And no city within California is more liberal than Berkeley.
Therefore, it should probably come as no surprise that last week the city council in Berkeley declared a "climate emergency" in their city. They have done so because they see an existential threat to mankind that they see as more significant than that of World War II. Accordingly, they are calling for a mobilization of people and resources to respond at a level commensurate with what was required during that global war.
In fact, World War II is not a big enough crisis to compare to the "climate emergency" they state we are in. This is the "greatest crisis in history" according to the Berkeley city council.
“[W]e can rise to the challenge of the greatest crisis in history by organizing politically to catalyze a national and global climate emergency effort, employing local workers in a mobilization effort building and installing renewable energy infrastructure,” the resolution says.
Let's put all of this in context and consider other crisis periods in human history.
World War II included the Holocaust as well requiring the use of the detonation of two nuclear weapons to bring the war to a close. Is is estimated that more than 60 million people died during the conflict.
The Great Plague of the 14th Century is estimated to have resulted in the deaths of 75 to 200 million people in Europe and Asia. It took 200 years for the population of the world to recover to its previous level before the outbreak.
The Mongol conquests in Asia between 1206 and 1368 resulted in an estimated 40 million deaths.
It is estimated that as many as 80 million people have died as the result of famines in communist countries since 1921 in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cambodia and Ethiopia.
I could go on and on.
I dare say that the city council of Berkeley does not seem to understand what a true crisis is.
Of course, another important issue for the city council to take up last year was a resolution that passed calling for President Trump to be investigated for impeachment barely two months after he took office.
Besides the World War II mobilization effort, Berkeley's city council is also calling for efforts to "humanely stabilize population".
It seems that the liberals in Berkeley believe all would be well if there weren't so many of us. Of course, that is clearly meant to be you and me, not them. They seem to believe that if there were not so many people that we wouldn't have so much in the way of carbon emissions. In their world the cars we drive, the electricity we use, and the products we consume are all evil. They are convinced that human caused carbon emissions are responsible for climate change.
However, if that is the case then why do carbon emissions look like this in the first image that NASA produced from a satellite that was launched in 2014 to measure carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
 |
| Credit: Orbiting Carbon Observatory Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology |
Do you notice that there is a lot more carbon emissions in the Southern Hemisphere that has a lot fewer people than there are in the Northern Hemisphere?
Dr. Tim Ball is a former Professor at the University of Winnipeg who has had a significant academic interest in climate over the years and writes often about the way the environment affects humans and the way humans affect the environment. I cited Ball's work in BeeLine on this subject seven years ago in a blog post titled, CO2 Context.
Ball explains that part of the reason for this is that the oceans play a big role in controlling CO2 levels. The oceans absorb most the carbon dioxide produced on earth. However, cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. Notice that a lot of the high levels of CO2 concentration are near the equator.
Ball further explains that the reality is that humans are responsible for a mere pittance of the carbon emissions in our atmosphere. He cites data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to provide needed context.
According to the IPCC, who produce the original numbers, humans produce approximately 9 gigatons of CO2 per year. This is within the error factor for the amount of CO2 from at least two natural sources. Estimates of CO2 from natural sources are very crude as evidenced by the large error factors. Reports with headlines like, “Forests soak up more CO2 than thought” and “Old-growth forests absorb CO2 too: study” keep appearing. In 2010 humans produced 9 gigatons, but ocean output was between 90 and 100 gigatons and ground bacteria and rotting vegetation was between 50 and 60 gigatons according to Dr Dietrich Koelle. Spread the human annual production across the planet and it doesn’t even show on the world map. The pattern confirms this because it reflects natural sources.
To summarize, natural sources of CO2 on earth produce between 140-160 gigatons of CO2 per year and all human produced CO2 amounts is 9 gigatons! Human produced CO2 is so minimal compared to naturally produced CO2 it is less than half of the margin of error of the estimate of natural sources.
What is further confusing is that Berkeley is a sanctuary city.
If they believe that human population is driving carbon emissions why would they want to entice more people into their fair city? Isn't that counter-productive to mobilizing against the greatest crisis in the history of mankind?
It also should be noted that if someone is worried about "stabilizing population" it is not something that should be a big concern in California. Last year, California had its lowest birth rate per 1,000 people (12.4) in 100 years. That rate is one-half of what it was in 1990.
The same can be said for the United States birth rates in comparison to the rest of the world.
This chart compares fertility rates around the world based on the latest United Nations data. This is the average number of children a women will deliver in her lifetime. Bear in mind that a 2.1 fertility rate is considered the number required for a stable population. Less than that means that population will decrease over time. Higher will result in increased population.
Notice that the entire developed world has fertility rates that are below the replacement rate. The only groups that are generally higher are the Arab world and the Sub-Saharan Africa.
Do I have it right that the progressive liberals in Berkeley are really saying that they want Muslims and Africans to stop having so many babies? What else could they be saying since the rest of world already has stabilized its population?
That is very interesting coming from a group that claims Donald Trump is a xenophobe and a racist.
All I can say is that I am completely bewildered by Berkeley.
If this is the emergency they claim it is when are they going to turn off their air conditioners (see note below), turn off their lights at night and begin rationing gasoline and meat?
That would be consistent with the life that was lived during World War II.
Until they start doing that don't let any of this "climate emergency crisis" nonsense in Berkeley bamboozle you.
Note on Air Conditioning: Air conditioning was rare in the late 1930's generally only being installed in movie theaters, department stores, plants and some hospitals. Many of these chiller units were actually relocated during the war to military production plants not be returned to civilian use until after the war. There was almost no residential air conditioning. Willis Carrier planned to get into this market after the 1939 World's Fair but those plans were abandoned until after the war as the manufacturing plants were converted to war production.
No comments:
Post a Comment