Committing the U.S. at the COP28 Climate Summit in Dubai to end fossil fuels 80-year-old Climate czar John Kerry spread the same pernicious propaganda as the White House about its proxy war with the Kremlin. President Joe Biden, 81, and his 60-year-old Secretary of State Antony Blinken, continue to hammer Congress for another $60 billion to for the failed Ukraine War. Biden and Blinken flat out lie to Congress, and everyone else, that if they don’t continue the Ukraine War, 71-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin would take over Europe. What more poppycock does the public need to hear about the failed Ukraine war and now Kerry’s rubbish about climate change. No scientist, or group of scientists, can say with any certainty that transition automobiles off the internal combustion engines to electricity will change global warming one iota.
Kerry acts like the U.S. can run its industry on wind or solar power, complete rubbish, knowing alternative energy, wind and solar, are not efficient enough to provide sufficient energy to run residential or commercial properties. So, Kerry, with energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm, secretly push for nuclear power to meet future electricity needs. Kerry, a former U.S., Senator, Secretary of State and presidential candidate, has zero scientific background or experience in energy yet heads the Biden’s climate science department. Biden, too, has no scientific background, only relies on bureaucrats like Kerry or other green energy lobbyists to influence his thinking on climate change. Transitioning to nuclear power to run the nation’s electricity plants, carries far greater risks, far beyond anything fossil fuels have done or can do to the planet.
Biden and Granholm push to transition coal and natural gas-burning power plants to small modular nuclear power plants, claiming the safe use of nuclear power but without any real plan to dispose of toxic nuclear waste. Biden White House officials want to transition to Small Modular Reactors [SMRs], despite knowing they produce more nuclear waste than conventional nuclear reactors, not to mention more neutron leakage during normal operations. While many companies, including Westinghouse and General Electric, are developing SMRs, there’s no reliable timeline for building out the SMR power plants, costing about $1 billion for 300 megawatts of power, no different than the cost of coal or natural gas fired plants. Biden officials ignore the long-term dangers of nuclear waste, saying they produce clean carbon-free power, completely ignoring the hazards of nuclear power.
Paris Climate Accords in 2015, that committed industrial powers to reduce the use of fossil fuels, to maintain 1.5 degrees Celsius about the pre-industrial temperature, created even more urgency in the 2023 COP28 climate talks in Dubai. Despite commitments to reduce the fossil fuel industry, the U.S. produced about 20 million barrels of oil, roughly 21% of world fossil fuel supplies. “We ourselves are drunk on oil and natural gas that the United States exports every day,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) at the COP28 conference. “Our companies don’t want to stop doting that either,” says the U.S. was not in a position to “teach temperance.” Markey, like Kerry, has bought into SMRs as the main future source of electricity, despite knowing the risks of nuclear contamination but problems already faced with short and long-term nuclear disposal.
No climate scientist can say with certainty that ending the internal combustion engines, replacing it with electricity would have any measurable effect on climate change. Whatever pollution comes from tailpipes, the disposal of nuclear waste still hasn’t been figured by climate scientists. “To move to a phase-out, I think, does not recognize the transition reality that we are currently facing,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska.). Biden wants to placate the green energy industry, but has no real alterative other than pushing for electric cars. What’s more dangerous for the environment packing the earth with nuclear waste or taking your chances with climate change? Scientist have had the luxury to speculate about global warming but not about the effect of widespread nuclear waste. If COP28 tells anything, the global community should stop the climate hysteria.
Global climate science is not precise enough to know whether transitioning automobiles to electric would reverse the current carbon effect on climate change. What’s unknown is not the effect of carbon on global warming but the effect of toxic nuclear waste on earth’s environment. White House officials look too optimistically at green energy and nuclear power to solve the carbon pollution caused by burning fossil fuels. But if nuclear power becomes the dominant source of electric power around the planet, there’s no way to determine now how nuclear accidents or toxic waste would impact the environment. Green energy zealots and politicians have gone overboard pushing for new, untested nuclear technology as the answer for future sources of energy. Scientists must weigh the effect of carbon pollution against the unknown effects of widespread nuclear power.
About the Author
John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.
