What To Do About “Global Warming”

EditorialBy Michael Greer


Michael Greer

Michael Greer

Although there is more ice at the poles than in decades, no warming in more than eighteen years, none of the climate model predictions have come true, and polar bears are thriving, let’s pretend, for the sake of argument, that man is causing “global warming” aka “Climate Change”.

What can we do about it?

According to Al Gore, the President, and the Secretary of State, “global warming” is such a crisis that we must act immediately, or life as we know it will end. They are right about that. If we do what they suggest, life, as we know it, will most certainly end. We will have no cars, we’ll be cramped into tiny city apartments, and there will be less than one billion of us on the entire planet. But I digress.

If, in fact, man is causing “global warming”, it isn’t just an American crisis, it’s a world crisis. And wouldn’t a world crisis require a Global-GovernmentGlobal Governance to solve it? Wouldn’t it require all the countries to abide by the same laws and restrictions? America is not the problem. We have the largest number of environmental regulations, and we have the cleanest air and water in the world. There may be areas of the country that aren’t as clean as we’d like, but overall we are a clean country as are the rest of the Western nations. Wealthy countries can afford to keep their environment clean. Just compare them to poor countries. The wealthier the nation the cleaner they are.

A parent recently reported that their child was being taught in school that by the age of two years old an American child has a carbon footprint larger than a Tanzanian adult has their entire life. I don’t doubt that is true, but let’s examine why. An American child is most likely born in a hospital, and taken home in a car, to a house with running water, electricity, heat, air conditioning, and a comfy bed. A Tanzanian is most likely born with the help of a midwife, and lives in a mud hut that is heated by burning dung. A Tanzanian’s life expectancy is 48 years. What does that suggest? That we should live like Tanzanians? How much are you willing to do without?

If, in fact, man is causing “global warming”, then shouldn’t our President and Secretary of State be talking about shutting down China and India’s coal plants, rather than American coal plants? According to http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/20/coal-plants-world-resources- institute

China is building about one coal plant every ten days, and India nearly as many. China has a coal mine and plant that is larger than all of Los Angeles! (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/theres-a-coal-base-in-china-the-size-of-la)

As we shut down coal plants that provide 44% of our energy, putting thousands out of work, and bankrupting entire towns, 35 other countries are building coal plants faster than we shut ours down. If “global warming” were the crisis our President tells us it is, shouldn’t his priority be to stop these 35 countries from building more coal plants? Shouldn’t his priority be to advance clean coal plants? Coal is a seemingly inexhaustible source of cheap energy, and much more reliable than expensive, unreliable alternative fuels.

The President gave a speech in which he admonished America for using 25% of the world’s energy resources. As though that’s an evil thing. His implication was that our use of energy somehow magically prevents other nations from using their own energy resources.

Why does America use “so much” energy? Well, not only do we live in houses with running water and electricity, we also manufacture things. We invent things. We explore space (or used to, anyway). All that takes energy. Would you prefer we don’t do any of those things? Would you prefer we still lived in the horse-and-buggy and candlelight age? Would you prefer not having a computer in your pocket? Would you prefer not having indoor plumbing?

It is the nature of man to explore, to invent, to question, to push himself beyond his limits. If we were to listen to the President, we would have to completely deny all our natural instincts. We would have to regress, de-industrialize, and do without. How much are you willing to do without? Will you give up your car? Do you want to bring your holiday groceries home on a bus?

Could you do half the things you do on a daily basis if you had no car?

What about your private property? Would you prefer to live in a house with a yard, or a tiny apartment? Have you noticed nearly every new building is a multi-use building with commercial first floor and apartments above?

If “global warming” were the crisis our government insists it is, the only solution would be Global Governance, where all the countries shut down all fossil fuel energy plants immediately. But it’s only Western countries that are shutting things down. We are being de-industrialized through taxes and regulations. Our government is driving our industries away, to countries whose regulations and taxes are not so punitive, where they can compete on a level playing field. The life’s blood of Western nations is cheap, abundant energy. Restricting its production restricts our economy. Australia has realized this and reversed its position on “global warming” policies. Someone whined to me about the “thuggish” new Prime Minister of Australia repealing Cap-and-Trade. As if the Australian people didn’t elect him to do exactly that! It was the will of the people that repealed that law, not a “thuggish” Prime Minister!

We all need to understand what took place at the last Climate Summit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/theres-a-coal-base-in-china-the-size-of-laipcc ) said its goal is to reduce CO2 by 100% in the next 35 years. ONE HUNDRED percent? Seriously? Are you prepared to hold your breath forever? CO2 is what living things exhale. Reducing it by 100% would certainly eliminate all fossil fuels, but it would also eliminate all plants, animals, and humans. 100%, that’s what they want us to agree to. How can they accomplish that without Global Governance? How is it even possible with 35 countries building new coal plants.

Lets be clear, we all want clean air and water. We all want a clean environment. But CO2 is about 0.03% of “greenhouse” gases, and man only contributes about 2% of that. That is so insignificant as to be negligible. Hence, even if man is contributing to “global warming”, it’s something we could adapt to. But what we are being asked to do is completely turn our economy and way of life upside down. It’s like going after a fly with a shotgun!

Of course we all want a clean environment. But it’s only the Western countries that are restricting their use of energy. I would ask all my “Progressive” friends, what are they willing to do without? Isn’t Global Governance the only way to get other countries to comply? Is that what they are after??

Here is a link that shows how temperature records have been changed to support the “global warming” theory. It includes news articles from the warmest times that back up the true temperatures: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/hansen-the-climate-chiropractor/

Will Happer, Princeton’s Galileo on Global Warming:


Michael Greer retired from the film/television industry and is the co-organizer of the Santa Monica Tea Party and the Los Angeles Tea Party, on the board of directors of the Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights and was a member of the Republican Central Committee for the 41st Assembly District.  Her website is: http://madderthanhell.wordpress.com/

Get Citizensjournal.us Headlines free  SUBSCRIPTION. Keep us publishing – DONATE

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David Pu'u

The politicization of the more pertinent question regarding maintenance of sound manufacturing and asset preservation has done the world few favors. So lets go chicken little and kill of civilization and sound engineering and management

This article makes a plethora of good points regarding the folly of villainizing the entities already being regulated. So what we did does not work?

This recent article in CNN has some fascinating research in it that is compelling regarding the affect of US regulatory control motivating an investment in overseas and unregulated manufacturing upwind of us, as the jetstream flows, in China. (There is a link to the study in the body of the CNN piece)

This is one of the first studies I have run across that illustrated pretty much what many have been wondering about. What happens when one moves the smokestack and in effect INCREASES the volume of pollutant within weather architecture. It illustrates very well, the connected nature of our global weather systems.


Citizen Reporter

Just today on http://www.drudgereport.com/:

COMING: Harsh Cold to Set Records in South, Freeze Northeast…

50% of Lower 48 covered in snow…

Most this early in more than decade…

4 ft Expected in Upstate NY…


Ice Visible on Lake Superior…

Idaho breaks cold record from 1880!

Michael Greer
Citizen Reporter

FYI, Mr. Merkord:













This one agrees with you:

In the meantime, global waming has reversed in the last 18 years and appears to be most closely related to solar activity, not the unproven AGW theory.

The “climate models” have been thoroughly discredited and “Climategate” revelations reveal incompetence and fraud in the AGW follies.

Ron Merkord

When an article begins with a blatant lie like “Although there is more ice at the poles than in decades”, how can you believe anything in the article? Arctic ice volume is declining every year, as it has for decades, and Antarctic land ice is also rapidly declining. The only ice that is increasing is Antarctic sea ice, and that is only because of the influx of fresh water from the melting land ice there (fresh water freezes at a higher temp). Perhaps the author should educate herself a bit before writing editorials.