中文大意：
扩大美国的石油生产将潜在地降低/减缓全球暖化 — 保守主义者需智慧地讨论气候变化（1）
（摘自我们给众议员Kevin Kiley的信）
我们需智慧地讨论气候变化，不能简单地否认或嘲笑，那将不利于与选民，特别是年轻一代的沟通，因为假如因人类活动引起的全球暖化是存在的，年轻一代将承受其后果。至于是否存在，我们以后再讨论。
在争辩气候变化问题时，保守主义者常常忽略一个重要的概念，即“碳足迹对气候暖化之影响”。我们分两点来介绍：
1）“碳足迹”：指某个人、组织、产品或事件所产生的温室气体。
2）“对全球暖化的影响”：指地球某处A和另一处B若排出等量的碳足迹，则A处的碳足迹与B处的碳足迹对全球暖化的影响也是等量的。原因很简单：温室气体在全球自由流动，是全球分布的。举个例子：在美国德州生产石油排出的100吨温室气体与在委内瑞拉生产石油排出的100吨温室气体对全球暖化的影响是一样的。
此概念为何重要？举个例子，Biden曾下令美国减少石油生产，却同时要求委内瑞拉增加其石油生产。假定美国减少的石油生产与委内瑞拉增加的等量，均为X吨，再假定两处处理石油生产排放的污染技术也是一样的，那么可以推论因Biden的命令美国石油生产避免了的碳足迹与委内瑞拉因Biden要求而增加的石油生产排放的碳足迹是等量的，均为Y吨。也就是说，因Biden的命令而产生的全球温室气体排放量的增加没变，还是Y吨，就仿佛Biden没有命令美国减少石油生产，也没有要求委内瑞拉增加。一个有理性的人应该可以得出结论Biden的命令有毛病，缺乏对“碳足迹对全球暖化之影响“这一概念的理解。上海话里这叫做“窝细空”。
更何况，上面第二个假设“两处处理石油生产排放的污染技术也是一样的”是有问题的。美国拥有最先进的污染控制处理技术，在等量石油生产的前提下，美国的碳足迹会比委内瑞拉的低得多。所以，Biden 命令的实际结果是，因美国减产X吨石油而避免的碳足迹会远比委内瑞拉因增产X吨石油而产生的碳足迹要小得多；因此Biden 的命令实际上对全球暖化产生了负面影响。按气候变化极端分子的标准，Biden实际上犯了加重全球暖化的罪。
即便全球暖化存在，而且石油生产是全球暖化的重要因素，我们必须认识到目前要立刻全面地停止石油生产是不现实的。特别是考虑到需要石油能源解决非洲的饥饿、为流浪者提供居所，消除全球的贫困……，等等全球需求。
在这种情况下，我们可以问：从“碳足迹对全球暖化影响”角度审视，哪个国家可以最负责任地来生产这个“邪恶”的石油？美国？委内瑞拉？俄罗斯？如上所说，在等量生产假设下，委内瑞拉或俄罗斯石油生产的碳足迹远比美国的高。更有甚之的是委内瑞拉还利用石油的利润来压迫自己的人民，俄罗斯则还用来资助侵略乌克兰。
所以，美国必须利用比任何其他国家更清洁更经济的技术扩大石油生产。这样的扩大将迫使委内瑞拉、俄罗斯等石油生产国降低其生产，因为他们会产生更高的碳足迹，而且更昂贵。如此通过扩大石油生产，我们不但可以加强我国和全世界的安全，而且为降低/减缓全球暖化做出贡献。
下面是英文原文：
The expansion of oil production in the US has the potential to help combat global warming - Conservatives should engage in climate change discussions with wisdom (1)
(Excerpted from our letter to Congressman Kevin Kiley)
Climate change poses a grave concern, especially for the younger generation. Conservatives should approach climate change discussions with wisdom and avoid simply dismissing or mocking them, as this would hinder communication with voters, particularly younger ones who would face the consequences of global warming, if it is real. We said “if”, because the existence of global warming caused by human activities is still debatable. It could be a false alarm or a natural cyclical phenomenon rather than a direct result of human activities. We’ll delve deeper into this later.
One crucial concept that’s largely absent, when the conservatives debate about climate change, is the concept of “footprint impact on global warming”. Let’s break it down:
1. Greenhouse gas footprint: This refers to the total amount of greenhouse gases emitted by an individual, organization, product, or event.
2. Impact on global warming: The impact of a specific amount of greenhouse gases emitted from one location (e.g., location A on Earth) on global warming is the same as the impact of the same amount of greenhouse gases emitted from another location (e.g., location B on Earth). This is because greenhouse gases are globally distributed and flow freely. For instance, 100 tons of greenhouse gases emitted from oil production in Texas have the same impact on global warming as 100 tons of greenhouse gases emitted from oil production in Venezuela.
Why is the “footprint impact” concept important? Consider the example of Biden’s decision to reduce oil production in the US while simultaneously urging Venezuela to increase its oil production. Assuming the reduction of oil production in the US equates to the increase of oil production in Venezuela, both being X tons, also assuming that the contamination control technology was the same at both locations, it follows that the amount of greenhouse gases (Y) emitted from the US would be averted due to Biden’s order, however, the same amount (Y ) of greenhouse gases would be emitted from the increased oil production in Venezuela. Therefore it would be logical to conclude that the net change (delta) of the total amount of greenhouse gases on the globe remains unchanged (Y), as if Biden had not issued the order to reduce oil production in the US and had not requested Venezuela to increase oil production. A rational person should conclude that Biden’s decision was flawed and lacked a comprehensive understanding of the “footprint impact” concept. It was much ado about nothing!
Then, the second assumption mentioned above, “the contamination control technology is the same at both locations,” is questionable. The US certainly possesses the most advanced contamination control technology compared to Venezuela. Therefore, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions from US oil production and Venezuelan oil production would not be equal, assuming the same amount of oil production. The greenhouse gases emitted in the US would likely be significantly less than those emitted from Venezuela. Consequently, if Biden reduced X tons of oil production in the US and simultaneously requested Venezuela to increase the same X tons of oil production, the overall impact on global warming would be worse than the scenario, in which Biden had not ordered to reduce oil production in the US nor requested Venezuela to increase its oil production, assuming the same amount of production. According to extreme climate change activists, Biden would have committed a crime of negatively impacting global warming.
Now, let’s temporarily set aside the debate about whether human activities like oil production are the sole cause of global warming. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that global warming is real and that oil production is a significant contributor. However, a rational person would acknowledge that completely phasing out oil production abruptly would be impractical, especially when considering pressing global challenges like addressing hunger in Africa, providing shelter to the homeless, and alleviating poverty worldwide……
In this context, the question arises: which country, the US, Venezuela, Russia, or others, would be the more responsible one for producing the the “evil” oil from a “footprint impact” perspective? As explained earlier, oil production in Venezuela or Russia would result in higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to the US, assuming the same production volume. Additionally, Venezuela has used its oil profits to oppress its own people, while Russia has used the profits to fund invasion of Ukraine.
Given these circumstances, it’s imperative that the US continues to expand oil production in a cleaner and more cost-effective manner than any other country. This expansion could potentially force Venezuela, Russia, and other oil-producing nations to reduce their production which would lead to increased emissions and higher costs. By doing so, we would not only enhance the safety of our country and the entire world but also contribute positively to combating global warming.
Dex & Ching 2-18-2025
