If the Left is sure of anything, they’re sure there’s a “climate crisis.” More importantly, they seem certain that immediate, comprehensive, life-changing action is required — and that there should be no discussion, because those standing in the way are “climate deniers,” at best.

On the other hand, what if they aren’t 100 percent correct about the crisis or the solutions? Shouldn’t we discuss this? Maybe reconsider things before our whole economy and way of life is turned upside-down?

Before we allow them to change our lives with bans, mandates and punishing taxes, let’s think this through logically, with questions: step-by-step.

1. Is there truly a climate “crisis,” unlike any other weather or climate cycle in the history of the planet?

Is the climate really, truly changing in a harmful way, in a constant straight-line that will only get worse? Are we sure these climate changes — the “crisis” — are not part of a cycle that has been occurring since the planet existed, before fossil fuels, industrialization, civilization? Since before there ever was human life on the planet?

A lot to unpack there. 

It’s essential we look into this. To justify their mandates and radical policies, one has to believe that the climate is changing — dramatically and in a harmful way — and that this is not just another one of the countless warming and cooling cycles that have occurred throughout the history of Earth.

Almost no historian, scientist or anyone who has done research denies that the planet has experienced “Ice Ages” and warming periods. Periods of relative calm and periods of storms. Plant life growing in areas; stopping; and, reappearing. Coastlines growing and shrinking and growing. Very tiny islands appearing and then disappearing, even reappearing. (Remember in the 1970’s when “they” warned of an “ice age?”)

Is this moment in the history of Earth indisputably different?

This is building block number one. If you don’t agree, there’s no urgency or even need to ban fossil fuels — or kill cows, stop farming, eat bugs or be forced to give up one’s car, gas range or air conditioning.

But, let’s assume this is an historic, unprecedented event in the climate of planet Earth. Let’s go to the second belief that one must hold, too.

2. Is this historic, unprecedented climate change — that we must assume is horribly bad  — caused solely or primarily because of the actions of people, e.g., fossil fuels, eating meat, farming, using air conditioners, and even having kids?

Because, again, if we are going to radically change our lifestyle, put millions of people out of work, raise the cost of energy, reduce our quality of life and make us dependent on our enemies as we transition to so-called “green energy,” we should believe that the planet is having an unprecedented climate change and that our lives and lifestyles are causing this harm to occur.

Like the first point, we would have to believe that this unprecedented change is not being caused by things that everyone knows impact the climate and weather; sunspots, other solar activity, activity in the solar system, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and wildfires. In other words: one would have to believe that fossil fuels, cows, farming, air conditioning and having kids have a greater impact on the climate of the planet than those things that nearly everyone acknowledges actually do impact the climate.

Logically, you have to believe both that man-made activity has the primary impact on Earth’s climate and that stopping these alleged harmful behaviors (our lives and way of life) will have a positive impact. And that Americans taking these extraordinary steps (to help) will not be outweighed by impacts of the sun, solar system, volcanoes or earthquakes, and the rest.

But let’s assume the climate is experiencing a never before seen change in climate. Let’s assume our way of life is a major cause of this unprecedented change. And let’s assume that stopping our way of life would fix this “crisis.”

3. Are we sure that fossil fuels and technology couldn’t handle climate change — or even make life better? 

The “ban fossil fuels” crowd never wants to consider this, let alone have us debate it. Let’s assume that the “man-made climate crisis” would result in making the planet one or two degrees warmer and that this climate change would last for years — again, putting aside the planet’s typical cooling and warming cycles and the sun and solar system’s impacts.

How come the “ban” crowd never talks about living through, adapting to, or — heaven forbid — thriving in the new, evolving climate?

The undeniable reality is that far, far more people on Earth die from the cold than the heat. Any temporary warming would be a blessing in those places.

As for the heat, technology innovations have made air-conditioning easier to provide, requiring less power, with far less harmful chemicals in the coolants. These are undeniable advancements that the radicals never acknowledge—let alone celebrate.

In addition, advancements in agriculture show us that farmers and growers could adapt to climate shifts.

And, regardless of the climate crisis or not — but especially if the climate is changing, fossil fuels and our way of life are essential to protecting lives and helping people live longer. From roads to sewage systems, stormwater to drinking water, and from heating to cooling of foods and medicines, fossil fuels are essential.

Have “they” considered that — as surprising as it might be — fossil fuels and our way of life are actually necessary to deal with “climate change?”

There are those in government — and their allies in the legacy media, and universities who have in turn pressured corporations or prevailed upon corporate leaders and K-12 educators — who are working at break-neck speed at the federal, state and local levels of government to end fossil fuels, penalize their use through regulation and higher taxes, or force our switching to so-called “green energy.” 

How much power do they want? What is their climate goal? And perhaps it is actually about more than “climate”?

As for how America makes and uses energy, and how we lead our lives, maybe it’s not an either or. Maybe, in reality, “banning” fossil fuels is impractical, unnecessary — and stupid. 

Maybe mandates and penalties are wrong. Maybe we ought instead to allow people to decide and not ban or subsidize either. Maybe the focus ought to be on our overall quality of life? Our national security?

Maybe these things are more complicated — it’s not obvious that there’s a problem, a clear singular cause and an obvious, singular solution. Maybe it’s about education, debate and balance?

Why are they so sure — and afraid of debate?

Guy Ciarrocchi is a Senior Fellow with the Commonwealth Foundation. He writes for Broad + Liberty and RealClear Pennsylvania. Follow Guy at @PaSuburbsGuy

4 thoughts on “Guy Ciarrocchi: Climate change? Maybe. Ban fossil fuels? No. (Part I)”

  1. So lets see what we have here. A lot of subjective statements that do nothing but cloud the issue at hand. Climate change might be another ice age, the last ice age was 11,000 years ago and one of the contributing factors was a change in the Earths axis.

    It might be happening because of wildfires, volcanos, and solar activity. The biggest of change on earth started with the use of coal as part of the industrial and than was compounded by the mass production of affordable cars made possible by Ford’s 1903 Model A and the invention of the production line. All of which happened in 200 years. This has created a major impact on the environment.

    “Almost no historian, scientist or anyone who has done research denies that the planet has experienced “Ice Ages” and warming periods”. You know what else 80% to 97% of scientists are also in agreement on, depending on which statistical analysis you accept. That climate change is happening and cars and industrial manufacturing are the major factor. So much so that the Pentagon considers it a threat to national security.

  2. Upper case Judah,
    The Pentagon?!? Why didn’t you say something earlier?! The Pentagon… they are such serious and sincere folks. And the Pentagon considers climate change a threat to national security?!? Are they getting ready to invade anyone over it… say like Communist Chinese Party controlled areas… because “China’s coal power plant permitting spree continued in 2023 maintaining the previous rhythm of permitting two new coal power plants PER WEEK. (Source: ‘China’s coal power spree could see over 300 coal plants added – Global Energy Monitor, Monday, August 28, 2023’

    1. Lol I like how you don’t address a single fact and instead attack the pentagon before your unrelated tangent on China. (Btw, USA is still, by FAR, the first in per capita fossil fuel consumption, even with these new plants.) Your (and the author’s) distraction and evasion tactics are already well known about from FOIA’d corporate documents. Nobody is actually falling for your debunked corporate talking points anymore, sorry. If you don’t want to trust scientists, and you don’t want to trust the pentagon, and you dont want to trust media outlets you don’t like, fine! Here are the documents straight from the source showing what multinational ruling class CEO elites knew, when they knew it, and how they’ve covered it up. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/climate-deception-dossiers

  3. The radical right’s response to climate change (deny, deflect, and parrot the thoroughly debunked talking points they’re fed by corporate ruling class elites at multinational oil companies) reminds me of Stalin’s complete refusal to change his agricultural plans even after it became obvious to everyone that the science behind it wasn’t compatible with his political agenda. Stalin attacked scientists as being politically motivated and censored their research from being taught in schools. I think I know where DeSantis gets his inspiration from! In the USSR this led to millions starving to death…

Leave a (Respectful) Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *