We all accept the fact that air pollution is bad for human health. Now if we take the word of those who say that pollution, including ubiquitous CO2, is also bad for the global climate what do we find? We find hypocritical politics, that’s what. The US-China agreement on “climate change” says that the US must start reducing CO2 emissions immediately while China gets a 15-year grace period during which it can continue using coal-fired power plants. Hey, the atmosphere is global and no science can prove that pollution from China or India is less hazardous than pollution from the USA or western Europe.
What we find, once again, is UN Agenda 21. It requires developed nations to reduce pollution faster than emerging nations so they can catch up and make the world fairer. Putting developed nations at an economic disadvantage is one way to redistribute global wealth, isn’t it? Even though China is an economic powerhouse that’s buying up US land as fast as it can it’s still considered an emerging nation so it can get away with this ruse. India would fare even better.
Progressives like to ridicule “science deniers” but their own hypocrisy betrays them. They would be far more convincing if they demanded that every nation play by the same rules.
Is there any reason to reduce our consumption of oil as a fuel without getting into the climate change debate? Actually there are two indisputable and apolitical facts: eventually the world will run out of oil and petroleum is an essential raw material for millions of products used around the world every day. Evidently the UN didn’t worry about these because they don’t support wealth redistribution..
Global threats require global responses, nothing less.