Al Gore made a dire statement when the U.S. pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords in 2017: “I think it was indefensible. It undermines America’s standing in the world. It threatens the ability of humanity to solve the climate crisis in time.” Gore seems intent on his doomsday scenario of the world all but ending if climate change is not addressed “in time.” But, what is “in time?” Well, according to Gore in 2006, it was in 10 years. 2016 has come and gone, and there is still no imminent climate catastrophe. In fact, Gore is not the only environmentalist who has been using scare tactics in order to enact regulatory change that is detrimental to the world’s economy. It has been more than 25 years now that climate catastrophists have been saying that the end is nigh, yet here we still are. In 2008, Good Morning America even ran a piece showing images of Manhattan being swallowed up by the ocean in 2015. They also said that “milk would cost almost $13 per gallon.” Last time I checked, Manhattan was still there, and milk is still reasonably priced. The goalposts just keep getting moved by these activist environmentalists instead of acknowledging that things are not getting more dire.
To Gore’s point from 2017, though, the EPA has now announced that carbon emissions, the scourge of global warming according to the radical climate experts, have decreased in the U.S. by 2.7% during President Trump’s first year in office, despite the cuts to the EPA and America’s withdrawal from the Paris Accords. In fact, in the larger power plants, emissions were down 4.5%. To put this into perspective, U.S. emissions are now at their lowest levels since 1993. Additionally, the U.S. reduced carbon emissions more than any other country in the world in 2017. In fact, several other members of the Paris Climate Accords who had agreed to reduce their carbon emissions have actually increased them instead, including Canada, Spain, China, and the EU.
If technologies that reduce carbon emissions, such as natural gas, make sense financially, the market will do a better job of moving away from the inferior technologies than any government regulatory scheme will. Utilizing the threat of force, whether government or otherwise, is never a good solution to problems. Let the free market come up with solutions that make sense for everyone, and watch the magic happen. When radical leftists who have zero belief in the ability of people (whether represented by an individual, a corporation, or the free market itself) to understand what is best for all stakeholders and to implement those solutions, we end up with overreaching government that uses its might to impose destructive policies. When this happens, nobody wins, except those who are standing on the sidelines, heavily invested in the organizations that the government has insisted must be used to fix the problems. Don’t dig too deeply into this sort of setup, or you might find that it resembles socialism a bit too much for comfort.