TexasPolicy.com
900 Congress Ave., Ste. 400
Austin, TX 78701
Phone 512.472.2700
Fax 512.472.2728
Posted on 11/05/2008 7:29:34 PM PST by neverdem
Come what dramatic political and economic changes may occur, a refrain persists within the media, industry, and the U.S. Congress that onerous federal mandates to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) are inevitable. I don’t think so.
In less than a year, many unanticipated developments have complicated the political dynamics of “ending the era of fossil fuels” through the enactment of carbon reduction mandates. Consider six such developments that may give pause to policymakers otherwise inclined to support these measures:
* When the price of oil topped $4.00 a gallon and food inflation reached almost 8 percent, most voters got it: price and security first! At least a dozen recent polls show that three-fourths of likely voters put far more importance on the U.S. oil supply than global warming. This prevalent public opinion dissolved the U.S. Congress’ long and intransigent opposition to increased domestic oil production. In late September, the 30-year bans on offshore oil production expired. The rapid decline in the price of oil, as a result of economic slowdown, has not yet squelched broad support for more domestic oil production.
* Energy independence has become a battle cry across the political spectrum. The painfully high price of oil increased the public’s recognition that there are no near-term, realistic alternatives to the dominance of fossil fuels in the U.S. energy supply. American dependence on unreliable, if not inimical, sources of foreign oil worries Main Street far more than it used to.
* The European Union’s (EU) Emission Trading System (ETS), once the model for a U.S. program, continues to fail. Europe’s program is not reducing CO2 and has lead to higher energy costs. The U.S. has reduced more CO2 by market efficiencies and without any complicated cap-and-trade programs. Growing numbers of EU member countries, including Italy, now want to delay (read: scratch) the ETS because of economic woes approaching crisis proportions.
* By the time the Lieberman-Warner bill (S.2191) made it to the U.S. Senate floor last summer, the veil on its staggering cost had been lifted. The world’s most ambitious, enforceable carbon regime to date, S.2191 would impose exorbitant costs and require unprecedented expansion of the federal control, but would yield no measurable effect on global climate unless China and India undertook similarly draconian programs.
* Far more substantial climate science emerges and is a game-changer for the reigning science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Observational evidence from NASA satellites indicates little to no heat-forcing effect from manmade CO2. This NASA data is empirical science, far superior to the uncertain IPCC computer models.
* And the clincher: the specter of global recession. Worldwide financial turmoil presents the most hard-hitting obstacle to mandatory CO2 reduction. While figures may differ, no one doubts that CO2 reduction mandates would lead to far higher prices for fuel, power, food, and other basic consumer goods. Until the U.S. and global economies stabilize, the least prudent among us might delay CO2 regulations that would overturn our energy economy.
Amidst the current economic maelstrom, some congressional leaders perversely cling to carbon regulation as a new federal revenue source to compensate for a reduced tax base. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government’s auction of carbon allocations, e.g., power companies forced to buy permission to keep generating electricity, could generate trillions in revenue. Inconvenient facts, however, may have changed the political climate necessary for major CO2 reduction programs absent available control technology.
In the last year, many policy makers and voters have learned some hard facts about energy and the economy. If an ounce of reason might prevail, climate change policymakers would acknowledge that mandates are premature and impracticable. Immediate steps should be toward extending the new empirical climate science and market-based development of energy efficient technologies.
Natural variability – or change, simply speaking – is the hallmark of climate and politics; not easy to predict and never inevitable.
Kathleen Hartnett White is Director of the Center for Natural Resources at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin. She is the former Chair of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.
TexasPolicy.com |
| Texas Public Policy Foundation 900 Congress Ave., Ste. 400 Austin, TX 78701 Phone 512.472.2700 Fax 512.472.2728 |
| info@TexasPolicy.com |
Remember how the homeless problem simply vanished when Clinton was elected? Look for the same thing to happen to Global Warming now that Obama is in office.
When the price of oil topped $4.00 a gallon and food inflation reached almost 8 percent, most voters got it
That is the problem most voters didn’t get it or we wouldn’t be looking at a Dem House, Senate and Pres. Those clowns should be in the super minority with their energy policies.
Pray to God we have a bitter, nasty winter. It’s tough to get anything regarding global warming passed with the temps below 0 F.
Gas prices fell at just the wrong time.
These points are well taken but they will not sway the rats. The EPA is set to regulate CO2 even without rat action. The rats are anxious to regulate CO2 even without the goading of the EPA. They think that cap and trade will bring prosperity. The rat definition of prosperity is creation of government jobs. Cap and trade will create thousands to millions of jobs. Unfortunately, the cost of these jobs will crush the rest of the economy.
The article seems to omit the inconvenient truth that global warming has been absent for about a decade and that some theorize that the sun’s effect on cosmic rays dominates climate fluctuation on earth, possibly indicating that we are in for substantial global cooling real soon now.
The ‘rats and the wall street brokers are chomping at the bit to create a cap and trade market for carbon.
They are going to “tax” the crap out of us next year.
"Far more substantial climate science emerges and is a game-changer for the reigning science from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Observational evidence from NASA satellites indicates little to no heat-forcing effect from manmade CO2. This NASA data is empirical science, far superior to the uncertain IPCC computer models."
What's that, chopped liver?
If I understand this detail correctly, it is empirical evidence that the upper atmosphere is not warming, which is inconsistent with CO2 induced warming. This can be addressed by hand-waving by the AlGoreists that there is just something missing in the models and will soon be accounted for. Also, if the satellite data only extends back to 1998, then the AlGoreists can simply claim that natural variability has permitted a temporary plateau in both indicators which will soon begin to increase.
The theory that magnetic activity on the sun, evidenced by the sun-spot cycle, diminishes cosmic rays impinging on the earth and thus controls climate through its effect on cloud formation is an alternate theory which I have heard explains virtually ALL global climate variability throughout the hundreds of years for which sun-spot records exist.
I would consider the sun-spot connection, assuming I have stated the case correctly, to be dramatically more important. Wasn't it the case that 2007 was so cool that it erased all warming going back to 1970 or 1950 or some such thing? If 2008 also comes in that cool, the global warmists will have some 'splainin to do. Whereas, the sun-spotters will just point to the dramatically non-existent solar activity.
Something like that, IIRC. Thanks for your comments. I think the author was just comfortable with her mostly economic analysis.
agw ping
When the price of oil topped $4.00 a gallon and food inflation reached almost 8 percent, most voters got it: price and security first! At least a dozen recent polls show that three-fourths of likely voters put far more importance on the U.S. oil supply than global warming. This prevalent public opinion dissolved the U.S. Congress' long and intransigent opposition to increased domestic oil production.Wow, that's one of those "living in a dream world" paragraphs. Thanks neverdem.
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.
