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and we added 300 ppm.” The effect? He said: “The natural influence of CO2 on the Earth’s greenhouse effect would be zero, but the influence of adding 300 ppm would be quite significant.” Observe that he’s applying simple logic here.
- Second case: “Let’s assume the natural CO2 concentration is high, say 1,000 ppm, and THEN we added 300 ppm.” The effect: “the natural role of CO2 in the Earth’s greenhouse effect would be very significant, but our addition of 300 ppm more would have a relatively small direct warming influence.”
- The implication of the two examples: “If the natural contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect was ZERO, then the warming effect of our addition of 300 ppm would be relatively large. But if the natural contribution of CO2 to the greenhouse effect was already large, then the incremental warming effect of adding more will be small.”
Super-typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Photos by the Daily Mail.
Evacuation: An ill baby, attached to a drip, disembarks from a Philippine Air Force C-130 cargo plane at Villamor Airbase
Deadly: Members of the Philippine National Police move dozens of bags of bodies of people killed by the devastating storm in Tacloban
Rescue effort: The Philippine’s Special Reaction Unit join soliders in the search for the bodies of victims of Typhoon Haiyan
Scavenging: A young boy pushing a trolley in search of water passes a coffin containing a victim of Typhoon Haiyan in Tacloban
Search: Rescuers from the Philippine Coast Guard ride on a life raft during a search and rescue operation in Tacloban