This was a great video, and I loved how overall climate change throughout the history of Earth was covered. The problem right now with this topic is that it has become tribal and political. Furthermore, when considering the actions to take to mitigate greenhouse emissions, those who are most vocal about climate change issues typically completely neglect to consider the effects different approaches have on the economy. Too many people think “The Economy” is just rich Wall Street executives when instead, it is really about the systems of exchange/trade people have amongst themselves to secure necessities, such as food and shelter, and luxuries such as movie tickets and vacations. We also have many politicians and leaders who push for things like an increase to the cost of gas across the board because they have the money to easily afford quadrupling the cost of living while those of us in more average positions end up getting squeezed tighter and tighter to be able to even make basic ends meet. The politicians and leaders in charge can continue to live their lifestyle while we are just the commoners and our lifestyle can be degraded.

My point is not that we should do nothing about our greenhouse emissions, but that we should come up with approaches that, as much as possible, allow us to continue living the lives we enjoy while making meaningful impacts to how we’re caring for the planet. There are a couple of things I think can be done reasonably well in the near future.

Probably the first and easiest to implement almost immediately is to make remote work the norm. I know that now every job can be remote — many of them can’t be, but so many office jobs really don’t need people in the office — at least not every day. We’ve seen since the Pandemic that remote work is not only possible but favorable for businesses and employees. I think if the government offers more tax breaks to businesses that are remote, then we can reduce how many people are on the road (and will help reduce rush hour where greenhouse emissions are the worst). Pushing for more remote work is already been a trend, but I think we also need to very seriously acknowledge that it is a great step to help reduce our greenhouse emissions.

The other step that I think is something we can do in the near future is to fully embrace nuclear energy. I’m not sure why so many governments that claim to be concerned about climate change are shutting them down, but these don’t have greenhouse emissions and are a cost effective way to produce energy. I really only think governments and politicians who are paving the way to ensure nuclear energy can thrive are serious about climate change. I think others are just posturing to further their individual positions or to distract from other policies they’re pushing that makes increases our CO2 output rather than decreasing it.

Wind and solar are good options only for specific areas. For example, solar panels in the Seattle area are going to really struggle to be effective since it’s almost always overcast there. Whereas solar panels in Las Vegas are great because it is a desert with almost no cloudy days and a ton of sun. The government typically needs to subsidize wind and solar, so it results in a net loss. An argument for using tax money to subsidize these can definitely be made, but our tax budget isn’t limitless, and we should really consider where we should pull that money from.

Other things are sold as environmentally-friendly when they actually have no effect or make things worse. In short, companies and politicians that make claims that they are reducing greenhouse emissions need to actually be able to verify their work and be held accountable if they can’t sufficiently prove that what they’re selling/pushing for actually helps reduce greenhouse emissions beyond a given margin of error. In short, we all need to get out of our tribal areas about how we handle our greenhouse emissions and come up with solutions that work for common people.



In 2001, Danish political scientist Bjorn Lomborg burst onto the international scene with his bestselling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist. The onetime member of Greenpeace said that climate change is real and that human activity is clearly contributing to it, but he said the best science didn’t support the apocalyptic visions put forth by people like Earth in the Balance author and former Vice President Al Gore. Lomborg went on to create the Copenhagen Consensus, a think tank that applies cost-benefit analysis to problems facing the global poor and works with Nobel laureates, policymakers, philanthropists, and researchers to develop pragmatic, relatively low-cost solutions to issues such as tuberculosis, malaria, lack of education, and access to food.  His new book is called Best Things First and it presents what Lomborg says are “the 12 most efficient solutions for the world’s poorest people.” He argues that for about $35 billion a year—a little more than half of what the US spends annually on humanitarian aid—these policies would save 4.2 million lives and generate an extra $1.1 trillion in value every year. Nick Gillespie caught up with Lomborg in New York City during the latest meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. We talked about Best Things First, his view of the current environmentalist movement, and why politicians and the media continue to fixate on the possibility of future climate apocalypse rather than helping the global poor in the here and now.

COMMENT: (by @karlwheatley1244 on YouTube)

I have posted thousands of replies–often very long replies–to debunk people’s misconceptions about the ecological and societal crises we face. The bottom line is that Lomborg’s arguments and projections for the future are totally disconnected from the biophysical realities of the world we live in. There will be no 13-fold increase in the size of GDP because we are currently overshooting Earth’s sustainable carrying capacity by ~70% per year, and this is why wildlife populations are shrinking and the health of the ecosystems that support all life in Earth are breaking down. Quite simply, modern civilization doesn’t fit Earth’s limits, ignores the long-term needs of most living things, and is totally out of whack with the laws of nature, and thus, our economies and lifestyles are triggering worsening ecological and societal breakdown. To avoid worsening ecological and societal unraveling, one of the things we must do is shrink the global economy by about 50%, and shrink the footprints of people in wealthy nations by 60-99+%. Otherwise, millions of species will go extinct and hundreds of millions of people–but more likely billions of people–will suffer and die prematurely.
Our carbon emissions are 60% of our collective ecological footprint and they are causing hundreds of harmful ripple effects for people and the planet, so unless we rapidly decarbonize the economy, things will just keep getting worse, and they will get worse at accelerating rate (as is the case with ice melt, sea level rise, and societal unraveling in places like America).


COMMENT [RETORT]: (by @beaufordepusser on YouTube)

@karlwheatley1244 Your smug arrogance in claiming that you have “posted thousands of replies–often very long replies–to debunk people’s misconceptions about the ecological and societal crises we face” is utterly risible… who are you to deem yourself an authority to “debunk” anything? You regurgitate clichéd (and fallacious) talking points found in every mediocre Climate Cult booklet and think your brain-dead indoctrination and your complete mental assimilation into these far-Left shibboleths represent wisdom. Your entire argument is filled with pseudo-facts that have long ago been opposed and “debunked” by numerous and legitimate branches of the scientific community (that is, the part of the community that has not been ideologically and financially co-opted by the parasitic and entrenched government agencies in Europe and the West).

To use one example, on the same day that Greta Thunberg made an impassioned speech to the United Nations about her fears of a climate emergency, a group of 500 prominent scientists and professionals, led by the CLINTEL co-founder Guus Berkhout, sent a registered letter to the United Nations Secretary-General stating that there is no climate emergency and climate policies should be designed to benefit the lives of people. Here is the opening of the letter:

A global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields have the honor to address to Your Excellencies the attached European Climate Declaration, for which the signatories to this letter are the national ambassadors. The general-circulation models of climate on which international policy is at present founded are unfit for their purpose.

Therefore, it is cruel as well as imprudent to advocate the squandering of trillions of dollars on the basis of results from such immature models. Current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy. We urge you to follow a climate policy based on sound science, realistic economics and genuine concern for those harmed by costly but unnecessary attempts at mitigation.

Here are the specific points about climate change highlighted in the letter:

1. Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming.
2. Warming is far slower than predicted.
3. Climate policy relies on inadequate models.
4. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a plant food that is essential to all life on Earth. Photosynthesis is a blessing. More CO2 is beneficial for nature, greening the Earth: additional CO2 in the air has promoted growth in global plant biomass. It is also good for agriculture, increasing the yields of crops worldwide.
5. Global warming has not increased natural disasters.
6. Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities.
7. There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic.

What about that “consensus” and “settled science” about climate change we always hear about, you may ask? How can there be a consensus when there’s a global network of more than 500 knowledgeable and experienced scientists and professionals in climate and related fields who challenge the “settled science”? (actually, there are many more… I just referenced one single example).

Actually, challenging the consensus among the scientific community is nothing new, but the voices of those challenging the consensus are always drowned out by the tsunami of climate hysteria from climate alarmists and indoctrinated Climate Cult sycophants like yourself. In another example, in 2012 a group of more than 125 scientists sent an open letter to the United Nations warning that scientific evidence refuted UN Secretary-General’s Ban Ki-Moon repeated assertions on weather and climate. Those warnings of climate hysteria unsupported by scientific evidence were ignored in 2012, just like the letter from the 500 prominent scientists and professionals that I have just quoted here was ignored in 2019.

These are but 2 examples of the pushback by real scientists to your bogus “science”, and the refusal to apply a true scientific method to the question of “climate change” (in itself a totally vapid terminology) by people of your ilk and ideology… and I am of the opinion that the hysteria and catastrophic social, economic, and environmental damage being caused by climate alarmists like yourself is destructive.