Many of us have been looking for relief from the ceaseless rituals of government-tied climate cult zealots taking our money to spout anti-freedom propaganda, push dead-end pork projects, produce sketchy so-called “temperature” readouts, and then tell us that we can’t affordably eat, travel, recreate, work, or even heat our homes the way we desire. Some of us might have hoped that the election of Donald Trump would see a change.
Alas, not yet. As Selwyn Duke reports for The New American, a group of so-called “researchers” tied to federally subsidized Dartmouth College, in NH, have just released their latest “study” claiming that our doing business with certain companies – especially those giving us affordable energy for cars, home heat, and electricity generation – “COST” us $28 TRILLION over the period 1991–2020.
And, by the way, the study’s authors, Christopher W. Callahan and Justin S. Mankin, claim “the case is closed” on that, so don’t question it, and don’t express any frustration about your tax cash being taken to fund climate alarmist speculation.
Always remember: the Earth stays cooler if you shut your mouth.
The authors claim that 111 of the world’s largest companies—mostly fossil fuel corporations like Saudi Aramco, Gazprom, and ExxonMobil— have caused all this “climate damage.” Theirs is an academic hit piece is designed to grease the skids for governments and green activists to sue these companies into oblivion, much like the tobacco industry was targeted decades ago. But peel back the layers of this eco-hysteria, and you’ll find a rotten core of manipulated science, statist agendas, and a deliberate misrepresentation of carbon dioxide’s role in our world.
Let’s start with the study’s audacious claim: $28 trillion in damages, a figure conveniently just shy of the U.S.’s annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The researchers assert that every 1% of what they term “greenhouse gas emissions” – even though no one can cite an actual cause-and-specific-effect relationship between human use of petrochemical fuels and a solid, reliably measured temperature catastrophe -- since 1990 has caused $502 billion in heat-related damage.
Did they compensate for changes in building costs? Increased medical costs due to regulation and government subsidization? The growth in world population?
No.
Did they figure out how much a greater proliferation of cheap energy, plastics for medical procedures, easier transport, air conditioning, cheaper food, and cleaner water have contributed to the betterment of living standards worldwide over the same period?
No.
But you can watch great videos about those facts, thanks to journalist John Stossel and the work of researchers such as those at HumanProgressDotOrg (who, by the way, also offer plenty of research refuting the claims of “species” depletion due to purported “anthropogenic climate change” that climate cultist so often make).
And, hurricanes, droughts, and floods? Those are extra, not even factored in – likely because catastrophic weather-related events and storms have not jumped in frequency and deadliness over the past thirty years. In fact, as Climate Depot notes, global deaths from climate-related disasters have dropped significantly (e.g., from 485,000 per year in the 1920s to 7,790 in 2020).
But, have no fear, the Cult is here.
Or, perhaps do as the high priests say, and… shudder in fear and anger.
The top climate-culprits, they claim, are 10 fossil fuel providers responsible for over half the total “greenhouse gas” output – again, despite the fact that in Earth’s dynamic weather-climate-life cycle, gasses such as CO2 and Nitrogen are utilized by plants, which, in turn, are utilized by mammals, birds, lizards, insects, fish, and amphibians. Callahan and Mankin claim that Saudi Aramco and Gazprom each allegedly racked up $2 trillion in “heat damage” over decades. Sounds catastrophic, right? But here’s the kicker: this is activism dressed up in lab coats, and it’s built on a foundation of questionable data that’s been exposed time and again for its unsound, historically questionable, sourcing and for its ties to political agendas.
Remember the 2009 Climategate scandal? Emails leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit revealed climate scientists discussing how to “hide the decline” in temperature data and manipulate studies to exaggerate global warming threats. These weren’t fringe researchers but key figures shaping the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. Thank goodness for their grand show of integrity. It’s almost as noble as “scientists” issuing suggestions that they frame “Climate Change” within rhetoric about “national security” and “public health”.
One wonders if that tactic helps government-dependent “researchers” maximize public fear and secure funding.
So, while scaremongering and propaganda campaigns can help the politically-tied clan get more of our tax cash, their claims help drive onerous government diktats about automobile emissions and natural gas heat that push those products and services higher in price or out of availability altogether.
Without oil, gas, and coal, modern agriculture, transportation, and industry would collapse, plunging billions into poverty.
As Duke observes, citing numerous sources (one, two, three, four, and five):
"The correlation between energy use and GDP is well-documented; studies often cite a near-linear relationship, where a 1% increase in energy consumption correlates with a 0.5-1% increase in GDP.
… Fossil fuels have likely contributed around $63.8 trillion to $67.4 trillion to global economic growth since 1900….”
And he adds:
“In other words, even if we accept Dartmouth’s damages estimate, it’s dwarfed by the benefits fossil fuels deliver.”
Yes. The correlation between energy use and GDP is near-linear.
Yet, the study’s authors aren’t shy about their goals. They declare the “scientific case for climate liability closed,” arguing that “science is no longer an obstacle” to suing companies. This is a naked call for wealth redistribution, cloaked in environmental righteousness. If governments follow through, expect higher prices for everything—energy, food, transportation—as companies pass on the costs of litigation and penalties. And who benefits? The state, which gets to flex its muscle, and the green NGOs, flush with settlement cash. Meanwhile, consumers get fleeced, and people in developing nations, reliant on affordable energy, get crushed.
The hypocrisy is galling. Governments have long permitted and profited from fossil fuel production, taxing it heavily while pushing climate policies that raise energy costs. If energy companies “knew” about climate risks, as alarmists claim, then so did the state, which happily cashed the checks. Why no lawsuits against governments? Because this isn’t about justice; it’s about power. The Dartmouth study’s selective math—ignoring CO2’s benefits, economic growth, and the unreliability of climate models—reveals its true purpose: to provide a pretext for statist control and private-sector shakedowns.
In a free market, companies answer to consumers, not bureaucrats wielding junk science. The $28 trillion figure is a fabricated club to beat industry into submission while ignoring the reality that fossil fuels have lifted humanity from grinding poverty. Climate alarmism, propped up by manipulated studies and a demonized view of CO2, is just another tool for central planners to erode liberty.
Don’t fall for it. Energy is life, and the truth about CO2’s benefits is greener than the alarmists want you to believe.
Related:
Inconvenient: Global Temps Lower Now Than When Gore Received Nobel Prize | MRCTV