During the debate, Mrs. Clinton returned to the same line we’ve been fed for eight years: there’s an economic boom waiting in the Green Economy. No, there isn’t. In Part 3 of this 6 part series, Bill takes apart Hillary’s energy plans and examines the consequences to the planet.
Have we all forgotten Solyndra and the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility? What Hillary is proposing has been tried by Obama and has failed. Co2 is not a hazardous substance. It is pat of nature and absolutely essential to plant life.
Actor and climate activist Leonardo DiCaprio proposed Monday that individuals who do not believe in climate change ought to be banned from running for political office in the U.S.
“The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over,” DiCaprio said at South by South Lawn, a White House event intended to replicate Austin, Texas’s famous art, music and ideas festival South by Southwest.
“If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office.”
The Academy Award-winning actor made the comments during a discussion that included President Obama, who later celebrated his administration’s focus on combating global warming and reducing carbon emissions. The statement was a subtle jab at Republican nominee Donald Trump, who has not focused on environmental issues as much as progressive Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders.
The problem with such passion is that too few—including actors and politicians—consider the consequences of climate policies, said Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
“I like Leonardo DiCaprio as an actor. He seems like a great guy to have a beer with, but there is much he is not hearing from his conversations with Obama,” Lewis told The Daily Signal. “He thinks only climate change is a threat, but isn’t thinking about the threat of climate policy. To say we are going to bear any burden, pay any price, he doesn’t realize the cure can be worse than the disease.”
Lewis said poverty, not climate change, is the largest cause of preventable illnesses and premature death. And, he said, fossil fuels have provided more energy and more food by making agriculture more efficient.
About 1.3 billion people in the world have no electricity, Lewis said, so energy should be made more plentiful and available.
“Obama and Leo don’t realize the potential for a humanitarian disaster” under strict carbon restrictions, Lewis said.
The Obama administration’s entry into the Paris climate agreement clearly violated what the Constitution considers a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate, he said:
The Obama administration has called this the most ambitious agreement in history and it is. Other countries are talking about ratification. Obama does not want to use the R-word, ratification, because it would mean it’s the T-word, treaty.
In April, the United States signed on to the Paris agreement, which requires the the U.S. to cut greenhouse gas emissions to 2005 levels by 2025, which would be a reduction of 26 percent to 28 percent.
The same standards aren’t required of all 170 countries in the agreement. He also noted India’srecent action on the agreement.
“Now, not every country is doing the exact same thing because not every country produces the same amount of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases per capita. … The good news about the Paris agreement is that it committed everybody to do something,” Obama said during the panel discussion, adding:
I anticipate that this agreement will actually go into force in the next few weeks. India, just this past week, signed on and we are going to get a few more nations signing on. So, officially, this agreement will be in force much faster than I think many of us anticipated.
India will not be making the same sacrifices in limiting carbon dioxide emissions under the Paris agreement as the United States, said Nicolas Loris, a research fellow on energy and the environment at The Heritage Foundation.
“India’s end of the commitment won’t force it to cut economic growth,” Loris told The Daily Signal. “They are cutting carbon intensity rather than CO2 emissions. It would be a ratio of carbon to the GDP [gross domestic product]. It will be business as usual without restrictions on coal-fired power plants in India.”
China likewise is not making the same sacrifices as the United States, he said.
“Obama will hail this agreement as a huge success,” Loris said. “I wouldn’t call it an economic or an environmental success. It will increase energy costs disproportionately on the poor.”
How much man’s activity contributes to global warming has been a contentious issue during Obama’s two terms. While the administration and many scientists call for sweeping government action to limit what they view as catastrophic climate change, other scientists and business leaders contend that humans’ role and its results aren’t certain.
Anthony Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail,” contends the Paris agreement could be used by other nations to gain a political and financial advantage over the United States.
“India and China would love to see the U.S. drawn up into climate policy because it would take their attention away from the imbalance in trade,” Sadar told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
“They like to hype this issue up with celebrities like DiCaprio, and what does he know?” Sadar said. “Science is a discipline. Politicians and actors are pushing a scientific issue, something they really don’t have knowledge of.”
There is no such thing as a scientific consensus in the scientific method.