Half a century ago, the first Earth Day kicked off a movement that led to cleaner air and water for all Americans.

Citizens Climate Lobby

(4) comments


KedronB’s claim that Frank Lutz invented the term “climate change” is a myth. https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/08/01/news/no-republican-strategist-didnt-invent-term-climate-change. This article described the term as originating in 1956, while other sources describe it as originating in 1975, https://discover.hubpages.com/education/The-Origins-of-Climate-Science-and-The-History-of-Global-Warming, or even the 1850s. https://www.dictionary.com/e/new-words-surrounding-climate-change/

I think KedronB would agree that “climate change” is more commonly used now than global warming. The last article cited above states:

“Climate change is a term that better encompasses the myriad longterm changes to the climate that can be brought on by an increase in Earth’s average temperature. These effects include more heat waves and rising sea levels as polar ice caps melt, but they also include extreme cold, droughts, floods, fires, and catastrophic storms. “

In other words, any bad weather or climate development, whether actually related to “an increase in Earth’s average temperature” or not can and will be attributed to “climate change”. This, along with nonsensical propositions, such as President Biden claiming “climate change is the existential threat of our time,” is alarmism. Environmentalist Michael Schellenberger and others reject the proposition that climate change is an existential threat and recognizes that the California wildfires, for example, were not due to climate change. “Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003.”

Schellenberger made the following observations which are important to this agricultural state:

“Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress.

“The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land.

“The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.”

Note that the first four of these energy sources emit carbon at reducing levels. Renewable energy is not even mentioned. This may be because: “100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent”. (In other words, no room for agriculture).

Finally, there are scientists who are climate change skeptics. In an interview with Larry Kudlow, physicist Steve Koonin, Obama’s undersecretary of energy for science, made the following points:

1. Science has a “very poor understanding” of natural climate cycles.

2. There is nothing menacing about the single degree of warming over the last century, caused partly by man, partly by nature.

3. Human influence on the climate is “physically small … about 1%.”

4. “If you read the official reports put out by the U.N. and the U.S. government, they say that a warming of three or more degrees, let’s say four degrees, by the end of this century will have a minimal impact on either the U.S. or the global economy.”

5. “I think anybody who’s talking about existential threat, climate crisis, disaster, probably hasn’t read the reports.”


As someone who teaches courses on Environmental Policy, I would like to gently correct some basic errors in above comments criticizing the idea of a carbon tax.

The first commenter makes several errors in his/her analysis. The idea that a $300 carbon tax per year will cost a family of four $165,000 is on its face just laughable (set aside the idea of a carbon rebate, which I'll discuss next). This is not even what the Heritage estimate/study says, which the writer is attempting to cite! That paper, which has been widely criticized in its estimates as an over-statement, is not talking just about a climate tax but what might happen if the entirety of a Green New Deal is passed. That is not mentioned in the comment.

Second, both commenters ignore the fact that virtually no carbon tax policies that are being discussed today are (*only*) carbon taxes. Nearly all legislative proposals are what is called tax-and-rebate, a policy that initially was supported by several center-right scholars and economists as a more free-market-incentive style law (as opposed to cap and trace). Thus, both commenters look at only one side of the policy, the tax, and ignore the other side: that a policy would "rebate" costs of the tax back to low-middle income consumers. The first commenter writer claims we should use tax incentives, which is odd, as that is exactly what tax-and-rebate carbon policies do.

Next, Mr. Bohlken would do well to expand his research on climate science, and in particular the study by Kauppinen he cited, beyond what exists in right wing media or a google search for cherry-picked contrarian climate "science" studies.

The "study" he cites is not a peer-reviewed scientific study at all, but a NON peer reviewed pre-publication version that cites a handful of sources, four of which are the authors on prior work! Not only that, but the authors did not release any sources for their data, it is a correlational study only, and a raft of actual experts have picked their work apart thoroughly because it contains a number of major argumentation and analysis errors. Anyone can read analysis of the paper by real scholars here: https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/

The funny thing is, there are criticisms in the two comments that I agree with! Some more extreme climate predictions in the past were strained/exaggerated and a number have not come to pass. I DO think we need to take care as we implement policy to mitigate climate change. There ARE real costs to taxes and other regulations. But the commenters do not help their criticisms stick by citing the alarmist documents on the other side or ignoring/misrepresenting science.

Finally, Mr. Bohlken would do well to research the origins of the term "climate change" (on which he is simply incorrect). The climate change term was actually cooked up by Frank Luntz (a conservative pollster for the GOP) in his focus groups because it seemed to be LESS drastic or scary than "global warming."


I agree there needs to be a collective effort to conserve our natural resources! A carbon tax is not the answer. The answer is for individuals to decide that they are going to make a difference and put forth the effort to consume less and waste less. An additional option may be to offer tax breaks or incentives for innovative consumable packaging and sustainable natural and renewable energy sources.

Here's why a carbon tax has many holes. First, taking from one source to give to another source is pure socialism. Taking from one source to pay another source assumes that all government agencies are honest and forthright. How can we truly trust that individuals responsible for redistribution to the people will uphold the integrity of the program?

Secondly, when corporations are taxed they pass the expense onto the consumer. According to the Energy Information Administration's National Energy Model to forecast the impact of carbon taxes aimed at reaching net-zero by 2040, a $300 carbon tax would cost the average family of four a total income of $165,000. This model also would see an average of 1.1 million jobs lost per year.

Wind turbines, which we assume might be a "low carbon footprint" actually produce a whopping 241.85 metric tons of carbon emissions. John Kerry's (leader of climate change agenda) personal jet produces 116 metric tons of carbon emissions in a year. The average four person family car emits 4.6 metric tons of carbon emissions per year.

Again, thanks to Mike and Anita for speaking up! I appreciate all your efforts to help our environment, but let's think of how each of us individually can make a difference. We all can conserve, reduce, reuse and preserve our beautiful earth and home without the weight of overburdening taxes.


When combined with the Biden administration's other actions to destroy our energy independence, these new taxes will dramatically increase gasoline and electricity costs over time.

Let’s try to get in touch with reality.

First, in 2019, Finnish scientists established that, because climate change is overwhelmingly due to increased low cloud cover resulting from natural causes, “we have practically no anthropogenic [human caused] climate change.”

Second, even climate change activists, such as Michael Schellenberger, have warned against the extreme alarmist predictions such as “our climate could one day become unbearable” and even apologized for such predictions.

Third, Schellenberger and others have warned against the folly of taking weather events and attributing them to “climate change” or “global warming” (which has now become a disfavored term as “global warming” predictions, such as the disappearance of glaciers from Glacier National Park by 2020, have failed to materialize). The phrase “Global Warming” also makes it difficult to spread alarmism when the temperature is colder than expected. If this past winter qualifies as “global warming,” I would hate to see what “global cooling” is like! The more flexible “climate change” is better for alarmism, as it is more easily applied to both extreme hot and cold weather events. .

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.