Morano: "Would anyone purchase fire insurance on their home that had a huge upfront premium for virtually no payout if your home burned down? If you answered YES to such an 'insurance' policy, then Congress, the EPA, and the UN have a deal for you with their 'climate' regulations. The sponsors of the Green New Deal ought to be able to show that its benefits outweigh its costs—or at least that it has benefits! How much does the proposed new deal allegedly reduce temperature and storminess? Zero!
If we actually did face a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the U.S. Congress or the United Nations to save us, we would all be DOOMED."
Climate Depot Analysis
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano Responds:
If We Had a Problem, The Climate “Solutions” Wouldn’t Solve It
President Joe Biden’s Climate envoy John Kerry is wrong. And he knows he is wrong. See: January 2021: Kerry admits zero emissions in US wouldn’t make difference in climate change
“Doing nothing” on climate is actually an apt description for the climate activists and the UN Paris Agreement, past cap-and-trade bills, carbon taxes, and the Green New Deal. Even Obama’s EPA admitted that the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill will not have a measurable impact on global CO2 levels, let alone any measurable or detectable
impact on global temperatures. The man-made climate fear promoters have been promoting a do-nothing approach to climate change since the movement’s launch by consistently pushing purely symbolic “solutions” to global warming.
Green New Deal would have NO impact on climate even if you believe the UN & Al Gore’s scientific claims
A 2019 study by American Enterprise Institute found that Green New Deal Would Have ‘No Effect’ On Climate Change – even if you use UN ‘science,’ GND’s temperature impact would be ‘barely distinguishable from zero’. A new study from the American Enterprise Institute: “In total, completely enacted, funded, and efficiently meeting goals, – things AEI does not anticipate the GND would ever do — – the full plan would cut the global increase in temperature by a whopping “0.083 to 0.173 degrees,” a number, the report says, is “barely distinguishable from zero.”
In 2019, Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels ran the Green New Deal’s alleged climate impact through the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s so-called “MAGICC” climate model simulator, developed with funding from the Environmental Protection Agency. The results? “I seriously think the effect would – at best – be barely detectable in the climate record,” Patrick Michaels explained. “The year-to-year variation is very close to the total amount of warming that would be ‘saved’ by 2100, according to EPA’s own model,” Michaels said.
Green New Deal, EPA policies & UN pacts are not an “insurance policy” against “climate change.”
Would anyone purchase fire insurance on their home that had a huge upfront premium for virtually no payout if your home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress, the EPA, and the UN have a deal for you with their “climate” regulations. The sponsors of the Green New Deal ought to be able to show that its benefits outweigh its costs—or at least that it has benefits! How much does the proposed new deal allegedly reduce temperature and storminess? Zero! If we actually did face a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the U.S. Congress or the United Nations to save us, we would all be DOOMED.
The Green New Deal, the UN Paris agreement, carbon taxes, and EPA regulations can’t control the climate
University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
Shock graph of rising CO2 emissions despite ‘planet-saving’ UN climate pacts shows ‘farce’ of ‘climate action’ – Greenpeace co-founder Dr. Patrick Moore: “What a farce the IPCC Paris Accord and all previous ‘agreements’ to reduce CO2 emissions have been. If only the collective billionaire-class would recognize that CO2 is entirely beneficial we could get on with making the world a better place.”
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Get ready for more futility as the Green New Deal will continue meaningless ‘climate action.'”
Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, noted in 2017 about the UN Paris agreement: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree … the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. … Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” Lomborg added: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”
In 2015: President Obama’s EPA Chief admitted the regulations have no measurable climate impact. – “One one-hundredth of a degree?” EPA Chief McCarthy defends regs as “enormously beneficial” – Symbolic impact.
Former Obama Department of Energy Assistant Secretary Charles McConnell slammed EPA climate regs as “Falsely sold as impactful” – “All U.S. annual emissions will be offset by 3 weeks of Chinese emissions.”
January 2021: Kerry admits zero emissions in US wouldn’t make difference in climate change – New York Post: Kerry’s remarks were made ahead of Biden’s signing of a host of executive actions on Wednesday pushing his $2 trillion Green New Deal-inspired climate agenda. “He knows Paris alone is not enough,” Kerry told reporters at a White House press briefing, referring to Biden re-entering the US in the Paris Climate Agreement in one of his first acts as president.
“Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.
Flashback 2015: Then Sec. of State John Kerry explains climate futility: If U.S. zeroed out CO2 emissions, it ‘still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world’
John Kerry in 2015: “The fact is that even if every American citizen biked to work, carpooled to school, used only solar panels to power their homes, if we each planted a dozen trees, if we somehow eliminated all of our domestic greenhouse gas emissions, guess what – that still wouldn’t be enough to offset the carbon pollution coming from the rest of the world.
If all the industrial nations went down to zero emissions –- remember what I just said, all the industrial emissions went down to zero emissions -– it wouldn’t be enough, not when more than 65% of the world’s carbon pollution comes from the developing world.”
Flashback 2019: UN admits ‘historic’ Paris climate pact did not save Earth after-all! Now says: Cutting CO2 ‘not enough’
UN in 2019: We must change food production to save the world, says leaked report – Cutting carbon from transport and energy ‘not enough’ IPCC finds
But in 2015, the UN Paris climate pact was supposed to be enough.
Al Gore in 2015 on Paris pact: “Years from now, our grandchildren will reflect on humanity’s moral courage to solve the climate crisis and they will look to December 12, 2015, as the day when the community of nations finally made the decision to act.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry in 2015: “This is a tremendous victory for all of our citizens–not for any one country or bloc, but a victory for all of the planet, and for future generations.”
French foreign minister, Laurent Fabius in 2015: “History is coming, in fact, history is here,” he said. “On 12 December 2015, we can have a historic day, a major date to go down in the history of mankind. The date can become a message of life.”
But Climate Depot’s Morano warned in 2015 that the UN Paris climate pact was only the beginning: Flashback 2015: ‘Does this mean we never have to hear about ‘solving’ global warming again!?’ – Morano: “Now that the United Nations has officially ‘solved’ man-made global warming, does this mean we never have to hear about ‘global warming’ fears again!? Does this mean we can halt the endless supply of federal tax dollars funding ‘climate change’ studies?…Can we finally move on to other issues?…Now that the UN treaty has ‘solved’ global warming, can we all just move on to something else?’