This is not an “official stance” or a platform plank. I am neither a scientist nor an environmental policy wonk. This is simply a layman’s article written by a layman writer on a topic that is so misunderstood due to incessant propaganda that I felt the urge to post it here.
Whether one believes in “man-made climate change” or not is irrelevant for this piece. Instead, let’s first strip away the challenges inherent with the way the problem (or lack thereof) is being handled by the federal government. Step-by-step, here’s what I would recommend about how to handle climate change:
- Eliminate the national EPA: It’s redundant and wasteful. The circular reasoning that drives the agency starts with “solutions” and then attempts to warp the data to create the need for their solutions.
- Call for real scientific exploration into the subject: What we have today in America is an industry driven by political science rather than real science. It’s commonly known in the field that the only way to receive funding, get papers published, and receive invitations on the speaking circuit is to start with the premise that climate change is man-made and never deviate from that premise even if the data points elsewhere. Instead, scientists must be encouraged to be real scientists. Take the politics out of the mix.
- Focus efforts on local solutions to real problems: The Paris climate deal is a joke. I’m not going to dive into details there; listen to Dr. Sterling Burnett from Heartland to find out why over a trillion US dollars isn’t a great investment to allegedly save the world. Instead, let’s let people work within their communities, cities, and states. When we localize environmentalism, there’s a tangible impact that can be made. Picking up litter or driving a Prius might not save the world, but it will help your world, as in your local community. When we localize, solutions tend to make much more sense.
Obviously this is an incomplete stab at a bigger issue, but that’s the point. We’re nowhere near even heading in this basic direction, let alone formulating a plan that is efficient. We know this much: the path our leaders are heading in regards to the environment is wrong. There seem to be changes happening to appease the populist wing of the Republican Party, but even those don’t go nearly far enough. Modern environmentalism has turned into an economic play rather than one driven by conscientious activists and scientists.
When we get closer to election time, we’ll seek a more detailed plan to address the issue of the environment. Until then, we can look at the situation and know with near certainty that the “solutions” to address the environment are more damaging to Americans than any real or perceived threats from the environment itself. The climate that needs to change the fastest is the one in Washington DC.