by G. Cornelis “Kees” van Kooten

I live on a Pacific Island off the coast of British Columbia (BC), Canada. Vancouver Island is about the same size as the Netherlands, but only has a population of about ¾ million (about 60% of whom live in the Victoria area) compared to 17 million in the Netherlands. As of April 8, 2020, BC had 1,291 confirmed cases of Covid-19 and 43 deaths (mainly at long-term care homes), while the Island had 81 confirmed cases. The Netherlands had 20,682 confirmed cases and 2,255 deaths. Yet, the BC economy has shut down and I am working from home while dealing with students who are trying to complete the semester and, maybe, graduate. Oral exams are held remotely via video conferences.

Despite the low number of cases in BC, the economy has shut down because the government has failed to invest in hospitals, medical equipment and medical staff. To prevent Covid-19 cases from overwhelming the hospitals, extreme measures (closure of non-necessary retail businesses, school closures, social distancing, etc.) have been put in place, creating havoc on the economy – including reduced government revenues and increased expenditures. These measures are now to be in place until summer, all meant to level the curve so that the medical system is not overwhelmed.

People arriving on international flights from Asia or Europe are now routed to one of four Canadian airports (Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto and Montreal). Surprisingly, arrivals are not tested but simply asked to self isolate for two weeks; until the past few days, there was no monitoring but now arrivals need to have in place a plan for self isolating. Some passengers arriving in Canada will likely transfer to flights to the U.S.

Environmentalists are delighted. First, they view the Covid-19 as a harbinger of the future. The decline in economic activity has reduced fossil fuel use with, in their view, little adverse impact on what is important. Addressing climate change does not involve social distancing, the closure of schools or restaurants, et cetera. Environmentalists conclude that we can do without airline travel, and more of us can work from home.

Second, Covid-19 deaths are considered to be a blessing in disguise as they eliminate the weakest in society, bringing down the population and reducing the adverse impact that people have on the environment. After all, the climate agenda is built on earlier Malthusian fears that natural resources would run out as a result of unchecked population growth. The modern need for population control owes as much to the eugenics movement as to Malthus, as Robert Zubrin points out in his excellent book, Merchants of Despair.

Third, some environmentalists have sought to link the Covid-19 pandemic to climate change. They argue that action is needed immediately to address climate change and thereby avoid another pandemic. This was evident in the attempt by Democrats in the United States Congress to include subsidies for renewable energy in a $2.2 trillion package to help stimulate the economy and provide help to those hurt by the policy measures that have been enacted.

Locusts

While the world’s attention is focused on the Covid-19 and its progress in terms of infections and mortality, there is a catastrophe of Biblical proportions brewing in East Africa, Pakistan, and contiguous regions. The worst swarm of locusts in 75 years is currently underway. Locusts are destroying all crops in their way, which could result in the starvation of upwards of 10 million people over the next few years.

As Paul Driessen points out, the Desert Locust Control Organization was too ill-prepared to deal with the current swarm, despite knowing several years ago that trouble was brewing. The DLCO did not have the needed pesticides or airplanes to deal with a locust crisis – to deliver on its mandate in timely fashion. In the meantime, environmentalists lobbied to prevent the use of chemical pesticides, preferring biological controls instead. Further, they blamed climate change for the locusts, arguing that a warmer than usual Red Sea and higher than normal precipitation in the Horn of Africa were the main factors leading to the locust crisis.

Refugees

Meanwhile, the refugee crisis continues, with Turkey opening the border with the EU in an effort to release Syrian refugees. The locust swarm will also see more African refugees. And rich countries can also expect more refugees as people flee corrupt totalitarian regimes and unrelenting poverty for a safer and more hopeful life. Again, environmentalists blame climate change, if not for the Syrian refugees then the African refugees, and those still to come as the Earth warms.

Flood

In 1894 and 1948, major floods occurred in British Columbia’s lower Fraser River, particularly impacting the municipalities/cities of Richmond and Delta. It is recognized that the “majority of flood dikes that were built decades ago are not going to provide adequate protection.” Climate activists are calling on the government to invest in dike protection as they expect another once-in-500-years flood, such as occurred in 1894, to occur by 2100. As of April 1, the snowpack in the upper reaches of the Fraser River and its main tributary, the Thompson River, ranged from 117 to 147 percent above normal, while there have been delays in runoff due to cooler spring weather. Warmer weather later this spring, along with rainfall, could trigger a flood and massive damages for which the province is unprepared. Construction on the floodplain has not been discouraged, perhaps even encouraged, while inadequate investment in preventative infrastructure has lagged, despite warnings. While climate change will undoubtedly be blamed for any flood, the circumstances that could result in a 2020 flood are well within historical experience. And decision makers have long known that the communities on the floodplain are vulnerable.

Policy Failure

Economists talk about policy or government failure. The Desert Locust Control Organization of East Africa is just one example. The Public Health Agency of Canada is responsible for preparedness in the health sector. Although it spent $5.6 million on climate change programs, including a $0.5 million grant for “science and storytelling regarding climate change,” it spent no monies on face masks and other products that would protect medical staff and citizens against a pandemic. Was the Agency unaware of the 2002 SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak and 2014–2016 ebolavirus epidemic in West Africa? It acted as if, by mitigating climate change, all future biological threats to life would somehow end. Ideology overruled rationality.

Meanwhile, the European Commission’s vice-president responsible for the climate file, Frans Timmermans, pointed out that “tensions at the Greek-Turkish border and the coronavirus show why the European Union needs a climate law that binds member states to net zero emissions by 2050.” Really? Would it have been possible to prevent refugees fleeing a war in Syria and the coronavirus pandemic by ridding the globe of fossil fuels? Are people really that naïve?

Blaming climate change is a copout. It prevents people from taking action to mitigate threats that are more serious and more immediate. After all, how important is the unknown threat of a 2^oC–3^oC higher average global temperature in 80 to 100 years from now compared to the real and imminent starvation of several million people? Or the death of perhaps hundreds of thousands from a viral pandemic? Or, at the local level, of a devastating flood that could ruin the economy of an entire province?

The climate emergency is not an emergency at all. Why? Because the problem is easy to solve. There are two simple solutions if we are only willing to consider them rationally. First, engineers have shown that it is possible to remove CO₂ from the atmosphere by direct air capture, and then store it. Initially, the cost will be expensive, but nothing even close to what the coronavirus will cost. Further, while the technology develops, we can wait to see how fast temperatures are rising, and what sorts of damages we might expect.

Second is an option that would need to be implemented sooner, but would benefit society nonetheless. Working with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a group of nuclear engineers at TerraPower has developed a Traveling Wave nuclear Reactor (TWR) that is absolutely safe to use. If significant numbers of TWRs could be built, costs would be competitive with other sources of power generation. Indeed, as my own research (and that of others) has shown, any serious effort to reduce CO₂ emissions from the generation of electricity will require a shift toward nuclear energy. If environmentalists oppose nuclear energy, they will have no other way to retain an economic standard of living that is even close to what we enjoy now and, at the same time, reduce CO₂ emissions by even half. Unfortunately, the main obstacle to the avoidance of catastrophes, such as COVID-19, occurs when (1) our focus shifts from immediate, real threats to future questionable ones; and, (2) all current problems are blamed on the questionable future threat. By putting all of our preparedness eggs in the climate-change basket, we are left not only to weather the storms associated with those threats for which we are unprepared. By attributing all our problems to climate change, we also assume there is one single solution to all our problems and that is to stop burning fossil fuels. How naïve have we become?

Photo by Juan Pablo Mascanfroni on Unsplash.