12/11/2009 1:00 pm
POV
Climate Zealots Could Further Slow U.S. Job Creation, by Liz Peek
© Shutterstock
Editor’s Note: Liz Peek is a financial columnist.
Imagine a seasoned long-distance runner, well trained and savvy, racing against a young upstart who’s full of beans but less experienced. The newbie muddles his pacing, isn’t so sure of the rules and prefers sprints, not marathons. Handicappers tend to favor the older and wiser competitor, until they notice the large anvil attached to his ankle.That’s how many see the race between China and the United States today. As the U.S. competes with Asia’s manufacturing powerhouse, businesses cut workers and outsource production, which is terrible for Americans. They have no choice. If they don’t lower costs, they cannot sell into global markets, or even at home, where imports routinely undercut domestic goods.
U.S. companies are losing out to China because of an unfavorable (and politically unmovable) currency exchange, but they are disadvantaged also by a slew of new anti-business measures enacted in recent months.
On top of all that, they now fear an Environmental Protection Agency gone berserk. The EPA recently ruled that carbon dioxide endangers human life. That opens the door for the Obama Administration to unilaterally move to regulate emissions of CO2 just in case Congress doesn’t get on board with the cap-and-trade legislation passed earlier this year. The first law could be: Stop exhaling!
Few believe that the White House will follow this path, which is sure to meet resistance from those who see CO2 regs as likely to further slow an economic recovery. Rather, it is understood that President Obama wanted something in his tool kit when he arrives in Copenhagen next week. The administration aspires to amend for past sins on a number of fronts, including climate change, where the U.S. has staunchly opposed agreements (Kyoto 1997) that would hurt our own citizens. Apparently, it was not enough that Obama promised to cut 2050 emissions to below 83% of 2005 levels. (A per capita amount, as George Will points out, equal to that in 1875.)
The reality is that Obama is not the only world leader who will disappoint the climate change industry. The Copenhagen summit is unlikely to put forward a meaningful agenda for reducing carbon emissions. The world’s economies are struggling to right themselves, and few countries are willing to sacrifice prosperity for largely unpopular programs of taxation or deprivation. Polling shows that concern over climate change is declining in many regions, and that people are on balance unwilling to pay for lower emissions.
Also, the brouhaha over falsified data at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia – the only source of drastic warming projections – has increased skepticism over the certainty of the science. The fudging of numbers is lamentable but not so shocking. Imagine for a moment trying to project all the factors that impact global weather patterns decades into the future. (When, after all, the local weather guy gets tomorrow’s forecast wrong.) It is impossible, of course, and not so amazing that the observations do not always mesh neatly with the predictions. For scientists whose careers depend on a cataclysmic outcome, it must have been so frustrating to see temperatures stall in the past decade. To me, the truly appalling element of Climategate is that much of the original temperature readings at the heart of the projections have apparently been expunged. Climatologists attempting to analyze the data have been told the raw data is no longer available.
That, for sure, raises eyebrows. Imagine if Ben Bernanke, pressed by Congress to explain the Fed’s financial transactions over the past three years, reported that he no longer had any records. What would be his credibility?
- Email this Post
- login or register to post comments
73 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment
Now we have Climategate. We have misbehaving climate scientists whose personal agendas and lack of humility have misled many. We should all be skeptical of climatology, which is an inexact field. Since there are considerable political and monetary stakes involved, it would seem unwise to bet the farm on any of the current data until more credible findings are available.
All we really know is the CO we place into the atmosphere stays there for many years and is irreversible. In real time, that build up could be catastrophic. But many believe and advise it is all a hoax. Let’s not forget that the biggest climate deniers are backed by Big Oil who will support bogus science if it is to their advantage. The only thing worse than bad science is dishonest science. It would seem sensible to look for documentation from the numerous independent research centers around the globe.
Yes, it could be a hoax and much ado about nothing, certainly. But if it is not, at some point life will become a living hell. No point in buying insurance.
Dear Liz:
As we all know, some of our states are experiencing record cold temperatures…think Houston and California. This summer some states had the mildest summer they can remember with record low temperatures. I am glad that the truth was leaked and made available about the myth of global warming. I never bought into it. Until we enter into a debate, as you stated, so that both sides can present their PROOF pro and con, we should sit tight and do nothing. The fact that much of the original temperatures have been expunged is a huge RED FLAG AMERICA!
Today our debt is $12.2 trillion. This administration now wants another $1.8 trillion. Why? So that they can pay the bills that are due. My, my, robbing Peter to pay Paul administration. This is really going to get ugly. Soon, the debt dog will cease to hunt. This spending madness has to stop.
I was mulling over Harry Reid’s glee over the "new" healthcare bill with everyone over age 55 going on the government healthcare plan. It struck me as odd for a few minutes and then it hit me. The baby boomer generation….78.2 million of us would all be on the healthcare plan paying the largest portion of the premiums!!! Talk about bringing the sheep into the valley….what a concept Pelosi and Reid!!! The one thing I know for certain about this administration is that they are sneaky and will do ANYTHING TO GET A BILL PASSED. Unbelievable manuevering. We have clowns performing in the White House to millions or people who know what a clown looks like when they see one!
Obama now has a chance to be a leader by going to Copenhagen and stating "The United States is not going to pay for other countries emission controls." We have no way of policing those countries to see if they are holding fast to their pledge to cut emissions. It will prove to be a huge waste of our taxpayer dollars. America needs to know what she is getting into and there just isn’t enough hard evidence to prove that global warming actually exists. Plus, I would really enjoy watching Al Gore for bankrupt. : )
Thanks, Liz, for another thought provoking article. We appreciate you very much.
I suggest you read the details before you make the sweeping and incorrect statement in your third sentence. Here’s the link:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/11/climate-change-e-mails-and-copenhagen/
Liz - cleaning up our planet and regulating CO2 emissions is not a noble mission. It is a survival mission. I am not in favor of carbon fees and credits, not only for the reason you state, but because it will not be effective. Or at least, not effective enough.
The first, and biggest, thing driving high CO2 emissions and climate change is the enormous increase in world population. You mentioned George Will’s statistic that 83% of 2005 emissions is equal to the per capita amount for 1875. Well - consider that in 1875, there were only 50 million people in the US, and only 890 million on the whole planet. The reason for the high per capita emission in 1875 was the fact that industries were foul beyond our modern imaginations, and when those high levels of pollution began to literally choke the population, guess what - emissions standards were set, and enforced, because it had gone beyond a quality-of-life issue to a public threat. Well, here we are again, with high emissions becoming a public threat, but this time it’s harder to see. We emit far less CO2 per capita than in 1875, but the single biggest thing driving total CO2 emissions (and a lot of other things) is sheer population. There are ways to encourage lower birthrates, but social engineering is hard. So moving on…
The next big thing driving CO2 emissions is the fact that this enormous population continues to industrialize and to use fossil fuels. China and India account for over one-third of the human popluation. China, recognizing that it is already choking on its own pollution (see: Shanghai), is making a conscious shift to clean renewable energy like solar. I see no reason to underwrite China’s cleanup efforts - they will make their money selling us solar panels eventually.
Clean energy is not only absolutely necessary for long-term environmental survival, it is as endless as the sun, wind and waves. Fossil fuels are dirty, expensive, and they’re going to run out. The only reason we are still on fossil fuels is because the infrastructure is in place and the energy companies will have their profits. As soon as it costs more to get those fuels out of the ground than people can pay, that will end. If anyone is really serious about global warming, the environment, the economy, and (as a bonus!) removing our dependence on unstable regions like the Middle East, the long-term solution is obvious: develop renewable-energy industries here at home, and get off the fossil fuels.