The last article was a review of how the environmental movement was launched as a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society”; This formation and launch was preceded by the ban on CFCs in spray cans in 1978, and the Montreal Protocol beginning in 1987, which took its final form in June, 1990. Neither its conception nor furtherance would have been possible without the involvement of industry itself, which had been corrupted from the inside. One of the main chemical companies involved was Du Pont, taken over in an approximate six-year period by Edgar and Charles Bronfman, between 1980-1986. Edgar Woolard became the new chairman in April, 1989. The other main chemical company involved in the Montreal Protocol was Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI) of Britain. Although ICI was technically a competitor to Du Pont, Du Pont and ICI were often in joint partnership, both in other ways, and during their mutual involvement in the Montreal Protocol.
As previously mentioned, the root theory for the environmental movement from the 1970’s to the present is the Rowland & Molina ozone depletion theory. Defeating the work of the Green New Deal begins with understanding this theory and how it is wrong. In order to do this, you must first understand the ozone. The ozone consists of two basic parts: One is the recognized ozone layer with its “southern anomaly,” which is in the Polar Vortex over Antarctica. This layer is between 15-60 miles above the mesosphere, the highest level of the earth’s atmosphere. Two is general ozone, which is found throughout all areas of the atmosphere. The ozone serves as a shield, or counterbalance to the sun’s heat and ultraviolet rays. If there was a shortage of ozone in the atmosphere, too many of the sun’s rays would reach the earth and create an atmosphere that is not conducive to life.
The ozone theory is the root idea for the environmental movement’s hostile pursuit of what it calls greenhouse gases. Other terms used are greenhouse gas emissions or CO2 emissions. They are used to describe those gases, both man-originated and natural, that are considered to create the greenhouse effect, otherwise known as “global warming.”
The formula for ozone is O3; The formula for carbon dioxide is CO2.
The ozone depletion theory is the alleged process of greenhouse gases drifting up into the upper two levels of the earth’s atmosphere- the stratosphere and the mesosphere, and then being broken down by the sunlight into chlorine. The chlorine then changes two molecules of O3 into three molecules of O2, thus depleting the atmosphere of ozone and contributing to the “greenhouse effect.” The greenhouse effect is presented as the result of such gases entering and remaining in the atmosphere “too much” and trapping heat from the sun; When this occurs, atmospheric temperatures rise, creating “global warming.” Although the category of “greenhouse gases” includes those which are considered a threat to the ozone, it also includes other gases, which are still said to contribute to the “greenhouse effect” or “global warming.”
This is the list of greenhouse gases:
-Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
-Methane (CH4)
-Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
-Chloroflorocarbons (CFCs) – Banned under the Montreal Protocol
-Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
-Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
-Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
-Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)
Carbon dioxide itself is considered the most common of all “greenhouse gases” by far. Thus in the eyes of the environmental movement, carbon dioxide is at the top of its list of offenders. By extension, this includes everything that produces it, including all engines, and even man himself. It is at the top of every list on the government/environmental websites.
There are also two other things that are considered “greenhouse gases;” Yet these are almost never included on any of the lists. Simply knowing what they are will help to answer the question as to why. They are:
Water vapor, and ozone itself.
They are not mentioned because the mere inclusion of them in the list serves to undermine the entire view that greenhouse gases are dangerous and lead to “global warming.” In reality, greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are an indispensable part of nature, not its adversary. They, and the greenhouse effect that they create, were discovered as far back as 1856 by Eunice Newton Foote, long before the arrival of CFCs or carbon emissions from automobiles.
In direct contradiction to the claims of the environmental movement, they are one of the most important means by which the earth is kept cool, and its temperatures moderated. They absorb and trap heat radiation from both the sun and the earth’s surface, and they block ultraviolet rays. As a result, the earth is prevented from becoming excessively hot. In addition, greenhouse gases prevent the earth from more radical swings in temperature, from overly hot to very cold between days and nights, due to the greenhouse gases’ role as a blanket over the earth’s surface. This greenhouse blanket includes carbon dioxide. It is this phenomenon that is rightfully known as the “greenhouse effect.” Thus while the environmental movement uses the terms “greenhouse effect” and “global warming” almost interchangeably, they represent two entirely different concepts; One is real and is actually a legitimate aspect of nature; The other is fictitious and a false alarm.
In the past 100 years of scientific research, there has been no true evidence to suggest that the vast increase in carbon dioxide emissions since the 1900’s has ever contributed to “global warming.” If carbon emissions were to have a role in increased temperatures, it would have been evident before 1975, when automobiles had already been in widespread use for over fifty years, yet remained largely unregulated. If the carbon emissions from automobiles and industry at large did not contribute to “global warming” between 1900 and 1975, it is backward to believe that they would begin to have an effect after 1975, with or without greater regulation.
The reason for this is because CO2, regardless of its source, is a normal, vital part of life on earth. It is the exhaust of human life, and the fuel for nature. It is in fact taken out of the atmosphere by nature, and without it, nature does not survive.
Yet the environmental movement’s antagonism to CO2 can be seen not only in its pursuit of exhaust emissions from the internal combustion engine and the chemical industry; It is even more evident in the fact that as you read this article, it is actively seeking to wrest agricultural land out of the hands of private owners across 5 midwestern states. This is an area of the country with the least amount of CO2, due to sparse population and little industry. Yet it seeks to control this land in order to build a 2,500 mile CO2 pipeline, whose purpose is to ‘capture’ CO2 from out of the atmosphere and direct it underground. Short of facts and plentiful in bluster, its salesmen have attempted to promote the pipeline on the local level as “a driver for economic growth.”
Included in those who have allowed or facilitated these efforts are Governors Kristi Noem and Doug Burgum. Its chief investors in the project are not radical environmental groups. They are, like Du Pont and ICI, companies supposing to represent American industry, but which are fused with the worldwide environmental movement.
The Montreal Protocol was not signed by a radical marxist. It was signed by President George H.W Bush, and chaired by PM Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher wanted to defend British industry, but was misguided in doing so because her special advisor on CFCs was none other than Denys Henderson, the chairman of Imperial Chemicals Industries. In February 1989, with his direction, PM Margaret Thatcher hosted the first conference in London on “saving the ozone layer.” In April, 1989, the same month and year that Edgar Woolard became the new chairman of Du Pont, Denys Henderson addressed ICI’s annual shareholders’ meeting, to call for “the total elimination of CFCs.”
These figures, along with local commissioners across the country, demonstrate that the green goon of environmental marxism does not stop with just one cause or party, but seeks to wrap its fiendish grip around every last person and party, in every state, city and county in America, destroying its industry while invading land, all under the banner of “economic growth.” For these and other reasons, a political figure or candidate should not be supported simply on account of his party affiliation, a seemingly friendly career background, or the fact that he/she touts “infrastructure” or economic growth as a priority. On the county level in particular, infrastructure and economic growth is only valuable in a certain context.
Like CO2 itself, the industrial gases on the above list are implicated by the environmental movement because of their alleged potential to deplete the ozone layer or at least contribute to the greenhouse effect, by putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. Yet in the 68 years that the ozone layer has been studied, there has never been shown a permanent change, either in the amount of ozone concentration anywhere in the earth, or in the size of the “southern anomaly.” In the 68 years of its study, not one molecule of man-generated industrial gas has ever been observed in an upward journey into the stratosphere, let alone the mesosphere, and break down a single molecule of ozone.
In light of this information alone regarding the role of greenhouse gases in “global warming” (or lack thereof), of which CO2 comprises 80%, there is no reason to believe that either CO2, or the industrial chemicals said to create it have any role whatsoever in “global warming.”
To the extent that excess CO2 may be of genuine concern, the answer is not in the regulation of the internal combustion engine or banning the listed chemicals, but in more trees, plants and bushes, and the restoration of Rural America.
Alex Doss is a musician and piano technician in Spring Hill and has many other areas of interest and knowledge.
