Deliberately Vague Proposals
By Steven J. Grisafi, PhD.
Over the years that Climate Change has weighed on the minds of the American People there have been many proposals made to address the problem. Underlying nearly all of the proposals has been the assumption that anthropogenic Climate Change results from an increased Greenhouse Effect caused by increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. As indicated in my previous blog posts, I readily accept the notion of anthropogenic Climate Change, but do not attribute it to carbon dioxide’s contribution to the Greenhouse Effect. As a consequence of this, I tend to view some people’s use of the term “Clean Energy” with concern when that term is not fully defined beforehand.
Building upon the assumption, that anthropogenic Climate Change results from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, several proposals have been made to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Knowing, as I do, that carbon dioxide has a negligible contribution to the Greenhouse Effect, and that Heterogeneous Nucleation is most likely the cause of our observed anthropogenic Climate Change, I see no logic behind such proposals for carbon capture and sequestration. However, there are some variants to the carbon capture proposal that may be worthwhile if they could be made economically feasible. Carbon dioxide is not a worthless commodity. If it can be used as a feedstock for polymerization reactions there may be some sense in removing it from exhaust streams. However, to remove it from the atmosphere for the sole purpose of storing it in the crust of the Earth is idiotic. It would be better to leave the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to encourage more luxuriant plant growth.
The elites have made their preferences known. Those for whom lifestyle changes and additional recycling or conservation requirements pose no hardship, eagerly make known their desire to live in a clean environment. The remainder of us also wish to live in a clean environment. The difference between our wish and that of the elites is that we desire government policies that actually address the environmental problems. There is no margin for error in the implementation of government policies to promote Clean Energy when our lively-hoods are at stake. Through selection of vague and misleading words, the elites support policies that do not address the problem they claim to want to correct. Instead, their choice of vague words is designed to allow government policies that they believe will provide them with further investment opportunities.
We, the commonwealth, must require of our political leaders that they define the terms with which they promote their policies. For example, what do they mean when they say “Clean Energy?” In one breath, they speak of Clean Energy, and in the next, they speak of carbon capture and sequestration. What is the logic behind removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it within the crust of the Earth? So long as we understand that we need to remove all particulate matter from exhaust streams, through the use of scrubbers, we ought allow superior economics to decide the success or failure of an industry. For example, we ought allow the preferable economics for the use of natural gas to replace existing coal-fired energy plants. Instead, we see the business elites, and politicians, seek to use the people’s money to promote alternative sources of energy that require government subsidy to sustain them. Politicians, and the business elites, see these alternatives as profitable investments for themselves and their cronies.
In essence, it is not Climate Change that motivates these people, but the economic concept of Creative Destruction. They wish to destroy old industries so as to create opportunity for new industries to flourish. The problem with this plan is that governments are never impartial and too often corrupt. Consequently, we the People, the ordinary Joes of the world, must demand that our governments implement the most efficient policies that actually solve the problem for which they are funded.