Challenging Environmentalists

Below is a preview of the September 30th Portland luncheon topic to be addressed by Czech President Václav Klaus:

GREEN SHACKLES

Challenging environmentalists
by William Yeatman

Václav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, chaffed for many years under the thumb of Soviet totalitarianism. In his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles — What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom? he argues there is a new mantra menacing the West — that environmentalism has become a significant threat to human liberty and progress.

Environmentalism, Klaus warns, is “an anti-human ideology,” which “sees the fundamental cause of the world’s problems in the very expansion of homo sapiens.” For radical environmentalists, human prosperity is undesirable because it alters the Earth’s landscape from its natural state. So they try to limit and ultimately arrest the engine of progress — economic freedom — through the regulatory state.

The most dangerous manifestation of environmentalism, notes Klaus, is global warming alarmism. Global climate changes have occurred without human intervention. Volcanoes, comets and the sun have changed the climate drastically over the planet’s history. Only 11,000 years ago a sheet of ice miles thick covered much of Canada.

But this time humans could be the cause of a gradual warming by burning fossil fuels to generate energy, and that, apparently, is unacceptable. So, in order to control the globe’s thermostat, the solution proposed is to control global energy production.

Former vice-president Al Gore recently launched a multi-million-dollar campaign to promote a climate policy to have the United States government usher in a carbon-free electricity sector within ten years. Take a moment to imagine the scale of government intervention necessary to accomplish this.

Would the state have to seize all suppliers and providers of hydrocarbon electricity — coalmines, natural gas drills, pipelines, coal-fired power plants, gas turbines, and much more?

Gore says that government must ensure that no workers lose their jobs during the transition to a “greener” energy supply — a policy that would instantly turn millions of workers in the hydrocarbon sector into dependents of the state.

This socialization of the electricity sector would cost trillions in taxpayer money. Government would have to expropriate millions of hectares of land upon which to build enough solar panels, wind turbines, and transmission towers to get these new sources of power to the masses.

If the alarmists get their way, developing countries, too, would be forced to adopt expensive energy policies. Economists predict an 80 percent increase in global energy demand by 2050 will cause global greenhouse gas emissions to grow by 70 percent. Almost all the increase in energy demand and emissions will come from developing countries, where a quarter of the global population currently lacks access to electricity.

Forcing energy poverty upon the developing world is bad enough. But central planning of the energy sector faces another big problem: it doesn’t work. The alarmists simply aren’t knowledgeable enough to plan how best to produce and use energy. No one is. That’s why centralized, command-and-control climate policies are worse for human welfare than climate change could be.

In his book Cool It, Danish statistician Bjørn Lomborg applies a cost/benefit analysis to climate change mitigation measures like the Kyoto Protocol, and finds that they are a tragic waste of money. According to his research, we could spend a fraction of the cost of climate policies on immediate problems, like HIV or malaria, and save millions more lives than global warming could possibly take.

Dr. William Nordhaus of Yale University estimates that unabated global warming would cost the world $22 trillion this century. Nordhaus calculates that Al Gore’s package of measures would reduce those warming costs to $10 trillion, but at a cost of $34 trillion. That’s a crummy deal.

It’s time to start talking about real problems — and real solutions. Affordable energy is the lifeblood of prosperity. Environmentalists may deplore economic growth, but the rest of the world wants it desperately. If developing nations’ energy use is causing global warming, then we’re not going to stop rising temperatures.

But humans can adapt to a gradual warming. To do so, mankind must become resilient, and the best measure of resiliency is wealth. Wealth creation, in turn, is facilitated by economic freedom.

Global warming alarmists claim that their primary concern is the well-being of future generations. If that’s really the case, they should take up Klaus’s challenge, and embrace — not stifle — prosperity.

William Yeatman is an energy policy analyst at the
Competitive Enterprise Institute.


Meet Czech Republic President Václav Klaus
in Portland on September 30th.


Steve Buckstein is Senior Policy Analyst and founder of Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland-based think tank.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 03:28 | Posted in Measure 37 | 32 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Bob Clark

    Today’s environmental movement also seems more a money making racquet than the old Tom McCall environmentalism effort. You’ve got environmental organizations collecting money from the government for “research” theoritically supporting their environmental “cause.” The folks standing on the street corner pressuring passerbys to contribute to things like “save the Polar Bear” are being paid by environmental organizations, who also take in money from the government and other deep pocketed folks. Guilt really sells well in Oregon. It is popular to spurn big oil for being profit motivated but a lot of environmentalism today seems to be similarly oriented towards monetary reward.

    • David

      I thought this was a capitalist system and we are all free to use our talents, abilities, interests, and passions to promote a cause or even to make money while doing so — at least enough to live on. If that’s a positive thing for the environment, and creates jobs for the economy, what’s the problem? Or is it only acceptable to make money while extracting from (and in some cases ruining) the environment?

      • bill

        Hey, David.

        We are still waiting for you to show us a few real peer-reviewed papers proving that CO2 can cause dangerous warming. (IPPC is not a peer reviewed paper, it is a synthsis report.)

        JK

  • David

    > Would the state have to seize all suppliers and
    > providers of hydrocarbon electricity – coalmines, natural
    > gas drills, pipelines, coal-fired power plants, gas turbines,
    > and much more?

    And you have the temerity to accuse some environmentalists of extremism?

    Didn’t you forget to list that they will also insist that all first-born children be euthanized to avoid their exhaled carbon dioxide, and that it will be a capital offense to cut down a tree or mow your lawn?

    • Jay Bozievich

      David, How else would you get privately owned carbon based electrical generation that can produce reliable and steady power cheaper than solar and wind to shut down? Gore envisions no carbon based electrical generation. Tell me how this will come about? I guess you could tax the carbon based generators out of existence while massively subsidizing the less reliable alternate energy sources. I guess that is not technically a government takeover…

  • dean

    Steve….a few issues with William’s post.

    1: “Environmentalism” is not anti-human, and it is not an ideology, except for a very few. It is simply an effort to put some limits on the negative impacts of human endevours, primarily in order to save us humans from ourselves.

    2: Very few who think of ourselves as environmentally inclined are against human prosperity. This is simply a canard. Being against pollution is not being against prosperity, and in fact we know that prosperity often is necessary for conservation support to kick in.

    3: Natural climate change, which is slow, and human induced climate change, which is rapid, should not be confused. One is not preventable even if we wanted to prevent it. The other is, by definition preventable.

    4: It is not about “controlling global energy production.” it is about shifting incentives around so that non polluting forms of energy production can out compete polluting forms.

    5: Take a moment to imagine the scale of government intervention that will be necessary to deal with hundreds of millions of climate refugees, shifting crop patterns, massive loss of species, and other effects of NOT dealing with climate change in a timely manner. Picture rebuilding New Orleans times 10 or 100. That is big government.

    6: Gore said nothing about workers being employed by the state, and when he and Clinton ran the White House federal employee number dropped substantially. A very red herring here. His energy program, if implemented would simply shift what private sector workers would be producing, based on a shift in proivate investment, with only some government investment included.

    7: The answer is no. The government would not have to “seize” anything. Though the Bush administration did just “seize” Fannie Mae. Are they communists?

    8: The developing world is already poor. They have limited prospects for building oil based economies when we are using up all the oil and they cannot out bid us. But they are mostly in good places for alternative energies.

    9: If we shift to alternatives, the capital costs of those energy producing technologies will continue to come down, while fossil fuel costs continue to go up. If we succeed in bringing the price down, that will benefit the developing world.

    10: Bjorn Lomborg is not very credible on this topic. He is posing unecessary choices and leaving out a whole lot of impacts resulting FROM climate change.

    11: Mainstream environmentalists do not “deplore” economic growth. They….we…”deplore” the unaccounted for consequences of some economic growth.

    12: Yes humans can adapt. We can adapt to a change to a non-polluting, renewable energy economy, smaller cars that run on electricity, maybe living a little closer together, and so forth. We agree humans are adaptable.

    13: Yes…we already do embrace prosperity. We are trying to keep us prosperous and safe a the same time.

    • Steve Plunk

      Dean,

      While your list seems initially impressive it falls apart when exposed to the real world. Lomborg not credible? Bush seizing Fannie Mae? Statements like those rely undermine you.

      The problem with the environmental movement is there is no difference between “mainstream” and “radical”. The radical elements do the heavy lifting with tacit approval from the mainstream. Mainstream environmental groups can negotiate agreements knowing full well their radical brethren can ignore those agreements. No compromise in defense of mother earth!

      Mainstream environmental groups may act like grown ups but in reality believe the ends justify the means and are not trustworthy partners in societal decision making. Petulant children too used to stamping their feet and getting their way.

    • Chris McMullen

      Bush seized Fannie Mae? You kiddin?

      “This is not a step that the administration was anxious to take,” Perino said. “And in fact, it is exactly the kind of event we’ve warned about and tried to prevent over the years. Remember that we have highlighted the systemic risk posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because of the very large role they play in housing markets, and because of their business practices.

      As far back as 2002, Bush warned congress to get their s**t together regarding Fannie Mae.

      https://thehill.com/leading-the-news/white-house-blames-mortgage-bailout-on-congress-2008-09-08.html

  • Anonymous

    So dean will explain to us what environmentalism is?
    Oh gee. And guess what he comes up with?

    This gentle line of theoretical intentions. Forget the fanatic monster that it has actually become.
    “in order to save us humans from ourselves” of course.
    Obstructing logging even at a fraction of sustainable levels is saving us from ourselves? The examples of extremism and wildly excessive regulation and prohibition are many.

    2: Many of them simply ignore the impact on human prosperity allowing them to claim they are not against it.
    Everyone is against pollution. dean et al don’t care about needing prosperity. They need tax revenue for their extreme “conservation” support to kick in.

    3: Confused dean beats the human induced climate change drum yet again. While advising us not to be confused?

    4: It is about controlling global energy policies to spend billions “shifting incentives around” so they can claim they accomplished something when they haven’t.

    5: Take a moment to imagine the scale of dean imagination that spawns “hundreds of millions of climate refugees, shifting crop patterns, massive loss of species” from his confused “climate change”.

    6: Gore’s energy program, if implemented would not “simply” anything and would greatly increase government waste on policies that do absolutely nothing.

    7: The government would “seize” all energy production making it “universal” energy similar to their proposed universal health care. The result would be yet another massive government bureaucracy and program. Yes communism.

    8: The developing world is already poor. Why not make America join them and in doing so make the developing world even worse off. Yes communism.
    It could be called alternative.

    9: Needlessly attempting to force a shift to alternatives before it’s time will soar the cost of fossil fuels while driving the world into an energy crisis. .

    10: dean and company have no credibility on this topic. They are posing unnecessary choices and leaving out a whole lot of impacts resulting FROM their climate change hoax and attack on fossil fuels.

    11: Mainstream environmentalists do “deplore” any economic growth they don’t design, mandate and control without ever facing any accountability for the actual consequences of their failed plans.

    12: Yes humans are already adapting. That’s not good enough for the environmentalist deans. They demand to be placed in charge in order to dictate sweeping and needless changes they call simple and alternative. We have and are adapting to less polluting renewable energy that retains hydro and fossil fuel use.
    Extremist dean and company rule them out as they dictate that we all live closer together. He wants us to adapt as he orders.

    13: No deans don’t embrace prosperity. They are trying to coral us into their utopia that is neither prosperous or safe.

    With that I’ll say dean and company are the enemy of more reasonable people with legitimate interests and ideas.

    • Chris McMullen

      Don’t look now, but the only reason there is a market for solar panels is because of massive taxpayer subsidies:

      https://www.katu.com/news/28022954.html

      “Companies such as Portland’s Tanner Creek Energy face a module shortage and record-high prices as they rush to erect solar systems before the 30 percent federal tax credit for solar-system owners expires at year’s end. Solar advocates say such subsidies are crucial until new technology and mass manufacturing reduce costs.”

      I love how these enviros are making it more difficult for lower-income folks to afford basic necessities like energy.

  • Jerry

    All I can say is that I am worried. Very worried. If Barry H. becomes our next president we are in big trouble.

  • cc

    dean,

    1. Environmentalism IS an ideology and is accepted as such by far more than a few – the case is laid out well in the article. You have officially appointed yourself as one of them with your denial and rationalizing.

    2. There’s that “very few” again, and your authoritative statements with no basis whatsoever.

    3. dean, the amateur physicist, pronounces that the warming rates of AGW vs. natural warming are different. All hail this breakthrough!
    Nothing about AGW implies that “by definition” it’s “preventable”. It may be TOO LATE, it’s a RUNAWAY PROCESS!

    4. Don’t EVER use “incentives” and “compete” in the same sentence, they’re mutually exclusive. and… There are NO “…non polluting forms of energy production…” as even an amateur physicist should know.

    5. Picture the sky falling. No one believes for a minute your attitude toward government involves the word “less”.

    6. Gore didn’t NEED to say it, it’s understood. How about a citation for your “…dropped substantially…” nugget – or do we just accept your word (snort!)?

    7. Seizure is in the eye of the seized – not in your definition.

    8. “The developing world is already poor…” No sh*t, dean, have you ever wondered why?

    9. “If we shift to alternatives…” we”ll STILL need traditional sources to backstop the inherently intermittent nature of the alternatives. Somebody’s gotta pay, dean.

    10. Oh dean, accusing others of YOUR tactics, again? You are right, he leaves out a lot of the positive impacts of GW. Sell it somewhere else.

    11. “Mainstream environmentalists…” is an oxymoron.

    12. Humans are adaptable enough to adapt to the constant background chatter of the deans of this world and go on about their business. Tuning out the static is a very basic human ability.

    13. The only prosperity people of your ilk care about is that of those who agree with them in their hubris. Their safety concerns only apply to their own skins.

    11.

    • cc

      dean,

      I bow to your expert knowledge of rather pathetic, argumentative, and not very enlightening responses – I simply thought you wanted to continue in your usual mode.

      “As a former federal employee who took a small buyout in 1996 and left to start my own business, I know this history first hand.”

      I must admit, reading this, I applaud Gore’s results.

      • dean

        Fine with me. I applaud the results as well. Now for a trick question. What has happened to federal employment levels under your man Bush?

        • cc

          Look it up yourself.

          Be sure to factor in defense, which accounted for a substantial percentage of Clinton/Gore’s cuts. Not to mention the decrease in security for the US in the bargain.

          • Chris McMullen

            …also add Homeland Security…

  • Rupert in Springfield

    >3: Natural climate change, which is slow, and human induced climate change, which is rapid, should not be confused. One is not preventable even if we wanted to prevent it. The other is, by definition preventable.

    Oh good lord, can we please get over this pseudo science? I mean this is ridiculous. Couching a belief system in didactic tones neither makes it a science, or you an expert.

    This statement is so inane for obvious reasons of basic logic.

    If humans can effect the climate in a rapid manner, then obviously slow natural climate change can therefore be prevented by rapid counteraction by humans.

    Thus this assertion that natural climate change is somehow not preventable is hogwash.

    Look, either humans are capable of affecting the weather or not. Pick one.

    You need to straighten out your dogma.

    “Global Warming is not a political issue, its a moral one” – Al Gore

    “Keep your morals in your bedroom, not in my wallet” – Rupert in Springfield

  • Big K

    Steve, your preview of Klaus is stoking the fires. Stop stirring up trouble.

    • Steve Buckstein

      Big K, at least the fires being stoked here generate a rather low carbon footprint. I hope everyone following and contributing to this post can hear President Klaus for yourselves on Sept. 30th.

      • dean

        This is in response to Steve Plunk up above:

        Mike Oxley, the former REPUBLICAN chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, said in an inteview the other day that the House in 2005 passed the Federal Housing Finance Reform Act, aimed at creating a stronger regulator with new powers to increase capital at Fannie and Freddie, and to limit their portfolios and deal with the possibility of receivership.

        Oxley said Bush blocked this from being passed through his allies in the Senate, also controlled by REPUBLICANS at the time.

        Like I’ve said before, conservatives should start taking responsibility for their own messes. The housing meltdown and the federal takeover of Fannie and Freddie are a result of failed REPUBLICAN policies over the past nearly 8 years.

        Assuming you are right about Bush “warning” Congress in 2002….ask yourself….WHO CONTROLLED CONGRESS AT THAT TIME?

        On your charge that the environmental movement has no difference between mainstream and extreme elements, you are simply wrong. I was a board member of the Society for Ecological Restoration. While an organization of working professionals, I consider this part of the mainstream “environmental movement.” Our offices on the University of Washington Campus were nearly buned down by arsonists from some radical group opposed to genetic engineering of hybrid poplar trees, which we had nothing to do with but shared a building with some researchers who did. So no….mainstream and extreme do not work together, unless you want to apply the same standard to the anti abortion movment. Common goals do not mean common cause.

        Lomborg has zero credibility on global warming. He is an economist, and everything I have read by him twists facts and analysis to appear scholarly and objective while leading to conclusions he already holds. Not credible.

        Mainstream environmental groups sit at the table every day with industry and government to find common ground and form policies that improve the earth that supports us. Oregon has dozens of watershed councils that are working with very limited resources to clean up our streams and bring back salmon. Calling those who do this work petulant children simply demonstrates your own lack of understanding of what is actually happening Steve.

        • cc

          “Lomborg has zero credibility on global warming. He is an economist, and everything I have read by him twists facts and analysis to appear scholarly and objective while leading to conclusions he already holds. Not credible.”

          Thanks for the template, dean…

          Apostol has zero credibility on global warming. He is a landscape architect, and everything I have read by him twists facts and analysis to appear scholarly and objective while leading to conclusions he already holds. Not credible.

          Sauce for the goose, etc.

        • cc

          “Mainstream environmental groups sit at the table every day with industry and government to find common ground and form policies that improve the earth that supports us…”

          That’s simply your opinion, and despite your assuming yet another mantle of official spokesperson, by your own logic, you have zero credibility. Nothing in your supposed refutation addresses Plunk’s assertion:

          “The radical elements do the heavy lifting with tacit approval from the mainstream. Mainstream environmental groups can negotiate agreements knowing full well their radical brethren can ignore those agreements.”

          Look up “tacit” is you must, but Plunk’s observation is valid. Common goals do not necessarily mean common tactics, but common goals DO mean common cause. The appearance of reason can be used to attempt to mask the reality of radicalism.

          As you, of all people, should know, dean.

          • dean

            The difference between Lomborg and Dean is that the former passes himself off as an expert on global warming, while the latter does not. I merely tweak the ignorant for free. He helps keep them ignorant and makes good money doing so.

            No…not simply my opinion on how mainstream environmental groups work. I’ve been “in the business” so to speak for nearly 30 years. I’ve been at the table, sometimes representing environmental groups, other times representing timber companies or resource agencies. I’ve helped negotiate agreements among the opposing parties. And I’ve seen agreements that have worked and some that have not worked. But no…I don’t assume any official mantle from anyone. That is your interpretation.

            What you and Steve fail to understand, presumably because it does not fit your tidy black and white world view, is that one group signing an agreement has nothing to do with another group. The Sierra Club does not control what Earth First does. Just like Oregon Right to Life or the Catholic Church does not have control over some yahoo that might shoot an Obstetrician in Kansas. Mainstream environmental advocacy groups recognize they live in a political world, and for the most part they are pretty careful about building support for their positions. Torching SUVs or university research offices is always counter productive. It is feel good, juvenile behavior done out of sheer frustration with the pace of change, and does nothing to advance the eco ball down field Mainstream groups know this full well.

            You and Steve are asuming links which do not exist. Similar to equating a liberal with a socialist, just because they might agree on some issues and might vote the same way in some elections. It makes it easy for you to dismiss reasonable people with reasonable objectives by equating them with unreasonable people.

            You think I am masking my radicalism by trying to appear reasonable? Maybe so. Or maybe I am a reasonable person who happens to hold different views about the way the world works than you do. You can assume anything you want.

            What I always find interesting about your responses to my posts is that you never….ever….deal with a fact-based argument. You question a claim I made about federal employment under Clinton, then when I counter with easily verified facts you simply dismiss them, throw out another insult and go your merry way. That tells me you just don’t have any good arguments to make, and you keep proving this to be true.

  • Anonymous

    dean, if you ever have a fact-based argument, I’ll certainly notice. You toss out “facts” by the armful to see what sticks and that event is notable for its rarity.

    Your claim about federal employment turned out to be true – so what – it was off topic in the first place. Worthy only of dismissal. I think you’re fooling yourself, but few others. Typical, too, that you accuse Yeatman of employing a red herring while actually doing it yourself. Kind of like your Catholic church BS – another red herring from your personal hatchery. As with your “facts”, you throw out those sorts of accusations to attempt to distract. It’s not really working, dean.

    “No…not simply my opinion on how mainstream environmental groups work. I’ve been “in the business” so to speak for nearly 30 years. I’ve been at the table, sometimes representing environmental groups, other times representing timber companies or resource agencies.”

    Of course it’s my interpretation; based on self-aggrandizing resume’s like the one above. How else should your pontfications be interpreted – you DON’T speak for these groups? Most of your authoritative statements are issued “ex cathedra” and now you want run from the pulpit?

    If I thought you had a genuine bone in your body I’d have more respect for you. Maybe if you ran for mayor of a small town or something…

    …nahhhh.

  • cc

    “The difference between Lomborg and Dean is that the former passes himself off as an expert on global warming, while the latter does not.”

    From your own “lips” – you DON’T pass yourself off as an expert on global warming!

    Could’a’ fooled me.

    I’d like to take this opportunity to assume credit/blame for the 16:06 comment, too. “Blue screen of death” and all.

    Thank you for your support.

    • dean

      It was not off topic. Yeatman accused Gore of wanting to create millions of new government workers. Gore’s history suggests otherwise. But thanks for acknowledging my facts were correct anyway.

      I speak only for myself based on my own education, research and/or direct experiences. I have direct experience at the table in negotiations involving environmental organizations. Stating one’s acual bona fides is not “self aggrandizing” unless one is exaggerating or unless it has nothing to do with the topic. Is that so hard to understand and accept?

      I don’t care what you think about what sort of bones I have or don’t have. You don’t know me. You have created a caricature of me in your mind based on your political bias. That is your issue, not mine.

      (It so happens I did run for city council of a town larger in population than Wassila. I lost. End of my political career).

      You see….that you would confuse one who makes a cogent argument based on facts about something, i.e. global warming, with someone who “passes themselves off” as an expert illustrates my point. You seem to base your response to someone who contradicts what you believe on your resentment in being contradicted. You resent me for daring to contradict your beliefs, so rather than having the courage and conviction to offer counter arguments you decide that I lack a “genuine bone” or that I ‘pass myself off” or other nonsense that has nothing to do with me or my argument….it has to do with your own insecurity about your positions.

      People can disagree and be on good terms. I do this with my brother and my neighbors all the time. Its easy if one does not assume the worst about someone who disagrees with them. Try it sometime….if not with me then with someone else.

      • cc

        “You have created a caricature of me in your mind based on your political bias.”

        However much it reinforces your ego to believe that fantasy – believe this: you have caricaturized yourself without any help from me.

        Just ask.

        I don’t resent you all, dean – I find your tone, lack of honesty, disingenuousness and “Bidenian” verbosity distasteful and insipid. I simply express my distaste colorfully.

        I would have to care about you in the first place to resent you…

        …deal, dean.

  • Anonymous

    “Try it sometime….if not with me then with someone else.”

    Oh shut up with the kindergarten lesson, dean.

    There’s not any children here. We’ve all had disagreements and remained on good terms with people.

    What a typical liberal playing the completely obvious like no one ever got it long ago.
    People can make up their own minds with each debate whether the other person deserves good terms or not.

    In your case not so much as you DON”T make cogent arguments based on facts. You invent them or embellish what others have invented.
    Like, “hundreds of millions of climate refugees”.

    You need help, not good terms.

  • dean

    Delia….first, no one can impose a carbon tax on 3rd world nations unless they themselves do. Second, I don’t know who is even pushing a carbon tax here. A cap and trade will raise prices, but indirectly, not as a tax. Third, if we did have a carbon tax, which I think is a good idea, ther eis no reason the money collected can be rebated through reduction in the payroll tax.

    Anonymous person….hundreds of million of climate refugees is realistic. Start with bangladesh, which has 100 million people living within 2 or 3 feet of sea level. Add in Southern Louisiana, the Netherlands, most of Florida, and lots of phillipines and Indonesia. Our coastlines are quite heavily populated.

    cc…yes…you are very colorful. Enough said.

  • Anonymous

    dean,

    That’s it. Your stupid rhetoric is off the charts.

    Any rational scenario has sea levels possibly rising a few inches per century making the idea of 1000s of millions of climate refugees asinine.

    “Our coastlines are quite heavily populated”
    Another thoroughly obvious piece of info from dean the kindergaten teacher.

    How about those ocean dead zones dean?

    It seems nutrient rich cold Alaska water is flushing them away.

    Must be global warming fixing what global warming also caused.

    What say you Mr. Scientist?

    • dean

      Not a scientist. Just literate in the subject. As it turns out there are a lot of “rational” scenarios that have sea levels rising a lot more than a few inches per century. The upper end of the IPCC prediction was about 2 feet in 100 years.

      But a number of well respected scientists, including James Hansen of NASA, have since published peer review papers that predict that a rate of sea level rise of 3 feet per century. A 3 foot sea level rise would displace 145 million people, most of whom live in Asia, and many of those in Bangladesh, one of the poorest nations on earth. So I hereby amend my “hundreds of millions” to 145 million, limiting the time frame to the next 100 years. I’m sure these good people will find welcome arms here in the US, given our rather substantial role in causing their refugee status. How big is your back yard?

  • Anonymous

    Few inches, couple feet,,,, it’s over such along period of time, if at all, that there would not be refugees, but a slow migration and adaptation.
    But your foolish and dishonest vision is 100s of millions running from a human global warming tsunami.

    You just can’t help yourself.
    And you’ll go to your grave never witnessing any of the AGW predictions you tout. Despite your absurd claims that you are looking at some of them right now.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)