Cap and Trade and Climate Change
"Once there was a silly old ant,
tried to move a rubber tree plant,
Everyone knows an ant can't
Move a rubber tree plant-
But he's got High Hopes..."
TPP is located in the heart of fire central in southern California. The flames are not yet visible from our office, but there is a thick and rancid haze from the smoke of the fire that is blacking out the sky, and making it uncomfortable to breathe. In many ways, it is reminiscent of the horrible smog alerts that used to plague the Los Angeles area, and the Air Quality Management District (yup, that's Californian for regulating the air...) has reported that the air quality is "hazardous" for the past couple of days. It got us to thinking about those wild days of the past when people polluted and littered shamelessly, and recycling was what they did to prime time shows during the summer months.
It has been more than 35 years since the ecological movement caught hold and the first "Earth Day" was marked as a day of national awareness. In the span of time from then until now we have made tremendous strides in turning most of the American "habitat" from the toilet that it was into a fairly pristine place in most communities, and even in most metro areas except for some of the hot, breeze-less days of summer that still trap the fumes of engines and factories between the high rise buildings and cause us to remember the bad old days. Yet still, some of us remain in a frenzied panic that we are destroying the earth.
Now just to be clear, TPP does not believe that it is a good idea to go around wasting resources and polluting. Just as the Boy Scouts advocate that you should leave a campsite cleaner than you found it, we should care for our planet as we do for our home, and more so in the case of some neighbors. We are puzzled though at the alarmists who contend that in an era where the air and water is cleaner than it has ever been in modern human existence, and that the societies capable of waste are aware of the necessity of wise use of resources; that we still find ourselves careening towards a destruction of our own making.
There is a prayer that in part says that we should have the courage to change what we can, the strength to bear what we cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference. We know that there is a segment of the population that is firmly humanist in their beliefs, but the logic of that philosophical statement really cannot be denied.
To bring the two strings of thought together - the California wildfires and man-made pollution and it's effect on the planet, we need to understand how our efforts measure up in the face of what occurs naturally. In 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, with much fanfare (and a Time magazine cover) announced a new initiative in California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution. The program calls for increased fuel standards, introduction of alternative vehicle fuels, increased use of wind and solar energy and the list goes on.
The fanfare trumpeted that the energy savings and pollution benefit would be the equivalent of removing 500,000 cars from the roads. A laudable goal, and, as we have stated, we believe in cleaning up what we can. On a measure of scale though, the wildfires currently burning in California over the past few days have already negated the first 15 to 50 years of the Schwarzenegger effort, depending on whose numbers that you use. Nature, it seems, is on a suicide mission.
Of course that is hyperbole, but for illustrative purposes. The idea of environmentalism is a popular one, who could be against a cleaner earth? Yet the environmental movement would have us become that ant pushing against the rubber tree plant. Nature and the climate are fluid systems, constantly balancing and correcting for variations. Human presence and influence on the earth has been occurring since the dawn of civilization, which by all accounts goes back 5,000 years, on a planet that has existed, according to science for some 6 or 9 or 10 billion years (that's 10,000,000,000, which would put our time here at 0.00005% of the time that earth has existed.).
During the millions of years that the earth has existed without human meddling, the climate has warmed to the point where everything between the Appalachian Mountains and the Rockies was a shallow salt sea. The earth has also cooled to the point that glaciers covered most of Europe, Asia and North America. There was no mankind to bring about these changes. They were, and are a natural occurrence.
If current scientific thought is correct, the dinosaurs - a successful life form for over 200,000,000 years (100 times the span that human-type species have been here) - were exterminated by a cataclysmic asteroid strike that blackened the skies for long enough to kill all vegetation (or at least all that the dinosaurs used for food).
USGS surveys of arctic ice cores have been found to have climate fluctuations of as much as 4 degrees Celsius in cycles of eerie regularity over the past 100,000 years. All of these vast changes have occurred without human intervention.
The human psyche is one that says what affects "me" affects everyone. That is a good and biological basis for our social society - the interdependence that we feel with each other. It makes living in large groups possible and functional, and is good for the protection of humankind as a species. It is hardwired into us. It is also the thing that makes the events of today more urgent than the events of 20 years ago or 20 years in the future.
30 years ago, over the unusually cold winters of the late 1970s and early 1980s science had predicted the coming of a new ice age that would destroy civilization as we knew it. As a theory it was put forward by scientific names such as Carl Sagan, and by celebrities such as Ted Danson (who in a recent interview admitted he was wrong back then). Needless to say, the ice age did not materialize, and the opposite is being argued today - that a global warming trend will destroy civilization as we know it. This theory is also being put forward by a swath of the scientific community and by celebrities such as Ted Danson (seriously...). What will the crisis be in 20 years?
It is obvious, that whether or not we can destroy the planet, we do have the ability to destroy ourselves as a species. It is in our best interest, from a purely selfish motive to use our resources wisely, and to be as clean as we can with regard to the environment. But how do we balance out the needs of a modern society with the need to maintain a habitable environment. It is no more practical to move back to caves than it is to create our own little biospheres to live in and not make contact with a poisoned environment. Practicality was, and is, the key.
And so we get to the Climate Change / Cap and Trade / Renewable Resource / Green Energy bill promoted by President Obama and squeaking through the House of Representatives. It is currently stalled in the Senate. We at TPP have looked at the bill and conclude that it puts wishful thinking in the place of practical solutions.
The bill, through increase taxes and fees punishes those who insist on using existing technology (autos, the local electric company, air conditioning) instead of technologies that have not yet been invented and brought to market. As Joe Biden is fond of saying – “Let me say that again” – technologies that have not yet been invented, or brought to market.
The purpose of this, says the Administration, is to discourage behaviors than may cause the climate harm – such as running appliances during peak hours, through surcharges and additional taxes paid by the end user. This in theory seems fair – tax the wasters, but theory seldom works in practice. In addition to taxing the guy down the street for the excessive electricity eaten by his 72” plasma TV, and the AC set to 62 degrees, the electric company itself will be fined for using coal to produce it’s electricity (80% of the power plants in the country use coal for fuel). That cost (as all business costs) are passed onto you – the consumer – the one who has the modest TV and live with the thermostat set at 80 degrees.
Some companies will be exempted by being allowed to purchase ‘energy credits” which will allow them to keep up their “wasteful ways” . The “energy credits” come from companies not using up their allocation of energy credits. The formulas for allocating these credits were put together by Congress (which has a habit of late of trying to pass bills that it does not understand) with significant input from energy companies and affected industries (and one can safely assume that they are not giving their shareholders money away in a fit of environmental consciousness – matter of fact didn’t Dick Cheney get into a lot of trouble pre-9/11 for some similar shenanigans?). In the end though – it will be you, with your CFLs and electronic thermostats and Energy Star appliances that will still be paying the bill, and the government holds the money.
If that in itself weren’t disturbing enough, it’s not like there’s anyplace else to go. Solar and wind farms are insufficient to meet current needs, and as T. Boone Pickens has found out, you can build the biggest wind farm ever, but it means nothing if you can’t get the electricity to the power station for distribution (he has since divested from his wind farm company). There must be a market ready alternative. Taxing people for use of the existing technology is only punishment, not progress.
Then there is the world of unintended consequences. The much anticipated “Chevy Volt” – the plug-in electric car touted by both Candidates Obama and McCain was still on the drawing board last year. The original design, which called for a range of about 50 miles per charge was deemed unworkable by Chevrolet first because the range was too short. Secondly, engineers calculated that the $200.00 per month save in gasoline costs for the average buyer would be offset by a roughly $350.00 increase in their electric bill ( electricity costs money. And this electricity comes from that coal-powered electric plant, subject to surcharge under Cap and Trade).
The redesign abandons the idea of primarily plugging the Volt in and instead uses a gasoline powered generator to power the Volt when the battery dies. (gasoline, really?... yup.). This is a fine example of a market driven solution, but as all market-driven solutions, they take time to develop. The government serves no one by inflicting more financial pain on struggling families without having a market-ready alternative available for immediate use.
Common Sense Dictates
In it’s rush to action, the Obama Administration seems to have abandoned the one characteristic that comforted most unsure voters during the campaign. The confidence that he would sit down and think something through before he acted on it.
This “Climate Bill” serves the extreme left wing of his base, and no one else. In fact it does not serve his base unless they can work themselves into the “exempted” categories or they can afford to buy “energy credits” as Super-environmentalist Al Gore does to offset his excessive electricity use and carbon-footprint in Tennessee.
This climate bill is reactionary and counter-productive in far more ways than listed in this small space. The lack of thought going into the consequences of it’s enactment seems to reveal it as a mere money-grab by the Federal government for the funding of it’s pet projects. For those who think that statement reactionary, TPP only needs to point out that from the nearly 2 TRILLION dollars in stimulus funds allocated, in a package promoted as a jobs bill to improve infrastructure, turned out to only have 30 BILLION dollars for the improvement of infrastructure. It was instead a money-grab for special interest projects. We see a pattern emerging.
Common sense dictates that we should care for the environment and make wise use of our resources, but we should not punish hard-working families for doing their best to help the cause. The time to “Cap and Trade” if ever, is when alternative means are available for consumers to use. Writing a tax bill and issuing a proclamation doesn’t make it so Mr. President, as nice as that might be… Common sense dictates a rethinking of this whole issue – using science, some engineering and maybe a timetable or two based in reality. And, oh yeah, common sense.
RLB
Categories: Environment, political leadership
Tags: science cap and trade environment
It's about time that someone proposed practicality over ideology in this. It's as if the environmentalists have taken on a religious fervor. Just because we have the technology to measure things that we've never been able to measure before doesn't make any of this abnormal or critical. Of course we should be as clean as possible - no one wants to drink from a sewer or catch cancer from just breathing the air, but grinding civilization to a halt because Chicken Little is of his meds is just crazy. Reuse, recycle, and rethink the panic. Common sense alrght.
Reply to this
It is religion to the extreme left - just like the global cooling was back in the early 80's. I agree that we should be careful stewards on this planet, but this is one Neanderthal not interested in going back to his cave and giving up electricity. There s no need for all of this over reaction.
Reply to this
It's a shame we can't get the "Neanderthals" on board with this - maybe that's why they became extinct. Seriously - how many scientists does it take to convince you people that the planet - and our survival - is in real danger? The carbon that we are dumping into the air is poisoning us, and altering the environment to the point that it will be uninhabitable. We need drastic measure to reverse this trend.
Reply to this
I remembber that "coming ice age" back in the early 80's - there was also a nuclear winter that Sagan was all over. It was based on record cold temperatures in 1978, 79, 80 and 81. Everyone thought it was permanent change, but apparently it was just hell freezing over because Jimmy Carter screwed up the country so bad, and it took Reagan 2 years to fix it. Really - the panic back then resembled the panic we have now. nature moves in cycles and long term trends. Our putting out some smoke for a few years doesn't matter nearly as much as the forest fires or volcanic eruptions, or even what we, in out limited abilities can observe. An advancing civilization is a civilization that can adapt and cope. Civilizations that can't adapt with the natural world die off - that would be those Neanderthals. They adapted poorly, Sapiens adapted to the changing climate. We are Sapiens.
Reply to this
The "coming ice age" was before we could actually measure the harm that we are doing to the planet. Now we have the technology to measure how badly we are screwing things up, and by knowing it, we need to fix what we are doing so that the planet can heal itself. Equating a forest fire with the billion cars out there spewing poison into the air is ridiculous. It sounds like Reagan blaming acid rain on cow farts. This is serious people!
Reply to this
It's when I hear stuff like fischerking that I want to start screaming myself. Just because we can measure something does not mean that we are interpreting the data correctly. Obama won the election and assumes people want to buy into his agenda. Not true - McCain weny crazy last year before the election and scared the hell out of us; so Obama won. That's a prime example of misinterpreting data. Cyclical climatic changes are normal, and really the impact of man and his machines are there, but really minimal compared to the whole of the dynamics of the global ecosystem. Trying to put the brakes on it is like trying to ignore gravity. It is just a natural force. Our strength is in our ability yo reason. We can reason to minimize our impact in a way that makes sense AND sustains our societies. It's not either / or with us vs. the environment. It might get a little warmer, which would open up farmland in Canada, Alaska and Russia. It might get cooler, which would make the tropics and the middle east more hospitable for mankind. This is what has been going on since time started. We need to be intelligent in our actions - not fight the universe with some sort of religious zealotry.
Reply to this
I have to agree that there's a lot of "cart before the horse" here, and a lot of strange ideas about what will actually help. There is no way to clear all of the gas burning cars off of the road until something else comes along that people can afford and works as well. The rework on the Volt illustrates that even GM didn't think that it would sell in it's original form. The market can respond, but not by government fiat. My own bugaboo is CFLs - they don't light as well as regular incandescent bulbs, so you have to go for a higher wattage or more of them. None are made domestically - all are made in China. They cause environmantal harm to manufacture (part of the process involves the introduction of mercury into the lamp to act as a conduction catalyst, and they do not last as advertised. There is nothing wrong with Edison's oncandescent. The CFL promoting argument is hogwash.
Reply to this
Regarding the intense forest fire here in So Cal....if the AQMD didn't have such stringent laws, the forest could have been managed as it should have been. They are limited to managing only 7,000 acres a year (and only on selective days depending on weather, current smog levels, etc.) which is why we have an out-of-control disaster on our hands now. Fire is essential to the health of a forest. We have areas within the Angeles National Forest that have not burned in recorded history! Remember the bark beetle? That happened because the forests were not thinned as they should have been because of environmental protection regulations. The forest literally could not support the tree load and it left the trees vulverable to the bark beetle. This situation needs to be rethought. Nature prevails on its own. It seems the more we help, no matter how well-intentioned it is, the interference has overall disastrous consequences.
Reply to this
There's a similar situation in NJ. The southern half of the state is pine forest, and it used to have routine fires every year, but few got really bad. Then people started moving into the area, so houses had to be protected from the natural fires. On top of that, the environmentalists had laws passed to outlaw the removal of scrubbrush and grasses. This laid a pile of fuel up in an area where mother nature couldn't take care of the problem herself, and people weren't allowed to touch the "pristine" pine forest. Now when it burns, it burns with a vengeance, and all the fire department can do is sit and watch, and try to keep the flames away from the houses. Fire is a natural cleansing occurrence in a forest. As for the rest of it - Paul Ehrlich thought we would have destroyed the planet when the population hit 3 billion (the book "The Population Bomb"). We're double than that now and we're still here. Our 6 billion are hardly even noticed by the earth. We will adapt to natural climatic changes, and if we do manage to "poison the planet" life will go on, just without us. It is in our own self interest to not do that, but we have almost no power over what occurs in natural weather cycles.
Reply to this
There's a tape that Rush brings out every time that Al Gore gets his panties wet. Charlton Heston reaading the prologue to Jurrasic Park. You don't really need to hear the tape - if you have a copy of the book, reading it is fine. Michael Crichton writes fiction, but he always checks out his science before telling a story, and keeps true to the science while telling his tale. The prologue gives a great illustration as to just how insignificant we are to the planet. Al Gore is just the loudest part of our ego.
Reply to this
I've heard that tape, and it's very moving and dramatic, but seriously - it's a sci-fi story about cloning dinosaurs. Just because Crichton has a way with words doesn't make him a scientist, or even exceptionally informed on the issue. Real science holds that climate change will have catastrophic results for the human race if we don't do something soon to counteract the effects of our pollution and waste.
Reply to this
It's not Michael Crichton that concerns me, but the ever-growing number of actual scientists who are questioning how much humans contribute to climate change. They are routinely ignored or dismissed - and with the ferocity that Galileo was hit with when promoting that the world might actually be round. The purpose of science is to accept questions and alternate theories to expand our knowledge. It is the function of religion to enforce accepted dogma. Science on global-warming is now very close to religious exclusionism.
Reply to this
I have to agree that we've been pigs at times on this planet, but societies seem to self correct to being environmentally responsible as they develop and get a higher standard of living. Eastern Europe has recovered from the excessive pollution of only 20 years ago. As their people prospered, they decided that they didn't enjoy breathing smoke or drinking sewage, and demanded a cleaner environment from their government. Use of recources leads to either finding new sources to replenish what has been used, or prices rising so high that their use is no longer viable, so new resources are developed to replace them. We are a few yers out from the Chinese and Indian people demanding that same cleaner environment fromtheir government - again, no one WANTS to live in a sewer. All people need to develop the prosperity to crawl from it. More prosperity is the key to a cleaner environment, not halting development and in the same act halting the move to prosperity.
Reply to this
The way the left rants about how we are killing the earth, you would think they would just allow it. Even they have to admit that mankind will die out before the planet does, and then nature can restore itself to it's pristine beauty and there won't be any people around to screw it up afterward. Go with your logic lefties.
Reply to this
Obama gave a climate change speech at the uN today, and it makes you wonder how he got elected. The economy got everyone to park their cars and he's claiming credit for reducing emmissions - well, I guess he is in a way. Unbelievable.
Reply to this
I heard the speech, and generally I cut Obama a little slack, being new at this and all, but really - I'm not sure what he was thinking. He's still basing his projections on reducing greenhouse gases on technology that doesn't even exist yet in any practical form. Solar is good on your rooftop - to generate for a city, you would need to cover thousands of acres in panels - and at night you'd need just as much space for the batteries. Wind also takes up lots of space - and then you have to get the electricity where you need it. The sad part is, if we didn't get all spooked about nuclear power after Three Mile Island, we'd already be well within compliance with the Kyoto accords. Go nuclear Obama - it's safe, it's efficient, and it's actually here.
Reply to this
The problem is the way the argument is being presented. It is good to clean the environment, and we do have some responsibility for variations in greenhouse gases (even if it is only a tiny amount). Everyone looks for a magic bullet and there is none. Oil will be dominant fuel until new technologies are developed. That does not mean that we should not develop them. Neither solar or wind will solve all of our problems - they are limited in output, and in location. Nuclear can contribute a lot to the solution - it is safe and clean. Fueling cars has many problems - plug-ins get power from mostly coal burning generating plants. Bio-diesel converts food products into motor fuels - thus raising food prices to the point of rioting in Mexico and some South American countries. Even hydrogen powered vehicles which emit only water vapor are a problem - water vapor is the most heat-trapping of the greenhouse gases. If we go all-in with any of these technologies we either compound our problems, or lose our lifestyle. The solution is not in one great idea, but in incorporating ALL of the good ideas out there. Just like in the stock market - a balanced energy portfolio performs best. That should be our approach.
Reply to this
Just had an email cross my desk that says that if Cap and Trade passes you will have to submit your home to EPA inspections and improve your energy rating every year. It says you'll have to put a sticker on your home and if you decide to sell you will have to retrofit your home to the Cap and Trade standards for energy use. WTF??? Since when do private homes have to be retrofitted to current law. If they meet the standards at the time of construction, that's it. Stickers on the house - what's next - little yellow stars on our sleeves and collars?
Reply to this
I saw something similar and need to check it out. Normally I'd just shrug this kind of thing off as nonsense, but after 9 months of the government moving into places it's never been before, I need to find out if this is true. I'm starting to get the feeling that the Obama "Hope" poster is starting to look a lot like the "Big Brother is Watching" poster from 1984. You guys know me - I'm not paranoid. This is just getting a little to surreal.
Reply to this
It's in there - though it's sneaky. There are incentives for businesses to push the most "energy-efficient" stuff regardless of situation - so don't be surprised if the Lowe's tried to push an apartment washer / dryer on your family of 5 with 2 teenagers on the football team. There's direct money in it for them from the government in only selling "best in class" merchandise. The bill also "allows" states to audit private homes for energy efficiency and force upgrades before selling. This auditing will be "encouraged" by less federal dollars for states who do not participate in audits. Think the 55 mph speed limit "encouragement". Oh - the fed will reimburse you for the upgrades - at 50%. I pity the family with the lovely Victorian home built in 1920 - bring THAT up to C&T's energy standards. Might as well just bulldoze it and build new. It will be cheaper and you won't lose as much money. This bill needs to be stood against. More Obama over-reach.
Reply to this
I would agree that reducing "global warming" pollution is important.
Of course, I would define "global warming" pollution as the idiotic hogwash from the politico-science community that claims that climate changes are manmade. That foolishness is polluting our political, scientific, journalistic, and educational landscapes.
Reply to this