Rush to judgment on climate change could hurt Florida's economy.

Clay Electric Co-op,Keystone Heights,Florida | January 2008 | Bill Phillips

[oldsalt]

Rush to judgment on climate change could hurt state's economy By Bill Phillips, GM/CEO

As I’ve mentioned in recent columns, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has proposed some energy policies to back up his campaign to combat global warming or climate change. Many of his policies mimic those set forth by California, which are some of the most stringent in the nation.

While the Governor’s proposals may be well intended, they ignore the fact that there are many unresolved issues surrounding global warming that must be fully considered, from verifying the extent of global warming impacts to identifying cost-effective alternatives.

It’s widely reported by the media that global warming is mankind’s fault, and that we must change our living standards and energy habits to save the planet. We frequently hear about a “scientific consensus” to convince us that something must be done now to prevent climate catastrophe.

Well, as writer Michael Crichton, author of Jurassic Park and The Andromeda Strain, once observed, "Consensus is not science."

That's especially applicable to the issue of climate change. The truth is that while greenhouse gas emissions have increased as the world has industrialized, our global climate is always changing – global temperatures and sea levels have fallen and risen, and glaciers have retreated and advanced, in cycles that go back as far as scientists can document.

Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, who recently discussed the cyclical nature of climate change on ABC's 20/20, points out that every year, scientists publish numerous, rigorously peer–reviewed research studies, "that do not support the conventional wisdom on dire climate change."

Florida's state climatologist, Dr. Jim O'Brien of Florida State University, director of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies, has been particularly critical of a September 2007 report that predicted that rising sea levels from global warming will wipe out many large coastal communities within the next 100 years, a prediction he terms a ridiculous "scare tactic". While global surface temperatures and sea levels have been rising somewhat on a net basis, over the last 100 years, Drs. Christy and O'Brien agree that these increases have occurred in a way that is inconsistent with most of the alarmist climate models you read about in newspapers or hear about in TV news reports.

Cars, trucks, trains, planes, and industrial facilities, including some power plants, burn fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But coal also keeps American energy affordable, and studies show that those savings add considerably to household income enabling us to live longer, more secure and healthier lives. The question is, how far should we go in the near term to reduce those emissions, given the probable high costs and questionable benefits of such reductions?

California already has stringent controls in place to reduce greenhouse emissions from power plants. It can meet those requirements for two key reasons. First, it has ready access to alternate energy sources including abundant wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric energy. Unfortunately, these low cost renewable California resources are either not present, or not practical, in Florida. Second, California has a much more temperate climate than Florida, with only 1/3 of our "cooling days" (days when air conditioning is needed). This makes California's per capita energy needs much lower.

In part, as a result of those stringent controls, California's electricity costs are now 23 percent higher than Florida's, partly because just 2 percent of California's energy comes from coal, compared to about 30 percent of Florida's.

Some people, including Florida Gov. Crist, want us to follow California's lead. They want Florida to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions that preclude the use of coal to produce electricity. The problem is, studies show that if the entire world adopted California's standards – which would come at a tremendous cost – the net projected impact by the year 2100 would be a less than a .03 degrees Centigrade reduction in projected temperature. That's an undetectable difference. And if these expensive restrictions were adopted only throughout the U.S., we'd get less than a one millimeter difference in projected sea level, and only a .01 degree Centigrade reduction in global temperature.

Implementing California's current greenhouse gas restrictions nationwide would have a huge financial impact on the economy, while providing those minimal benefits. And as ABC's 20/20 reporter John Stossel recently pointed out, "The truth is that while everyone agrees that the earth has warmed, lots of good scientists don't agree that it's mostly our fault, and don't agree that it's going to be a catastrophe."

A recent editorial cartoon makes the same point. The cartoon shows one cavemen saying to another: "Something's not just right – our air is clean, our water is pure, we get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty."

Reliable, affordable energy helps all of us enjoy improved health and longer life spans. Instead of implementing "solutions" that may not have any real impact, let's urge our state and federal lawmakers to balance both cost and common sense, when addressing the subject of climate change.

[oldsalt]

This was published in my electric company's newsletter. I thought it was spot on and wanted my fellow Freepers to see it. Please excuse my lack of posting skills.

[Matchett-PI]

bttt

[Brilliant]

Crist is supposedly on McCain’s list for VP. That would be a very bad move. McCain is liberal enough, without adding the poster-boy RINO to the ticket.

[Piquaboy]

Brilliant! They just now figured that out?

[Wil H]

I think we need legislation to stop continental drift too.