So Grace Poe-Llamanzares (GPL) has vowed to put a cap on coal in our energy mix should she become President. Of course this vow is all in the name of environmentalism, the fight against Climate Change or Global Warming, and our country’s commitment to the Paris Agreement. While it is important to be mindful of the world’s environment, I think it is ridiculous to put Climate Change or Global Warming on the same priority level for our country as, say, poverty. Limiting what is currently the cheapest and quickest means of energy production while in pursuit of alternative “greener” energy sources (which are more expensive) would be devastating to the plight of the energy consumers because of the cost implications. For someone who is supposedly intelligent I cannot imagine how GPL could be so gullible as to easily jump into the Global Warming bandwagon. Did she really study this thoroughly or is she merely parroting the environmentalist narrative that the carbon emissions by human beings are causing the Climate Change phenomenon we are seeing? I think this is just one of the tell-tale signs that GPL is not really the intelligent person her fans think she is.
Think about it. It is a fact that the earth has gone through several ice ages. This means that from time to time the earth cools down and then warms up on its own. Even before human beings existed this has been the norm. So when climatologists point out trends warming climate with increased carbon emissions this doesn’t mean that increased carbon emissions causes Global Warming. At best it only shows a correlation. But as I mentioned in my previous article, correlation is not necessarily causation. So does GPL really believe that it is indeed carbon emissions that is causing temperatures to rise? If she does then this potential future President may very well be as gullible as a fat man believing he looks good on spandex! (I finally realized the truth after a series of shoot downs from hot babes I tried to pick up.)
So does my skepticism make me a “denier”? Well, not necessarily. I would love to believe that I am just being careful with what I choose to subscribe to. I consider the facts, not the fad. For example, a study by the Global Carbon Project tells:
|SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY!|
Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us daily.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 380 parts per million (ppm), about 100ppm higher than before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago. Some computer models predict damaging and irreversible climate change if carbon dioxide levels rise above 450ppm or 500 ppm.
The rate of increase of emissions suggests it may soon be impossible to avoid some of the worst-case scenarios, said Josep Canadell, executive director of the Global Carbon Project. “On our current path, we will find it extremely difficult to rein in carbon emissions enough to stabilise the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration at 450ppm, and even 550ppm will be a challenge,”
Based on current trends, carbon dioxide concentrations are likely to increase to 500ppm this century. The last time the planet experienced levels as high as 500ppm was about 20 or 40 million years ago, when sea levels were 100 metres higher than today.
So who can argue with the climatologists, right? GPL probably has no problem with what these Climate Change scientists say. But wait! Look at what these so-called scientists said. They said that 20 to 40 million years ago the carbon dioxide concentration was 500ppm. We didn’t have human pollution activities back then (e.g. no coal-fired power plants). Heck, even if we go back 200 million years ago, the levels were 4-5 times higher than our present levels. That sure sounds like a lot of dinosaur farts! So GPL is ready to limit the cheapest source of energy for us in exchange for pursuing more expensive green energy so that we can impress the world by showing our commitment to decreasing our carbon footprint, which by the way, is not even conclusively established as the cause of Global Warming?
If decreasing carbon footprint is our goal then let’s get rid of the vehicles in the country! A US EPA study shows that:
The majority of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are CO2 emissions resulting from the combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines. The largest sources of transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions include passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the emissions from the sector. The remainder of greenhouse gas emissions comes from other modes of transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains…
(Incidentally, yellow activist Carlos Celdran, said that we should be thankful to Mar Roxas for making Filipinos able to afford cars along with their oversized Starbucks drinks. So I guess this just further justifies why we should not vote for Mar Roxas either.)
But why merely focus on the vehicles? Did you know that a medium size dog, according to a study from Victoria University in New Zealand, is twice as large as the carbon footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser? The average cat has roughly the same carbon footprint as that of a Volkswagen Golf! So I guess instead of those expensive solar panels, let’s eat all the dogs and cats in the country instead! That seems like a cheaper and more realistic option for the Philippines considering how much the cost of alternative sources are without coal and nuclear (who was the dolt who scrapped our Nuclear Power Plant option anyway?).
Okay if you have read this far and if you think I am being serious about my vehicle discarding and pet eating proposals then you are giving me too much credit. . Of course these were all stated in jest. The point is not that we should eat dogs and cats instead of capping coal to decrease our carbon footprint. The point is that we should be smart thinkers and that we should also expect our leaders to be smart and critical thinkers as well! GPL obviously did not think all these through. For her to suggest capping coal just to show our commitment to some international agreement (that is not even legally binding) and to get into more green energy is tantamount to having one’s cake and eating it too!
Our country currently cannot afford to spend so much money on more expensive green energy technology. Even if we had some extra cash stashed there are other things that are far more immediately important to focus on. How about much needed infrastructure? How about livelihood programs? More realistic energy generation? I, for one, feel that such things are far more important to consider than lofty pie in the sky projects that GPL seems to embrace. In contrast to GPL, Mayor Rodrigo Duterte offers a more realistic and sensible take on solving our energy crisis as well as a more concise assessment on the absurdity of this Paris Agreement. Duterte sees nothing wrong with putting up more new coal-fired power plants to address the country’s energy crisis. He said:
“You open the Philippines for all power players, I guarantee you the electricity will become cheaper… “
He even called out the industrialized countries bullying us to reduce our carbon emissions as hypocrites. He noted that the Philippines barely contributes to the carbon footprint of the planet and claimed that it is the industrialized countries that do not comply with the UN pact. He stated:
“Sila ang ayaw. It’s not fair. I’m not saying that coal is right but I’m just saying itong United Nations at (industrialized) countries are really hypocrites … Al Gore came here, talked about environment (and) climate change. Bakit hindi niya makumbinsi ‘yung bansa niya?… Why are they coming here telling us what to do when, as a matter of fact, we need energy to develop. We are just a developing nation… ”
[Trans.: “It is them who won’t deliver on the commitment. It’s not fair. I’m not saying that coal is right but I’m just saying that the United Nations and these (industrialized) countries are really hypocrites … Al Gore came here, talked about environment (and) climate change. Why couldn’t he convince his own country to deliver on their commitment?… Why are they coming here telling us what to do when, as a matter of fact, we need energy to develop. We are just a developing nation… “]
Wow! Firm, plain, simple, sensible and spoken like a true no-nonsense leader. No wonder he has more accomplishments to show for compared to mere parrots like GPL and no wonder why his message resonates better to the people.
Philstar columnist Alex Magno noted that many people have started to sense that GPL is a mere hologram. His column notes:
She has not offered a compelling program of government beyond her regular recitation of the names of people she claims to be her “advisers.” She has no track record of performance to back up any claim of policy remolding. She has no compelling record of public leadership to support her ambition to lead the nation through the thicket of challenges ahead.
In her speeches, Poe speaks about continuing her adoptive father’s “legacy.” What exactly that “legacy” was, no one really knows.
Many are disturbed at Poe’s propensity to poach campaign lines from her rivals. When Binay began scoring points by promising to raise the tax exemption levels and provide free medical care, Poe began repeating the same promises. When Duterte promised to substantially bring down criminality within six months of his assumption of office, Poe began promising a shorter period and even offered to name Duterte her anti-crime czar – even as she had earlier named Ariel Querubin to that role.
Poaching campaign lines and parroting statistics and popular talking points certainly do not make a candidate genuinely intelligent and capable of steering our country away from its current quagmires. GPL’s take on issues such as Climate Change and energy betrays her lack of critical thinking skills and her being out of touch on the realities of the world and the Philippines. Duterte’s message, in contrast, resonates with the people. Simple, direct, no-nonsense, and with a non-pandering genuine feel. Duterte may not be perfect and may not be the most refined candidate, but he certainly has a worthy track record of performance and leadership to offer.
Calling a spade, a spade…