ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL BLOGS

MORE EVIDENCE THE '30'S WERE HOTTER THAN NOW

     From the Missourian:

Hating the heat? Be glad it’s 2007, not 1936

By SARAH LUEHRS

August 19, 2007 | 12:00 a.m. CST

COLUMBIA-In the summer of 1936, when 44 days topped 100 degrees, closing schools wasn’t even a consideration.

E.P. “Jake” Jacobs, of Columbia, who was 17 at the time, remembers sweating it out in his one-room schoolhouse in rural Boone County. Teachers would open windows, and everyone would hope for a breeze. ...

That summer, there were more days of 100-plus-degree heat than any other year between 1890 and 2007, said Pat Guinan, MU Extension climatologist with the Commercial Agriculture program. By comparison, the mercury this summer has crested 100 degrees only six days so far.

NEW TYPE OF "STICKER SHOCK"

  From the Associated Press:

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Governor Spitzer has signed legislation requiring automakers to put a "global warming index" sticker on new cars and passenger trucks beginning in the 2010 model year, detailing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions.

New York is the second state in the nation to pass the legislation, following California.

YOU'D GET WARMING, TOO, IF YOU PUT YOUR KEESTER NEXT TO A HOT STOVE

  Why are the government's global temperature readings so far off, telling us 1998 was the hottest year on record (conveniently fits in with the global-warming thesis) and then having to admit that reading was flawed (the hottest year actually being 1938)?  There's a blog that tracks the ridiculous placement of weather stations, What's Up With That?  Take a look-it's amusing.

MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY

          In a post at MSNBC.com ("Greenhouse Simplicities"), Robert J. Samuelson points out "an inconvenient truth" in the global warming debate:

The global-warming debate's great un-mentionable is this: we lack the technology to get from here to there. Just because Arnold Schwarzenegger wants to cut emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 doesn't mean it can happen. At best, we might curb emissions growth.

Consider a 2006 study from the International Energy Agency. With present policies, it projected that carbon-dioxide emissions (a main greenhouse gas) would more than double by 2050; developing countries would account for almost 70 percent of the increase. The IEA then simulated an aggressive, global program to cut emissions based on the best available technologies: more solar, wind and biomass; more-efficient cars, appliances and buildings; more nuclear. Under this admitted fantasy, global emissions in 2050 would still slightly exceed 2003 levels.

***

...the overriding reality seems almost un-American: we simply don't have a solution for this problem. As we debate it, journalists should resist the temptation to portray global warming as a morality tale—as NEWSWEEK did—in which anyone who questions its gravity or proposed solutions may be ridiculed as a fool, a crank or an industry stooge. Dissent is, or should be, the lifeblood of a free society.

     As I've commented in the past via this Blog, the questions about "global warming" are serious and cannot be dismissed by fanatics.  First, is global warming occurring?  Second, if it is occurring, is the phenomenon man-made?  Third, if the phenomenenon is man-made, can we do anything about it?  Fourth, if we can do anything about it, is the cure (economic recession or, worse, even depression) worse than the disease?

     Samuelson believs global warming is occuring.  Moroever, anyone who has follwed his writing and career knows he is no right-wing fanatic.  However, like Leftie Alexander Cockburn (see previous Posts on this Blog re global warming, under "Categories"-right hand side of page), Samuelson knows flights from reality on this issue when he sees them.

THERE IS STILL NO FREE LUNCH

     The famous saying goes something like "What does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?"  The modern equivalent might be, "What does it profit a society if it reduces 'global warming' by 1/2 a degree and people go without jobs?" 

     From Reuters today, August 6, 2007 ("Climate bill shaves $533 bln off economy"):

A Senate bill to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would raise energy prices and also reduce American economic output by more than half a trillion dollars over two decades, according to a government report released on Monday.

Congress is expected to consider climate legislation this fall that would fight global warming. Many businesses worry the U.S. economy would suffer under a measure to impose tough mandatory cuts in emissions.

One proposal, introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John McCain, would gradually reduce total U.S. emissions by the year 2050 to 60 percent below 1990 levels.

***

...the proposal would cut into the U.S. economy and raise gasoline and other energy prices paid by consumers, according to an analysis of the legislation by the Energy Information Administration.

     There is no free lunch-- even those who believe "global warming" is 1) real, is 2) man-made and 3) is not irreversible must occasionally be worried about the terrible human toll that drastic "climate change" measures would take on peoples' livelihoods.  Or perhaps true believers (and we are dealing with a quasi-religious movement here) don't worry about such things.