DiCaprio film ignores real climate change monster

The climate scare, according to Fulks, has “become a sort of societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus,” for which DiCaprio’s film will act as yet another vector.

In response, political leaders have created a huge network of national and international global warming bureaucracies and advisors. The UN itself, primarily through the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has focussed for more than two decades on how to stop climate change (a physical impossibility—climate changes no matter what we do). In addition, there now exist innumerable national greenhouse offices, ministries of climate change, state and municipal greenhouse offices, climate change sections within government departments, and a legion of multifarious climate change research groups.

The costs of feeding the climate change ‘monster’ have reached staggering levels. According to the Congressional Research Service, between 2001 and 2014 the US Government spent $131 billion on human-caused climate change projects. They also allowed tax breaks for anti-carbon dioxide energy initiatives totalling $176 billion. Federal government spending is now running at $11 billion a year, and tax breaks at about $20 billion a year for a total of more than double the total value of wheat produced in the United States in 2013 ($14.4 billion). 

Dr Bjørn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, calculates that the European Union’s goal of a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels by 2020, currently the most severe target in the world, will cost almost $100 billion annually by 2020, or more than $7 trillion over the course of this century. Lomborg, a supporter of the UN’s climate science, asserts, “After spending all that money, we would not even be able to tell the difference.”

So, Al Gore was right in one respect. Climate change is a moral issue. There is nothing quite so immoral as the sight of well-fed, well-housed Westerners assuaging their consciences by wasting huge amounts of money on futile anti-global warming policies, using money that could instead be spent on improving the living standards in developing countries. Denying poor nations, many of whose citizens lack adequate sanitation, schooling, clean water, and health services, the finance to build inexpensive hydrocarbon-fired power stations, and who in consequence suffer millions of premature deaths every year, has been aptly described as technological genocide.