Full Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABqbc8cKhSo
Full Script:
Presently, there is no shortage of discussion about the topic of Climate Change. Roughly half the population believes that human activity has become unsustainable, reaching the level of global existential crisis and that the world will cross a point of no return before this decade is out. The other half believes that we are merely in a relatively benign natural cycle, from which the Earth will recover on its own – with or without our help – much like it’s done before from far worse circumstances, and that climate alarmism is nothing more than a cynical ploy to consolidate wealth and power.
Both of these sounds rather extreme, don’t they?
Moreover, these two views are obviously mutually exclusive, yet adherents of either side cling to their respective narratives with religious fervor. Both can’t be true at the same time, and yet it matters a great deal which one is closer to the truth. It matters because trillions of dollars and billions of lives hang in the balance, and whichever side is wrong is costing us needlessly.
If the threat of Climate Change turns out to be not only real but apocalyptic, then the activists are right in that no expense should be spared in stopping it, since we have only one planet, and we all share the same fate if it becomes irreparably destroyed. Although, if you look around, it seems the behavior of many proponents doesn’t adequately reflect the urgency of their beliefs. Their actions don’t match their words or they’d be doing far more to stop it. That aside, many will claim that we should still hedge our bets and do whatever it takes, even if it turns out to be wrong, because the downside is far too high to leave to chance. And in the abstract, I agree. However, the climate skeptics also have a valid point in so far as, if Climate Change is overblown or even outright false, then pouring money and resources down the drain on a non-issue leaves us vulnerable to any of a thousand other threats that are real, and far more urgent, which could just as easily destroy us before then.
If we had money to burn, there would be no risk in spending money on projects that went nowhere; but the reality is that resources are scarce and we must manage them with care. We must leverage the best information we have to deal with each crisis as it comes, while always being wary that something worse could still loom on the horizon.
Again, it matters what the truth is, in terms of the real-world consequences.
However, rather than get bogged down in the weeds of arguing the details of Climate Change, and whether it’s a hoax or an imminent threat, I would like to propose a simple system that completely bypasses the question altogether and goes straight to the heart of the matter.
That system is as follows:
We should consider any and all solutions to the Climate Change problem as if it were a real and serious threat, but only implement those solutions that would still be good ideas even if it wasn’t a threat at all. In other words, people can propose whatever plans they want, but we’re only interested in those things that both sides agree would leave humanity better off in the end. Everything is up for discussion, but we will only put into practice those policies that are safe and effective; and we won’t destroy people’s lives, their savings, their property, or their health and happiness to do it.
It’s not an either-or, and I am confident that many such solutions exist, which satisfy both requirements.
Case in point, carbon taxes only make sense in a world where Climate Change is a problem; but are purely wasteful and burdensome in a world where Climate Change is a hoax.
Conversely, planting more trees is a good idea independent of the issue of Climate Change. It will help if it’s true, but won’t hurt if it’s false. If Climate Change is a threat, then having more trees will help suck carbon dioxide out of the air and reduce the compounding warming effect. However, if it’s not a threat, then having more trees will still yield other benefits in terms of clean air, soil retention, reducing pollution, renewing resources for use in the economy, and improving the overall well-being of humans and wildlife.
As such, this administration plans to renew its commitment to the Trillion Trees Campaign, while calling on Congress to end extortive laws regarding carbon taxes.
Those who would defend these taxes will argue that they’re necessary to deter companies from releasing an excess of carbon into the atmosphere. However, in practice, it’s really just granting license to pollute for anyone with enough money to pay the fee. Not only does this fail to solve the problem, it winds up hurting smaller businesses, leading to vertical monopolies that enrich big business interests who have no sense of loyalty or compassion or regard for the environment.
To say nothing of the fact that, although we might do our part here in the United States, it will have no impact on the actions of countries like China or India, who have massive incentive to continue polluting, and who will do so without such penalties. This ultimately puts us at a disadvantage to those nations and makes us weaker in a way that planting more trees would not.
Instead of punishing businesses with arbitrarily increased taxes and regulation, I would appeal to the American people directly, and say that: If you care about the environment as much as you claim, then vote with your dollars and refuse to do business with companies whom you believe are responsible for polluting. Give your money instead to those who offer green alternatives; and don’t wait for the government to save you, but take action yourselves! This will be faster, cheaper, more efficient, and more effective in the end, even if it means tightening our belts in the short-term.
You can even apply it to China as well.
After all, you wouldn’t pay a company who pours sludge into your drinking water, right? You’d find someone else who makes the same products in a cleaner, more-sustainable, more moral, more-eco-friendly way. The same logic applies here. If the health and well-being of the planet is of such concern to you, then it should be an easy decision to pay a few dollars more out of your own pocket for green alternatives, in much the same way that those who prioritize their own health will pay extra for organic food rather than settle for the cheaper processed crap that results in cancer and diabetes.
Either you will pay now or you’ll pay later, but either way, you will bear the cost of your actions.
Ultimately, the issue of tackling Climate Change comes down to an engineering problem. Many will claim that the free market and a prioritization on profit above all else has caused this mess in the first place by incentivizing the cutting of corners in favor of what’s cheap. To this I say: If that’s really true, then you already have the solution. Right now! Today! And you can put it into practice anytime you wish. If all they care about is making money, and will do whatever it takes to get it, then you know their Achilles Heel; in which case, you should act like you believe your own argument and follow it though to its logical conclusion. Put your money where your mouth is, and hit these bad actors right where it’ll hurt the most: their bottom line. If all they care about is profit, then withdraw your support for their behavior and make it more costly for them to carry on as they are than it would be to make the switch to sustainability.
Let them know that their dirty deeds are what’s leading to them losing customers and losing money, and I promise it won’t take much before they sit up and take notice. A few percentage points is all you’d need before you start seeing results. Before you start seeing businesses with an ethos of sustainability crop up to fill a niche.
People blame free market capitalism for causing problems, often without realizing that this same system provides a remedy as well. As such, they call for heavy government regulation, which then inevitably leads to the biggest players gaming the system and vying for control of the levers of power, often at the expense of the little guy. We see this time and time again, and it’s always so predictable. No one likes giving up money or power, so instead, they will do everything they can to avoid it, even if it means co-opting the people who make the rules and buying off the referees. Those same watchdogs who are meant to protect us then turn around and funnel money to their corporate masters because they’ve sold out to the highest bidder and people like you and I can’t match their bid.
This is how we wind up spending billions of dollars in subsidies on Big Oil, for instance. Which, by the way … we’re ending that as well! No more tax dollars for fossil fuels. No more corporate welfare. The same goes for so-called green energy. The government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, because frankly, we’re not scientists or engineers. We aren’t subject-matter experts so what the hell do politicians know about what’s best for the economy and the environment?
Everyone will have to compete on an even keel from now on, and may the best technicians win.
Some of you will claim that, without government funding of research and development, green energy can’t hope to compete with carbon fuels, who already have trillions of dollars stored up to buy out their competition. However, I put it to you that nothing would stop green energy companies from engaging in the same types of behavior as Big Oil and Big Coal – of falsifying data, or overstating their capabilities in order to gain wealth and power, or to push a political agenda (however noble it might sound).
Such deception can only cause harm by undermining the credibility of these sectors; and right now, their reputation and good name is one of the few assets they have to fight back.
Some of you purists out there wish to ban fossil fuels outright and rely exclusively on cleaner alternatives; and I would love to live in a world where I could tell you that were possible, but we don’t live in that world. Not yet at least.
The unfortunate reality is that, as wonderful as it would be to have our energy needs completely met by wind, wave, tidal, solar, geothermal, and biofuel, the technology to make that feasible just isn’t where it needs to be. It’s certainly getting close, and improving everyday, and we certainly ought to use them when and where it makes sense, in order to reduce our environmental footprint. However, it’s foolish and naive to look only at the positives without considering the negatives, which each of these processes inherently still has. In the long-term, we will get better at this, and be able to lean more heavily on green technology until it becomes the dominant form of energy; but in the short-term, we can’t go tearing down the gas, coal, and oil plants just yet, because those will still be needed as a fallback option.
Thus, this administration will consider an “all of the above” approach, and defer to scientists and engineers as to what processes best meet the needs of the populace at any given place and time. We shall, of course, prefer clean and renewable sources where possible, but we also recognize the need for more traditional energy sources in some instances. As such, we will make no sweeping claims of outright banning entire industries, upon which many of you rely, not just for power, but for your livelihoods as well.
Change must occur and it must happen quickly, but it must not happen foolishly! Before we can dismantle the old, we must build something new to replace it, or else we risk throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I share your concerns about the many dangers of so-called fossil fuels – how they pollute the environment and require us to be entangled in the affairs of foreign countries – but doing away with them before we’re ready will only cripple us in other respects and result in people dying of hunger and cold, rather than from cancer and heat stroke.
Again, the problem is engineering.
People blame the free market, but the truth is that, if left alone uninterrupted, free market capitalism is one of the best mechanisms for rapidly improving technology. It’s government protectionism that these fossil fuel companies count on. Take that away, and they’ll be forced to compete with green energy in terms of producing a better result.
You are the engine of the economy, and your dollars are the fuel that drives it. The choice is yours as to what our shared fate will be. People beg the government to save them, but you have the power to save yourselves if only you’d realize it. The best thing that government can do in this case is get out of the way and let people compete to see who gets there first. To experiment on their own, creating prototypes and smaller versions that can then be mass-produced at scale – such products we shall champion and cheer and advocate for when they finally arrive.
As such, I have directed Virtual Secretary of Energy, Michael Shellenberger, to greenlight the permitting of as many sustainable projects as possible – taking care to consider the downstream consequences and environmental impact of any individual proposals, of course. Such projects shall include, but are not limited to: carbon capture technology, scrubbers, clean coal, natural gas, methods of fracking and offshore drilling that do not unduly pollute the environment, the use of desert wastelands for storage of fissile material, solar farms, solar roads, solar roofs, hydroelectric, biofuel, hydrogen, wind, wave, tidal, geothermal, and of course Generation III and Generation IV nuclear fission, thorium reactors, and nuclear fusion technology.
For those concerned about the prospect of nuclear reactors – who conjure images of Chernobyl, Fukushima, or Three Mile Island – take comfort in knowing that your fears are unfounded, for many of the problematic reactors of the past are older versions that lacked proper procedures and safeguards, which have since been remedied. Our understanding of nuclear power has advanced a great deal in recent decades, to the point where we can now virtually assure a meltdown-proof form of fission. And we shall not be so foolish as to build them along tectonic fault lines or within range of other disaster zones.
Consider also the various nuclear-powered submarines currently in use by the U.S. Navy around the globe. Do you share the same fear of them that you do for a power plant? No, you don’t; and rightly so, for we have the best engineering minds on the planet building them for us.
If you’re still not convinced, I have directed the Energy Secretary to make available scientific literature on all these subjects, which you can access on the Department of Energy’s website.
We will also be exploring the possibility of building composite reactors along the vast coastline of the United States – in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf of Mexico – to reduce our reliance on energy imports and make us a net energy exporter to the rest of the world. These reactors will take advantage of the combined capabilities of wind, solar, and tidal forces with care given to both impact on the local environment and resistance to local weather conditions so as to avoid unexpected power outages. Already, such devices have shown promise throughout Europe, but I think we can do even better if we put our best and brightest minds to it.
We shall also keep a close eye on emerging technologies in land, sea, air, and space travel that will improve fuel efficiency, as well as discoveries of new potential sources both on Earth and in outer space.
Again, all of this will be available on the Department of Energy’s website, with parallels on the Department of Transportation and Space Force sites as well.
A recent survey revealed that the threat of Climate Change didn’t even register in the top twelve concerns of voters from either major party. While we might expect this from the Republicans, who tend to be Climate Change skeptics, it was also true of Democrats, who tend more towards raising hue and cry about the runaway effects of manmade Climate Change, and of degradation to the environment more broadly. While we could speculate on what this implies about their sincerity and whether or not they believe their own narrative as much as they proclaim, in the end, it doesn’t matter so long as our focus is on solutions that would benefit us either way.
Nothing I’ve said here should be all that controversial or surprising to anyone, and I doubt anyone would really disagree. Whether advocate or skeptic, we’re all human at the end of the day. We all share the same planet, and it’s the only one we’ve got. It’s time we come together and unify around a plan that helps not just our country, but our world and everyone and everything in it.
In this way, we shall make America greater than ever, and create a future of freedom for all.