Carbon dioxide, superstition, and protecting the oceans.
highlighted-in-yellow appeals for donations
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says there were 280 molecules per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere back in 1750. The gradual rise in that number over the past 260 years is an important part of the global warming scare.
As of last week, there are now 400 molecules of CO2 per million in our atmosphere. This has sent Al Gore and others into a tizzy.
According to Gore, this event should cause us to “reflect on the fragility” of our “planetary ecosystem” – and inspire us to dedicate ourselves to “the task of saving our future.” (Alternative perspectives are available here, here, here, and here.)
But since practically everything that gentleman utters is melodramatic, this installment of the Drama Queen Files isn’t about Gore. The honour instead goes to Oceana, which describes itself as “the largest international organization focused solely on ocean conservation.”
Founded in 2001, Oceana is led by Andrew Sharpless, who “holds degrees from Harvard Law School, the London School of Economics, and Harvard College.” Last week, it issued a media release titled Oceana Reacts: Atmospheric CO2 Levels Surpass 400ppm.
Totaling a mere 250 words, it includes statements such as these:
- “This is a bad sign forour oceans and our society as a whole.”
- “the rate of change in ocean pH.is unprecedented in Earth’s history.”
- “Ocean acidification has already caused massive die-offs.”
- “we could see the next mass extinction in this century.”
- “a stark reminder.”
- “this historicCO2 milestone.”
- “fossil fuel companies, which perpetuate pollution.”
Any organization that can pack that much loaded language into two paragraphs deserves to be noticed.
400 is a number. Like the number 13 (or, in Asian cultures, the number four), we humans are free to invest it with all sorts of significance. But that’s called superstition.
The media release also glibly declares:
The oceans can be part of the solution if we develop offshore wind energy instead of offshore oil and gas.
I guess Oceana, which says it looks forward to a future in which “dolphin sightings are common” and “whales thrive,” hasn’t heard about the danger that wind farm noise poses to whales and porpoises.
Or that German banks have been banned from financing offshore wind farms because, as a “non-proven technology,” they’re considered too risky an investment.
Or that wind power is falling out of favour in ultra-green Germany because even slow learners have discovered that it’s an insanely costly way to generate electricity.
To quote a spokesperson for the Federation of German Consumer Organizations, offshore wind is:
the wrong road to go down, both economically and technologically speaking. It doesn’t make sense to support this technology, as it is too expensive.
Green groups often have lovely intentions. The problem is that they are on autopilot. They promote the same shallow-as-dishwater analysis over and over again:
- Fossil fuel companies are polluters – rather than sources of affordable, dependable energy who’ve made enormous investments in pollution reduction.
- Wind power is the answer – even though we’ve been hearing that since the 1970s and it still isn’t true.
- Everything happening now is unprecedented and historic – despite the huge gaps that remain in our understanding.
If you sincerely believed the planet was in mortal danger would you really be this intellectually lazy? Would you cling so stubbornly to such outmoded thinking?
see also
The Drama Queen Files – Exhibit #1 – Greenpeace’s ‘Battle for Britain’
The Drama Queen Files – Exhibit #2 – The ‘Carbon Bomb’ Pipeline
The Drama Queen Files – Exhibit #3 – The ‘Outraged’ Sierra Club
The Drama Queen Files – Exhibit #4 – Earth Day, 1970
The Drama Queen Files – Exhibit #5 – Arctic Hunters ‘Gasping for Life’
