I've always been somewhat of a skeptic when it comes to the notion of human-induced global warming, and even more of a skeptic when it comes to the whole idea of trying to stop or even reverse it. I have no gripes with trying to help the environment, but where do you draw the line when it comes to sacrificing economic health, safety, and personal choice all in the name of helping the environment? Unfortunately, society over the last few years has taken on the belief that global warming is fact (despite a lack of hard scientific evidence) with a tendency to label disbelievers as radical. I've noticed over the last few months that there is a growing backlash around the world against the theory of global warming and now seems as good a time as any to address it with this week's passage by the House of a new climate change bill.
First, the bill. Basically the government wants to create a cap-and-trade system in the U.S. to cut down on our nation's energy use. I'm not going to explain how such a system works, but if you don't know I'd encourage you to look it up. The short story is that it would amount to a tax on almost anything that uses energy in order to give people incentive to conserve energy. Environmentalists love it, but do we want environmental legislation that the Heritage Foundation estimates will cost the average family of four $1,870 a year by 2020 and $6,800 a year by 2035? Britain has a similar system that costs Brits an estimated $1,300 a year in taxes per family.
Second, CAFE legislation. CAFE is the acronym for the U.S.'s fuel mileage requirements for cars. Currently, automakers must have a fleet-wide average fuel economy of 27.5 MPG, though this is slated to rise to 35 MPG in the next several years under new legislation that I believe already passed, though maybe it's in the climate change bill. Having fuel efficient cars is great, but there are trade offs to such standards. Cars must be built with lighter, less durable materials in an attempt to meet fuel standards. A 2002 National Research Council study found that CAFE standards of 27.5 mpg for cars contributed to about 2,000 deaths per year because of restrictions on car size and weight. With standards rising to 35 mpg, the death rate will surely be higher. Also, when it costs less to drive, as it does when you have a more fuel efficient car, many Americans respond by simply driving more and consuming more gas. Setting the bar too high may force American car companies to abandon cars such as the Mustang and the Camaro (or at least high performance versions) and give Americans fewer purchasing options. If I want to buy a gas guzzling car, then that's my choice, and I'll pay for it at the pump. What's next? Telling Americans they can't buy plasma televisions because they consume so much energy (plasmas actually do consume a considerable amount of energy relative to older tvs) ? Some automakers, such as Mercedes and BMW, merely ignore our environmental standards because they realize it is impossible to build the cars their customers want with that kind of fuel efficiency. Since the U.S. created CAFE standards, $735M has been collected in fines, 2/3 of that amount paid by Mercedes and BMW. Unfortunately, American car companies don't make the same profit as Mercedes and BMW do per car and will be forced into making cars that their customers may not want just to appease environmentalists.
Third, global warming. While the GOP argues against the climate change bill by attacking its economic consequences, Americans have for the most part been ignoring the changing tide overseas. Australia is soon expected to vote down their version of a climate change bill because of a growing number of Australians that doubt the science behind human-induced global warming. New Zealand recently dismantled their cap-and-trade program after the government that enacted it was voted out weeks later. The number of scientists who disagree with the UN's claims on global warming has increased 13-fold in the last 2 years to more than 700. A Japanese environmental physical chemist who originally helped write the UN's climate change report now calls man-made global warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Here's a few other tidbits I've seen recently worth considering:
-At the 2008 meeting of Nobel Laureates in Lindau Germany, half the laureates on the climate change panel disputed the 'consensus' on global warming.
-According to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Earth's average rate of warming over the past 30 years was just 0.32 degrees Fahrenheit per decade. The Global Surface Temperature has remained flat since 1998.
-NASA claims that the majority of the top 10 warmest years on record occurred in the first half of the 20th century. They have found no evidence of warming in the U.S. over the past several years.
-The founder and director of the International Arctic Research Center, which exists purely to study climate change in the Arctic, has extensive research that shows that temperatures have actually decreased since 2001.
-A study done by Yale University estimates that without addressing global warming, it will cost the global economy $22 trillion. However, if we adopt the policies promoted by Gore, those policies will decrease the cost of global warming to $10 trillion, but the policies themselves will cost $34 trillion (all estimates of course, but it is clear that adopting those policies run the high risk of costing more than they're worth).
The point of this posting is not to argue that global warming doesn't exist. I don't think there's clear scientific evidence either way. However, with growing evidence against the original scientific analyses that caused us to panic over global warming, we would be wise to place a higher value on our economic well-being, safety and right to buy what we want over the possibility of preventing or diminishing a problem that may not even exist.
