So John Kerry wants to neutralize CO2? Well, I have an idea on how, and the when is now.
This might be a stretch to some of you, but let’s assume Senator Kerry really believes CO2 has to be eliminated to save the world. LET’S TAKE HIM AT HIS WORD. LET’S ASSUME TOTAL HONESTY. And let’s also assume that the people pushing this have run enough rings around people resisting it in the halls of power, that a lot of people now fear CO2.
So I am addressing public servant, well-intentioned John Kerry and those who believe as he claims he does. (Keep in mind my brother has said my biggest problem is I believe the best about everyone.)
I offered an eco-friendly idea in my book, The Weaponization of Weather in the Phony Climate War. Being an old Greenie from the 1970s myself, and still believing myself an environmentalist, I offered a three-pronged solution.
- Plant more trees.
- Nuclear power.
- Carbon capture (zero CO2 emissions).
If you think CO2 is the problem, then why don’t we deal with it in a way that is not the economic equal of charging head first into a machine gun nest as an example for the rest of the world? That is not brave; it is national economic suicide.
Like it or not, there is a fear of CO2 out there. So — let’s get rid of the fear. Whether you or I believe it to be overblown and agenda-driven, IF YOU GET RID OF IT, WE CAN EXPOSE THE REAL MOTIVES. And if the real motive is as they claim it is, then these ideas will resonate! If it is not, then even the most ardent leftist will have to confront it. And people in the middle will see through it and expose it for a what a lot of us think it is: an agenda-driven plan meant to destroy the foundations of what has made this nation great. So it’s a win win. Get rid of the fear, or expose what many believe is a phony war.
I have even another reason to get rid of it: It is getting in the way of the weather. We are spending a ton of money on this whole “CO2 climate change problem,” when I see visible evidence every day of other items in the weather that need research and advancement. You wonder why computer modeling missed major cold three of the last four months? Don’t get me started.
Let me deal with my second point first. There has been much support among scientists across the political spectrum on this. The US has a China Syndrome hangover of nuclear power. That was the movie in 1979 starring, who else, Jane Fonda, that put fear of nuclear power into many people in the U.S. In what is one of the craziest coincidences I can remember, the Three Mile Island accident occurred the same month The China Syndrome came out. Ironically, Jane Fonda played a reporter who refused to accept what she was being told — a far cry from what we see today from many in the media. Anyway, the fear from that has never left some, as if 40 years of advancement has no validity. We can and will develop ways to get rid of it, one of which may involve NASA building transports to simply send the waste to wherever they want. It would give them an enhanced mission and also, who knows what other discoveries will show up as a by-product of the main goal.
Can’t be done? Read The Half Life of Facts to see how fast knowledge is increasing. But then again, the Apostle Paul said those who think they know what they know, don’t yet know what they ought to know. With knowledge expanding, who knows what will become a known soon that is not known now?
But let me get back to my first point. It is not actually just about tree planting; in fact, that is a metaphor for Green, Green, and more Green. Green is good. The planet is greener than it has ever been in the satellite era. How is that bad? We are growing more food than ever globally. I am talking more plants and food here and a way of taking CO2 out of the air. Who could possibly be against that? Lo and behold who is one of the people taking the lead on this? He is right here in my back yard, Congressman Glenn “GT” Thompson. But briefly look at what GT, et al., have been up to.
What is bizarre to me is what I see going on. Whole fields that could have been planted with food crops or trees covered in solar panels. I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. The solar panel industry would boom if we outfitted the tops of buildings with them. They will never be the source of constant energy, but on days you can use them you reduce the need for fossil fuels. But covering whole fields with them? How is that eco-friendly? And is the energy used worth the cost of the CO2 you would have cleaned out with a Green replacement? Any studies on that?
Now, fossil fuel advocates may be saying, “So, Joe, you are advocating for less fossil fuel use?” Actually — I am not. Say alternative energy can reach 30% of our energy sources. If you have a booming economy because you did not destroy it with a redistribution of wealth scheme that crashes the economy and renders people with less freedom, the economy goes the other way. There is more demand for energy in a pro-growth environment. People prosper. They get happier. They get more generous. They don’t feel like they are trapped. And the individual, business, or home owner is empowered. If you directed tax breaks to solar paneling and individual house wind devices, you would likely be able to save a lot of money and fossil fuel use in the long run, which would free it up for other things. And the more money made the more tax revenue for the government so you can argue over all those pet projects. Demand for alternative energy products would rise also, and not because it is a forced issue. But the fact, is wind and solar are a use-it-or-lose-it proposition at this time. And guess what — agriculture and greening are ways to reduce CO2. So why plaster a field with solar panels or chop down forests for wind turbines? Work with nature, not against it.
Again this is a “CO2 no-fault” solution. Put down the CO2 climate swords and say, “Okay, enough people are concerned about this, what can we do?”
But here is something that is very intriguing. Let me again say, you don’t have to agree that CO2 does anything. I think it’s part of the climate equation — a small part — and I argue over attribution. But that should be a discussion over a couple of glasses of wine, not the fate of the planet — so I am out to de-weaponize this battlefield. So the my last point is carbon capture, or emissions-free energy.
Solar and wind and nuclear do actually use CO2, by the way. Those turbines, panels, and power plants don’t magically get built. (Neither did Greta’s yacht.) As for electric cars, just how are you going to charge them up relying on the fickleness of the weather? (Ultimate irony: Wind and solar are great for what I do in my business. Hence I am not anti-wind or solar, but I am pro-solution.)
So get a load of this!!! This is not the entire PowerPoint, just the front page. Notice the price tag — hardly 10 trillion dollars. Here is the press release:
There is already a lot of Canadian interest on board. THAT’S CANADA. They are putting their money where their mouth is. But again for that kind of money, if there are people developing zero-emission technology, why aren’t we jumping on board?Well, government is a safety net. There have been times when American mobilization in the face of a crisis has led to amazing responses. We saw it World War II. We see it now with COVID-19. So for John Kerry (et al.), if this is the crisis you say it is, why not give these things a shot? THAT’S AN ACTUAL GREEN NEW DEAL.
So I’m your Huckleberry. I am the one that will be trashed from both sides for this. But guess what, if IT IS THE REASON JOHN KERRY (ET AL.) SAY IT IS, THEY WILL LOOK AT THIS FIRST. You will make America lead. Heck, even France is ahead of us in nuclear energy! Canada it taking the lead on carbon capture. The planet is greener than ever. You know another thing MAGA can stand for: Make America Green Again — AND I AM NOT TALKING GREEN NEW DEALS that will destroy the foundations that made us great, but a rational approach to the CO2 fear, rational or not.
So I am going to take John Kerry at his word. This carbon capture deserves to be looked at. What these people are up to looks like it will take CO2 off the battlefield and save millions of jobs. America has always been the leader in agriculture; why not use that aspect? And nuclear power speaks for itself.
You want to be an example for the world? Well, I don’t think all pain and no gain is so romantic or heroic when there is a better idea. Why not try this? It is what freedom is all about.