Posted on 12/23/2003 6:41:13 AM PST by John Jorsett
Politicians whining about global warming make me suspicious. Since most of us politicians (at least around an election) are little more than hot air anyway, it could be argued we are more responsible for global warming than you are.
So, when I read that several elected state attorneys general were suing the federal government to get more regulations over more of our life to “do something” about “global warming,” I got worried. These 11 attorneys general (including California’s Bill Lockyer) want the Environmental Protection Agency to enact stringent new rules on emissions into the atmosphere.
With variations in details, all the suits seek regulation of carbon dioxide emissions. Also all are founded on shaky science. Also all could cost you your job, your car, and/or many other nice things which you are accustomed to enjoying in our technologically advanced society.
“Global warming,” which first burst onto the public scene a few years ago, originally was based on computer models of temperature change over the centuries. Scientists thought Earth’s overall temperature was rising because so-called greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are being emitted into the atmosphere as a result of such human activity as driving cars and operating factories (once again, excluding big-mouthed politicians).
Self-named environmentalists quickly embraced these conclusions. But even a first-year computer science student knows that a computer model is just that — a model. If faulty data is plugged into the model, faulty results emerge (garbage in/garbage out). In recent years, increasing numbers of scientists have come to question the assumptions about global warming and mankind’s role in it — if any — that these computer models lay out.
While scientists skeptical about global warming have not disproved the theory, they certainly have raised enough questions to make fair-minded public policy experts wary of rushing into fixing something we don’t really know needs fixing. At a minimum, recent science shows that assumptions and conclusions on which these lawsuits are based are shaky. What is not shaky is the conclusion that the stiff new regulations these lawsuits call for would adversely impact on our economy (and, consequently, your job).
An Energy Information Administration study of global climate regulation concluded that America’s gross domestic product — an overall measure of our total national economy — would be reduced by almost $400 billion by 2010 if such regulation were implemented. That is a lot of jobs for a lot of people.
A similar Heartland Institute study found that a national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2010 would increase gasoline prices at least 65¢ per gallon. That means if it costs you $150 per month to drive to work now, it will cost you more than $200 per month (plus inflation) to do so if the government gets its way.
Keep in mind that “adverse economic impact” is just an economist’s way of saying “job loss.” Heartland estimated that enacting the controls the lawsuits envision would eliminate 2.4 million jobs.
That translates into an average household income reduction of $3,372 per year. That is like a $3400 tax increase, not to mention the other extra costs you would incur, all for a questionable theory based on questionable science. Those most hurt by these proposed regulations would be senior citizens and low-income families trying to heat their homes in winter or cool them in summer.
We all want clean air, fresh water, and a healthy atmosphere. I hope politicians do things that actually help us achieve these things. I also hope politicians like California Attorney General Bill Lockyer would stop emitting their own greenhouse gases. Maybe we can get the federal government to regulate their emissions. That would cool off the atmosphere and help us achieve some level of peace and security — probably too much too hope for.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.
Romanian term limits
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.