Your Liberty is Our Interest

Fossil Fuels Are a Form of Solar Energy

 

By Theresa Camoriano

Environmentalists can be difficult to figure out.  They want to spend one trillion dollars per year in order to reduce carbon emissions, which, at best, by their own calculations, will prevent temperatures from rising one-third of a degree Fahrenheit in one hundred years.

 

Just imagine the human misery that will cause, especially to people at the bottom of the economic ladder who need cheap energy.  They will trap millions of people in poverty– and to what purpose?  A possible temperature reduction of one-third of a degree over the course of one hundred years?

 

Just imagine what one trillion dollars per year could do to alleviate human suffering.  Even if the earth does warm another one-third of a degree in one hundred years, wouldn’t people be much better off if they were wealthier and better able to adapt to the change?

 

Environmentalists fail to recognize the fact that fossil fuels are nothing more than dead plants that captured energy from the sun when they were growing and converted that solar energy into organic chemical compounds which have stored that solar energy for very long periods of time.  So, in essence, fossil fuels are natural storage batteries which store solar energy.  What could be more environmentally friendly than that?

 

Compare nature’s organic, solar energy storage arrangement (fossil fuels) with man-made energy storage batteries that use toxic metals like lead, cadmium, and cobalt.  There can be little doubt that the natural storage arrangement of fossil fuels is much cleaner and less harmful to humans than man-made batteries.  Fossil fuels also are naturally recyclable.  When the fossil fuels are burned to release the stored-up solar energy, they emit carbon dioxide and water, which are used by plants to grow and store up more solar energy.  How cool is that?!

 

Why do environmentalists have no problem with the very toxic batteries that are used in electric cars while condemning fossil fuels?  Why do they have no problem with the huge numbers of birds that are chopped up by windmills while condemning fossil fuels?  Why do they ignore all the resources that are consumed when manufacturing and maintaining solar panels?  Why do they like ethanol which is made by the decomposition of corn but detest methane which is made by the decomposition of other plants?

 

It seems that they are not able to make an objective analysis of the situation.  They have no sense of proportion and no sense of priorities.  Why?

 

The answer is that environmentalism has become a religion instead of a rational, scientific analysis of reality.

 

Unfortunately, the real goal of many environmentalists is not to improve the environment but instead is to put the government in control of everything.  If they can give government control over all energy usage in the name of protecting the environment, they can achieve their goal.  Other forms of tyranny, such as communism and fascism have gotten a bad reputation, but environmentalism still sounds very nice to many people, so that is the tool the pro-tyranny folks have decided to use.

 

That is why environmentalists ignore the science and the reality and are not willing to do a serious cost-benefit analysis of their policies.  That is why they want to punish heretics who dare to question their pronouncements.

 

That is why they blame every storm, every terrorist act, and every earthquake on humans burning fossil fuels, no matter how ridiculous their claims are.  In the 1970’s and early 1980’s they were in a panic about man-made global cooling, but it did not happen.  Instead, the earth began to warm.  So then they got into the same panic about man-made global warming.  But there has not been any warming in the past 15 years, so now they are in a panic about man-made climate change.  They continue to make their panicked pronouncements with a straight face, and lots of people believe them, because they have fancy titles and receive large government grants.

 

President Obama, Bernie Sanders, and others tell us that man-made climate change is a much greater threat than terrorists.  Really?  How many people do they think will be killed by a temperature rise of one-third of a degree one hundred years from now?  And based on what hard evidence, since their computer models have regularly failed to predict actual temperatures?

 

At what point do the American people rise up and tell these pro-tyranny folks that they are full of another form of decomposed organic matter?

November 18th, 2015 at 9:36 am


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.