On Global Warming

Anthropogenic Global Warming is threatening to become the breakout religion of the 21st Century. By re-codifying the definition of hysteria (see also conversion disorder) as Post Normal Science, the high priests of the Church of Ecology are not only waging a war for the hearts and minds of advertising-addled, blurb-fed, spin-meistered, atheistic consumers void of the third leg of humanity (reason, empathy and faith), but for their pocketbooks as well.

Consider this: Instead of fear-mongering for AGW with a hand-wringing search for a savior leading to the old camel’s nose under the tent of global taxation managed by corrupt U.N. bureaucrats, why not state the problem to encourage a free-market solution? Instead of saying, “What shall we do? Somebody help us!,” say, “We need a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint.”

Simple, isn’t it? Which one do you think is more likely to generate a solution? Would you rather let the former lead to someone telling you to run hither and yon in the work camp, or the latter where you can control your own destiny? Here’s the problem: the 'environmentalists' won’t support the latter.

The 'environmentalists' won’t support “a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint,” for many reasons:

1. It takes control of the solution out of their hands, and hence their ability to levy taxes.
2. More power for less cost will produce affluence, leisure and quite likely, more children. That means more people straining their perception of the limits of a global Gaia.
3. Phrasing the problem in this way leads to a dead-end answer in their minds: Nuclear power.

That’s the bottom line. Ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint can only mean more nuclear power. So ultimately, their FEAR of nuclear contamination is stronger than their belief in AGW. The problem with that is in a consequential reality Global Warming can be measured and dealt with scientifically, while the only place fear can be dealt with in their minds.

In order to solve an urgency created through hysterical fear-mongering (AGW), you have to discard a valid solution previously dismissed by hysterical fear mongering (nuclear contamination). The old adage of, “we have nothing to fear, but fear itself” has never been more true.

Any time someone talks to me about AGW:

1. I immediately agree that we need “a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint.”
2. I ask them if they would support that as well.
3. When they answer, point out that solution already exists and demand to know if they would support the solution if it meant more nuclear power plants.
4. Restate their original position, yes or no, do they believe that Anthropogenic Global Warning will “wipe out humanity.”
5. Point out that in their minds, their FEAR of nuclear contamination is stronger than their belief in Global Warming and therefore either they do not believe the consequences of Global Warming are as bad as they think, or else they have to give up their fear of nuclear power. Which is it going to be fear of the unknown or fear of the known? This is the Sophie’s Choice that needs to be made.
6. If a solution that provides ten times the power at one-tenth of the cost with no carbon footprint were developed, you could use 99% of the solution to recapture carbon and still be even.
7. 99% of the costs associated with producing nuclear power are regulatory which can be wiped out with a stroke of the pen.
8. If AGW is going to wipe out humanity, why wouldn’t they accept a solution that would only wipe out half of humanity? If you could save half of humanity and completely anthropogenic carbon from the atmosphere, why wouldn’t you do that? In reality, if you removed regulatory restraints, and let them come back as PROVEN necessary, then you are still waaay ahead of the game.
9. Had we gone on building nuclear plants at the rate we were building them in the 1960s, we’d be in a lot better shape with regard to air quality, greenhouse emissions, and energy independence. Environmental concerns stopped that, but now environmentalists are beginning to look more favorably on greenhouse-friendly nuclear power.

Suddenly AGW isn’t the bogey man it is being puffed up to be, just as nuclear power isn’t the demon we were led to think it was.