A Modest Proposal to Save the Planet

You can probably guess that I have no special knowledge about nitrogen fertilizers. In truth, not being a farmer or an agronomist, I know nothing whatever about fertilizer, nitrogen or not.

So, I do what most of you do. I check in with the scientists. That does not mean that I look up what the United Nations has to say. I ignore the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because there is no way on God’s earth that this group is not completely compromised. That means, they will offer up what Greta Thunberg believes to be scientific fact-- and ought to be ignored.

And we happily ignore whatever people are calling the scientific consensus, because scientific truth is not established by consensus, or even by taking a vote among scientists. 

So, I turn to Richard Lindzen and William Happer, seasoned and retired American academics, who are experts in atmospheric physics and meteorology. Lindzen held a chair at MIT. Happer did the same at Princeton. Being as they are both retired, they have earned the right to speak their minds, without fear or favor.

In a recent article the two climate scientists question what are called Net Zero policies. These are quite the rage against those who are hellbent on saving the planet. They involve banning the production of nitrogen fertilizer derived from fossil fuels.

The scientists point out that if you do this, many of the world's people will starve to death. Nothing like a modest proposal to save the planet.

This, from the Daily Skeptic:

Billions of people around the world face starvation if Net Zero policies ban the production of nitrogen fertiliser derived from fossil fuels. This is the stark warning from two top American scientists who say that eliminating fossil fuel-derived nitrogen fertilisers and pesticides “will result in about half the world’s population not having enough food to eat”. They add that eliminating Net Zero fertiliser will create “worldwide starvation”.

As it happens, some serious people have taken up the fight against nitrogen fertilizer, not to mention industrial agriculture. Just in case you believe that they made it up:

The battle over nitrogen fertiliser is being hard fought by green activists who argue for massive reductions in its use and more organic methods to be mandated. This can extend to fanaticism, as marked by the Guardian’s George Monbiot who argues for an end to dependence on farming. The ground for less choice and food is also being prepared in academia. Recently, three barking academics operating through the University of Leeds suggested World War II rationing could be an effective way to reduce carbon emissions. Also harking back to the days of spam and when spivs controlled parts of the supply chain was the actress Joanna Lumley, who has suggested a return to a points distribution system and a form of wartime rationing.

To that Happer and Lindzen respond by debunking the claims to being scientific:

Happer and Lindzen state that they are career physicists who have specialised in radiation physics and dynamic heat transfer for decades. These are said to be integral to atmospheric climate science. In their opinion, all Net Zero regulations are scientifically invalid. In summary they state the science is based on fabricated data that omit figures that contradict their conclusions, for example, on extreme weather. In addition, climate models “do not work”, while IPCC findings are “government opinions, not science”. Furthermore the “extraordinary” social benefits of CO2 and fossil fuels are omitted, and any science that demonstrates there is no catastrophic risk of global warming is ignored.

As it happens, the scientists believe that the hype over global warming has been exaggerated. There has been no real change in the earth’s temperature or even in calamitous events like hurricanes.

It has all been ginned up to appeal to adolescent minds, especially for people who do not understand science,  and to repeal the Industrial Revolution. At a time when China, to take a flagrant example, is going full speed ahead producing coal powered electricity plants, we are trying to see if we can enact policies that will cause half the world to starve to death. Call it a modest proposal, if you like.