U.N. Officials Upset U.S. Not Going Along on Climate Change

Feigning concern about the U.S. economy, the United Nations’ lead climate change negotiator recently expressed her annoyance with America’s dragging its feet on climate change.

Christiana Figueres said: “Why would the United States allow other countries to pursue the technologies of the future while the United States stays with the technologies that are becoming every day more obsolete, hence losing its future competitiveness in an increasingly competitive world?”

By “obsolete” she means oil, coal and natural gas — you know, the stuff that works and can reliably churn out gigawatts of usable power in modern, clean-burning systems.

By “technologies of the future” she means:

  • Windmills — The earliest known confirmed windmill was built in the first century A.D. by Heron of Alexandria. There are stories, however, that Hammurabi used wind power in the 17th century B.C. Babylon. In terms of power output, it takes hundreds of square miles filled with windmills to replace one modern power plant. And it still only works when the wind is blowing, unless you add on a sizable battery storage capacity.
  • Solar — The Greeks, with the assistance of the famed Archimedes, used a solar-powered weapon that employed mirrors to create a focused beam of light to help fight off a Roman fleet in the third century B.C. It was essentially the world’s first ray gun, and a feat we’re too stupid to re-create today. Both the Greeks and even earlier ancient Egyptians designed their architecture to employ passive solar heating that would keep buildings warm at night and cool during the day. Our modern solar panels are improving but still can’t replace coal and gas as reliable power sources. They also have the same drawback as windmills, in that they require a battery system to be practical.
  • Ethanol — Ethanol is a type of alcohol that can be easily used as fuel. Alcohol lamps and stoves have been used throughout human history, apparently going back as far as the discovery of alcohol itself. In the 1600s, travelers would often carry small alcohol stoves for cooking and for warming themselves. In the early 1800s, alcohol was used in the first prototype internal combustion engine, and Henry Ford used it for his earliest cars. Ethanol is a viable fuel source, but the ways it’s being produced now, from corn, is affecting the nation’s food supply. Corn has squeezed out other crops, causing higher prices virtually across the board at grocery stores. Use of corn as feed for animals not naturally intended to eat it ultimately affects meat quality. Because of the relatively cheap price of corn, corn syrup has replaced other sweeteners in almost every food available. Although denied by government and corn suppliers, there is a large body of evidence that too much corn, particularly genetically modified corn, is causing serious health problems among the American population.

It’s hard to take these “climate change” people seriously when their vision of the future is actually a technological leap backward.

There are technologies that could replace gas and coal — namely nuclear and geothermal, along with the reliable standby of hydroelectric. There are even some promising experimental technologies, such as generators that work by tidal action.

But for some reason, the climate change crowd always focuses on the technologies that don’t work as well as what we have, or that have a steep tradeoff, such as in our food supply quality.

And the flip side of that focus is that they always want to reduce our use of oil, gas and coal by taxing the heck out of it and setting up some sort of carbon-credit trading scheme that could make some people very rich.

Gee, it’s almost as if this whole climate change business is about keeping down the middle class and poor by picking their pockets and limiting their freedoms, while making some of the wealthy even wealthier. …







Comments

comments

About

Like Tad Cronn on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ImRightYoureGauche. And follow him on Twitter: @TadCronn

Posted in Corruption, Economics, Economy, Environment, Liberalism, Politics, Technology Tagged with: , , , , , ,
  • Candu321

    I am totally fed up with so-called scientists who preach their mantra of global warming with apparently zero common sense or factual scientific background . Anyone who does not understand the simple facts of thermodynamics and physics plus fundamental knowledge of statistical tests for a thesis ( in this case that carbon emissions cause global warming ) is unqualified to set standards for the world to follow . Correlation is NOT causation , and the cause always precedes the effect . There are times when warming apparently precedes carbon emissions , so warming causes CO2 , not the inverse .

  • Greg137

    SORRY, U.N. , WE WANT YOU TO GO AWAY NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Okay, I am not really SORRY; JUST GO AWAY, U.N.!!

  • scott2345

    Figueres should take comfort that any American who thinks alternative energy is a beckening opportunity is free to pursue the enterprise. I hope Figueres has that same freedom where ever she is from.

    Perhaps Figueres should leave the UN and pursue such wonderful opportunities herself, and thereby lead by example, instead sitting there at the UN getting a paycheck extracted out of the pockets of working people.

  • a1NannaGail2u

    Well DUH! Of course they are trying to break the middle class. What we need to do is to get the UN out of America COMPLETELY and the USA OUT OF THE UN COMPLETELY. NO MONEY FROM THE USA FOR ANYONE BUT THE USA.

  • SteveD

    Man made global climate change is a scam BUT!! So oil is a scam as well.

    Other technologies can easily replace oil, thorium reactors could replace nuclear and make it FAR FAR safer and reduce the cost to less than 1/5th.

    Cold fusion which is nearing release could replace everything and reduce cost to less than 1/10th.

    Solar with new tech could make power basically free using the most advanced newest technologies with less funding than that what went into the wars that was stolen from us!

  • ginjit.dw

    Can anyone say agenda 21?????????

  • http://www.facebook.com/crzydancer Richard Holmes

    Idiots telling lies to make themselves feel important.

  • Special K

    India and China with over 3 billion plus (and growing) souls between them produce more pollution than most of the rest of the world combined. They naturally rejected a “total emissions” limit” embodied in a UN control-proposal in favor of a per capita limit that b virtue of population growth they’ll be able to avoid reaching for the indefinite future.

  • Special K

    Given the lack of consistency in public “belief” outlined below, who can blame sentient citizens from wondering about the validity of current claims about the climate?

    Climate
    Change Alarmism Timeline 1895-2009 August 2, 2009
    Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.

    Climate Change Timeline –
    1895-2009

    There is most certainly a pattern
    to climate change…but it’s not what you may think:
    For at least 114 years, climate “scientists” have been claiming that the
    climate was going to kill us…but they have kept switching whether it was a
    coming ice age, or global warming.

    1895 – Geologists
    Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again – New
    York Times, February 1895
    1902 –
    “Disappearing Glaciers…deteriorating slowly, with a persistency that means
    their final annihilation…scientific fact…surely disappearing.” – Los Angeles
    Times
    1912 – Prof Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age – New
    York Times, October 1912
    1923 –
    “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada”
    – Professor Gregory of Yale
    University, American representative to the Pan-Pacific Science Congress, – Chicago
    Tribune
    1923 –
    “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of
    glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible
    advent of a new ice age” – Washington Post
    1924 – MacMillan
    Reports Signs of New Ice Age – New
    York Times, Sept 18, 1924
    1929 –
    “Most geologists think the world is growing warmer, and that it will
    continue to get warmer” – Los Angeles Times, in Is another ice age coming?
    1932 –
    “If these things be true, it is evident, therefore that we must be just
    teetering on an ice age” – The Atlantic magazine, This
    Cold, Cold World
    1933 – America
    in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise
    – New York Times, March 27th, 1933
    1933 –
    “…wide-spread and persistent tendency toward warmer weather…Is our climate
    changing?” – Federal Weather Bureau “Monthly Weather Review.”
    1938 –
    Global warming, caused by man heating the planet with carbon dioxide, “is
    likely to prove beneficial to mankind in several ways, besides the
    provision of heat and power.”– Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
    1938 –
    “Experts puzzle over 20 year mercury rise…Chicago is in the front rank of
    thousands of cities thuout the world which have been affected by a
    mysterious trend toward warmer climate in the last two decades” – Chicago Tribune
    1939 –
    “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite
    right… weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time
    being is growing warmer” – Washington Post
    1952 –
    “…we have learned that the world has been getting warmer in the last half
    century” – New York Times, August 10th,
    1962 -1954 –
    “…winters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding,
    deserts growing” – U.S. News and World Report
    1954 – Climate
    – the Heat May Be Off – Fortune Magazine
    1959 –
    “Arctic Findings in Particular Support Theory of Rising Global Temperatures” – New York Times
    1969 –
    “…the Arctic pack ice is thinning and that the ocean at the North Pole may
    become an open sea within a decade or two” – New York Times, February 20th, 1969
    1970 –
    “…get a good grip on your long johns, cold weather haters – the worst may
    be yet to come…there’s no relief in sight” – Washington Post
    1974 –
    Global cooling for the past forty years – Time Magazine
    1974 –
    “Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the
    weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice
    age” – Washington Post
    1974 –
    “As for the present cooling trend a number of leading climatologists have
    concluded that it is very bad news indeed” – Fortune magazine, who won a Science Writing Award from the American Institute of Physics for its analysis of the danger
    1974 –
    “…the facts of the present climate change are such that the most
    optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure…mass
    deaths by starvation, and probably anarchy and violence” – New York Times
    Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age
    1975 –
    Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered
    to Be Inevitable – New York Times, May 21st, 1975
    1975 –
    “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a
    likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind” Nigel Calder,
    editor, New Scientist magazine, in an article in International Wildlife Magazine
    1976 –
    “Even U.S. farms may be hit by cooling trend” – U.S. News and World Report
    1981 –
    Global Warming – “of an almost unprecedented magnitude” – New York Times
    1988 – I would like to draw three main conclusions. Number one, the earth is warmer
    in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements.
    Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe
    with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship to the
    greenhouse effect. And number three, our computer climate simulations
    indicate that thegreenhouse effect is already large enough to begin to
    effect the probability of extreme events such as summer heat waves. – Jim
    Hansen, June 1988 testimony before Congress, see His later quote and His
    superior’s objection for context
    1989 -”
    On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific
    method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and
    nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats,
    the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but
    human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a
    better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce
    the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to
    get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That,
    of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to
    offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make
    little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical
    bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.
    Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective
    and being honest. I hope that means being both.” – Stephen
    Schneider, lead author of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
    Change, Discover magazine, October 1989
    1990 –
    “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global
    warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic
    policy and environmental policy” – Senator Timothy Wirth
    1993 –
    “Global climate change may alter temperature and rainfall patterns, many
    scientists fear, with uncertain consequences for agriculture.” – U.S.
    News and World Report
    1998 –
    No matter if the science [of global warming] is all phony . . . climate
    change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and
    equality in the world.” —Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment
    2001 –
    “Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost
    nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.” – Time Magazine, Monday,Apr. 09, 2001
    2003 –
    Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when
    the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global
    warming issue, and energy sources such as “synfuels,” shale oil and tar
    sands were receiving strong consideration” – Jim Hansen,
    NASA Global Warming activist, Can we defuse The Global Warming Time Bomb?, 2003
    2006 –
    “I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how
    dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what
    the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this
    crisis.” — Al Gore, Grist magazine, May 2006

    Added note:
    2007
    Chairman of the UN International Panel on Climate Change said if we haven’t succeeded in introducing appropriate control by 2012 it will then be too late. We would simply have to learn to adapt (from memory, but the gist is accurate).

  • Wayne Morgan

    If I wrote what I think of the UN they would just block it. There it is in your face. The UN is disappointed with the US. If I had my way they would pack their glad rags and hit the trail run ing for their life. Some time the best thing said is nothing, I’ve already over shot the runway on that one. From one American that would’t call for help if you were getting mugged. Have a nice day!

  • techno-optimist

    All artificial resource shortages lead to artificial profit
    increases for big corporations. The conservationists did if for oil in the 30’s
    the enviros did it for oil in the 60s thru today. They ended nuclear power and
    they do anything to stop the prices of energy from declining. The new nat-gas
    discoveries in the Midwest are now threatened by Odumba and the EPA which will
    stop fracking so that profit margins can be maintained. Cap and trade and all
    carbon schemes are not about saving the world they are about funding the transition
    to UN Agenda 21. Paying companies to not produce anything to transition to a command
    and control static economy at full equilibrium. The proverbial Leninist rope
    that the capitalists will all compete for and upon which the neo-communists
    will hang them all upon.

    Read Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell, Huslman, Hazlit, Sennholz,
    De Soto as well as Diamandis, Ridley and Kelly. Wise up, these guys are smart,
    they know that Mises and Hayek won the socialism calculation debate, that is
    why they are trying to implement the only economic system Ludwig von Mises said
    socialism could manage, “a static, steady state economy at equilibrium,” an
    economy that is impossible, but they will try to put it in place anyway to save
    their ideology from extinction. Mises won, it is time to learn and confront the
    ideologues of that fact! Their fantasy static economic system cannot work; it
    violates complexity theory and complexity economics and classical liberal
    economics (the Austrian School of Economics)!

  • WASP

    Someone needs to start randomly picking off these UN crooks in NYC as they enjoy their free vacations. After enough of them get whacked, maybe the others won’t be so quick to come here. Then, when the time is right, we need to burn down the UN building with those that remain still in it. Our spineless politweasels won’t get the US out of the UN, and vice versa, but the people can do something.