• Lawletters

The Real Climate Crisis

Something as complex and scientific as the subject of, or the condition of, our planet is left for the experts to argue, debate and decide. Nearly all of us are not scientists or experts, therefore we have to rely on what we read, what people tell us, and what we can research and determine ourselves. Only the latter is the one truly reliable source, and even that is extremely subjective and flawed.

In that case what or who do we rely on?

What I don’t want to do here is try to hash out any scientific debate, because there is enough of that going on to choke a heard of horses. What I do want to do here is look a little at history, how past theories have played out, and the motivations of those involved.

In my own research and reading I have determined that there are definitely things going on with our planet. Though some things are more disturbing than others, the reasons or answers are not always clear, and neither are the solutions.

Take, for example, the dying of the coral reefs in our oceans. There is a bacteria on the corals that makes them turn white, which is certain death to the corals. Scientists are trying to figure out where the bacteria is coming from. Unfortunately, all they have are theories, and though rising water temperature is mentioned, the stronger theories have little to do with the warming of the oceans, but pollution.

The same goes with all the other issues with our environment. How many years have they been talking about such issues? As long as I’ve been alive, which is over 50 years, I can recall the debates on acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer, and then global warming, which eventually became “climate change” (or officially the Global Climate Change Initiative), and now is simply referred to as the “climate crisis.”

Every one of these old and new debates has ultimately brought out a very emotional “panic” type discourse which comes mostly from activists, fringe scientists, which infiltrates into politics and entrepreneurial opportunists. “Greenlighting” became a term, especially used during the Obama years, focusing on renewable energies, i.e. solar and wind projects.

On the surface, solar and wind are easy sells because they seem logical, using nature itself to create “clean” energy. Hydroelectric plants, where possible, have been in use all over the world for decades, but not every locale has the water source needed. The same goes for solar and wind, where there are sunnier and windier places where they can be used, and places where they are “useless.”

But that’s not half the problem. Solar and wind are not only inefficient on the production side, they require two things to make them viable: One, the use of fossil fuel based energy to produce and repair them, and two, another technology to store the energy: batteries.

Though lithium ion batteries have replaced lead core batteries, that technological advancement has not solved the problem of battery life and disposal. Doesn’t matter how the energy is produced, wind or solar, the way the energy is stored has not reached any logical level of viability.

These facts, however, do not stop the activists, nor the politicians or opportunists, from spewing a doomsday like fear that we have to keep investing in these failing technologies. Before Trump took office, Obama proposed $4 trillion (that’s right, TRILLION) “to ramp up federal funding for clean energy and energy-efficiency programs.”

Whenever we see government funding, we always, and I mean ALWAYS, should ask ourselves who gets the funding? I don’t have enough space in this column to list out the names of people and companies who received federal funding for these programs, many which failed at the taxpayer’s expense. I encourage you to look them up yourselves.

Now it’s the Green New Deal, which proposes from $50 to $90 TRILLION dollars over the next decade. Makes Obama’s $4 trillion seem not so bad, right? That is what they’re hoping for. They put such an astronomical figure out there that eventually the not-so-conservative-anymore members of congress compromise to a much lower figure.

Well, you have to admit, $4 trillion is a lot lower than $90 trillion.

During my research one organization has stood out over all the others in a pursuit to develop some sort of clean energy. The Bill and Linda Gates Foundation has put together a team of scientists to research and develop a way to produce emission free energy.

Bill Gates is not the first, and won’t be the last, to tell you that wind and solar technologies, for the mass production of energy, are an absolute waste of time and money. In all of their research, not surprisingly, the source that rose to the top was nuclear.

The problem surrounding nuclear, for years, has been bad press, but when looked at honestly, through data, it is not as bad as it has been portrayed. People are concerned about safety, i.e. a nuclear meltdown and exposure of radiation, and the disposal and storage of nuclear waste.

Bill Gates being Bill Gates, through exhaustive research and development, came up with an entirely safe and waste free nuclear power system, which produces ZERO EMISSIONS. The company he created is TerraPower. The public can stay up to date with his company’s developments on www.terrapower.com.

The point here is, why aren’t we hearing about developments like these? Why are children marching all over the world spewing fear and anxiety when here lies the solution to the all those fears.

Look at it this way: the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation is a $50 billion endowment, not taxpayer money. The money spent on R&D was 100s of millions, not billions, and certainly not trillions. The money was managed wisely and gained the desired results: zero emission energy production. So what’s the problem?

The problem is the “real” climate crisis, which is not the planet itself or how we are living and consuming energy. The real climate crisis is the false fear and anxiety created by activists, politicians, and business opportunists waiting for the big TRILLIONS of dollars payout.

When former Vice President Al Gore, climate change activist, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was asked what he thought of the Green New Deal proposal, he said, “Policymakers and Presidential candidates would be wise to embrace a Green New Deal and commit to the hard work of seeing it through.”

To date, Al Gore’s climate change documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” has made nearly $50 million.

Appreciate your thoughts.

FOLLOW ME

  • Facebook Classic
  • Twitter Classic
  • Google+ App Icon
  • c-youtube

© 1998-2019 by Steven A. Anderson.  All rights reserved.

This site was designed with the
.com
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now