Welcome
Jonathan Swift and Climate Change Mandates
Jonathan Swift must be spinning in his grave. His 1729 Modest Proposal called on Britain to "humanely" end policies that were starving Ireland -- by feeding the Irish their babies! He would view the August 10 editorial and the House-passed climate bill as worthy of a new Proposal.
CO2 reduction mandates and a Madoff-type Cap and Trade scheme are key provisions of the bill. Paul Driessen (Senior Policy Advisor to the Congress of Racial Equality and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow) cites Oak Ridge National Lab data showing that the mandates, if they worked, would cut CO2 to 1908 levels by 2020 and to 1868 levels by 2050. In 1868 the US population was 40 million and 90% agrarian; in 1908 it was 84 million and largely agrarian. Today it is 308 million and post-industrial. There was no electricity then, nor any efficient way to travel or transport goods. Life expectancy was 40 years in 1868 (without counting the 500,000 who died in the recent American Civil War) and 47 years in 1908, with high infant mortality and rampant disease.
William Happer, Member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Princeton faculty member, told a Senate hearing in February that humans had contributed to the 100 parts per million (ppm) rise in atmospheric CO2 in 100 years, from 280ppm to 380ppm. But, he pointed out, human exhalations are about 4% CO2 (40,000ppm) and we keep CO2 levels below 8,000ppm in the living spaces of our nuclear submarines.
Driessen and Happer apply common sense and analytic rigor to good data; they agree that the House mandates are hideously expensive, bad, ineffective policy that would hurt Americans and the US economy. Swift would propose a logical alternative -- that 80% of the world's population be killed to end the CO2 "threat."
Which 80%? Kill them how? And when? Swift would leave those details to the government, as he did in 1729.
CO2 reduction mandates and a Madoff-type Cap and Trade scheme are key provisions of the bill. Paul Driessen (Senior Policy Advisor to the Congress of Racial Equality and the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow) cites Oak Ridge National Lab data showing that the mandates, if they worked, would cut CO2 to 1908 levels by 2020 and to 1868 levels by 2050. In 1868 the US population was 40 million and 90% agrarian; in 1908 it was 84 million and largely agrarian. Today it is 308 million and post-industrial. There was no electricity then, nor any efficient way to travel or transport goods. Life expectancy was 40 years in 1868 (without counting the 500,000 who died in the recent American Civil War) and 47 years in 1908, with high infant mortality and rampant disease.
William Happer, Member of the National Academy of Sciences and a Princeton faculty member, told a Senate hearing in February that humans had contributed to the 100 parts per million (ppm) rise in atmospheric CO2 in 100 years, from 280ppm to 380ppm. But, he pointed out, human exhalations are about 4% CO2 (40,000ppm) and we keep CO2 levels below 8,000ppm in the living spaces of our nuclear submarines.
Driessen and Happer apply common sense and analytic rigor to good data; they agree that the House mandates are hideously expensive, bad, ineffective policy that would hurt Americans and the US economy. Swift would propose a logical alternative -- that 80% of the world's population be killed to end the CO2 "threat."
Which 80%? Kill them how? And when? Swift would leave those details to the government, as he did in 1729.
Labels: Letter to the editor of the New York Times
Read more!
