“Climate Envoy” John “12-Mil Mansion By The Sea” Kerry is making big “futurist” claims…
The man with a penchant for private jet jaunts and (thanks to his marriage to the inheritor of the Heinz Ketchup fortune) who has, or has had, possession or regular use of multiple yachts, six cars (by his own 2004 admission) and at least five homes, decided to blather on about what “WE” must do right away in order to save us from the boogeyman he claimed long ago would destroy us by now.
Yes. To beat “anthropogenic climate change,” WE must adopt what Kerry calls, “Green Steel.”
Sure, thousands of years ago blacksmiths found they could make iron more durable by adding carbon to the iron-making process in furnaces. And, sure, steel is kinda silvery in color, not green… But this is a new term Kerry and his gang are sliding into the vernacular.
Proponents claim that “Green Steel” is “carbon-neutral” – which is preposterous, because it takes fuel to mine the constituents of the metal.
But if it’s not “carbon-neutral,” perhaps “Green Steel” might reduce carbon emissions overall, even if the net release isn’t “zero”? That’s a matter of what are considered costs, which means we open the door to fundamental economics…
In order to employ the word “costs” one must relinquish his own conceit – something Kerry is not willing to do – about telling others what they should value. For generations, people in the free market have determined that CO2 emissions don’t impose market-worthy costs. They’re not seeing provable, person-on-person damage claims, and the only way damages can be quantified is through subjective valuation should individuals say they or their property have been harmed by the actions of another person. Even if a person or class of plaintiffs were to try to prove in court that CO2 emissions were causing him or her (or them) harm -- thus possibly placing a price point on the value of reducing atmospheric CO2 – the sad, politicized history of so-called “climate science” is so corrupted by political forces that major scandals have erupted, showing faulty graphs, secret emails indicating attempts to fudge data, and even climate scientists leaving their universities because the field was so sullied by big government.
It’s only due to politics that CO2 has been called a “cost”, and by trying to get his magic “Green Steel,” Kerry uses fearmongering to try to hide real cost considerations.
For example, “Green Steel” hinges on replacing the heating (or electrolytic) component for binding carbon with iron, and is as follows, thanks to the kind folks at MacroBusiness.com:
The concept of Green Steel is to replace the use of coke (and thereby coking coal) as a reducing agent and fuel in the steel making process, which is at its heart 2Fe2O3 + 3C = 4Fe + 3CO2.
But MacroBusiness also notes that this will require the construction of entirely new kinds of plants, new coke supply lines, massive inputs of energy, financial resources drawn from other areas of people’s lives, and is at least a decade away.
This is a politically driven, arbitrary imposition, and has nothing to do with real cost-benefit analysis. No cost-benefit analysis can actually be engaged because a real market cost of carbon emissions is not measurable and damage has not even been determined.
But the tax-funded Kerry Carnival is ongoing, and seemingly ceaseless. In addition to his “Green Steel” bloviation, we have his days-earlier claim at the IV Summit of The Americas, hosted in LA, that:
We have to embrace this transition which will, in the end, I guarantee you, be larger than ultimately than the Industrial Revolution was.
Ahh, yes. “WE.”
According to this multi-decade peddler of false narratives and disproven predictions, WE “have to prevent false narratives” -- such as the crazy, flakey, utterly nonsensical idea that the need for more of the most efficient forms of energy (oil, natural gas, and coal) ought to inspire free people to increase the availability and see where supply and demand reach the classic economic equilibrium kids in Econ 101 learn during their first week.
And remember 2014, when John Kerry claimed, “In fact, this isn’t something around the corner – this is happening now," but he didn’t provide any verifiable data, because, well, heck, as the University of Alabama’s Earth Science Director correctly observed at the time, there had been NO measurable global warming for EIGHTEEN years?
Author, economist, and President Emeritus of the Mises Institute Doug French has a few things to say about Mr. Kerry’s grand plans for our economy, so let’s conclude with a nod to Mr. French, who writes:
If reality was beyond his reach before, John Kerry surely lost touch when he married into the Heinz condiment colossus in 1995. He talks as if he were ordering lunch from his harried house staff, ‘Faster, Jeeves. Can’t you hurry up and decarbonize already?’ All of this service to the country has left Kerry clueless as to physics, not to mention economics.
Actually, that our politicians would think despite all the evidence before them, that somehow, we can wave a magic wand and accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles by a factor of 20 when we don't have enough lithium, nickel or cobalt to even support the current growth trajectory. It's just crazy. Where's the diesel going to come from to mine all the cobalt and nickel and lithium that we're going to need?
French also notes the observations of Chevron CEO Mike Wirth, about whom MRCTV’s Eric Scheiner reported last week.
Global consumption of petroleum and liquid fuels will average just short of a hundred million barrels a day this year, an increase of 2.2 million barrels a day from 2021. Yet, Chevron CEO Mike Wirth stresses, ‘there hasn’t been a refinery built in this country since the 1970s.’ More ominously, he predicts, ‘I personally don’t believe there will be a new petroleum refinery ever built in this country again.’
The economics of energy are the same as those for all products and services. Prices sent by consumer choices send signals that let providers supply the right amount at the price consumers allow. Too high a price will see consumers move to alternatives – which is what Kerry and Biden want: to force us onto batteries and inefficient wind and solar.
If pompous politicians like Kerry would leave us alone, rather than trying to push us and manufacturers (of energy, and other goods) to reduce “our carbon footprint” we could live much better.
Their attempts to mandate “reduction in demand and carbon use” make you the target. It means higher costs, and a forced reduction in your potential to raise your living standards. It means a lower degree of productivity, higher prices, and less innovation in multitudinous areas, including inventions we may never see. It means more expensive heating bills, more difficult times for the elderly, changes in travel decisions, food production, retirement plans…
And Kerry shows no sign of caring what his schemes will do to you.
Follow MRCTV on Twitter!