The Weather Conspiracy vs Cap and Trade
I understand that many people are excited and concerned about the "Global Warming" Phenomenon.
When I hear this, I wonder how many are familiar with the book "The Weather Conspiracy; The coming of the New Ice Age".
This is a book written and published by a group of weather and climate 'experts' in the 1970's. At that point in our history the 'experts' were convinced the earth was cooling too fast, and we would soon have another ice age. To the thinking person, this of course, meant that we had global warming and global cooling in the past. Long before mankind was creating CO2 gases.
Less than 25 years later Al Gore was claiming global warming was upon us, we must take quick action to prevent the end of our way of life.
Many years ago, someone told me, "When rich people do something unusual, look and see how it affects their money." Now we know that Al Gore has managed to increase his net worth from roughly 3 million to near 100 million dollars in less than 10 years. In my opinion, Al Gore should go down in history as another PT Barnum.
There is no question that large cities, with their asphalt, concrete, and air conditioning will increase the temperate. There is also no doubt that temperature monitoring stations, set up 30-40 years ago in rural areas, are now near or even in, large cities, thus increasing the temperatures readings in many areas. However, I do not agree that a picture of a polar bear taken on an ice flow in August gives a clear indication of global warming.
NASA tells us that the surface of Mars has also increased since they have been monitoring that temperature. This would indicate that only the Sun could be warming the surface of Mars and most certainly having a similar effect on earth.
I firmly believe we must do everything possible to protect and maintain a clean environment, however, when we are playing with nature, we should move very slowly and do not do anything that we cannot reverse.
This "Cap and Trade" bill is just another way for the rich (Read Al Gore) to get richer.
James G. McMorris
Oops. I meant to rec the post below this one. Sorry. Un-rec'd.
June 27, 2009 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, looks like the comely LisB doesn't care too much for your post. Oh well.
Anyway, you forgot to mention that we exhale CO2 so it must be OK. I've heard that one before and it's a good one.
I've also heard the one about Mars getting warmer, so it must have been caused by the Sun, so that must be what made the Earth warmer, and there are no people on Mars so people must not be causing global warming. Yeah, that's a good one too.
June 27, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh heh heh...I like you, Riesz.
June 27, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Riesz too
June 27, 2009 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
James McMorris seems sincere, but also misinformed. I'm familiar with the scientific literature of the 197O's as well as today. At that time, the threat of global warming was less apparent, but it was still the dominant view of climate science. Claims for impending cooling were limited to a few vague speculations, many regarding events thousands of years in the future, and were only prominent in the media.
The evidence that we are responsible for a warming threat of potentially disastrous magnitude has grown since then to the point it is now almost universally shared within the science literature, with all claims of controversy emanating outside that domain - from blogs, public proclamations, news media, etc. Al Gore's contribution has been to popularize the science. In doing so through his Inconvenient Truth movie, he provided a few details that were wrong or disputable, but the general principles are no longer in serious dispute.
I've offered elsewhere to provide information sources for those truly interested in an objective understanding of current climate science. At the same time, I discourage any temptation for readers here to become dragged into interminable debates about global warming or the human role. The world has moved past that point, and those of us who wish to be taken seriously would be best served, I believe, if we move with it.
June 27, 2009 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, what I know about Al Gore is that he was 'always' passionate about appreciating and preserving our environment.
I wish he was a tougher guy when it came to politics but I respect him for his passion for getting us to pay attention to what's going on with the environment.
Better to build wealth from saving the environment than destroying it. Isn't it good to know that's possible. Or are you one of those people who doesn't like capitalism?
June 27, 2009 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"we must do everything possible to protect and maintain a clean environment, however, when we are playing with nature, we should move very slowly and do not do anything that we cannot reverse."
The first part seems reasonable, the second part seems absent of reason. The idea that "we should move very slowly and do not do anything that we cannot reverse" is counterintuitive.
In terms of taking smart action, we've been moving pretty slowly over the last 50 years. Actually, we haven't moved at all.
And by doing nothing, we have neglected the environment in a way that we may not be able to reverse.
I would be fine if we changed the debate from global warming to the simpler, more tangible issue of pollution.
It's in the air, the water, agriculture.
There are only two positions. Pro-pollution or anti-pollution.
Maybe it's just a start, but I would rather tax polluters and create incentives for alternative energy resources.
We need to diversify our energy infrastructure portfolio.
June 28, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
This may be a contentious issue when the Senate debates cap-and-trade legislation. President Obama originally wanted to sell all the carbon permits, with proceeds used to subsidize alternative energy, but this has already been watered down, with many permits to be given away without charge.
How to use revenues from the ones that are sold will be debated between those who want at least some revenue allocated to alternative energy, and those who want it all remitted to taxpayers.
In my view, the alternative energy option will ultimately benefit taxpayers more, but it may not be seen as politically viable by Senators.
June 28, 2009 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've seen a few posts about the energy bill in congress right now. But I haven't seen a really great concise summary, spin-free. Fred, can you provide a link to an honest simple to understand summary of what is in this bill?
June 28, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
See
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-06-03-waxman-markey-bill-breakdown/
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-2454
June 28, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
thanks Fred, judging from the comments on that site, there are some serious problems with this legislation. As I understand it, somehow trading permits to pollute seems to undermine the necessity to stop polluters from polluting.
It certainly is complicated.
June 28, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's nowhere near ideal, but cap-and-trade did work very well for acid rain mitigation. If the caps are tight enough, the trading part will be an acceptable means of incentivizing polluters to cut their emissions or alternatively, pay someone else who has managed to cut emissions, making the emissions cut profitable for the recipient of the payment.
If the caps are too lenient for most polluters, or the costs of exceeding them too inexpensive, it won't work.
June 28, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink