Dear Friends,
Today, I am sharing the County’s recent Sustainability 2030 newsletter (see below) as I know there are citizens who support and follow the sustainability policies mandated by the state’s Growth Management Act relating to climate change and will appreciate knowing of the County’s work and programs to reduce greenhouse gases. The County adopts plans to comply with state directives. The degree to which we comply can be subjective.
I appreciate being able to offer a few additional ideas, comments and research on the claims of the severity and causes of weather events, questioning the need to prioritize the spending of trillions of dollars to plan and reset our energy systems. I recognize that your financial resources are limited, and if you’re not financially viable, neither is your government.
This e-letter is to share what you don’t easily find in the MSM (mainstream media). I know you’re busy working hard to pay the bills, spend time with your families and plan for your future. Having information on both sides of an issue is necessary to have informed discernment. I came across a 2009 Cap & Trade pamphlet published by the Heartland Institute in the piles of research I’ve collected over the years. Hoarding can be good in some ways. The pamphlet reports on the financial consequences of working to eliminate carbon dioxide emissions. One paragraph stood out, noting the futility of these efforts:
“Even if the U.S completely and immediately eliminated all of its carbon dioxide emissions, the growth in Chinese emissions alone would in less than a decade replace all the eliminated U.S emissions.”
Decarbonizing may be a very disruptive and financially unsustainable directive from Governor Inslee’s Climate Commitment Act, but the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) reports we have a crisis. Their computer modeled, consensus driven and synthesized reports predict dire environmental circumstances, apparently far more threatening now than in the past 30 years, so we’re being told by “experts”.
I have read about Orca, a factory, or system, designed to remove carbon dioxide from the air in this article from CarbonBrief, reporting on Climeworks. Orca is very expensive, but so is re-engineering society, especially in a state (Washington) that contributes less than .27% (2017) of greenhouse global emissions.
While looking up Climeworks, I came across the multi-million dollar ClimateWorks Foundation, based in San Francisco. Their stated mission is “To end the climate crisis by amplifying the power of philanthropy.” Tax exempt foundations have a fiduciary responsibility to the American public. In ClimateWorks 2020-990 financial report, I noticed a great deal of financial transfers to East Asia and the Pacific, and Europe (beginning at electronic page 37). This is a foundation that depends on UNIPCC predictions, not to mention their vendors (see electronic page 9 in the financial report) for validating their mission. I would say it appears to be a rather lucrative mission. See the salaries on electronic page 8 of the report.
To add a bit more, scientists who are major advocates of Global Warming say (this info obtained from an astrophysicist):
Gavin Schmidt, PhD who is James Hansen's successor at NASA GISS in New York City said this about claims that weather extremes are increasing:
"General statements about extremes are almost nowhere to be found in the literature but seem to abound in the popular media . . .It's this popular perception that that global warming means all extremes have to increase all the time, even though if anyone thinks about that for ten seconds they realize that's nonsense.
Ralph Cicerone, PhD who was a recent Past President of the US National Academy of Sciences had this to say to the BBC when asked about a climate catastrophe:
"We don't have that kind of evidence."
And Mike Hulme, PhD who founded the Tyndall Centre at the University of East Anglia (a center of concern about global warming) said this:
"To state that climate change will be 'catastrophic' hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science."
These scientists support the notion that rising atmospheric CO2 will warm the Earth a little. Alarmists and skeptics agree on that. The scientific issue is how much. Calculations show that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 over centuries will increase the global temperature by about one degree C. Alarmists go on to argue that a positive feedback from water vapor will double or triple that warming. Skeptics think that the feedbacks will be negative, in keeping with Le Chatelier's Principle.
Whatever the answer turns out to be, neither result is catastrophic. We can be sure of this, because we know that the Earth was warmer than today in the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm periods that are clearly visible in Greenland ice core temperature reconstructions. Since we reached the peak temperature of this interglacial about 9,000 years ago, the Earth's temperature has been gradually but erratically declining. The peak is called the "Holocene Climate Optimum."
Right now, I am far more concerned with your financial sustainability than worrying about excess carbon dioxide, the gas of life as we see energy prices skyrocket and food supplies being disrupted. The White House pledged millions of dollars to the United Nations General Assembly for climate change. The war has disrupted the transaction, but there are countries who expressed that climate change is scarier and the U.S. needs to make good on its commitment, as reported by NPR. It is very difficult for me to support the transfer of your wealth to cut carbon emissions as we try and navigate inflation, food shortages, housing shortages, homeless camps, chemical dependencies, threats of more viruses, and on and on.
With that, I shall close with grateful appreciation for you!
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share via Email
