In the latest example of unseriousness, late last week Michael B. Gerrard, director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School, wrote a piece for The Post titled, “America is the worst polluter in the history of the world. We should let climate change refugees resettle here.” The title pretty much sums up his argument. Gerrard believes that by 2050, there could be 100 million people who will need to be resettled, and so “under a formula based on historic greenhouse gas emissions, the United States would take in 27 million people.”
Gerrard obviously intended for this to be a provocative piece, but he doesn’t offer any particular new affirmations of science and he ignores some obvious problems with his argument. For instance, if global warming has the impact he wants it to suggests it could, won’t the United States also have climate change refugees? Won’t the East Coast be underwater? Where will the residents of California go? Twenty-seven million people is a lot of people. In fact, it’s almost identical to the population of Texas.
Anyway, under the alarmist hypothesis, with some areas on Earth getting less habitable, will there be any place on the planet that will become more habitable? Is there anywhere that is currently too dry and too cold that will become more suitable for humans by 2050? If so, finally, the left-wingers could build new cities in their own image in the newly usable regions of the world. After all, isn’t that scenario just as plausible as the notion that tens of millions of people will come to the United States – or, at that point, what’s left of it, if we are to believe the global warming zealots? As a point of reference, at the end of 2014, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that more than 38 million people were displaced. I wonder what percentage of that current displacement Gerrard blames on America and how many of those refugees he would welcome into his neighborhood. Anyway, Gerrard’s hypothesis is probably just as accurate as some of the other climate change predictions in recent years. Remember the hockey stick?
Commentary such as Gerrard’s op-ed diminish the likelihood that climate change will be taken seriously as a political issue in 2016 – or beyond. Those on the left who make these kind of bizarre assertions are feeding the fears of some, but the doubts of many others. Anyone who is running for elected office in 2016 who supports an activist global warming agenda will have to hide from this latest bit of “science.” Gerrard’s arguments can be the new “Exhibit A” for why climate change agitators are not taken seriously and why that will continue to be the case.