Lipton Matthews

CLIMATE POLICIES NOT WORTH THEIR HIGH COSTS

Numerous thought leaders agree that climate change is the defining issue of the twenty-first
century. To garner widespread support for their cause, activists often present climate
change as an existential risk. We are repeatedly told that there is incontrovertible evidence
that humans are the main cause of climate change and that its effects are cataclysmic.
Failing to uphold any of these positions can result in great reputational damage for pundits
and scholars. Due to fear of backlash many choose to remain silent. Revisiting the history of
climate change, however, would temper the hysteria of climate alarmism. Climate change is
not a new phenomenon, and neither is it synonymous with disasters. By showing that the
mainstream position on climate change is misguided, we will demonstrate that radical
recommendations are unwarranted and hence more likely to inflict damage than prosperity.

The first egregious error asserted by mainstream pundits is that climate change is a twenty-
first-century problem. In contrast to this outlook, climate change is a natural event than can
occur irrespective of our existence. Because of its variability, the climate is always subject
to changes. The Little Ice Age along with the Medieval Warm Period are examples of
climate change. It is evident that climate activists are unable to ascertain the relationship
between previous cyclical variations and climate change. Had this been the case they would
have recognized that for centuries humans have been cognizant of climate change and
therefore have judiciously embarked on ingenious strategies enabling adaptability to new
circumstances. According to a 2020 study published in the National Science
Review describing responses to climate change in China’s Nihewan Basin during the
Pleistocene era: “The unstable environmental conditions at the onset of the Mid-Pleistocene
Climate Transition provide a good example of the adaptive versatility of hominins in China
during the Early Pleistocene, contrasting with the notion of long-lasting conservative
behaviours and undifferentiated technologies across the Pleistocene.” Human ingenuity can
avert possible disadvantages stemming from climate change. Besides, contemporary
individuals, like their ancestors, have an immense capacity to innovate. For example,
scientists from Purdue University in America to their counterparts at the Australian National
University are constantly exploring new ways to reduce the implications of drought. Climate
change is not a novel scenario that should scare us into defeatism. The only constant is
change, and humans never fail to illustrate their dexterity when managing disruptive
processes.
Furthermore, like humans other species have shown an impressive ability to adjust to
climate change and its effects. Although the rantings of activists portend gloom, rigorous
analyses indicate that biodiversity thrives in warm periods. In a 2009 study published in
the Journal of Forest Ecology and Management the authors contradict the assumption that
global warming is detrimental to the health of plant species by writing that “increases in
future temperatures could lead to growth in forest productivity in the Pacific Northwest,
especially in Washington.” A 2012 report authored by ecologists in PLOS ONE is even more
critical of the thesis that climate change depletes wildlife: “Arctic and subarctic (i.e.,
[sub]arctic) ecosystems are predicted to be particularly susceptible to climate change.
Consequently, species at high latitudes should be especially susceptible to climate change,
likely experiencing significant range contractions. Contrary to these expectations, our
modelling of species distributions suggests that predicted climate change up to 2080 will
favour most mammals presently inhabiting (sub)arctic Europe. Assuming full dispersal
ability, most species will benefit from climate change, except for a few cold-climate
specialists.” Nonhuman species rely on a litany of strategies to navigate climate change.
This is made clear by some researchers’ concluding remarks: “That extant species have
survived abrupt, historical climatic changes might be—at least partly—good news. It
suggests that species’ ability to survive drastic climate change is greater than hitherto
recognized, perhaps due to the phenotypic variability of populations, or to their ability to
survive in microclimatic pockets in a heterogeneous landscape.”
So far, we have deduced that climate change is a normal process with positive implications
ranging from improved vegetation to dynamic ecosystems. Now we need to establish if CO2
is causing global warming. Based on the orthodoxy of the school of global warming, rising
levels of CO2 can trigger warming. But there is a mountain of evidence stating otherwise.
For instance, in the peer-reviewed study titled “On the Existence of a 'Tropical Hot Spot' and
the Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding,” the authors write: “At this point, there is
no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO 2 Concentrations have
caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.” Moreover,
several researchers attribute warming to oceanic cycles. As professor of atmospheric
sciences Anastasios Tsonis explains: “El Niño Southern Oscillation cycle and its
'cousins' do not tell us anything about human contributions to climate change. They do,
however, underscore the importance of natural variability in climate change. While humans
may play a role in climate change, other natural forces such as the oceans and
extraterrestrial influences such as the sun and cosmic rays may play important roles too.”
Absent a direct consensus that CO2 is driving global temperatures, does it make sense to
pursue net-zero policies? 
Many of these proposals require divesting from fossils fuels and in other cases full-scale
deindustrialization. Yet the uncertainty surrounding the role of CO 2 in activating global
warming does not inspire confidence in such actions. Intriguingly, however the research is
quite damning on the ability of anticarbon measures to reverse prosperity. Reporting for the
BBC, Matt McGrath conveys research arguing that negative emissions technologies may
spur a rise in food prices:

Technologies that can remove carbon dioxide from the air could have huge
implications for future food prices, according to new research….One of the
ideas on how to achieve this is called BECCS—bioenergy with carbon
capture and storage. It means growing crops that soak up CO2, then
burning them for electricity while capturing and burying the carbon that's
produced….Critics say this idea would need the deployment of huge
amounts of land which would reduce the amount of land for agriculture at a
time of increasing global population….Another technology that has raised
much interest is called Direct Air Capture (DAC), where machines pull CO2
directly from the atmosphere….This would require energy equal to 115% of
current global natural gas consumption.
On the other hand, contrary to the unfortunate portrayal of CO 2 as a pollutant, its fertilization
effect is widely acknowledged by scientists. Commenting on this process in the Journal of
Environmental and Experimental Botany, scientists aver that “elevated CO2 concentration
increases the plant growth and leaf photosynthesis, even under water stress conditions.”
Although, real analysis informs us that this gas has some beneficial effects, mainstream
pundits persist in misinforming the citizenry. Unless we confront their errors the war on
carbon dioxide will succeed in making humanity worse off.
Additionally, we cannot conclude a discussion on climate change without comparing global
warming to cooling. Writers lament global warming, but cooling is less conducive to
prosperity. Here is an excerpt from a study documenting the relationship between climate
and development in China’s Hexi Corridor over the last two millennia: “Results found the
region's reconstructed temperature to be strongly coupled with precipitation dynamics, i.e.,
a warming climate was associated with a greater supply of moisture, whereas a cooling
period was associated with more frequent drought. A prolonged cold period tended to
coincide with societal instability….In contrast, a prolonged warm period coincided with rapid
development.’’ Another article also discussing China yields a similar conclusion: “The
overall impacts of climate were negative in the cold periods and positive in the warm
periods.” As we highlighted earlier, warming is compatible with growing vegetation and
ecological diversity, so declining agricultural productivity in cooler periods may be a possible
contributor to conflict and economic distress. For example, Murat Iyigun, Nathan Nunn, and
Nancy Qian (2017) in assessing conflicts in Europe, North Africa, and the Near East from
1400 to 1900 remarked that cooler periods are likely to be characterized by warfare: “We
show that cooling is associated with increased conflict. When we allow the effects of cooling
over a fifty-year period to depend on the extent of cooling during the preceding period, the
effect of cooling on conflict is larger in locations that experienced earlier cooling.”
It is apparent that though climate change is a real issue, several claims postulated by
climate activists are overstated and not supported by scientific evidence. Further climate
change is a dynamic process that is beyond our control, with diverse effects. The doomsday
mantra of climate activists is guided by antihumanism and a desire for control. Such a
worldview will not induce human flourishing and must be rejected by well-thinking people. In
sum, radical and expensive proposals like the Green New Deal are not justified by the
phenomenon of climate change.