- PATRIOTS MUST STAND WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP - November 22, 2020
- REMAINING PASSIVE NOT AN OPTION FOR PATRIOTS - November 20, 2020
- IS A FAIR COUNTING OF LEGAL VOTES TOO MUCH TO ASK? - November 15, 2020
On March 5, 2019 The Heartland Institute, one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks, published an important and very timely Policy Brief by senior fellow for environment and energy policy, James Taylor, titled Global Warming Energy Restrictions Threaten U.S. National Security, with guidance from Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, U.S. Navy (retired), former chief of Naval Operations and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.
Key findings of the policy brief follow:
- Economic strength is vital to supporting a strong military
- Carbon dioxide restrictions raise energy prices, which weakens the economy
- America can leverage its dominant conventional energy sources for geopolitical advantages
- Nations such as China and Russia dominate the market for rare earth minerals necessary for renewable power generation
- Global warming is a threat reducer, as asserted threat multipliers like crop output, drought, and extreme weather events are becoming more benign as Earth warms.
It is imperative that Mr. Taylor’s article be read and passed along to as many individuals as possible, given the potential formation of a Presidential climate change panel which is being countered by a letter authored by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel — co-signed by 58 national security or military backgrounds — pushing back against the formation of the Presidential panel.
For Nancy Thorner, who believes global warming is a hoax, the need to reduce CO2 rings hollow and would destroy this nation, its economy, and its military readiness.
President Trump stated many times that climate change was “a total, and very expensive, hoax.” On March 28, 2017 Trump declared the costs of complying with government regulations designed to limit climate change pose a greater threat to national security than do the changes themselves. Trump rescindedObama’s 2016 national security memorandum and many of Obama’s other climate-related directives. Trump’s aim was to end “regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth and prevent job creation.”
AOC’s Green New Deal
The greatest threat to national security would be forcing our economy into an expensive renewable-power trajectory, such as was proposed by AOC in her Green New Deal. Imagine what would happen to this nation’s wealth and military readiness if banning planes, cars, oil, gas, and even cows ever became reality? AOC’s Green New Deal is but a Trojan Horse for Socialism, in that it would create a massive government program to combat climate change by moving the American economy toward renewable energy and reduced carbon emissions
In An Open Letter to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez by Ed Hiserodt, published in the March 4, 2019 issue of the New American, Hiserodt informs readers about some “back of the matchbook” calculations AOC is advancing which are as unrealistic as they are stupid.
According to Hiserodt:
“We are being asked to give up our standard of living for the unproven theory that an insignificant increase in carbon dioxide from its current 0.04 percent of our atmosphere would cause Earth’s temperature to rise to a deadly level. Meanwhile all the computer models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have predicted temperature increases much higher than satellite and ocean buoys have shown, which indicate a pause in temperature rise.”
Paris Climate Agreement
President Barack Obama believed climate change constituted an economic and security threat to the nation. In 2015 Obama signed the Paris Climate Agreement which pledged its nearly 200 participants to work to stem global warming. Accordingly, on Sept. 21, 2016, Obama instructed federal agencies to consider climate change when drawing up their national security plans. On the same day the National Intelligence Council (NIC) backed Obama with a report saying climate change is “almost certain to have significant direct and indirect social, economic, political, and security implications [and] pose significant national security challenges for the United States over the next two decades.”
In a White House Rose Garden event on June 2, 2017, Trump was harshly condemned when he pulled out of the Paris Accords, proclaiming that remaining in the Paris Accords would undermine the economy and put this nation at permanent disadvantages.
Here are some facts to consider as cited in the before-mentioned article by Ed Hiserodt, An Open Letter to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, upon referencing a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomberg published in the March 4, 2019 edition of New American:
According to Dr. Lomberg:
“Even if we assume all promises (determined contributions of those signing on to the Paris Accords) are fulfilled by 2030, and continue to fulfill them until the end of the century, and there is non ‘CO2 leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.
And even if Americans did stop producing CO2, Earth’s CO2 levels would continue to rise because China, India, and other countries are building coal-fired plants by the dozen, which will like more than offset any reductions Americans make.”
Unhappy with Trump’s decision, individual states foolishly took it upon themselves to form the U.S. Climate Alliance to cut carbon dioxide emissions to advance the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, in part, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
Illinois’ Governor J.B. Pritzker signed an executive order committing Illinois to join 17 other states in the United States Climate Alliance (USCA). Already a failed state, such a move will make Illinois even more economically uncompetitive with other states.
In July of 2018 the House approved an amendment to the fiscal 2018 defense authorization bill calling climate change “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” Sponsored by Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., it would require the secretary of Defense to submit to Congress within one year “a report on vulnerabilities to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years. Although 97 forty-six Republicans joined 188 Democrats in voting for the amendment,185 Republicans did vote “no”. If acted upon, this amendment to the fiscal 2918 defense authorization bill would be a grave threat to our military preparedness.
This article appearing in Forbes on Nov. l5, 2018 by Loren Thompson should be very troubling: If America’s Military Loses World War III, Low Readiness Will Likely Be The Reason. In the article Thompson relates how the Congressionally-chartered commission on defense strategy released its call for increased military spending. The commission further warns that America might lose a multi-front war in the future, arguing that Russia and China are striving for hegemony in their regions.
Recently on Fox cable TV a retired general spoken of the same fear. While China continues to ramp up its military, our military preparedness was depleted under the Bush and Obama administrations, leaving this nation with much catching up to do to achieve military prowess over China in case of conflict.
Those who wish to impose Global Warming Energy restrictions are demanding ever-greater government control over energy markets, resources, and infrastructure, wrongly believing the best thing governments can do with fossil energy is “keep it in the ground.”
Theirs is a “fool’s paradise” as set forth by Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Mr. Lewis explains “how so” in his article of July 1, 2018: Climate Change, Fossil Fuels, and Human Well Being. Have individuals who believe we can meet our energy needs through wind and sun ever paused to consider the improving state of the world since the introduction of fossil fuel?
Here are some gems from Lewis’ article worth considering, which should cause any reasonable person to conclude that restricting sources of fossil fuel for green energy sources would put this nation’s security at risk and influence unnecessarily the quality of your life and mine and all of humanity.
- Climate campaigners hype the risks of global warming and belittle, ignore, or deny the benefits of fossil fuels. Would their so-called climate solutions—carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, fracking bans—make us safer or the reverse?
- Since 1950, fossil fuel consumption increased by 550 percent, annual global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by 500 percent, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by about one-third, and the world warmed about 0.65 degrees Celsius.
- Because global temperatures are not spinning out of control, it is not surprising there have been no long-term trends in the frequency and severity of droughts and floods, in the frequency and strength of land-falling hurricanes, or in measures of total hurricane strength.
- As fossil fuel consumption increased, the environment became more livable and human civilization more sustainable. That’s not a coincidence. Energy scholar Alex Epstein explains: Human beings using fossil fuels did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous; they took a dangerous climate and made it safe.
[Originally Published at Illinois Review]