The Economic Case for Fighting Climate Change
Gina McCarthy
1747

Looks like science has changed quite a bit since I got my doctorate in physics, though admittedly that was quite a few years ago. Back in the day, CO2 was not only classed as a harmless gas but also quite useful for feeding plants, which is one of the reasons why NASA satellite images show more greening of the earth in recent years. I don’t understand why you refer to “carbon” pollution when you are presumably talking about CO2? If I go for a swim, it isn’t in a pool of hydrogen (usually!) so why describe the CO2 molecule by one of its atomic constituents? Modern coal fired power plants, with efficient cleaning, produce very low amounts of real pollutants such as soot but by all means we should improve on that if we can. However, the EPA seems to be waging a phoney war on climate change when there is a wealth of hard evidence that the global temperature has not risen for nearly 20 years (RSS and UHA satellite data), with no evidence of heat hiding in oceans. This is the reason policy makers stopped calling it global warming 10 years ago or more. There is also plenty of evidence that hurricanes and other extreme weather events have been conspicious by their absence in the last few years whilst ice in the artic is recovering and antarctic ice is at record levels.

Like what you read? Give Steve Davison a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.