Maintaining a strong military requires robust economic support, as is known to all. And a strong national economy necessitates reasonable regulation from both economic and scientific perspectives. Unfortunately, many policymakers have embraced an extreme regulatory agenda driven by ideology. This agenda, viewed from both scientific and economic standpoints, is highly unreasonable and has inflicted serious damage on our economy and military.
This agenda was showcased at the 2024 United Nations Climate Change Conference, also known as COP29, held in Baku, Azerbaijan, from November 11 to 22 last year. The premise of the conference, as well as agreements like the Paris Accord, asserts that man-made climate change poses a significant threat to human existence. Furthermore, some argue that climate change has already had severe global impacts and that promoting regulations, laws, and new technologies will help mitigate or even reverse this trend.
Advocates of these ideas also claim that developed countries have an obligation to transfer billions or even tens of billions of dollars to developing countries so that the latter can continue using so-called green technologies instead of polluting traditional technologies.
In the United States, policies and mandates driven by climate change issues continue to be introduced, premised on the belief that climate change still disproportionately affects the poor and vulnerable. They also argue that anthropogenic climate change is negatively impacting the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
In other words, if you do not support the malign policies and regulations driven by climate change, you are seen as supporting economic stagnation and turning a blind eye to the harm climate change inflicts on socioeconomically disadvantaged populations.
These assertions have been widely accepted and disseminated by many in academia and the media, taking on a quasi-religious tone. Consequently, both academia and mainstream media rarely tolerate opposing viewpoints. Nevertheless, many scientists, engineers, and other highly learned and insightful individuals do not subscribe to these narratives, providing compelling arguments to debunk what they perceive as pseudo-science.
One such group is Clintel (Climate Intelligence), composed of distinguished scientists. One of their most prominent members is Dr. John F. Clauser, the 2022 Nobel Prize winner in Physics from the United States. In August 2023, he signed the Clintel Climate Declaration, asserting that there is no climate emergency. To date, over 1600 scientists and experts have signed this declaration, with Dr. Ivar Giaever, the 1973 Nobel Prize laureate in Physics, being the first signatory.
The declaration points out that climate science has been politicized and lacks sufficient scientific rigor. It notes that climate change models entirely hinge on the inputs they contain, including assumptions, scenarios, relationships, parameterization, stability constraints, etc. Therefore, “believing in the results of climate models is (blindly) believing in the inputs by the model authors. This is at the heart of the climate discussion today, where climate models are the problem. Climate science has transformed into a discussion based on beliefs rather than on a reasonable self-critical science.”
It can be said that these models have repeatedly failed, giving us ample reason to be skeptical of the prevailing discourse on climate change. Considering that the regulations and requirements already implemented have not actually prevented or mitigated climate change, we must question whether it is wise to enforce these regulations as they have weakened our country’s economic and military strength. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, China’s economy and military continue to expand unchecked by these weakening regulations and requirements.
Despite this, the United States has been at the forefront of reducing carbon emissions for over 15 years. The 2024 Statistical Review of World Energy shows that in the past 15 years, the U.S. has seen the largest reductions in energy, process emissions, methane, and combustion-generated carbon dioxide equivalent emissions. In fact, compared to 2013, the U.S. has reduced carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by 8.5% through active exploration and the use of clean-burning natural gas, including fracking to extract natural gas as a substitute for coal, all while experiencing substantial economic growth. In the same period, China’s carbon dioxide equivalent emissions have increased by 20%, making it the largest greenhouse gas emitter to date.
In terms of plastic pollution, China leads globally, and in sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions causing acid rain, China ranks second only to India, with U.S. sulfur dioxide emissions being only one-sixth of China’s.
Therefore, thus far, if the claims about climate change hold true, then China, causing the most significant damage, is the major culprit, and the U.S. has done the most to address climate change.
In conclusion, the United States has been a leader among many developed nations in reducing greenhouse gases, while most countries worldwide have seen little reduction in greenhouse gases and other pollutants. Consequently, against the backdrop of China and other potential adversaries only paying lip service to climate issues, the voluntary weakening of the United States’ economic and military strength to address climate change can be deemed meaningless.