Victor Joecks Errs Again
Victor Joecks posted a column in the Las Vegas Review-Journal today, which stated:
VICTOR JOECKS: Las Vegas heat wave shows futility of fighting the weather
(Bizuayehu Tesfaye/Las Vegas Review-Journal) @bizutesfaye
It’s time to wave the white flag and admit the obvious. Global Warming has won.
Las Vegas could hit 100 degrees later this week. No, the calendar didn’t skip a month. It’s still mid-March. The previous record for the earliest 100-degree day of the year was May 1, 1947.
There are some people who don’t mind the warmth. After all, “It’s a dry heat.” There are some who claim to enjoy it. I don’t believe you, but I’m secretly jealous. The rest of us endure it. In a few months, we’ll be convincing ourselves to be excited when the low drops below 100 degrees.
If you listen to the propaganda press, you’ll know who you’re supposed to blame for this — Global Warming. It’s the monster lurking behind every major heat wave. Oh, and every major winter storm. And every major hurricane. And every major natural disaster.
It’s such a devious foe that it even has an alter ego — Climate Change.
For decades, climate Chicken Littles warned that carbon emissions fuel this deadly opponent. Mankind had to cut back on fossil fuel usage or this supervillain would destroy mankind.
In 1997, many countries signed the Kyoto Protocol. It called on dozens of countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels. The agreement didn’t apply to China because it was deemed a developing nation. The United States didn’t ratify it.
In 2015, countries met and developed the Paris Climate Accord, another attempt to reduce global emissions. Almost every country has signed onto it, although President Donald Trump has withdrawn the United States from it — twice.
Even so, there have been scores of domestic policies intended to artificially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Dozens of states have renewable portfolio standards. Nevada’s RPS is 50 percent by 2030. Remember this when the Greenlink boondoggle hikes your power bills. Several states, including California, require 100 percent renewable energy before or by 2050.
The Obama administration waged a regulatory war on coal power plants — and won. Coal power production has fallen by around two-thirds since 2008.
The electric vehicle market would be much smaller without government mandates and incentives. For years, the EPA pushed stricter and stricter emissions limits on cars. The Biden administration wanted to force car companies to make a majority of their new vehicles electric or hybrid.
California’s war on fossil fuels has been ever more aggressive. Gov. Gavin Newsom and others are deliberating driving the state’s oil refineries out of business. That’s bad news for gasoline prices in Nevada.
The United States has spent hundreds of billions of dollars fighting Global Warming. In one sense, the environmentalists succeeded. In 2024, the United States had lower carbon emissions than in 1990. The European Union’s annual carbon emissions have dropped by more than a third since 1990.
Just go outside and enjoy your prize — record-setting temperatures. That fiendish Global Warming has escaped again.
It’s time for a new strategy. Stop wasting hundreds of billions of trying to control the weather. Even if you’re worried about carbon emissions, China isn’t. Its annual emissions are around five times higher than they were in 1990.
It’s time to adapt to a changing climate, not futilely fight against it.
Contact Victor Jeocks at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-4698. Follow @victorjoecks on X.
Brief: Counter-Points to “Futility of Fighting the Weather”
This post outlines the factual errors and mischaracterizations in the op-ed for use in follow-up discussions or oral arguments. I’ll bypass the easy target of attacking Victor Joecks’ ad hominem by pointing out and linking to contradictions in his past editorials, in which he denied climate change and dismissed the alarmism he now suggests we should accept. The blatant hypocrisy of those positions, in my opinion, weakens his credibility. That said, let me engage as if he is making the arguments in good faith.
-
The “China” Mischaracterization
- Op-Ed Claim: China is doing nothing, and its emissions are five times higher than in 1990.
- The Reality: Yes, China started in the 1980s as a third-world country and now challenges the USA for Global Leadership, but it still uses far less energy per capita than we do. Furthermore, China is the global leader in renewable energy, accounting for nearly 60% of new global capacity. Analysis from Carbon Brief and the IEA shows that China’s emissions have been “flat or falling” since early 2024 and are likely peaking right now—years ahead of schedule—due to massive structural shifts in their power grid.
- Counterpoint: Using China as an excuse to quit is outdated. The global race is now about who will own the clean-energy technology that is currently replacing fossil fuels.
-
The “Futility” of Mitigation (Temperature Trajectories)
- Op-Ed Claim: Hundreds of billions spent have resulted in nothing but record heat.
- The Reality: Policy intervention has already fundamentally bent the curve. In 2010, the world was on track for ~4°C of warming; current policies tracked by the Climate Action Tracker and UNEP have reduced that projection to roughly 2.6°C–2.7°C.
- Counterpoint: We are winning the fight to avoid the absolute worst-case scenarios. Today’s heat is the “lag effect” of past emissions; current mitigation is the only way to prevent temperatures from reaching levels where adaptation becomes impossible.
-
The Economics of Adaptation vs. Mitigation
- Op-Ed Claim: We should stop “wasting” money on emissions and just “adapt.”
- The Reality: Adaptation costs are non-linear. According to research in PNAS and by McKinsey, the cost to protect society at 2°C is a fraction of the cost at 4°C. At higher temperatures, adaptation becomes an “infinite tax” as infrastructure fails under the weight of mass migration and grid collapse.
- Counterpoint: Mitigation is preventative medicine. Ignoring the cause to only treat the symptoms is the most expensive way to handle a crisis.
-
Domestic Emissions Progress
- Op-Ed Claim: Domestic policies are “artificially” reducing emissions with no benefit.
- The Reality: EPA data confirms that U.S. net emissions declined by over 17% between 2005 and 2023, even as the economy grew. This “absolute decoupling” proves that we can reduce our carbon footprint without sacrificing prosperity.
- Counterpoint: The transition is already succeeding. The op-ed isn’t proposing a “new strategy”; it’s arguing to dismantle a working one just as it gains the momentum needed to reach the 2°C goal.