Global Warming - Some Random (But Major) Issues To Consider

As we start into 2010, the next big Congressional debacle is likely to be the debate on global warming and whether the United States should implement a vast and complicated cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions. I am sure we will revisit this topic many times in 2010 so this article will just start the process of posing the necessary questions that need to be asked and the analyses that need to be done do arrive at the right answer, whatever that may be, relative to the overall global warming issue and the specific cap and trade proposal that Congress may or may not agree to.

As with health care reform and any other recent Congressional and political class activity, the hope for a balanced and fair evaluation is unlikely, given the vocal supporters of the global warming theory, the multitude of lobbyists likely to be moving around behind the scenes, and the general inability of Congress to understand the interactions and total range of consequences of their actions. However, the following issues are real and should be addressed before moving forward.

1) Is global warming actually happening and if so, is the threat from global warming significant?
Most polls show that the majority of Americans believe there is global warming underway and to varying degrees, something should be done about it. Al Gore has made a second career out of it and the main stream media seem to think it is a done deal. However, please consider the following:

• Over 31,000 scientists, including thousands with PhD degrees, have signed a petition at http://www.petitionproject.org/ that states their opposition to those scientists that claim global warming exists and is a real threat to humanity. This project was avidly supported by Physicist Frederick Seitz (prior to his death in 2008). Dr. Seitz was once president of the United States National Academy of Science, he received the National Medal of Science among many other prestigious awards, and he received honorary doctorate degrees from 32 universities. Thus, when a politician states that the science of global warming is unquestionable, does that the politician really know what he is talking about when tens of thousands of scientists disagree?
• Dr. Fred Singer of George Mason University is founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, whose work has also scientifically found fault with the global warming scientists.
• Late last year a computer hacker published thousands of emails stolen from leading climate researchers that touched on such topics as a scientist lamenting the lack of global warming at the moment, using statistical "tricks" to "hide the decline" in global temperatures, the promise to block the publication of "unhelpful papers", proposals to boycott a journal that was open minded with regard to global warming, and other incriminating statements. This may show 1) climate science is not such a slam dunk as some would claim and 2) some scientists may be fudging data (and reality) for their own personal gain. How real is global warming if you have to fake data and suppress conflicting opinions in order to prove your point? (source: The Week magazine, December 4, 2009)
• Earlier this year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency suppressed the findings of one of its own scientists, who concluded from his analysis of many different climate studies that the worry about global warming might be overblown. Shouldn't these findings from an EPA scientist have been made public for debate for either confirmation or rebuttal?
• Three decades ago, many climatologists were claiming the earth was heading towards a new ice age and that a possible solution would be to shoot carbon emissions into the atmosphere to prevent the cooling of the earth. That is the exact opposite of what they want to do now, take carbon emissions out of the atmosphere.
• Speaking of Al Gore, how many people know that a lot of his future wealth will be determined by how successfully he pushes the global warming threat? He has relationships with certain parties and companies that need the global warming argument to succeed. Can you say "conflict of interest?"
• What about the credible reports and analyses showing the ice cap at Antarctica is actually increasing? How does that mesh with the shrinking Arctic icecap? Wouldn't both ice caps shrink if global warming was a world wide crisis?

2) If global warming is actually happening, is it possible to get it under control?

• As reported in "Love My Country, Loathe My Government," China and India will bring over 800 carbon spewing, coal fired power plants online by 2012. If they are not forced to bring their accelerating carbon footprint size under control, does it make any difference what the rest of the world's countries do within their own borders? Given the recent failures at the UN climate conference in Denmark, where the developing countries were not amenable to giving up their cheap energy sources without massive bribes from the Western countries, and possibly not even then, it makes no sense to penalize U.S. industry and business when the emerging economies in China, India and elsewhere are belching out pollution and exports based on cheap (mostly coal) and dirty fuel.
• In the January 11, 2010 issue of Business Week magazine, an article by John Carey, "Measuring The Gas Without the Hot Air," laid out a major problem in climatology in that attempts to actually and precisely measure emissions on a local basis are almost impossible. Thus, how can you control emissions, and penalize the violators, if you cannot measure the level of emissions the violators are turning out?
• Although many nations signed the Kyoto Treaty, which was the first attempt to rein in emissions, very few nations met the targets set out by the treaty or even came close to meeting them? How will that non-compliance tendency be overcome on a going forward basis?
• In a November Business Week article by Ben Elgin, "A Big Loophole In Cap and Trade," Mr. Elgin exposed some schemes that are already being contemplated on how to game and cheat the proposed Congressional cap and trade system before it is even approved by Congress! If people can con the legislation before it is even passed, you know it is likely to be a lousy bill and will cost the American taxpayer in the end. More on these schemes in future posts.

3) Do we actually think that the American political class can pass a bill that effectively and fairly addresses the problem?

• So many examples, so little time. Of course, my favorite example is that the recently completed visitor's center in Washington came in 50% above budget. If they cannot build a simple building on time and on budget, what makes anyone think they can run the entire U.S. energy industry?
• Do we think that Congress can pass and oversee a cap and trade program that is not manipulated by Wall Street and other high powered investors to the detriment of the American taxpayer? Government oversight did not work so well for taxpayers relative to the banking industry.
• Who will decide what projects and factories are to be included under the cap and trade program and what the value for the credits and debits will be? (more on this in a future post based on a Reason magazine analysis, "Is Government Action Worse Than Global Warming?")
• The American taxpayer is reeling under an extremely heavy taxation burden before the increased costs and taxes from the horrible health care reform bill and the cap and trade legislation hit the household wallet. Less money to spend on vacations, restaurants, consumer products and services will continue to depress the employment market.
• According to a blurb in the January, 2010 issue of Reason magazine by Ronald Bailey, the U.K.-based organization, Carbon Footprint consultancy, claims that to stop global warming each person on earth needs to have a carbon footprint of only two tons per person per year. According to the article, the average American citizen's footprint is over 20 tons annually. What countries get close to the two tons per year? According to Mr. Bailey, Cuba, Togo, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Mali beat and come close to the target of two tons per year. Of course, these are some of the poorest, most backwards countries in the world. Do we really think that Americans will give up their cell phones, their SUVs, home heating, big televisions, and other modern convenience and reduce their carbon footprint by 90%?

These are just some random thoughts and reviews that I have come across relative to global warming. We will delve into many of these topics in detail going forward. However, these items do not even cover the need to develop a long term strategic energy plan for the country. You cannot address global warming without also addressing the nation's future energy needs and still maintain the current level of affluence in the country. Given that the political class has not developed such a plan since the oil crises of the 1970s does not bode well for them doing so in the near future. Please turn off the lights when you leave.


Visit our website at www.loathemygovernment.com to order an autographed copy of the book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government -Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom and Destroying The American Political Class" and to sign up for the cause. The book is also available online at Amazon and Barnes And Noble.