“Justifying Fossil Fuel Global Warming Hysteria – or otherwise.”

1. I do not contest the fact that there is sufficient evidence to show that global warming is taking place.
2. However, this Insight presents cautionary advice to the many voices that exaggerate the part played by human activity in such warming. Knee-jerk panic reactions and statements by the COP 26 attendees and Green New Deal advocates would appear to demonstrate a very narrow and less than logical recognition of the issue – and of the follow-on difficulties that may arise from overregulating fossil fuel production and utilization.
3. As a military staff officer, I learned that one of the worst things one can do in addressing any problem is to “Situate the Appreciation” rather than “Appreciate the Situation”. The former means presenting a viewpoint that has not been adequately justified or researched and then supporting that subjective viewpoint with contrived arguments that are not objective and do not necessarily hold water. COP 26 attendees have done just that. They have:
   1. Assumed that global warming of up to 1.5°C can be significantly moderated/controlled by regulation of fossil fuel usage.
   2. Assumed without any substantive scientific justification that such usage is the key element in current global warming.
   3. Ignored the natural warming and cooling cycles to which our planet has always been subject: such cycles being beyond the control of the human race.
4. You may well remember the “hockey stick” misinformation produced by the United Nations and then supported by very costly studies conducted by Cambridge University scientists. This misinformation professed that a huge spike in global warming would be/is the direct result of the world’s use of fossil fuels. The “spike” and the theory have been completely discredited.
5. Current estimates by the more honest members of the scientific community do, I believe, indicate that less than 1% of the current global warming cycle is attributable to human activity and the use of such fuels – industrial revolution notwithstanding.
6. Is it right, therefore, for the world’s leaders to attempt to reduce this relatively small contribution? Of course it is. But this “Situation should be Appreciated”, not the other way around. It should be food for thought that, reportedly, the single volcano erupting on La Palma is putting more CO2 in the air than the total lifetime of emissions produced by Germany. That is the power and influence of nature.
7. I would suggest that COP 26 and Green New Deal advocates have indicted all fossil fuels without a fair trial or the conduct of a full, lateral thinking “Appreciation”. A clean planet is of course desirable. But to achieve that end, economic prosperity throughout the world must continue. The latter is key to what I have to say.
8. Banning or severely restricting fossil fuel production without first presenting a viable and available cost-affordable alternative would be thoroughly irresponsible. In support of that statement I draw your attention to world trade, the Keystone to continued global economic prosperity and security. This trade is conducted upon the oceans of the world by approximately 55,000 merchant vessels of varying description. 2020 data taken from the Web indicates as follows:
   1. General Cargo Ships                          more than 17,00
   2. Bulk Cargo Carriers                            more than 12,000
   3. Crude Oil Tankers                               approximately 8,000
   4. Chemical Tankers                               approximately 6,000
   5. Container Ships                                  more than 5,000
   6. Ro-Ro/Passenger Ships                      approximately 5,000
   7. Liquefied Natural Gas Tankers            more than 2,000
9. If the average tonnage of each merchant ship was no more than 20,000 tons, this would equate to 1.1 billion tons of shipping constantly plying their trade around the world. The propulsion of all these vessels through the water demands a huge amount of energy. And what do they use for their power source? Fossil fuels of course.
10. If we are to replace that Merchant Marine power source with a form of cleaner energy and still maintain the same level and timely convenience of maritime trade, there would appear to be only one rather costly option available: nuclear propulsion. Is that a viable alternative? I think not – at least for the foreseeable future.
11. And what should land transport (e.g. cars and trucks) be powered with, if not fossil fuels? To say simplistically that the answer is electrically powered vehicles begs the question, “what power source could we use to provide the associated quantum leap in electrical power supply?” Nuclear power? Feasible, yes, but should we in the developed world forget the needs of much smaller, lesser developed nations who will never have access to such a power source? They will probably need a reliable supply of fossil fuels for many decades to come.
12. There are also reports emerging
    1. of electrically powered buses overheating and catching fire, and
    2. of underground garages displaying signs, “NO ENTRY for electrical cars” due to concern over fire risk.

Add to this, the extreme toxicity of associated batteries at their life’s end and the associated difficulty in disposing of them safely.

13. COP 26 attendees and Green New Deal advocates have not addressed the vital needs of our merchant fleets and the important needs of lesser developed nations. Instead they have “Situated the Appreciation”, failing to acknowledge properly the natural cycle in our planet’s global warming and, in doing so, failing to apply lateral thinking – the fundamental element of good staff work.
14. These ideological do-gooders need to be challenged and made to do their homework. Their ambivalence and lack of attention to detail arguably represents a threat to Global Economic Prosperity and, in turn, to our Strategic Security: each of which is already being threatened by Supply Chain difficulties on land and sea. These will be an order greater if we restrict the availability of fossil fuel power to our lifeblood, our merchant fleets.
15. In the light of the above, my suggestion to COP 26 and Green New Deal advocates is therefore:
    1. Not to campaign without due thought process for a blanket ban on fossil fuels, but instead,
    2. Put all their energies into campaigning for the cleaner use of coal (and ridding the oceans of the world of plastic pollution).
16. My guess is that two major industrial powers, China and India, cannot and will not divest themselves of coal as a power source. If they did so it would be commercially suicidal for them and catastrophic for the world trade supply chain. It could also stretch the global supply of oil and natural gas resources to breaking point.
17. In sum, pandering to global warming hysteria with pledges of billions of dollars to address the Situation without Appreciating the same is more than irresponsible, it is dangerous.