Editorial: Goal of zero emissions on public land a futile gesture

Democrats in the House of Representatives this past week unleashed their latest pie-in-the-sky legislation intended to save the planet from frying like an egg due to catastrophic global warming due to carbon emissions.

The bill, if passed, which thankfully is highly unlikely, would require zero emissions from drilling, mining and other activities on federal public lands by 2040, and immediately halt oil and gas leasing for at least a year, according to a Reuters dispatch.

“To solve our climate crisis we need to solve this problem from two sides,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, chairman of the Democratic-controlled House Natural Resources Committee. He said the bill would slash emissions from energy production on federal land and preserve vegetation and forests so they may absorb carbon.

“Putting a stop to all new fossil fuel leasing on public lands and waters is a vital first step in stopping the climate crisis, and it’s heartening to see Chairman Grijalva propose a framework that could ultimately achieve that,” Brett Hartl, government affairs director at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. “But much more is needed to undo the incredible damage the Trump administration has caused through its massive increase in fossil fuel leasing, to say nothing of the decades of reckless fossil fuel leasing that has already occurred.”

The same press release notes that the United Nations Environment Program issued a report this past month stating world governments plan to greatly increase fossil fuels production. So what good will cutting production on public lands do?

Never mind that the brunt of the burden of this foolish venture would fall on the Western states, where the majority of public lands lie and especially on Nevada, 85 percent of whose land is controlled by the federal bureaucracy. This would cost countless jobs and shrink the economies of rural areas of the West. While Nevada is not rich in oil and natural gas, its mining jobs are some of the best paid in the state and mining taxes support many communities.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is shrugging off its share of the emissions control effort. Of the nearly 200 countries that signed off on the Paris climate accord a couple of years ago, only two have actually met emissions reductions goals, Morocco and Gambia, according to a PBS report in September.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that China, the top carbon emitter in the world, is adding more coal-fired plants than the rest of the world combined and is building coal plants in other countries, too. The U.S., the world’s second-largest emitter, saw carbon emissions rise 3.4 percent in 2018.

Also, pay no attention to the fact there has been no significant global warming since 2005. Those hottest years on record claims are well within the margin of error.

The bill is a senseless and futile gesture, but Democrats are just the ones try it.

A version of this editorial appeared this week in some of the Battle Born Media newspapers — The Ely Times, the Mesquite Local News, the Mineral County Independent-News, the Eureka Sentinel,  Sparks Tribune and the Lincoln County Record.

15 comments on “Editorial: Goal of zero emissions on public land a futile gesture

  1. Rincon says:

    Danger, Will Robinson, danger! Thomas is serving bull cookies again.

    He says China isn’t serious about renewable energy.
    China’s wind power capacity = 149 GW in 2016. U.S. = 74.4.
    China’s solar capacity = 175 GW in 2018. U.S. = 62 GW
    China’s hydroelectric production in 2014 = 1064 TWh U.S. = 282 TWh
    CO2 emissions per person per year in China = 6.4 tons. U.S. = 15 tons

    But China’s the bad guy. Sure, Thomas, if that’s the story you want to believe. Actually, they would be the bad guy if we had made any real effort, but we are in a glass house, so no complaints allowed.

    But the big whopper is this: “Also, pay no attention to the fact there has been no significant global warming since 2005. Those hottest years on record claims are well within the margin of error.”

    See. he’s not actually lying, just working mightily to obscure the truth and violate the principles of statistics. The second sentence gives his deception away. True enough, all hot and cold years individually are within a margin of error. The odds of any one year being near the top of bottom of that margin due to chance are perhaps 5-20%, but looking at a set of years, such as the past 18, 20, or 100, Thomas’ mathematics quickly fizzle out. For instance, the chances that 18 of the past 19 years were all hotter than any other previous year (except 1998) by chance are infinitesimal. And no, warming has not slowed down one bit. 2014, 15, 16, 17, and 18 are the 5 hottest years on record. 2009, 10, and 13 made the top ten. Here’s the truth from NASA: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

  2. Anonymous says:

    Wait a minute Rincon I have to stop you here.

    Far right wing lunatics have CURED global warming in case you didn’t hear. I know that because ALL references to it have been scrubbed from US Government publication and administration officials are prohibited (censored) from even mentioning it.

    According to the Orwell theory of government then, clearly no such thing exists.

    And I await your apology /s

  3. I wrote nothing about China’s renewable energy efforts, just quoted WSJ on its coal-fired plant construction.

    Margin of error.

  4. Steve says:

    12 years! 12 they all say! every POLITICIAN on the left is totally certain 12 years and we fall off the cliff, the end of the world!

    Even though all the scientists insist that an arbitrary number chosen for the scare factor.

    Forgive me for refusing to buy the slime oozzing out of politician mouths.

  5. Rincon says:

    So if your purpose wasn’t to say that China’s not serious about climate change, then what was your point regarding new coal plant construction?
    Your margin of error comment indicates that you either have a limited understanding of statistics or have no desire to speak the plain, unvarnished truth. Which one is it?
    And Steve, what is your purpose in demonizing the left extremists while ignoring those on the right wing, such as our President? Do you believe that climate change is a hoax?

  6. Steve says:

    Not mentioning them is very different from “ignoring” them.
    Their opinions on AGW are as well known those of the extreme left.

    You will “allow” me to continue refusing the slime oozing from politician pie holes. (All the slime.)

  7. Rincon says:

    As long as we’re splitting hairs, the definition of ignore: refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard intentionally.

  8. Steve says:

    I did none of those things. I specified due to clear indications if I don’t, assumptions will be made.
    And you did not disappoint.

    Of course, you COULD show everyone someone on the political right who spews the same 12 years to the end of the world scare hype slime!
    But you seem much happier trying to change the point.

  9. Rincon says:

    Looks like we’re at a tipping point, unfortunately 25 years late. A Pew Research (very highly rated by mediabiasfactcheck) poll shows 2/3 of Americans believe the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change, “In addition, a strong majority of younger Republicans (78% of Millennial and Gen Z adults, i.e., those ages 18 to 38) say the U.S. should prioritize alternative energies, compared with 61% of Gen X Republicans and about half of Baby Boomer and older Republicans (53%).”

    Looks like you old dinosaurs are on the way out.

  10. Steve says:

    Thanks for ignoring me!

  11. Rincon says:

    If you’re truly thanking me, you’re welcome. If you were being sarcastic, what do you want me to say? Picking a fight with the most radical elements is merely taking on a straw man. So what? They’re as wrong as you are. Why would I defend them? The climate change denial industry operates much the same as the tobacco companies in the late 20th century. Sowing confusion is adequate to prevent action for a time. It also worked for the lead industry among many others in the 20th century. Not quite as well for the asbestos industry, but they had a big disadvantage: An easily identifiable cancer caused almost exclusively by their product.

  12. Steve says:

    Doubling down is unbecoming.

  13. Bill says:

    The point Thomas was making, as I read it, was that this proposed legislation would be little more than a symbolic measure and if passed would harm the economy of the Western United States.

    Quit arguing guys. It will all be over for all of us in few more years according to OAC.

    Steve, how can you argue with the bulk of scientific thinking about man caused global arming? That argument has always been infallible with a few notable exceptions. Like that germs didn’t cause disease and doctors routinely bled people to make them better and then there was Gallilleo. I could go on with a few others.

    I have always liked collective thinking. It makes for interesting history, like the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. Climate seems to be the new religion and you better not question the orthodoxy of the dogma.

  14. Steve says:

    Bill, I am not arguing about the science. In fact, the science is good, ongoing and remains extremely important to continue…it’s just too early in the process to enact major policy, or for any politicians to claim it “settled”. The science is not settled. If it were, then engineers and technicians would be using it to create real solutions. As things stand, engineering responses are to work on controlling and or removing CO2 in the atmosphere.

    As I constantly state, it’s the politics driving the opinions expressed by those climate scientists who actually express an opinion. Turned out, according to Skeptical Science, that is a minority of the climate science community. Skeptical Science has been trying to walk that back ever since.

    My issue remains with the politics of the issue. Not the science.

  15. Steve says:

    Oh…Salem…the science proved infected wheat is what caused all those people to appear to be possessed as witches.

    Ergot….science.

    Maybe your Snark Font has some troubles?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s