My New Favorite American President

 

Okay, he’s a South American president, but I’d take him or Bukele or Milei over the embarrassment we have in the White House any day. Meet President Dr. Irfaan Ali of Guyana.

His doctorate is in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of the West Indies and his party is the People’s Progressive Party/Civic — and he’s still preferable to the “progressives” in this country. Unlike Democrats, he’s dedicated to the wellbeing of his people. God bless him.

His point about biodiversity is well-taken, too. Mr. C and I just attended the Western Landscape Symposium yesterday where we heard Dr. Doug Tallamy of the Homegrown National Park movement (check it out). It’s a conservation effort dedicated to “building networks for life” — one person at a time. I’m a fan of localism, so this has great appeal to me.

I think there’s an obvious inconsistency in environmentalism calling for “carbon capture” and at the same time biologists (and entomologists like Dr. Tallamy) recognizing that plants which perform the desired “capture” depend on CO2 for photosynthesis and tissue growth, but maybe that’s just me. I say the more CO2 the better!

The BBC interviewer is so arrogant and obnoxious he can’t even see the hypocrisy of rich nations like the UK lecturing poor countries about their contribution to CO2 emissions. Energy is life (and wealth). And CO2 is necessary for the plant life that sustains the planet and all of humanity along with it. President Irfaan Ali seems to get it.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 43 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Mark Camp (View Comment):
    the trap that WC fell into was mistakenly believing  that it is possible to give a  valid (“operational”) definition of “optimal CO2 level”.

    I should have said ” we CAN’T know the optimal CO2 level.” But I appreciate others commenting that current levels are too low.

    • #31
  2. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    ou explained why it is good and necessary.  You didn’t explain why the more the better.  

    There is hardly anything good for which you can say the more the better.

    Greenhouses add CO2 to feed the plants.

    • #32
  3. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Barfly (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    ou explained why it is good and necessary. You didn’t explain why the more the better.

    There is hardly anything good for which you can say the more the better.

    Greenhouses add CO2 to feed the plants.

    But there would presumably be some level of CO2 that would be too much even for the plants.

    Let alone for any people going in to do things with the plants, without special breathing apparatus.

    • #33
  4. Steven Seward Member
    Steven Seward
    @StevenSeward

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    ou explained why it is good and necessary. You didn’t explain why the more the better.

    There is hardly anything good for which you can say the more the better.

    Greenhouses add CO2 to feed the plants.

    But there would presumably be some level of CO2 that would be too much even for the plants.

    Let alone for any people going in to do things with the plants, without special breathing apparatus.

    The concentration of CO2 that humans can live in is amazingly high.  Somebody calculated that a 500 cubic meter cinema theater with 100 people will raise the CO2 level in the theater to 6,700 parts per million in one hour. And that assumes a complete air change through ventilation once per hour.  This level is 16 times the average CO2 level in our atmosphere.

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pollution-concentration-rooms-d_692.html

    • #34
  5. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Steven Seward (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    ou explained why it is good and necessary. You didn’t explain why the more the better.

    There is hardly anything good for which you can say the more the better.

    Greenhouses add CO2 to feed the plants.

    But there would presumably be some level of CO2 that would be too much even for the plants.

    Let alone for any people going in to do things with the plants, without special breathing apparatus.

    The concentration of CO2 that humans can live in is amazingly high. Somebody calculated that a 500 cubic meter cinema theater with 100 people will raise the CO2 level in the theater to 6,700 parts per million in one hour. And that assumes a complete air change through ventilation once per hour. This level is 16 times the average CO2 level in our atmosphere.

    https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pollution-concentration-rooms-d_692.html

    From what I read, 5,000 ppm is considered “risky” although usually because of a suggestion that there are other problems too, which probably wouldn’t be the case in a movie theater.  Except maybe for the fake-butter smell from popcorn…  40,000 is considered immediately dangerous.

    And I read that 1200 ppm is considered ideal for greenhouses.

    • #35
  6. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    kedavis (View Comment):
    But there would presumably be some level of CO2 that would be too much even for the plants.

    But, the greenies want us to believe nature can’t correct for anything manmade. I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me if people were obliterated from the earth, nature would overrun even the most concretized city (Detroit?) in about 3 minutes. /slight exaggeration

    • #36
  7. Metalheaddoc Member
    Metalheaddoc
    @Metalheaddoc

    This interviewer is just like Bernie. Sanders used the capitalist system to become a millionaire but wants to crush the very system he used since he already got his wealth. The developed world already got its benefits from fossil fuels but wants to stomp on the undeveloped world getting theirs. 

     

    • #37
  8. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    This interviewer is just like Bernie. Sanders used the capitalist system to become a millionaire but wants to crush the very system he used since he already got his wealth. The developed world already got its benefits from fossil fuels but wants to stomp on the undeveloped world getting theirs.

    I thought the same thing. It’s that ugly attitude of “I’ve got mine, so screw you and your little country.” 

    • #38
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Metalheaddoc (View Comment):

    This interviewer is just like Bernie. Sanders used the capitalist system to become a millionaire but wants to crush the very system he used since he already got his wealth. The developed world already got its benefits from fossil fuels but wants to stomp on the undeveloped world getting theirs.

    I thought the same thing. It’s that ugly attitude of “I’ve got mine, so screw you and your little country.”

    And ignoring that those countries don’t need to go through a dirty coal phase etc, they can jump right to the newest and cleanest technology.

    Thanks to US!

    • #39
  10. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    No, I wouldn’t say the more prosperity, the better.  Prosperity has historically (and biblically) had a tendency to be a corrupting influence.

    I’m sure the President of Guyana would have some choice words for you.

    I would be honored to have a response from him.   He’s a smart guy, and he probably already knows about it.  In fact, he has already suffered from it. He  was complaining about the corrupting influence of those from prosperous countries who look down their noses at Guyana.  

    • #40
  11. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Old Bathos (View Comment):

    Mark Camp (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    We DO NOT know the optimal level of atmospheric CO2..

    Let’s call the variable that you have introduced—the optimal level of atmospheric CO2– “beta”, for short.

    I invite anyone who accepts the above claim as true to answer this question:

    How would a team of scientists go about estimating a likely range for beta, to some reasonable level of confidence? Say, 90%. Or pick some other level.

    This is not an idle question: it is not “pedantic” or “too theoretical” or “too abstract” to be of any practical significance.

    On the contrary, if you are one of those who is convinced that the statement is true, and you merely perform this simple bit of critical thinking, I believe that you will discover that, like the great mass of positive “green” supporters of the progressivist political movement, you have been lured into a trap of irrational thinking by its intellectual leaders.

     

     

    Life survived at 1600 ppm CO2 and higher. Much below 280 ppm is fatal for many plant species. “Optimal” CO2 level is a number that can be used as a fear-inducing grant enhancer. Claiming that 500 ppm (~30 years from now) is fatal would be hard to believe so we need a “tipping point” or some other BS term to infer that an optimum did exist but we are departing from it into inexorable badness without ever having to explain why it was optimal.

    I don’t know that anybody’s grant application is based on a spherical cow.   

    • #41
  12. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Barfly (View Comment):

    The Reticulator (View Comment):

    ou explained why it is good and necessary. You didn’t explain why the more the better.

    There is hardly anything good for which you can say the more the better.

    Greenhouses add CO2 to feed the plants.

    Yes?   

    • #42
  13. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    But, the greenies want us to believe nature can’t correct for anything manmade.

    I don’t know if that is true about “the” greenies as a collective, but there are people who believe, like you say, that nature can’t correct for anything manmade.  There are also people who believe that any manmade problems will be corrected by nature.  That’s a matter of faith, not science, but it’s true in a way. As in the past, nature can make adjustments, and it can eliminate the problem by eliminating the people who made it. 

    But as I said before, I don’t trust any of the predictive models on climate change, whether those pushed by Robert Howarth or those proposed here in this thread.  That doesn’t mean all climate models are equally bad. Some of them are interesting and helpful in understanding things about the climate that we didn’t know before. Some are based on lifetimes of study and continued refinement. But I’m not going to get out my crayons and show how I know better than the best scientists who work on this stuff, because everybody else in the world except me forgot factor X which I’ve drawn here with my blue and orange crayons.  And it’s just not worth the time for me to try to figure out which are even the best. These days, I don’t know if you can even find one whose work is not contaminated by ideology and politics. Certainly you won’t find one in this Ricochet thread.

    When it comes to the politics of climate, instead of using predictive models I’m going to go with the conservative principles and values I learned from my parents and grandparents.  Those include:

    Don’t hog.  Leave enough for others.  

    Don’t waste.  Finish the food on your plate before you get dessert.  

    Clean up the messes you made.  Put your toys away when you’re done with them. Better yet, don’t be so messy in the first place. 

    Ask for God’s blessing on your meal (which is made up of far more than the food) and be sure to thank him.

    Money doesn’t grow on trees.  

     

    • #43
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.