Climate change is turning into a race between politics and physics (copy)


The Bulletin has had a number of letters and guest columns that advocate the Green New Deal and its attendant commitment to eliminating fossil fuels and establishing a carbon tax. This will cost taxpayers many trillions of dollars that we cannot afford.

As recently evidenced, our country will be at the mercy of extreme weather. Power outages and death from extreme heat will become more common place.

On Jan. 27, John Kerry, new climate czar, stated that the U.S. could eliminate all its carbon (CO2) and it would have no meaningful effect on climate change. The Cato Institute had previously calculated that if all the U.S. CO2 was eliminated, it would only cause a 0.06 of a degree drop in temperature over the next 30 years. Why ? Because 90 % of the CO2 is produced by other countries and is growing exponentially. China has plans for 250 more coal-fired plants, as does India and Indonesia. Mexico has started to gasify coal.

Many falsely believe the Paris Accord has helped. John Kerry is leading the way for the U.S. to rejoin. It is a prime example of the silk purse made from the sow’s ear.

The only two countries that have made their goals are Gambia and Morocco. Most will not make meaningful commitment to specific goals. China, for example, says they are a developing country and may set greenhouse gas goals in 2030.

Other countries such as Germany did set goals that they could not attain and have now given up. Germany now imports more fossil fuels and is looking to Russia for much more through a direct pipeline. Although the U.S. has not been part of the Paris Accord in recent years, we have led the world in volume reduction of CO2 primarily from converting from coal to natural gas.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) has been the primary reference of those who support the Green New Deal. Few people realize that the UNIPCC’s charter was to demonstrate that humans cause global warming and facilitate the transfer of U.S. funds to those countries in the developing stage.

Recent UNIPCC reports are more equivocal, now stating that humans may be the cause. It should be noted that in recent years we have developed the ability to measure the radiation hitting the Earth. In the last 30 years, the radiation levels have gone up significantly, as have our temperatures.

Should we not do anything? Of course not. We must adapt to global warming. Most people do not realize, for example, that a majority of the oxygen we breathe comes from the oceans. Scientists are telling us the ocean’s oxygen productivity is going down because we are killing it. Dead zones are rapidly increasing due to human pollution and waste.

Saving our oceans (and other water sources) should be the top priority in combating global warming . Water is the life blood of the Earth.

Other key aspects of adaption include 1) changing agriculture policies which result in sterilized land, 2) reducing methane from all sources, 3) rebuilding our energy infrastructure, including new modular nuclear reactors designs, 4) reducing deforestation, and 5) funding more energy research and encouraging the commercial markets to find solutions.

The Green New Deal is politics at its worst. Many scientists, economists, and environmentalists now question the viability and the associated arbitrary goals because the needed technologies do not exist.

The Green elitists want full government control, reward those who support them with pork and generate more tax revenues to spend on other progressive social initiatives.

Sign up for our Daily Headlines newsletter

Quentin Jauquet Stanko spent 22 years at the U.S. Deptartment of Energy as a nuclear scientist and now lives in Bend.

(2) comments


Power Data Group, Bend.

Quentin Stanko’s Guest Column demonstrates clearly and coherently that the Paris Accord provides a false sense of security and lacks meaningful response to Global Warming. His brief but lucid essay packs numerous examples of proof of premise.

President Xi Jinping promises carbon neutrality for China, albeit forty years from now. President Biden’s plan for zero carbon is scheduled in fourteen years calling for trillions of dollars.


This is a rather incoherent opinion piece.

A lot of the solutions proposed for "adapting" to the effects of climate change are included in the Green New Deal or being considered in the upcoming infrastructure bill.

As far as I know the actual Green New Deal legislation as proposed, is not being considered for a vote at this time.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.