Science demonstrates that the 'Keep it in the Ground' movement is wrong

The Hill:

Some “really remarkable” news broke on the clime front this week, just as world leaders wrap up their meetings at the Marrakesh Climate Change Conference.

A study by the Global Carbon Project found global carbon emissions did not grow at all for a third year in a row in 2015. And what’s responsible for this “stunningly good news for the planet,” as the Washington Post described it? It’s due in large part to the United States’ increased use of natural gas, brought about by fracking.

The report finds U.S. CO2 emissions declined 2.6 percent from 2014 to 2015, even as Americans used more oil and gas last year. The report also projects U.S. emissions will decline another 1.7 percent in 2016. This data are part of a decade’s-long trend in which we’ve seen our emissions drop a whopping 11.5 percent from 2005 levels, giving us the distinction of being the only country in the world to see dramatic CO2 reductions during that time span.

What’s even more remarkable is that we’ve achieved this feat without ratifying the Kyoto Protocol or adopting cap-and-trade legislation. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) put it well when he explained, “We’ve been improving our emissions in this county without agreeing to the Kyoto accords, without Congressional action because of innovation from the natural gas area.” And, as the new report explains, we’ve done this while growing our economy at the same time.
...

The inconvenient truth is that those involved in the “Keep It The Ground” movement are the real science deniers.

While they insist the IPCC is “gold standard” for climate science, they refuse to acknowledge what these scientists have determined about natural gas’ climate benefits. For these groups, the facts and the science take a back seat to their overall ideology of eliminating all fossil fuels — an ideology that Hillary Clinton’s campaign chair John Podesta has called “completely impractical.”
...

The carbon phobic left refuses any middle ground even if it gives results that they say they desire.  They want to jump straight to alternative energy despite its many weaknesses and its inability to meet the demands of a modern economy.