Guest article by Benjamin Sanders
This week the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) released a report detailing what it believes is the planet’s catastrophic slide into unsustainable temperature rises. The report was written by 91 scientists from 40 countries who used data from over 6000 scientific studies. They claim that average temperatures will rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2040, with the total damage over the next century totalling a whopping $54 trillion.
They also suggest that the most serious damage could be avoided by transforming the world economy in just a few years if the ‘right’ steps were taken, and they emphasise the use of renewable sources of energy in the future. One of the measures they suggest is a $27,000 per ton tax on carbon dioxide pollution by 2100. The Trump Administration has calculated that only a $7 a ton tax would actually be necessary by 2020 to cover the costs of damage done by carbon, so a rise to $27,000 per ton in 80 years seems over the top at best. Any realist can see that such a hike in taxation would cause severe economic fallout, especially if there were no viable and affordable alternative sources of energy available.
The report also goes into detail about nuclear energy, and makes some very obvious errors. It claims nuclear energy is dangerous for human health when it replaces fossil fuel use, despite multiple studies proving that it is actually safer overall than fossil fuels. This is because the chemicals released from fossil fuel power stations are toxic to humans, and 1.8 million lives have been saved with the introduction of nuclear power. Nuclear waste itself is of course toxic too, but it is stored instead of being released into the atmosphere out of chimneys, meaning the likelihood of it endangering human life is actually very small.
The IPCC repeatedly claims that nuclear power should be discouraged, and instead emphasis should be placed on renewables such as wind, solar and biofuel. The problem with this idea is that vast swathes of land are needed for such schemes – land which is needed for food production and natural habitats. Whereas only a small amount of land is needed for nuclear power stations, and only a small amount of nuclear material is needed to power them (uranium is 2,000,000 times more energy dense than coal).
So the IPCC is warning that climate change will cause food shortages, whilst at the same time demanding that large areas of farmland are used for solar and biofuel production to meet our energy requirements – a move which would itself cause food shortages.
Moving onto Arctic ice, the report alleges that a rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels would lead to a sea-ice free summer occurring once every 100 years, and every 10 years if temperatures rise by a further half a degree. This claim is rather hilarious, because back in 2007 scientists claimed that there would be no arctic ice during summer time by 2013, a date which has long since passed. So judging by that past mistake, I think we should view these latest warnings with scepticism.
Overall, as always, the mainstream media, instead of objectively reading this report, have instead taken its word as law and repeated its claims to their viewers and readers without any sort of inquiry. The man-made global warming narrative, although flawed and heavily damaged, is yet to be defeated