Christine Walker
We are constantly told that climate change is becoming more severe and that natural disasters are becoming more frequent and severe. Neither is true.
Tropical hurricanes have struck the Southeast over centuries, with varying degrees of severity. Category 4 and 5 storms are considered the most severe, and this is nothing new. A lot happened before the world's so-called addiction to fossil fuels. The Labor Day Storm hit the Florida coast in 1935 and is considered one of the most powerful and destructive hurricanes in Florida. One question. This is something it will continue to deal with.
Records from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) do not show a strong correlation between hurricane intensity and carbon dioxide levels. Long before global warming became a concern, there were quite a few tropical storms hitting various parts of the United States.
NOAA also has no indication that tornadoes are becoming more powerful. Considered one of the most powerful tornadoes, the 1925 Tri-State tornado traveled 219 miles across three states in just 3.5 hours.
When Maui wildfires raged last year, many were quick to blame climate change, and countless climatologists warned against making the connection. Experts have warned for years that overgrowing brush and ignoring recommended mitigation measures could lead to deadly blazes.
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has found no strong relationship between climate change and extreme weather events.
Yet panic rhetoric is driving energy policy, based on the belief that enacting legislation and overhauling the way we develop and use energy will go some way to changing global temperatures. These draconian measures impact consumer welfare through energy shortages and price increases, leading to an increasing number of households experiencing energy poverty. It drives inflation and increases the federal deficit. To add insult to injury, these actions have very little, if any, impact on the climate.
Some researchers even assert that a few degrees of warming would benefit plant life and agriculture, with longer growing seasons. Renowned Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg often shares the fact that rising temperatures save lives because cold weather is more deadly.
Regardless, the United States has made tremendous progress over the past few decades in reducing its carbon footprint and controlling greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other pollutants. Much of the progress achieved is due to operational improvements and innovation within the industry.
Despite record production levels, oil and gas companies continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by upgrading and modernizing infrastructure. Since 2005, increased use of natural gas has displaced large amounts of coal, reducing emissions from the power industry by nearly half; in the United States, increasing its use is actually greater than that of solar and wind combined.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pointed out that between 1970 and 2023, GDP grew by 321%, vehicle miles traveled increased by 194%, energy consumption increased by 42%, and the U.S. population increased by 63%. During the same period, the total emissions of six major air pollutants dropped by 78%.
vitality yes Responsibly produced in the USA. Cuts here would only spur production in other countries such as China and India, which do not have as stringent environmental standards as the Western world. Both developing countries have reached record levels of coal production and are the largest contributors to global emissions. It makes no sense to limit oil, gas and coal production on our land only to have them become greater sources of pollution. These moves will not change global energy demand; they will simply redirect where resources come from.
Allowing markets to work and individuals to innovate promotes abundant and rational energy production. The United States already has strict environmental requirements, and the industry has shown it can succeed within reason.
Alarmists would do well to stop spreading catastrophic and apocalyptic fears. Energy is the lifeblood of our economy. It should be pragmatism and common sense that drives energy policy, not climate hysteria.
Energy demands are rising; practical solutions are critical to meeting these demands. Rather than adopting a one-size-fits-all mentality, we must adopt energy that is best for the environment and not limit access to reliable and affordable energy. Consumers demand energy that is efficient, abundant and affordable and allows them to perform their daily functions. Anything less is unacceptable. Their well-being and the health of the economy should not be sacrificed because of the climate agenda.
Kristen Walker is a policy analyst at the American Consumer Research Institute, a nonprofit education and research organization. For more information about the institute, please visit www.theamericanconsumer.org Or follow us on Twitter @ConsumerPal.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and provided via RealClearWire.
Relevant
