What do gas ranges, Dutch farmers, and moose have in common?  In a normal everyday context, very little.  But in the world of apocalyptic climate change, everything.

The way climate change cultists see it, burning fossil fuels is bad because it adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.  Carbon dioxide is bad because it is a greenhouse gas believed to be the primary cause of global warming, also known as climate change.  If the Earths atmosphere warms too much, it could lead to the extinction of mankind or force a mass migration to Canada.  So either we will all die, or we all have to learn to speak Canadian.

Yeah.  So somebody had better do something quick, eh?

The enlightened climate cult solution is to ban everything that adds greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and embrace everything that lowers the concentration of greenhouse gases.  For example, gas ranges and ovens are bad because they use fossil fuels like natural gas and propane to cook food.  If gas stoves are banned, electric ranges and ovens can fill the gap.  No worries, right?

The same argument can be made for fossil-fueled vehicles.  Ban them, and switch over to electric vehicles.  Ditto for fossil-fueled power generating stations.  Ban them, switch to renewable sources, and have a happy day.  

This sort of logic extends to another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.  In the Netherlands, the Dutch Government is trying to force up to 3,000 farms to close to meet European Union pollution limits on nitrogen oxides and ammonia.  

This means that almost no form of agriculture is safe from climate change diktats.  Cows and pigs are well-known emitters of methane, another greenhouse gas, plus various amounts of nitrous oxide and ammonia.  Even farmers who grow grains and other plants often utilize ammonia-based fertilizers, which require heat from fossil fuels and can degrade into nitrous oxide.  

On the other side of the equation, carbon dioxide can be removed from the atmosphere via carbon sinks.  The oceans are the world's most significant carbon sink, absorbing roughly 50% of the carbon added to the atmosphere.  The second largest sinks are forests.  Trees absorb nearly twice the amount of carbon as they release annually.  This is where the moose come in.

According to a group of Norwegian bioscience researchers, moose can affect forest regeneration in areas where the trees were cleared for lumber.  This is because they trample vegetation, alter the soil composition through urination and defecation, and consume as much as sixty pounds of saplings and other vegetation daily.  In climate terms, by eating potential carbon sinks, the moose may cut carbon storage in those areas by as much as 60%.

What is the solution?  Eradicate the moose?

Considering that the Biden administration believes that climate change is the number-one threat to the country, where are they leaning on this?  To be fair, old Joe has yet to issue a hit order on American moose, and cows and pigs appear safe for now.  However, gas-powered appliances and fossil fueled–powered vehicles are not.

That game is already afoot.  In 2021, Biden signed an executive order banning the federal government from purchasing gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035 and requiring federal contracts for all goods and services to be carbon-neutral by 2050.  Despite claims to the contrary, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has already begun the process of banning gas stoves by approving an official Request for Information on the hazards related to them.

At the same time, California is charging ahead with its own environmental plans.  The state will ban the sale of gas-powered water heaters and furnaces by 2030.  In addition, it and six other states intend to ban the sale of gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035.

Last Monday, the United Nations released a report saying, "The world is rapidly approaching catastrophic levels of heating."  U.N. secretary-general António Guterres said developed countries should attempt to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2040 instead of 2050.   

That is a surprise, because as far back as 1972, the United Nations claimed we had only ten years to avert catastrophe.  In 1989, the United Nations again predicted we had ten years left.  In 2007, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said, “If there is no action before 2012, that is too late.”

Yet here we are, 41 years past the original U.N. deadline, and we still have 17 years left to save the Earth.  Note the chart below.  Yes, it appears as though temperatures have risen.  But are they close to the predictions of climate activists or their primary scientific source, the IPCC?

PICK

As you can see from the IPCC graph below, where I have added the current temperature, global temperatures are tracking well below the old and outdated RCP2.6 emissions scenario.  This is happening even though greenhouse gas emissions are still rising.  If we have already crossed the point from which the Earth cannot be saved, shouldn't we be closer to the RCP8.5 crazy-train-to-hell scenario?

PIC

If the Earth is not warming even close to the rate predicted, then why the frantic calls to eliminate fossil fuels?  Is this the result of forty-plus years of climate change propaganda?  Is the messaging being orchestrated behind the scenes by China?  China stands to gain the most from a massive switch to renewable power because it makes most of the world's solar panels and controls most of the minerals used for batteries.

Or is this about the rise of environmentalism as a religion?  In 2003, author Michael Crichton said, "Increasingly, it seems facts aren't necessary because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief.  It's about whether you are going to be a sinner or saved.  Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation or on the side of doom."

The problem is that the Biden administration wants the country to be carbon-neutral by 2050, no matter the need, the science, or the outcome.  This is virtue signaling with real-world consequences.

The most ludicrous part of this entire affair is that it won't stop greenhouse gas pollution.  China, Russia, India, and the rest of the developing world will increase their use of fossil fuels because they need energy.  In 2022, China started building coal-fired power plants at the rate of two per week.

When will this madness end?  Perhaps when our citizens conclude that climate change is a gradual process, not a crisis, certainly not something that requires the chaos and uncertainty of a forced transition to intermittent renewable energy and the potential disruption of our food resources.

Assuming we survive artificial intelligence and get there without a nuclear war, let me make a prediction for 2050.  Temperatures are only slightly higher than today.  Sea level has risen three and a half inches.  All of the currently existing glaciers are still there.  Snow still falls in the winter.  The world is still far from being carbon-neutral.

Many people have electric vehicles, but electric power is available only ten hours daily due to rolling blackouts.  We live in tiny Soviet-style tenements, eat weeds and crickets, and wipe our rear ends with leaves.  On television, a U.N. spokesperson breathlessly declares, "We have only ten years left to save the Earth!"

Image via Pxhere.