Information or uninformed and inflammatory political opinion? Yes, the climate is changing – as it has been for the past 4+ billion years. Perhaps government employees ought not to be spouting political beliefs (about the cause, perhaps?) The questions are:
1.) Why is the climate changing?
Speculation and contoversey centers around the correlation between increases in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and increased worldwide industrialization, fueled by fossil fuels. (Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph.) It is critical to bear in mind that correlation reflects association, not causation. Currently, atmospheric carbon dioxide is around 400 parts per million (ppm). The atmosphere is comprised of 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, .9% argon. The remaining .1% of gases are what is known as “trace elements,” At 400 ppm, carbon dioxide makes up just .04% of the earth’s atmosphere. The planet Venus on the other hand, has an atmosphere made up almost entirely of carbon dioxide. It is also said that methane emissions (a far more potent greenhouse gas) from sheep and cattle in Australia and New Zealand are a sigjificant problem as well. Those are facts easily found online. The “consensus of scientists” isfreadily identifiable by anyone school in rhetoric as an “Appeal to Authority,” is a bad argument and logical fallacy. “These scientists, who incidentally have government research grants to protect, are no different than the consensus of scientists and other authority (papal) that believed that the Sun revolved around the Earth, Gallileo be damned. The truth is, science is NEVER settled. It is always subject to new information.
2.) Is climate change a bad thing?
It depends on whose ox is getting gored. Warmer temperatures mean longer growing seasons and less energy used in winter heating in the temperate zones. In subtropical climes, it might lead to harder growing conditions from more frequent drought-like conditions. Some speculate it might lead to rising sea levels, but continued study suggests that the amount and effect are overstated. And what does that mean for the fortunate 1% with ocean front homes? Well, the Dutch have been coping quite nicely for hundreds of years with dikes and levees. Certainly, plant life enjoys the extra carbon dioxide. It is what they breathe, together with sunlight to grow through photosynthesi, respiring oxygen in the process of capturing the carbon..
3.) Can and should mankind do any thing about the changing climate?
It is a tall order, bordering on hubris to thing we can, assuming we want to do so. Worldwide cooperation, including from ALL developing countries is a prerequisite. Are we to deny them the opportunity that first world countries took advantage of over the last 250 years? Are proposed solutions like wind and solar energy an answer? When the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine, what then? Currently, backup generators using fossil fuels are required for those days. Battery technology is getting better, but you have to build excess generating capacity to store energy for the days when solar or wind sources aren’t working. The addition of batteries, building of excess capacity, backup systems, transmission lines, easements, repair and maintenance all add to the cost. We won’t worry here about the birds who are killed or fried. Other posibilities for energy generation include fuel cells and 4th generation nuclear reactors. Surprisingly, many well-known Greens are getting behind these reactors – see the PBS documentary film “Pandora’s Promise.” Even fusion might one day be harnessed. In the meantime, there are existing possibilities such as updating the electrical grid that can help us make more efficient use of what we have.
But also, let’s not forget the Law of Unintended Consequences. Look at ethanol for example. It turns out that at present, it actually requires more energy and a larger carbon footprint than first thought. The only ones benefitting are corn producers because of the federal subsidies granted them and paid for by tax payers. While we are on the subject of federal subsidies and crony capitalism, look at the ones Elon Musk and Tesla get. Without them, the upcoming “S” model may cost $65,000, not $35,000 – beyond the reach of most people. And the electricity has to be generated somehow, which means – you guess it – burning fossil fuels. And is anyone willing to add 45 minutes to a 6 hour car trip to recharge? What happens to electric rates when everyone goes home at night and all plug in together? Even the Prius and other hybrid cars are not what people think. Producing batteries requires the mining of heavy metals – things like zinc, nickle, cadmium, etc. Mining companies are hard at work tearing up and ruining large swaths of Canada to mine these metals. Anyone who has been around a smelter can tell you what that’s like. And hybrids like the Prius were designed to run in largely urban environments at speeds below 35 mph. But the State of California, in their infinite wisdom, allows them to use the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) express lanes despite having only a single person in them. Doing so makes them no different than a conventionally powered vehicle of the same size.
As this comment was written in response to a story about the freeze on federal hiring and the inference that the Trump administration is nefarious and is already impacting us on a local scale, I call to mind the late Nobel laureate Milton Friedman who famously said, “There is no free lunch.” Spending today what we don’t have only burdens our children and grandchildren. I finished my graduate degree at Michigan in 1977 – 40 years ago. At that time, the federal debt was about $699 Billion. Forty years later, it is over $18 Trillion, largely due to the growth in nondiscretionary expenditures which include principally Medicare and Social Security. It does NOT include military spending which is both discretionary and has decreased to roughly 25% of the budget (compared to 60+ % in JFK’s last budget. Today it costs $7.65 to buy what $1 bought in 1977. Government spending on park payrolls is a gnat on the back of an elephant. But you have to start somewhere, so why not start with the low hanging fruit?
I’ll close with a story about Milton Friedman which illustrates the innanity of government intervention, even for seemingly worthwhile reasons. Dr. Friedman was visiting a dam building project in Cenral America. He saw workers using shovels instead of bulldozers and large earth moving equipment. He expressed his astonishment to his host, a government minister. The minister in response said, “Dr. Friedman, you do not understand. This is a work project to create jobs!” Dr. Friedman replied, “I see and if that is the case, why don’t you issue spoons to the workers, instead of shovels?”
I am not a Trumpian, but let’s give the new administration a chance to hang itself with its own rope or succeed beyond our wildest imagination. We should, as Tom Hanks suggested, hope for success. Time will tell.