White House Science Advisor Dr. John Holdren informs his fellow global warmists that "global warming" is a "dangerous misnomer." No, from now on we should refer to "global climate disruption." Boy, talk about danger! I feel like I was driving without my seatbelt.
Dr. Holdren urged use of the new term in a speech in Sweden a couple weeks ago. The speech received little coverage here, though a spokesman insists that the "Office of Science and Technology Policy has been transparent about Holdren's remarks."
The PowerPoint presentation Dr. Holdren delivered is available here. I would direct your attention to Slide 22, where he gives the game away on:
Just to have a 50% chance of staying below 2°C, developed-country emissions must peak no later than 2015 and decline rapidly thereafter, developing-country emissions must peak no later than 2025 and decline rapidly thereafter.
So let's follow this logic: earth, Mother Gaia, is faced with catastrophic "global climate disruption," a disruption caused by humans burning fossil fuels. Why, then, must the First World drastically reduce its emissions, i.e., cripple its economies, 10 years before the Third World does the same? Because the First World produces more carbon than the Third World? No! According to the very next slide, "Industrialized & developing countries are now about equal in total CO2 emissions." Either "global climate disruption" is a problem affecting everyone residing on Gaia or it is not. If it is, then why wouldn't those producing one-half of the carbon releases do as much as those producing the other half? After all, if species will die off, if we are looking at widespread famine and pestilence, if the seas rise and flood one of Al Gore's mansions -- isn't that a crisis? Don't we have to do everything possible to stop it now?
Is your first priority, Dr. Holdren, stopping "global climate disruption," saving Mother Gaia, or redistributing wealth? Come on, Dr. Holdren, you love transparency, why so coy? Why not put this in a PowerPoint slide: "Fighting global climate disruption is a stalking horse for impoverishing the developed nations and enriching the developing ones." There: are we clear now?
And how much would this redistribution between developed and developing cost? See Slide 24:
Current econ models say mitigation to stabilize at 450 ppmv CO2e probably means 2-3% GWP loss in 2030, 2100 (range 1-5%). World now spends 2.5% of GWP on defense; USA spends 5% on defense, 2% on env protection.
That's quite a range, somewhere between $700 billion and $3.5 trillion per year, assuming 2008 GWP levels. To be paid disproportionately by the First World. And what is it, Dr. Holdren, you are suggesting in the last sentence? That the US zero out our defense budget, plowing it all into carbon abatement? I remember the position from the peace demonstrations I went to in the 60s: "If the US just stopped making weapons, man, the world would be, like, totally at peace! I mean, it's like we're the biggest warmongers in the world, man!" International relations are so simple, aren't they: There are no bad actors on the world stage, just those turned bad by US foreign policy. All we have to do is beat our swords into plowshares and everyone else will do likewise. Then we can look back with smug self-satisfaction and congratulate ourselves that "this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." "This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius!" Henry Percy is the nom de guerre for a technical writer living in Arizona. He may be reached at email@example.com.