TARP, Pokulus, and the GM bailout are just the warmup acts

As the EPA gears up to write regulations on manmade greenhouse gas
production, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said yesterday, "If EPA is
going to talk and speak in this game, the first thing it should speak
about is whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger
human health and welfare. It is a very fundamental question."

OK let’s do. Human activity accounts for about 5% of annual global CO2
production. The United States accounts for about 20% of the human
contribution, or about 1% of the annual global total. The annual
global total causes the atmospheric CO2 concentration to increase at a
rate of about 2 parts per million (ppm) per year. The United States
therefore contributes about .01 ppm per year. (The great bugaboo of
the entire Warmist movement is the estimate that atmospheric CO2 has
risen about 100 ppm since the advent of the Industrial Revolution
about 150 years ago (i.e., from 280 to 380).)

In exchange for the United State’s .01 ppm per annual contribution to
annual global CO2 production, we get a life expectancy of 78 years,
compared to 45-50 in the Third World. We get infant mortality of 6.3
per 1,000 live births, compared to about 100 in the Third World. We
get “under-five” mortality of 7.7 deaths per 1,000 live births,
compared to about 200 in the Third World. Also, the technology that
American CO2 production has created has bestowed incalculable similar
benefits world-wide, including in the Third World.

So let’s cancel 100% of our annual contribution. Let’s shut down
modern technology completely. What would be the effect of that choice
on the “very fundamental question” of “human health and welfare?
Well, “the science is settled” that slowing the annual increase in CO2
concentration by .01 ppm would have no effect whatsoever on the global
temperature. On the other hand, if we duplicate the experience of the
Third World, a 100% shutdown will cut our life expectancy by 40%,
increase infant mortality by 1,600%, and increase deaths of children
under age five by 2,500%. That sounds pretty much like endangering
human health and welfare.

Is a proposal to reduce American CO2 by 100% a straw man? Of course
it is. But what level of reduction promises any health benefits at
all? The only health benefit the Warmists can point to is to slow the
rate of global warming. But if a 100% reduction in the American
contribution will have no effect at all on the rate of global warming,
and if any reduction causes even miniscule level of damage to “human
health and welfare,” it follows that any reduction is a net negative.

180 Out
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Walkers damage the planet
    ... It's the reason it's not a reason. ... The comparison is between the CO2 emissions for a car, ... production cost is due to energy and therefore fossil fuel usage and CO2 ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: for moonbats who still believe the end of filthy fossil fuels is the end of life....
    ... internal production of lipids, or fats and then squeezes that from ... But surely if the algae is taking CO2 out of the atmosphere ... energy infrastructure ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: Walkers damage the planet
    ... based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. ... CO2 to the atmosphere,? ... resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: Walkers damage the planet
    ... drive than walk in terms of CO2 emissions. ... based on the greenhouse gases created by intensive beef production. ... resulting in 3.6kg of emissions, or four times as much as driving. ...
    (uk.rec.walking)
  • Re: The end is in sight
    ... What's truly hilarious that one of the lowest national debts is held by Russia! ... Socialism? ... of production supports its own weight, ... Now check which countries are those where the leaders use the health systems that they provide to the masses. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)