First, let me begin by saying that I am not here to oppose or defend the climate change debate. Simply stated, the science is still out. However, the subject of climate change is still a “hot topic” and one that triggers debate among some folks.
After all, climate change and “global warming” is a favorite liberal, progressive, Democrat platform. Just ask Al Gore, who travels the world in a private plane to preach the message. Meanwhile, his home has a carbon footprint of over 30,990 kWHs in a year. To put that in perspective, the typical American family would take 34 months to use that amount of energy. The hypocrisy of the left knows no bounds: Do as we say, not as we do.
Put that aside for a moment to consider the facts and examine how energy is rapidly becoming a national security issue and how solar power would play such a significant role in fixing the problem that not even the Democrats could complain.
For over 80 years now, scientists across the globe have been keeping track of the carbon dioxide (CO2) levels around the world. A BBC article cites British engineer Guy Callendar, who reported in 1938, after analyzing data from 147 international weather stations, that “temperatures had risen over the previous century” as “CO2 concentrations had increased over the same period.”
Then during the following decade, more and more studies were done and more and more reports were preaching the dire news of rising global CO2 levels. It hit a fever pitch, and in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson asked for the formation of a US President’s Advisory Committee. This committee warned that Americans should be very concerned about CO2 and the “greenhouse” effect.
Do you see how fraught with misinformation the argument over global warming really is? This has been going on for centuries, and if you look at history, you can clearly see that planet earth, based on a multitude of factors we cannot control or even affect, goes through cycles (e.g.: We had another eruption of concern when scientists discovered the hole in the ozone layer. It’s why we just had to ban chlorofluorocarbons, because the hole over Antarctica was getting bigger).
Then, in 1972 we had the very first United Nations environmental conference in Stockholm, Sweden. The interesting thing there is that “climate change” was hardly even mentioned.
Just three short years later, Wallace Broecker, an American scientist and professor at Columbia, coined the phrase “global warming.” As an interesting side note, he has since then apologized for doing so. By his own admission, he is just an “educated amateur.”
But it wasn’t until 1988 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created. Interestingly enough, it was the Republican presidential nominee George H.W. Bush who brought attention to the “global warming” issue during a speech in Michigan: “Our land, water and soil support a remarkable range of human activities, but they can only take so much, and we must remember to treat them not as a given but as a gift. These issues know no ideology, no political boundaries. It’s not a liberal or conservative thing we’re talking about.”
But of course, ever since then, the liberal progressive left and the Democrats chose to make this a platform of their party and to be the “champions” of the environment. But we can see from quantifiable results that they have done little to advance real solutions for climate change other than to pay lip-service for votes.
It has been over 25 years since countries around the world signed on to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. And what do we have to show for it? Just read this amazing report by Richard Tol: “Twenty-Five Years of Climate Policy Has Made Most of Us a Little Poorer.”
Another article in the Huffington Post, written by Alexander C. Kaufman, ran a title that underscores the notion that Democrats are all talk and no action.
The truth is it’s all about the votes. As one writer for the Huffington Post explains: “A pledge against fossil fuel money would help convince millennials that a candidate deserves a donation, a shift worked on the phone banks and a vote. Virginia Democrats have already reaped the rewards of such a pledge.”
But energy independence is a national security issue, and for argument’s sake, the destruction of our environment is a global security issue. So in the interest of national security and (again for argument’s sake) saving the planet, can’t we all agree that a viable alternative to the current energy market and its negative effects on the environment is solar energy?
So if we can all agree on solar energy (which we seem to be doing), then why is solar power still not the preferred means of generating power? Because of what the pundits like to call “high initial capital outlay.” Meaning it costs too much to get started.
In other words, governments and industry are too risk-averse to expend the money it would take to build up infrastructure to support solar power. But the truth is academic.
In a presentation titled “The Energy Net,” featured at the Tenth International Conference on Climate Change: Impact & Responses held in Berkeley, California on April 21, 2018, Timothy Kaelin, CEO of Impact Analytics in Boca Raton, Florida, minced no words: “If we supplant all CO2 generating energy production with solar energy, we will solve this [climate change] problem .”
But perhaps we are not seeing any change because of the amount of money government bureaucracies, individuals, and select industries are making off of the “carbon tax“?
Look, all recent research clearly shows that regardless of political party affiliation, American citizens are sick and tired of paying ridiculous prices for gas and electricity while simultaneously destroying the environment.
Washington State University sociologists Christine Horne (professor) and Emily Kennedy (assistant professor), indicated that “study participants value not only energy costs but also emissions reductions.” Horne shed more light on the technology study: “Our work shows that U.S. consumers, regardless of political standing, age, or gender, want to use more renewable energy and fewer fossil fuels. With new communication technologies, it is now possible to give them the option to do it.”
As reported by American Energy Independence, “The United States consumes 20 million barrels of oil every day. 57% of all oil consumed in the U.S. is imported. 70% of all oil consumed in the U.S. is used for transportation. The U.S. economy has become dangerously dependent on foreign oil. The 1973 Arab oil embargo interrupted the flow of oil, causing severe gasoline shortages and long lines at gas stations. The embargo exposed America’s growing oil dependence and gave the American people their first warning of the price they would pay for continued dependence on foreign oil. The 1979 Iranian revolution interrupted the flow of oil again—this was the second warning, signaling the urgent need for American energy independence. The 1991 Persian Gulf War was a military intervention to stop one dictator from taking control of Middle East oil; this was the third and most severe warning.”
“Our entire economy depends on the expectation that energy will be plentiful, available, and affordable. Nations like Venezuela and Iran can use oil and gas as political and economic weapons by manipulating the marketplace. Half of our trade deficit goes toward buying oil from abroad, and some of that money ends up in the hands of terrorists,” said US Marine Corps General James Jones.
The bottom line is this: a comprehensive United States solar power program would satisfy both the Democratic issue of solving climate change and give the Republicans a new economic plan. It would also make the Unites States energy-independent, thus solving a huge national security issue.
