Andrew Burton/Getty Images
Energy & Climate
Where Big Oil Meets Big Green

Cheap energy and stopping climate change are not mutually exclusive goals.

Published on: September 28, 2017
Meghan L. O’Sullivan is a professor at Harvard University’s Kennedy School and the author of Windfall: How the New Energy Abundance Upends Global Politics and Strengthens America’s Power, which was published by Simon & Schuster last week. She was Deputy National Security Advisor for Iraq and Afghanistan for President George W. Bush.
show comments
  • rpabate

    I shake my head in disbelief that someone who, no doubt, considers them self intellectually superior to us common folk uses the term “climate change” as something that is worth fretting about. The climate has always and will always change. The writer of this article has been captured by “group think”. Therefore, she is not to be taken seriously. If, on the other hand, she was writing about preventing “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” (“CAGW”), then maybe we should pay attention, provided, however, that there was sound empirical evidence that the burning of fossil fuels would, beyond any doubt, lead to catastrophe. There is no such evidence and never will there be.

    Does the writer understand that the earth has greened and food crops yields increased significantly because of recent higher levels of CO2. Does the writer know that greenhouse operators pump warm CO2 into their greenhouses to improve plant growth and crop yields, while at the same time causing the plants to use less water. That’s the magic of higher CO2 levels.

    Below are two You Tube videos. The first is a compilation of skeptics. The second is one that is pro alarmist. You decide.

    • Gary Hemminger

      I completely agree with you rpabate. What is clear to me and is getting clearer everyday is that the so called elite are actually very stupid and disconnected from reality.

  • marcossantiago

    What a waste of space. The author apparently doesn’t understand that protecting the environment and “combating climate change ” are not the same thing.

    There is much that has, can and should be done to protect the environment. Tilting at the climate change windmill diverts resources that are better spent on real environmental and social problems.

  • Gary Hemminger

    The climate has continually changed throughout the Earth’s history. Stopping climate change would be like stopping evolution. It doesn’t make any sense. Especially sense there is no way to distinguish whether it is nature or man changing the climate.

    • rpabate

      Agree. In order to prove man has been the cause of the warming, we would need to have a control earth, similar in every respect to our earth except for humans. But that would only provide us with the anthropogenic signal, which includes more than just the burning of fossil fuels. The major anthropogenic forcing in addition to the burning of fossil fuels are the urban heat island (“UHI”) effect, agriculture and deforestation. I read recently that, during the three years ending in 2014, China used more cement than U.S. used in the entire 20th century. Can you imagine how much cement and asphalt has been used by the entire world since the end of WWII. The IPCC claims they have adjusted for this UHI effect but they will not release their work or computer algorithms.

      So far the the increase in CO2 seems to have been net beneficial. Seas are not rising faster than they have been since the end of the Little Ice Age. Arctic ice has been historically quite variable. At times it has receded only to advance again all driven by natural forces. What we “do not” hear much about in the press is that Antarctic ice has been increasing.

      What convinced me that this alarmism about increasing levels of CO2 was not about science but about ideology was when the EPA classified CO2 pollutant. A naturally occurring gas essential for life on earth a pollutant? How ridiculous. That Ms O’Sullivan has not picked up on this indicates to me just how brainwashed and group herded our supposed elites have become. President Eisenhower warned in his Farewell Address (“FWA”) about what has in fact transpired in the sciences. She, no doubt, just learned about the “military/industrial” complex, but Eisenhower also warned about government, because of funding, setting the agenda for scientific research. Ms. “O’Sullivcan should read President Eisenhower’s FWA.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2018 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.