I will admit that I am skeptical of the role humans play in climate change, but there are those less skeptical who will admit that coming climate change is manageable, not the serious problem we supposed it to be.

Let begin with the reality is that climate alarmists believe that the planet is overpopulated, and the industry required to keep this population fed and clothes is causing damaging climate warming that will cause massive famine and drought.

The problem with argument is that much of the past century proves the complete opposite.  As the planet warmed and the CO2 levels increased, the planet actually prospered as we ended up feeding more people better diets and millions left poverty to a middle-class life.  Realistically speaking, the alarmist can’t even prove that additional CO2 or warming is even bad, and a better case can be made that is actually good for the planet.

The solutions being proposed are the equal of the famous line in Vietnam, “We destroyed the village to save it.”   The alarmist mind set is similar, we will destroyed the planet to save it.  Their solutions will do exactly that.

The first aspect is the elimination of fossil fuels, but they have to develop substitute for fossil fuels and the most efficient replacement, nuclear energy, they oppose.  They support the least efficient form of energy solar and wind which can’t operate when the sun don’t shine, or the wind doesn’t blow.  Without back up from fossil fuels, these renewables are incapable of fueling modern economy.

The alarmist policies will make both food and energy policy more expensive, reducing its availability for billions of people.  We saw this in Sri Lanka when the government followed the advice of the climate alarmist ESG polices the country went from being food exporter to food importer, the economy and government collapsed.  Netherlands in attempt to reach EU carbon neutral goals have forced farmers to close farms and Canada is following up with similar stupid ideas.  These policies, happening in nations who are substantial food exporters, will reduce the yield of food produced and raise prices.  The first victim will be those who are dependent upon these exports and many in the third world will have less food and more starvation.  Billions will die as result of these policies, not by changes in climate.  Without fossil fuels, the ability to get food to the market will be compromised as those vehicles responsible will be eliminated.

The restriction of fossil fuels production in the United States have led to a rise in energy prices, and as Alex Epstein noted, we have only seen 1 to 2 percent of what the climate alarmist wants and created an energy emergency. Imagine what if we get the whole plan they want to do.

Fossil fuels are needed to expand food supplies and reduce them will lead to the opposite.   When climate alarmist claims that changes in climate will lead to massive famine, that is wrong. It is the policies that will lead them.  In the past century, famines were not the creation of climate but government policies.  They were man-made phenomenon and these policies recommendation to reduce farming yields will create man-made famines.

The other aspect of climate alarmists is that they want a colder climate even though a colder climate will lead to shorter growing season and more famine.  They are even thinking of geo-engineering by attempts to block sunlight to create a colder planet.  More people normally die in colder weather than warmer weathers, so you have to ask why to create or desire a colder climate?

You have the Biden administration and various Democratic government wanting to eliminate combustible cars in favor of electric car.  Considering there are significant disadvantages to electric vehicles just as charging time, overall limitation in miles specifically in colder weather and are more expensive. With less range and priced out of many Middle-income Americans budget, many Americas will find their personal travel options limited.  The elimination of gas-powered car will hamper the ability of many Americans to advance economically.   The battle over natural gas stove oven is another battle that will increase the cost of cooking a meal for many Middle Class.

The solutions we are hearing are about reducing our living standards and destroying the economic system responsible for our economic growth to begin with.  These solutions are anti-people and not pro-environment since they do little to help the environment or reduce CO2 emission. 

Marc Morano and others made the case that the pandemic emergency were a dress rehearsal to declare a climate emergency to force changes.   The reality is that pandemic lockdown were a complete failure by every measure.  We saw lost incomes, small businesses forced out of business, children not getting educated and many people failed to follow up on treatment for serious health issues.  When you add various variables, no lives were save in lockdown states or countries versus those who did not lockdown or open up their economy earlier, but they fell behind economically and children suffered in education with minorities and the poor suffering the worse.  Hundreds of millions of people worldwide were put on the verge of starvation. 

If you repeat this on with a climate change emergency, you can substitute hundreds of millions to billions on the verge of starvation.  Much of the scientific community who favored the lockdowns, did so based bad or manipulated data and skeptics were proven right.  Much of climate science has serious flaws and their solutions are worse than the problem they diagnosed.  The scientific community showed serious flaws as they prized consensus over science during the Covid pandemic and they are no different from climate science where consensus is prized over science.  The solutions proposed will produced billion of deaths, all man made.  We have more to fear from the solutions than a warmer planet.