A “New Green Deal”

Timothy Kandow, Contributor

Hang on for a minute...we're trying to find some more stories you might like.


Email This Story






Newly elected Representative Alejandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York proposed a “New Green Deal.” The goal of this deal is to significantly reduce greenhouse gases to avoid the supposed catastrophic consequences of climate change/warming. The gravity of human effects on the climate and its severity, and how it’s changing for present and future generations, is a relatively recent discussion in American politics.

Though one should not dismiss the change of the climate if there were one, passing resolutions, enacting laws or conducting studies must be reviewed under several key observations and questioned in multiple ways.

The premise of the climate change debate is that of the global average temperature. Since 1880, according to several highly credentialed organizations including NASA, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the National Climate Data Center (NOAA), the global average temperature has risen 1.5 °C.

Even if one were to admit the global temperature was rising—which is what these studies suggest—the impact of a degree and a half hardly has a large impact. The situation of global temperatures risings is not of a significant nature.

Let’s assume for a moment these average temperatures are correct and pose a threat, do they accurately support the premise of all global temperatures rising?

It is important to understand there exists no global temperature. The world is composed of many different ecosystems and environments and their temperatures fluctuate. Cold spells and heat waves are natural and occur from time to time. These waves and spells go into the global average but do not represent the entire globe, only the region in which they occur. Only one region of the world has to rise in temperature for the average to rise.

The Harvard Business Review critiques averages in a simple way: “Consider the case of the statistician who drowns while fording a river that he calculates is, on average, three feet deep.” A piece of an average does not show the average itself neither does the average accurately represent all pieces.

Even if the global average temperatures were the true average and the rise was of a significant nature, the temperatures in which NASA, NOAA and UNFCCC used to date back to only 1880. What about the rest of history? Scientists have only been able to accurately record the global temperatures for less than two centuries.

Most, if not all, beliefs on origins of the earth claim the earth has existed longer than a century and a half, hence, having temperatures extending before 1880. A comparison is needed. If something is rising, it must have a standard to rise from. The scope of time used by credentialed scientists is minuscule in light of the history of time.

Climate warming is shown to be highly insignificant, prone to inaccuracy and reviews a small portion in the necessary field of study. Earth is here for our enjoyment, but is also our responsibility. Before we move to protect it, however, it is key to evaluate the basis for change and review the reasons for reform.