Al Gore is making news again, insisting that Trump hasn’t been all that bad – or at he “has had less of an impact so far than [Gore] feared that he would.”
What does that mean, exactly? What on earth could Trump have done to the climate in two years, even if he had deliberately tried to fry the planet?
Gore has made quite a hefty living off of climate alarmism, and he’s imposed a number of deadlines along the way. Back in 2006, when his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” made its debut, Gore insisted that “unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return.” Well, it turns out drastic measures weren’t taken. And while I’m no math expert, doesn’t that put us two years past the point of no return?
Well, here’s the problem, at least from Gore’s perspective. If we really are past the point of no return, then Al Gore is out of a job. What’s the point of listening to doom and gloom if there’s no way to reverse it? And what good is Al Gore as climate savior if there’s no way of saving us?
This always becomes a problem with any activist whose income is tied to an intractable social problem. Activist groups that raise money off of dire alarmism have a financial stake in keeping the problem alive. An actual solution would put them out of business.
This is why I find the climate change issue so frustrating. Reviewing all the “solutions” to global warming –
Cap and Trade, the Paris Accords, a direct carbon tax. climate reparations for poor countries – I discover that they all have one thing in common: not one of them would actually reduce global temperatures. Yet these are still pushed as options, even though they represent a regressive economic burden of trillions of dollars to be borne by the world’s poor.
These proposals are not only ineffective; they’re immoral.
Honestly, you want to tell an African nation with a GDP 1/100th of the United States that they can’t mine coal and drill for oil because some completely ineffectual international climate change protocol tells them they can’t? The benefits of development are prosperity, freedom and hope. That development is stifled by climate change proposals, which have the benefit of making the draftees feel morally superior while doing jack about the problem they’re designed to solve.
The more I watch this debate unfold, the angrier it makes me. There is no symbolic gesture, no “good start,” no “consensus” that justifies the deliberate oppression of the world’s poor. And that’s precisely what all current climate change “solutions” now on the table really are. Yet they’re perfect for the alarmist crowd, because they feel good but solve nothing, allowing Al Gore to keep raising money. That’s why the point of no return will keep being pushed out into the future, with no end in sight.
Do you agree? Do you disagree? Are you Al Gore? Join a camp below and let your voice be heard.