Reader Response

Another View on Global Warming

By Raymond Takashi Swenson, JD, LLM Environmental Law, Idaho Falls, ID

Mr. Webb:  Since you commented recently on the global warming issue in your Utah Policy Daily column, I thought you might be interested in the story that was carried last week by BBC News, which is linked at my blog. Basically, the story reports that scientists expect that the La Nina configuration in the Western pacific will cause lower temperatures worldwide in 2008, ensuring for the tenth year in a row that the average global temperatures do not exceed the recent peak in 1998, a peak which was due to El Nino conditions.  In 2007 NASA announced that its previous data needed to be adjusted to reflect the fact that the average temperature in the US in 1934 was actually higher than in 1998.  

From 1934 to 1975, global temperatures declined, even during the buildup of CO2 emissions caused by World War II and the postwar development boom.  This led to speculation that the next ice age (which is overdue) was about to begin.  Then about 1976 temperatures started to rise gradually, peaking in 1998, and being lower than 1998 since then.  In other words, the world is cooler now than it was in 1934, when CO2 levels were almost half of their current value.  The question this raises is, since the net temperature trend since 1934 has been no net increase in temperature, why should we (a) assert the world’s climate is warming over the long term (75 years), or (b) assert that it is warming in the short term (10 years)?  

While it is all well and good to be working on alternative energy sources with long term potential, the rush to “do something” has a consistent record of stupid decisions.  TIME’s cover story points out that ethanol 85 is probably not a net reduction of greenhouse gases, but does drive up the cost of corn and food.  The notion that “we must do something” results in doing lots of things that are very costly and don’t do much at all.  The bills in Congress now call for drastic reductions in CO2 emissions of as much as 80% by 2050, barely 40 years from now.  The cost to our economy generally and to individual taxpayers is not even being thought about.  Those economists who have looked at it have concluded that we could totally shut down the US economy, and it would have no noticeable or certain reduction in temperatures for 50 years, and even then, only a small amount.  The CO2 that is in the air has accumulated there for decades, and will not decline rapidly.  The notion that Americans should commit CO2 suicide to save the world, while China builds a new IPP size coal fired generator every week, in the hope that our example of (stupid) self-sacrifice will inspire them to emulate us, is ludicrous.  Our example of 222 years of democratic government has not made a dent in China yet; it may take more than 200 years for them to decide to follow the US example of self-sacrifice.  

The fact is that global warming is not here yet, that if it comes it will happen slowly, that the average forecast in computer models is of only 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit, that many of the effects are beneficial (cutting way down on burning fossil fuels for heating!), that the sea levels in an unconstrained scenario will only rise 3 to 10 inches by 2100 (versus one foot from 1900 to 2000).  People rich enough to have beach houses can darn well pay for their own protection and not make me walk five miles to work so they can stay in their beach houses (which get rebuilt after every major storm).  Stopping all CO2 emissions around the world will make only a fractional difference in the temperature in 2100.  Furthermore, higher temperatures than this have been part of natural climate variations, including the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD when vineyards were growing in Britain and ice melted off much of Greenland.  Most of all, what Al Gore does not want to talk about is how much it will cost to reduce CO2 emissions, and how little difference it will make in temperatures.  Even the most drastic proposals will NOT prevent MOST of the forecast warming.  Basically, we can bleed ourselves dry, but most of the global warming forecast for 2100 is going to happen no matter what we do.  

A more rational approach is to build up society’s wealth and capital and scientific resources and mitigate the effects of warming.  If it is actually coming, it is NOT going to be large, most of the effects are decades away, and it will be cheaper to mitigate the bad effects and benefit from the good ones, rather than to stop all of the effects at great cost.  

Today in Political History

April 8, 1913:  The 17th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for the election of senators by popular vote rather than selection by state legislatures, is ratified.  (Source:  Perspicuity) 

April 8, 1952:  Pres. Harry S Truman orders the federal government to take control of the steel industry to stop a nationwide strike.  (Source:  NBC5) 

Wise Words

“I learned that a great leader is a man who has the ability to get other people to do what they don't want to do and like it” 

-- Harry S Truman   (Source:  Think Exist) 

Communications Tip

Power Writing: Write Upside Down

By Amy Campbell

Take everything you learned in English composition class and turn it on its head. Make your conclusion first, then use the rest of the document to support your conclusion. Your readers are busy, overworked, multitasking, and on deadline. They don't have time to wade through multiple paragraphs to find out what the main gist of your report is (if you even have a gist). So, get to the point. Show your hand. You're not writing a mystery novel, so there's no need to build suspense. Put the good stuff right up front. As you build a reputation for being a no-nonsense, straight-shooting, get-to-the-point point person, you will win friends and influence people inside and outside of your organization.  (Source:  Info Works) 

National Politics

Best Stories From . . .

-- Washington Post: "When Army Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker travel to Capitol Hill [Tuesday], ... the cameras will be trained on three of their inquisitors: Sens. John McCain, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. The hearings ... promise to be as much about presidential politics as about the past six months of military and diplomatic progress in Iraq."

-- The Hill: "President Bush on Monday took the unprecedented step of trying to force the Congress to vote on a controversial trade agreement with Colombia opposed by most Democrats."

-- Politico: "Mark Penn isn't the only [Clinton] supporter on the wrong side of the Colombia trade agreement. The Democratic-leaning advocacy firm the Glover Park Group, former home to Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson, signed a $40,000 per month contract with the government of Colombia in April of 2007 to promote the very agreement that Clinton now rails against on the presidential campaign trail."

-- San Francisco Chronicle: "The buzz is growing in Washington among election analysts, Democratic leaders and even some dispirited Republicans that [the Democrats are] poised to increase [their] majority in the House in the November election and Democrats are also seen as likely to add seats in the Senate."

Blog Watch

-- Scott Hinrichs, in response to this Morning News story on education spending, says: "[L]et's face reality. Utah is never going to win the per-pupil-funding race. In fact, given demographics and income levels, Utah will likely never make it out of 51st place. The folks in the education industrial complex will forever flog us for failing to properly worship the gods of per-pupil-spending. So I guess we'd just better get used to being harangued about it. If we can simply accept this reality, we can get on with understanding that we have to innovate without having a lot more cash to do it. And for that, we may need to go back to the future. How in the world did we manage to teach students to read, write, speak, do math, and understand history back in the bad old days when we had superior educational outcomes while spending only a fraction (in real terms) of what we spend today?"

Lighter Side

Favorite Headlines

(From James Taranto’s Best of the Web at OpinionJournal.com)

 -- Why Obama Is Winning: "Study: Angry Women Viewed as Incompetent"--headline, Internet Broadcasting, April 3

-- With Friends Like These . . . : "Infection Nearly Kills Kennewick Man; Friends, Family Help"--headline, Seattle Times, April 6

-- News You Can Use: "Thin People Can Be Fat"--headline, CBSNews.com, April 2