By: Benjamin Mumma

The climate is changing. It always has been, and it always will be.  The question that drives discussion on environmental policy of late is, “What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the huge changes that some politicians support in the name of combating climate change, it is important to take a critical look at this question. While I know that you may have heard that the scientific community has reached a consensus on this question, let us take a look – you may be surprised.

Carbon and the Climate

The theory behind anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change is that CO₂ emissions are causing a rampant increase in global temperature. Thus far, proponents of this theory have largely succeeded in making the public believe that this is an undisputed fact among the scientific community. The truth is, many notable climatologists and other scientists dispute this scientific hypothesis. To name a few:

1.     The Polish Academy of Sciences [1], who submitted a letter discussing ten problems with the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

2.     Princeton Physicist Dr. William Happer [2], who testified before Senate in February that current climate models are inherently flawed.

3.     Ivar Giaever, Norwegian Nobel Prize winner [3].

4.     Dr. John Cristy, a lead author of the U.N.’s original IPCC report in 2001 [4].

5.    Over 700 scientists according to a list provided by the U.S. Government [5].

Clearly, it would be inaccurate to claim that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. All of these scientists provide theories of their own regarding human activity and the causes and effects of an increased level of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is understandable to see so many differing views; since even the climate models that predict runaway warming cannot agree on its role.

The climate models that do predict global warming provide an estimated increase in temperature of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius by year 2100. These models require hundreds of assumptions – one of them being carbon’s role in regulating the climate. As Dr. Happer explains in his senate testimony though, about 90% of the “greenhouse effect” on earth is due to water vapor, not CO₂. The role of CO₂ is much smaller. According to Dr. Happer, it could cause at most a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. He explains:

“There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO₂ concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO₂ will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO₂ in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.”[6]

Dr. Happer continues to explain that models currently used rely on the assumption that small increases in CO₂ levels will lead to increased levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, causing runaway warming. However, empirical evidence has shown this correlation to close to zero of even negative[7].

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Happer, he and other renowned scientists contend that anthropogenic climate change does not pose a serious threat. Indeed, even climate models disagree. Climate models which assume a positive correlation between CO₂ and water vapor predict a temperature increases of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius. What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the evidence, it is pretty clear that we do not know. With that being said, let’s look at the cost of the proposed legislation on climate change, which is currently stalled in the Senate.

The Waxman-Markey Bill

The Waxman-Markey bill, touted as “transformational legislation,” would require the U.S. to reduce emissions of CO₂ and other gases by 17 percent within the next 10 years and by 80 percent before 2050. Should the bill pass through the Senate, the government will use a “cap and trade” system to regulate the emission of CO₂. Essentially, the government will issue permits to emit CO₂, which can then be traded from companies that pollute less to companies that pollute more. The end result should be a level of emissions equal to the “cap” that is set. The main issues in this bill are the effects on the monetary system, and the effects on the climate. So before a judgment is made about this bill, let’s look at who pays, who profits, and what happens to the climate as a result.

As with most government policies, U.S. citizens will foot the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will cost the average household $175 per year, mainly from an increase in the price of carbon based fuels. Due to a series of provisions within the bill, the poorest 20 percent of Americans will actually benefit, making $40 per year due to this bill [8]. In addition to the direct cost to taxpayers, the “cap and trade” system will increase manufacturing costs, and provide incentive for companies to move manufacturing plants overseas to areas with lower energy costs, which would likely result in increased unemployment.

Where does this money go? That should be obvious – to the bureaucracy! According to the same CBO report, the bill would increase federal revenue by $845 billion over the coming decade, with estimated expenditures related to the bill weighing in at $821 billion [9]. There are several interpretations of what this means. One interpretation is the creative New York Times headline that the climate bill “would trim budget deficit.” Such an interpretation is accurate if the budgeting assumptions are valid, but also terribly misleading. This bill calls for an increase in spending of $82.1 billion per year. To put that into perspective, the AIG bailout of last August was $85 billion. This bill is essentially another one of those every year so that our government can regulate the emission of invisible gases.

Now despite the large costs involved, proponents of the bill claim that the cost is worth the benefit of reducing carbon emissions. The climate models cited by the proponents of the bill predict a rise of anywhere from two to nine degrees Celsius over the next century. Similar models predict the impact of the House’s climate bill to be a drop of 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050[10]. Simply put, even if these climate models are indeed accurate, then this bill will do virtually nothing to change the warming trend. However, by 2050, this bill will have cost us $3,000,000,000,000 ($3 trillion) to change the global temperature increase from 3 degrees Celsius to 2.95 degrees.

Climate in the Real World

While the United States may look to self-flagellate itself through the Waxman-Markey bill, other countries will not do the same. With one third of the world’s population residing in China and India, both countries are going through rapid economic growth. Economic growth is inextricably tied to cheap energy consumption, and hence CO₂ emissions. China’s emissions of CO₂ have increased at a rate of 11% over the past five years, and are expected to continue at a similar rate [11]. These emissions will counteract any cooling effects the Waxman-Markey bill may have.

Even if we take the apocalyptic approach, the Waxman-Markey bill still does not make sense. Geoengineers have already devised several methods of cooling earth, some of which involve ejecting particles like sulfates into earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight [12]. This solution lacks appeal to environmentalists, but the result is that humans would see little effect from any warming that does occur. These methods are hundreds of times cheaper than the forced reinvention of the American economy.

In the past, the earth has been warmer, and it has also been cooler. There have been Ice Ages as well as warm periods, when Greenland was actually green. While it is easy to think that we live in extraordinary times, we do not. Our economy and our energy will become more sustainable over time, but we do not need to force the fact before it becomes economically viable.

Money and How to Waste It

For the sake of clarity, here’s what the Waxman-Markey bill does in real terms:

1. Takes a lot of money from 80% of Americans

2. Gives some of that money to the poorest 20% of Americans.

3. Uses the rest to create a huge government agency that monitors and attempts to regulate the emission of an invisible gas.

4. Creates cost incentives that will drive industry elsewhere, as unemployment continues to rise.

5. All of this is done in hopes that we can cool the planet by a 1/20^th of a degree over 40 years.

Clean and domestic energy are worthwhile goals, no one can dispute that. But, in typical government fashion, this bill goes about “achieving” those two goals in the most convoluted and inefficient way possible. This huge sum of money – about $12,000 per person – over 40 years should not be taken in the first place. The $3 Trillion could be used to directly fund clean energy research and technology. It could be used to build more nuclear power plants to provide cheap and clean electricity. It could be used to reduce the huge deficit built by President Obama and his predecessor. Instead, this bill is directly transferring wealth from citizen to citizen, and being used to fund yet another massive federal bureaucracy. To cap it all off, it will do essentially nothing to change the climate. It is but another example of political negligence.

---

[1] Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, 4/24/2009. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html)

[2] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[3] Christina Reed, Nature, 7/15/2008. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html)

[4] Jon Birger, Fortune Magazine, 5/14/2009. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm)

[5] Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 12/11/2008. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

[6] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[7] Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf)

[8] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 6/23/2009. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html)

[9] Darren Samuelsohn, New York Times, 6/8/2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/08/08climatewire-house-climate-bill-would-trim-budget-deficit-83573.html)

[10] Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 5/6/2009. (http://masterresource.org/?p=2355)

[11] Univ. Of California – Berkeley, 3/10/2008. (http://www.physorg.com/news124384270.html)

[12] Jamais Cascio, The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/2009. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html

Tags: National

This entry was posted on Sunday, December 6th, 2009 at 11:26 pm and is filed under Features, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.