The Decarbonization Trap and Why It Must be Avoided If We Want Energy Security and Freedom

I put up this guest post by Roger Caiazza a couple of hours ago. He makes a great case that we can't afford green energy financially or with respect to reliability. He points out, too, the inherent dangers of such mitigation efforts as opposed to adaptation, just as Judith Curry does so well. Many people are coming to that conclusion, in fact, but we need to be careful. Mitigation is all about decarbonization and it’s easy to fall into the trap of conceding the need for the latter even as we point out the utter silliness of solar and wind.

Why do I say that? Because, decarbonization adopts the false narrative that CO2 is a pollutant, just as the EPA foolishly did several years ago. It is, first, merely an assumption and no one knows how much of climate change is natural and unalterable and how much is influenced by CO2 levels. Contrary to political correctness, there is no unanimity on that question. We have a Nobel Prize winning physicist by the name of John Clauser, for crying out loud, who refuses to go along.

There is, also, a growing number of scientists willing to step forward, not only with challenges to the media climate narrative, but also point out that CO2 levels are historically low, and we need a lot more of the stuff. Here's another physicist, Will Happer, of Princeton fame, who tells us we’re in a carbon drought, in fact:

Decarbonization is a nifty solution that pours trillions into the hands looking for a problem to solve with our money and delivers ever more power to those thirsting to dominate others. Every time we go along to get along with these people, we fall into their trap. Accepting their false narrative is a case of denying CO2 is the stuff of life. It is also to deny the climate is constantly changing on its own, with no need of help from homo sapiens.

Decarbonization, in other words, is largely based on a lie. Our reader, Rafe Champion, puts it all in perspective with these outstanding points and questions as a followup note to Roger's excellent post:

• What's the problem with warming?

• Warming since the Little Ice Age has been unequivocally beneficial and the same applies to the rise in CO2 in the air.

• How much is this warming at present anyway?

• There is no evidence to support claims about more frequent or damaging episodes of extreme weather.

• CO2 is very low by standards of geological history and indeed it is only just above the level required to maintain life on earth.

• Lets tell the truth and stop talking about "renewables". Wind and solar power are are "unreliables" and they are also only generated because they are subsidised and mandated.

• What does "decarbonization "mean?

• Trillions are being spent to get more expensive and less reliable energy which is wrecking family budgets and deindustrializing nations, with massive environmental damage at the same time.

I can’t possibly say it any better, except to add this:

#CO2 #CarbonDioxide #Pollutant #Decarbonization #Deindustrialization