On November 27 our local newspaper, the St. George Spectrum, ran a column titled: “Let’s get started building alternative energy infrastructure” (see: http://www.thespectrum.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071127/OPINION/711270316/1014/OPINION) which I found to be so naive in its acceptance of the most outrageous alarmist exagerations and simplistic in its approach to solving a complex problem (energy supply and global climate change) that I just had to sit down and write the following response to that column. I was not able to pare my response down to a mere 200 words, so my response didn’t qualify as a “letter to the editor.” But since the column itself ran 501 words, I cut my response down to a comparable bare-bones 500 words. You'll note that there wasn’t space in 500 words to cite all my sources, but I invite you to explore the reading lists, articles, and links found in the previous entries on this very same web log. Plus, I've added a couple of graphics to this entry that I wasn't able to include in my submission to the newspaper (if you click on the graphic, you can see it full-sized.) Anyway, following is my submission to the newspaper, which has not yet been published (and who knows if it ever will be?):
In the November 27 column, Art Porter spoke of the IPCC study as if the results united scientists in consensus that man’s emissions of CO2 were causing catastrophic global warming and natural disasters. The fact is, the study’s results support no such conclusions, something easily verified from reading the studies readily available, rather than accepting sensationalistic headlines.
Read the IPCC study itself (written by scientists,) and not the “Summary for Policy Makers” (written by politicians,) and you will find that scientists agree on only three points: the global mean temperature has probably increased in the past century, CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases, and mankind emits CO2. However, only a minority of the world’s scientists believe that man’s emissions of CO2 have affected the global temperature and that the increase in temperature could cause global problems. The majority understand that:
1. The mean temperature of the whole solar system is increasing due to solar radiation.
2. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere (0.038%,) less than 5% of which is manmade.
3. Water vapor is 97% of the green house gases in our atmosphere and is left out of the global climate models, which is why the weatherman’s predictions are barely valid for today, never mind in 100 years.
Read the IPCC study itself (written by scientists,) and not the “Summary for Policy Makers” (written by politicians,) and you will find that scientists agree on only three points: the global mean temperature has probably increased in the past century, CO2 is one of the greenhouse gases, and mankind emits CO2. However, only a minority of the world’s scientists believe that man’s emissions of CO2 have affected the global temperature and that the increase in temperature could cause global problems. The majority understand that:
1. The mean temperature of the whole solar system is increasing due to solar radiation.
2. CO2 is a trace gas in our atmosphere (0.038%,) less than 5% of which is manmade.
3. Water vapor is 97% of the green house gases in our atmosphere and is left out of the global climate models, which is why the weatherman’s predictions are barely valid for today, never mind in 100 years.
4. The Earth isn’t nearly as warm now as it was in medieval times, when Vikings farmed Greenland.
Unfortunately the unfounded fear of global warming has resulted in the propagation of a non-solution: the premature imposition of alternative energy. Alternative energy technologies should be developed – as the market demands. Sadly, alternative energy technology companies are impatient with our market system and are pressuring governments to fund the early adoption of their products.
Politicians realize that outright funding would increase taxes, and cost them their jobs. So their new strategy is to force utilities to adopt expensive technologies and pass these costs on to the public. Alternative energy currently costs twenty times per kilowatt what clean coal power costs.
So, why would much of the electrical industry embrace the myth of man-made Global Warming? Pure self interest. These corporations are allowed a fixed profit on approved expenses. A mandated “renewable energy portfolio” is a huge expense on which to charge their rate of return. In this scenario alternative technology manufacturers win, politicians win, investor owned utilities win, but rate payers (you and me) lose, and we lose big.
Further, diverting funds into alternative energy technology reduces the resources available to solve real environmental problems, such as unfiltered emissions from coal-fired power plants in China, India, and Brazil; deforestation, which causes localized droughts, erosion, and flooding; over pumping of aquifers, resulting in droughts and contamination of water supplies; and unchecked urban sprawl, which increases fossil fuel consumption and vehicular emissions.
Wasting our limited resources and money on a non-solution to a non-problem is not only foolish, it’s immoral. CO2 is not a legitimate threat and we need to get off this bandwagon and deal with the real problems in our world.
Unfortunately the unfounded fear of global warming has resulted in the propagation of a non-solution: the premature imposition of alternative energy. Alternative energy technologies should be developed – as the market demands. Sadly, alternative energy technology companies are impatient with our market system and are pressuring governments to fund the early adoption of their products.
Politicians realize that outright funding would increase taxes, and cost them their jobs. So their new strategy is to force utilities to adopt expensive technologies and pass these costs on to the public. Alternative energy currently costs twenty times per kilowatt what clean coal power costs.
So, why would much of the electrical industry embrace the myth of man-made Global Warming? Pure self interest. These corporations are allowed a fixed profit on approved expenses. A mandated “renewable energy portfolio” is a huge expense on which to charge their rate of return. In this scenario alternative technology manufacturers win, politicians win, investor owned utilities win, but rate payers (you and me) lose, and we lose big.
Further, diverting funds into alternative energy technology reduces the resources available to solve real environmental problems, such as unfiltered emissions from coal-fired power plants in China, India, and Brazil; deforestation, which causes localized droughts, erosion, and flooding; over pumping of aquifers, resulting in droughts and contamination of water supplies; and unchecked urban sprawl, which increases fossil fuel consumption and vehicular emissions.
Wasting our limited resources and money on a non-solution to a non-problem is not only foolish, it’s immoral. CO2 is not a legitimate threat and we need to get off this bandwagon and deal with the real problems in our world.
