Home / Environmentalism / Captain Kirk and Climate Change
Print Friendly and PDF

Captain Kirk and Climate Change

Written by Robert Murphy on May 2, 2014

For some time now I’ve been trying to convey just how ludicrous it is that the US government’s anti-carbon policies are based on computer simulations of the global economic/climate system through the year 2300. A recent piece by David Kreutzer and Kevin Dayaratna (an economist and computer programmer, respectively, at the Heritage Foundation) is the best I’ve yet seen:

When you switch on the kitchen light tonight, how will it affect Captain James T. Kirk and the intrepid crew of the Starship Enterprise?

Captain Kirk is a fictional character, of course, but the question — thanks to the EPA — is all too real. The agency calls it the “Social Cost of Carbon.” In the SCC they claim to have an estimate, measured in dollars per ton of CO2, for all the damage that your free-and-easy light-switching today will impose on the world from now until the year 2300, at which point Captain Kirk would be 77. To save Kirk and the rest of future Earth from a panoply of speculative, incremental horrors, the EPA has plans to nudge your carbony little fingers away from that switch and many others.

The two authors then go on to describe their results when they tweak 2 of the 3 computer models that the Obama Administration’s Working Group used to calculate the “social cost of carbon”:

(For the rest of the article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on consultingbyrpm.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

26 thoughts on “Captain Kirk and Climate Change

  1. LOL. "Who cares about the future?!? Status quo FTW!"

    What a joke.

  2. Who cares? Climate change was called a real phenomenon 100,000 years ago: The Ice Age. The Earth doesn't care, why should I?

  3. Lee Douglas says:

    Sadly, they will make you care by increasing the cost of the energy you use. Shut down coal plants (hard to feel too bad about them), keep industry from making more nuclear plants, regulate natural gas plants into oblivion, and on it goes. Watch for it – here comes the future and it ain't pretty!

  4. ROBERT PLANT says:

    communist using this excuse to take away youre rights and the little money you have they have not taken already while they are not affected by these rules these communist need arrested by americans and tried for high treason and deported and never let back into AMERICA

  5. And what about the social cost of the odumbass regime?

  6. elysianhunter says:

    Are liberals THAT pompous and self-important that they actually believe that we humans have ANY effect on climate change? The earth's climate has changed back and forth for eons and will continue to do so whether or not the liberals whine and cry about cow farts and car exhaust, and implore the world's poopers to "wipe with washable cloths" in order to "save the trees." They just want to profit from rising energy costs and remain in power. There's no "saving the earth" to it. The earth will do what it will do whether humans drive cars or raise cattle or build campfires.

  7. RLOwen says:

    If man caused CO2 emissions caused the temperature increase that ended 17 years ago, can anyone explain to me why the temperature on Mars was rising at the same rate, at the same time. The Vikings didn't name Greenland that because it was cold and snowy. Temperature cycles are two things. Normal and a chance to extort money. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com It's cool.

  8. Joey C says:

    Any entity that controls energy controls the world and we should be damn sure that entity isn't malicious. When examining Obama and many democrats we already understand they are enormous liars and malicious. Unfortunately with the issue of, ah, global warming, globalist like the U.N. would love to completely control energy and yet totally ignore and or not challenge China or India and will force us to pay. Encouraged and supported by many in our own government. I’m all for clean energy but until the tech is there and is cost efficient and reliable, it’s dishonest to force these costly changes on us.

  9. 97USA CITIZEN says:

    THEY do not care about facts:::::::::

  10. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be? A constant temperature has never been normal.

  11. Royboy says:

    I'll bet that's the same math they used to calculate the money we're all going to save on Obamacare. Now if they could balance the budget; we’d have to start burning the money to keep it from piling up on us! Or we could just give our ruler a little more needed vacation.

  12. "Based on computer simulations" which the carbonazis persistently refuse to allow any third party to look at and review. The March 20, 2000, edition of the UK Independent newspaper carried an article headlined, "Snowfalls Are Now Just A Thing Of The Past". They have been trying to sell this nonsense of "human-caused" global warming for decades because they want to impose a carbon tax on humanity.

    In any case, Mother Nature is not cooperating with these fanatics. The cities of Detroit and Flint Mich. have just recorded their snowiest winter on record. Even the BBC is finally admitting the earth is getting colder. The former head of the Sierra Club confessed his organization exaggerated the effects of "global warming" because it was it meant more donations! It's always about the money.

  13. Government and the insurance companies were wetting themselves at the thought of all those windfall revenues and profits from Obamacare. When that fizzled was when we saw the sudden re-vamp of "human-caused" global warming (AKA carbon tax on all humanity).

    That's why you have the charade of politicians spouting that "the science is settled". Individual researchers can be bought off with government grants with strings attached to "prove" that global warming exists. But you can't fool Mother Nature!

  14. The study of anthropogenic climate change may be a worthy endeavor. And an Environmental Protection Agency is probably a good idea – only insofar as we create a Economy Protection Agency as a counter-balance and safeguard. After all, the economy may be the most vital aspect of modern man’s environment.

  15. redmeatstate says:

    We must change the name of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reflect its true purpose, agenda, and intended means, the CPA— The Communism Promotion Agency.

  16. redmeatstate says:

    This has always been a laughable study as all life depends upon CARBON for its existence and sustenance. The Carboniferous Era saw CO2 levels 18x higher than currently today, yet global temperatures were temperate and mild and life was at its most abundant stage.
    This goes hand in hand with Malthusian Economics which seeks to destroy a larger portion of humanity to make life "reasonably sustainable" for the self appointed Elite.

  17. marcjeric32 says:

    My preferred name for our environmentalists is Eco-Nazis – but I am seriously tempted to switch to your name for those criminals – namely "carbonazis".

  18. JohnBMyers says:

    The future will be bad based on the science of history. What the Press and Clergy won't tell you. On Facebook – The First Trumpet in Revelation. com and the science of history. http://firsttrumpetinrevelation.com/ Be a Prepper !

  19. Our grand a glorious wizard of ooze, the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent leader whom Allah chose to save the world seems to be floundering like a pig in poop. He doesn't know whether to eat it, sleep in it, play in it or throw it.

  20. If you want to Know the "REAL FUTURE" .. Read the BIBLE ..! .. only GOD Knows what the future holds

  21. Or leave it EPA .. (Evil People Association)

  22. Good assessment of the Problem !..

  23. Seriously. "You vill accept global warming und a carbon tax!" All these carbonazis must have flunked Science 101 in high school, since carbon dioxide is essential for plant life.

    A bigger risk is methane gas, but the rub is this: the biggest producers of methane gas are deep-sea microbes, the animal and insect populations of the world. They dwarf what humans produce. But then — unlike humans — microbes, animals and insects are far too intelligent to fall for a scam like "human caused" global warming. 😉

  24. marcjeric32 says:

    No- the biggest source of methane is the rotting vegetation found in swamps; but these were renamed by our Eco-Nazis as protected "wetlands".

  25. Yes, it is very cool and good