The Green Manalishi

This letter is a response to Arthur E. Sowers’ letter in the Dec. 8 edition concerning climate change.

First, let me dispel the notion that there are many people who deny that the climate is changing. Most believe the climate is constantly changing. We have had many ice ages and subsequent warming periods throughout history, all before there was any significant industrialization in the world. There is little debate about this climate history.

The real debate is what we should do about it. Can governments alter the course of events? And at what cost? Who will bear the burden of government regulations to prevent climate change? I assure you it will not be the wealthy. The notion that renewable green energy is cheaper is an illusion; it’s almost always heavily subsidized with your tax dollars.

Every regulation the government puts in place has a cost, be it electric vehicle mandates, or banning gas stoves, wood pizza ovens and much more. Not only is the new product generally more expensive, but there is also the added cost of administering these mandates. If you are wealthy, these costs are likely insignificant. However, if you are struggling to keep your head above water, they are crushing and impact the cost of everything you touch. It is not surprising that inflation and the level of homelessness have risen so significantly over the past three years.

Perhaps these costs would be tolerable if they were actually saving the planet, but they are failing miserably. Any carbon savings in the west is more than offset by additional carbon production in developing countries, particularly China and India. China is said to be building a new coal plant every week. Any illusion that the world will be carbon neutral in the next two decades is a pipe dream.

I do not fault these developing countries for trying to raise their standard of living. All people around the world want a better and easier life, and that usually comes through the use of additional energy. Western nations that have already achieved a degree of comfort have no right to deprive other nations of their pursuit of a better life. Forcibly keeping these nations poor to achieve our climate goals is simply immoral.

Technology will likely solve most of these problems at some point in the future, with a better product and a better price. When that occurs, people will embrace it; no mandates will be required. Mandates are only necessary when you are forcing people to do something that is not in their immediate best interest.

Unelected people at the United Nations and the World Economic Forum deciding our future ought to be repugnant to most people living in democracies around the world. They seem to have a plan for everything. Getting rid of most farms, eating bugs and producing meat in factories are just a few of their life-altering ideas. None of these ideas improve the quality of life for anyone.