Vijay Jayaraj
As the presidential election approaches, it’s reasonable to ask why the United States continues to donate billions of dollars to “avoid” a fabricated climate crisis to countries that have no interest in playing the game other than receiving handouts.
The United States has been an important contributor to global climate initiatives, particularly through its participation in the Paris Agreement.
At the 15th United Nations Climate Conference in 2009, rich countries pledged to provide US$100 billion in annual climate finance by 2020 to help developing countries “cope” with climate change. This target is said to have been achieved for the first time in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
As the world's largest economy, the United States is expected to support a significant portion of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), ultimately committing $3 billion.
The GCF claims to be “the world's largest dedicated climate fund” with an investment portfolio worth $12 billion, or $45 billion if project co-financing is included. The GCF website says the fund “takes transformative climate action in 140 countries” to keep “global average temperature rise well below 2 degrees Celsius.”
To this, one might respond: Nonsense! Any “climate action” will not have a significant impact on temperatures, and the quoted 2 degrees will have little impact on the environment in any case. Climate policy “has negligible effects on temperature but has catastrophic consequences for people around the world,” concludes a recent paper by Ph.D. Richard Lindzen and William Happer from MIT and Princeton University respectively.
Furthermore, contrary to doomsday predictions, the planet is thriving in many ways. Over the past few decades, global poverty rates have fallen sharply and agricultural output has increased significantly, in part due to rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere2. Despite population growth and development along coastlines and other vulnerable areas, natural disasters (often cited as evidence of climate change) are killing fewer people than ever before.
Anger over taxpayer money being poured down a climate rat hole is fueled by the fact that recipients of Global Climate Fund grants include China and India, the world's two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, which are rapidly expanding their consumption of fossil fuels. At the same time, America’s foolish policy is to reduce the use of these cheap and abundant fuels, thereby harming household budgets, business profitability, grid reliability, and national security.
Therefore, instead of pouring billions of dollars into international climate projects, the United States should prioritize its own energy security. That means developing oil, coal and natural gas and strengthening partnerships with reliable allies like Canada.
The United States' abundant natural gas reserves are obtained through advanced extraction techniques such as hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, making the country one of the world's leading producers. This abundant energy source enhances national security by ensuring reliable and cost-effective energy supplies to other countries and reducing U.S. dependence on foreign resources.
The intermittent nature of wind and solar power (both Green Climate Fund darlings) requires backup power or large battery storage systems, which also come with environmental and economic costs. For example, the materials needed for batteries are often mined in areas with poor environmental records or using child labor.
By comparison, modern fossil fuel extraction in the United States and Canada is subject to some of the strictest environmental regulations in the world. Ironically, the United States' outsourcing of energy production to less regulated countries in the name of “going green” has caused greater environmental harm around the world.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent European energy crisis starkly illustrate the dangers of energy dependence. European countries find themselves in a precarious position due to underinvestment in fossil fuel infrastructure and reliance on Russian gas.
This example alone is enough for the United States to realign its priorities. Promotion of failed and mostly unpopular “green” policies should be replaced by aggressive development of fossil fuel resources and nuclear power, and strong energy partnerships with allies.
This review was first published on daily calls September 19, 2024.
Vijay Jayaraj is a scientific research assistant carbon monoxide2 allianceArlington, VA. he He holds a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University in the UK, a master's degree in environmental science from the University of East Anglia, and a bachelor's degree in engineering from Anna University in India.
Relevant
